Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244

Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban

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.

---

Note that the Alan's block has been undone, but that this section remains open. If you wish to comment on the scope of the topic ban, and whether it should be modified, do so above the archived section, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting, Alan Liefting is topic banned from making any category-related edits outside of mainspace. Having viewed the discussion, it appears that the crux of the problem was related to a) Alan Liefting making category-related edits to files and b) Alan Liefting making category-related edits to AfC pages. I would like to suggest that the topic ban be modified to only apply to files and AfC pages. We have no policy allowing categorization of templates and it doesn't appear that there has been a problem with Alan Liefting's edits to the category namespace. My apologies, I forgot to link to give the background to this situation. Alan Liefting was recently blocked for violating his topic ban. Necessary reading would include the discussion at User talk:Alan Liefting#Category-related edits, January 2013. Ryan Vesey 23:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would further add that the vagueness of the current Topic ban has caused Alan to be blocked a couple times (all by the same admin) and a clarification and modification to this ban would greatly benefit the pedia. It would allow the user to continue to edit while being able to fix the minor category problems they run across without violating the ban and the basis for the ban. Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current topic ban is clear and simple, which is a great virtue for any sanction, I also have no confidence (given past edit history) that a relaxed ban, as suggested here, would still avoid Alan's problem use of categories overall.

That said, I don't support his resultant block (GF suggests a warning to please be more careful to avoid accidental overlap would be appropriate and adequate). I'm particularly concerned that all patrolling of his topic ban seems to be coming from one admin. Now that too must surely be coincidence, but it still doesn't look neutral. If Alan were to (and I hope he doesn't) breach this topic ban, then I'm sure it would be obvious and noticed soon enough to be handled by other admins – and if it was benign enough to not raise concerns, then there's no harm done and little point in pursuing blocks over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I don't understand how a clear and simple topic ban is better than a topic ban that addresses the problematic areas and does not extend beyond it. Alan only violates policy in the areas I mentioned. Ryan Vesey 00:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see how clarifying and loosening the ban to allow some and still factor out those that the community determined to be troublesome. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We rarely topic ban because of a breach of clear policy – if it's that cut-and-dried, then those are usually blocks. Bans arise where the community is being disrupted by persistent edits that don't clearly breach a policy (and we just don't have a policy against most of Alan's problem edits, we'd not previously needed one), but where these edits are going against (and repeatedly and disruptively) community consensus of "good practice". We base this on our policies against general disruption, but there's no simple policy to point to for the specific issue.

I see Alan's edits involving categorization to any namespace as having been part of this disruption. Not every edit, and some namespaces (e.g. file:) have been much more of a problem than others, but it's the categorization that's the common factor, not the namespace. On that basis, the topic ban should remain defined by categorization.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are trolling (the first time I have ever made such a judgement AFAIK). Perusal of my talk page and its archive will show that there is no basis in fact (as I have been repeatedly saying) for your accusations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what trolling means, since Andy Dingley's post did not even come close. Please read Internet troll. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I said "I think you are trolling". It is a statement that has a qualification to indicate the I am unsure. Anyway, I used the page at m:What is a troll? as an explanation. The section on misplaced criticism is especially applicable. Also, my suggestion that he is trolling is an opinion based on his numerous edits with regard to me and not simply the foregoing comment from him. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional reading: Alan appealed the topic ban on Nov 5, 2012 and Nov 28, 2012. The block that he is currently under is the first block since the Nov 28 appeal was closed on November 30 with the message "There is clearly consensus to ban Alan Liefting from further appeals for no less than six months. — Coren (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)". Here are the block notices I left when issuing the blocks under the topic ban: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I have attempted to discuss the matter, e.g. [5] and other edits on that talk page. I would welcome any review of the blocks and topic ban. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to read every word of the past appeals, but they both appear to be attempts for a full repeal of the topic ban. I was completely unaware of them when I made my request. This request also only involves a modification. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think the topic ban is too broad. I think it should apply only to category-related edits in the file and user/user talk namespaces (not including his own userspace), and to articles within the AfC process. Alan has since acknowledged that he made edits which were disruptive and has apologised for them, and he says he has attempted to move away from that area. This is in the discussion on his talk page linked to by Ryan.-gadfium 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User/User talk is probably a good extension since it applies to the same types of articles as AFC. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And as can be seen from my editing history I have completely steered clear of those edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban reduction to only apply to files and AfC pages: I do not really see the need to restrict edits in categories of user/user-talk pages. If category edits still seem excessive, then I think discussion at User:Alan_Liefting would be sufficient to request fewer edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat. I've had problems with Liefting's mainspace categorization before, frankly (as did many others - his talk page for a while was flooded with "STOP!" messages), but he seems more clueful now. The extant topic ban is clearly overbroad, thwarting Liefting's ability to work on the encyclopedia in legitimate ways that interest him, and resulting in unjust blocks. For those who feel that he's simply a problem editor and will remain one, see WP:ROPE. Because Liefting has previously engaged in blatant WP:FAITACCOMPLI action, I would support only after the mainspace-categories-in-templates issue reported below is resolved, so that Liefting has a consensus in place to follow, instead of a lack of consensus to sway in favor of his sometimes strange categorization notions by going on a recategorization AWB run or whatever. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is that editors have an issue with my categorisation edits with respect to user namespace pages, AfC pages, image pages and templates. For the purposes of this reply lets ignore the first three (which I have not touched since my topic ban was enacted). You want to have my current topic ban to remain in place until the "mainspace-categories-in-templates issue" is resolved. I see two problems with that idea. Getting any sort of decision on editing policy/guidelines appears to be next to impossible let alone for categories, so I will end up being penalised for no good reason. Secondly, not so much as a problem I guess, there is already an apparent consensus on template categorisation by virtue of the fact that the vast majority are not categorised in content categories. It is a consensus by virtue of convention. The lack of that realisation by some of the editors involved in prior discussions appears to be a partial reason for my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If there's really a de facto consensus against categorizing templates in mainspace categories (I feel that there probably is), others will resolve templates that don't comply. You personally don't have to be involved. Virtually all of the problems that have arisen with your editing have been category-related. This is a strong indication you shouldn't be messing with categories any time there is even a hint of controversy, or you'll just end up right back here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Question, I am 100% willing to remove mainspace categories from any and all templates. Would it be a violation of Alan's topic ban, as it stands, to inform me of these templates so I could remove them? Ryan Vesey 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point; he could simply send it to you in e-mail and no one would know. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Why should I be stopped from doing something for which there is de facto consensus? Please also bear in mind that a large part of my editing before having the topic ban imposed was category related. It therefore stands to reason that it is catgory related edits that would be noticed by other editors. And you are saying that if I come across a categorisation edit that needs changing I ignore WP:SOFIXIT and ignore the problem? I have tried that and developed quite a list both at the categorisation WikiProject and offline. Some of the items on my list have been attended to and sometime I leave comments at various WikiProject topic talk pages to get things sorted out. Having to do that is ridiculous and a complete waste of time. But that is what you are suggesting I do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You've asserted that there's a de facto consensus. I lean toward agreeing with you. Doesn't make it a foregone conclusion that everyone will agree. The very fact that a large part of your pre-ban editing was category-related is my point – your talk page had a strong tendency to turn into a firehose of objections to what you were doing with regard to categories, and you typically took a standoffish position with regard to these criticisms and requests to stop. To me, it does not bode well for you to re-involve yourself with categorization in any programmatic or sweeping way, especially given that various other editors are wary of you have having such involvement and looking, probably, to "jump on you" for any perceived transgression in that sector. If avoiding controversy with a little extra work is "a complete waste of your time", then why were you already doing it? "Methinks thou dost protest too much" in suggesting that I am, with "absolutely no sense at all", recommending you do what you're already doing, at least until the controversies about your categorization behaviors settle down. WP is a human endeavor, and like all other human endeavors, politics is always and automatically a factor. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Complicating matters in regards to templates

I apologize for complicating matters, but it's a complicated issue. Under my proposal above, Alan Liefting would be allowed to make category related edits in the template namespace. There is currently nothing in policy, that I have found, allowing mainspace categories to be used on templates (we have special categories for navboxes, infoboxes, etc.) That being said, given the fact that Alan's edits to templates have been (wrongly) used to support his ban, I think it is clear that a discussion on categorization of templates needs to take place. Given that, and under the assumption that support is attained for my suggested modification to Alan's topic ban, how should we treat Alan's ability to edit categories on templates? My suggestion is to not allow edits to mainspace categories on templates that are meant to be used in the mainspace until the discussion is closed, at which point Alan will be expected to comply with whatever the consensus ends up being. Ryan Vesey 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This actually seems a lot like the leed up to the topic ban. There is no policy that allows it, and no policy that prohibits it. Some editors don't see a problem with it, and object to the removal of the categories. In the file categories case, we then had an RFC that soundly rejected a policy that would have supported the removals. Alan then continued removals after the RFC. I'm not really sure what is going to be different this time around. I have no doubt that Alan means well, but the topic ban really is necessary. All it would take for me to support lifting the topic ban would be for Alan to acknowledge the root of the problem and pledge not to continue courses of category edits in the face of objections, especially when there is no clear policy or guideline backing him up. If there was a proposal allow him to participate in category related discussion while still banning him from direct edits, I would probably support that as well. Monty₈₄₅ 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about that since it appears that WP:Categorization allowed for categorization of files long before the issue began. As for templates, WP:Categorization is what allows categories to appear on pages, it does not allow categories to appear on templates, as a result, templates cannot have categories (mainspace ones that is). Ryan Vesey 10:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The original problems were with the files (and some templates) and the userspace drafts. The first is a contentious, and difficult, field, the second are edits that 'have to be done', but there are several ways of doing them (removal by outright clear-cut removal, commenting them out, or colon-ising them - and it depends on which you deem the best and the least bitey to a new editor). However, the topic ban is covering all fields of categorisation, and enforced even though hardly ANY of the edits that have resulted are reverted, removed, undone, whatever - the edits stand, for months, but the editor who performs them is blocked because of an edit restriction which is too broadly worded.

I would support to restrict the edit restriction to 'mainspace categorisation of pages in the files, templates and categories namespace' (he can still suggest them to/discuss them on e.g. the categorisation WikiProject for others to solve, but no addition or removal or recategorisation of files, templates and categories when it involves mainspace categories), and that for the categorisation of userspace drafts (including articles for creation) Alan has to perform the following: 'colonisation of the categories on those pages, followed within 10 minutes with a note on the talkpage of the creator of the draft article' (or leave them alone and suggest them to others). I would also ask for the removal of the restriction on Alan that disallows Alan to discuss the lifting of the restriction on AN, which was implemented because he asked for it for the second time (sigh, that is akin blocking talkpage access of a blocked editor as soon as the editor asks for the second time to lift his block). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I have reviewed his category-related edits, and I can say the edits he has made to violate the current ban were recategorization of templates and categories (mostly removing categories, e.g. [6] [7]). I think he has not been editing userspace drafts recently. If the goal of changing the restriction is to affect the current block, it would need to allow him to edit such pages. However, removing categories from templates was one of the things that was discussed before the topic ban was implemented, and I think the inclusion of templates was intentional. I have interpreted the current ban as allowing Alan to post cleanup messages such as [8], which should be sufficient. However, one problematic aspect of his editing is that he sometimes has posted the note, only to later remove the categories himself, e.g. [9] [10]. I think the reason few of his edits are reverted is the same reason the cleanup tags are not promptly answered: few people watchlist templates and categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the reason is that the edits are simply fine. But that does not matter anyway. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Carl, Dirk Beetstra is correct here. The reason that few of his edits are reverted is not because people don't see them. If that was the case, he would never be blocked. You chose to block him, which was in line with the technical bounds allowed to you by the editing restriction, while endorsing his edits by default. Ryan Vesey 17:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but let's all stop beating on Carl. Alan broke the rules of the community-endorsed topic ban several times, on several separate occasions. There's no point in a community-endorsed topic ban if it's not enforced. Sure, as I've said on Alan's talkpage, Carl might have given Alan a warning, but in all honesty, we should credit Alan with more intelligence, he knows the bounds of the topic ban, there's thousands of edits he can make without infringing it. Please stop pretending Alan is the victim here, Carl is technically right to do what he's done. Having said that, if 0.2% of my edits were called out as being bad and I was blocked for a month, I'd be upset, but then again, I would work hard to avoid that situation. Can we just focus on the idea that the topic ban phrasing could be updated to include a single warning should Alan transgress once again, and have a duration, e.g. three months? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan seems so keen to whitewash Alan that he's now blanking any criticism of him on other projects as "removing unrelated crap" and edit-warring to re-blank it when it's restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's completely unrelated and your idea that I'm "whitewashing" Alan is wrong. Ottawahitech made an inappropriate edit in an improper venue. Editors have a responsibility to remove crap like that. Ryan Vesey 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is a clear deletionist and a regular at AfD. To hear him discuss editor retention with the comment, "We should also keep editor attrition in the back of our minds when !voting on deletion discussions." is thus a little surprising, at least when it's coming from him. Not surprisingly, Ottawahitech then challenged him over this and noted some of Alan's past actions that were rather at variance with his words here. Ottawahitech's comments were very far from complimentary and might have been phrased more modestly, given the fluffy kid gloves we're all supposed to wear whilst typing, but one thing they certainly weren't was "unrelated". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a question, is this actually related the topic ban we're discussing across most of Wikipedia, or is it a different matter that needs to be dealt with locally/elsewhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's unrelated. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• When Ryan is trying to instigate presenting Alan as the innocent victim of an unwarranted topic ban, whilst simultaneously blanking other's well-founded criticisms of him, then it's related. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed with Andy Dingley on all his points in this section. (And note that I support partial relaxation of Liefting's topic-ban; they're severable concerns.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Alan Liefting commented on User talk:Alan Liefting#A few replies for the AN discussion, and the blocking admin agreed that it would be ok to add his comments to this discussion. Per Alan's request I've simply added the link instead. Huon (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, your position on the quality of my edits is all over the place. You have contradicted yourself on my talk page about these supposed "well-founded criticisms". Now are you sure that your comments are not clouded by the fact that we have not seen eye to eye in past discussions? You seem to be clutching at straws to make sure that I am penalised. BTW, another editor has endorsed Ryan's edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a narrowing of the topic ban - to File, AFC and other's user-space. Blocking an editor for making perfectly good edits shows that either we are slavishly following rules, or the rules are wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 13 January 2013 (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 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 problem with this type of discussion

I am going to create this as a subsection of this because it deals with this case but it is also a wider problem. I have and always have had a major problem with ANI cases and discussions like this against users who are blocked and cannot even comment to defend themsleves or make a statement. THIS IS WRONG! It was wrong before it happened to me, it was wrong when it happened to me and its wrong now and this is the sort of conduct and dirty tactics that is frequently used on here to get peoples way. The user requested an unblock to comment here and it was denied. Ok fnie, several editors volunteered to copy the users comments here, ok fine. But now instead of the user getting a voice in this a link to his talk page was left so now, in order to get to it the reader has to wade through a whole nother discussion. Virtually no one is going to do that. We all have lives and nbetter things to do. If we are going to participate in a discussion about a user like this, then that user should be able to have a voice. That is my opinion and you may not agree but I know how frustrating and how pissed I was and still am about it. I see it too often and I finally decided its time to say something about it so at least its on record. If the user is being discussed then they need to have access to the discussion; If we are unwilling to unblock him then this conversation needs to move to the users talk page with a link here to it. This block, discuss, exclude bullshit is not a civil or mature way to handle these types of problems. Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that he should have been unblocked just to take part in this. I've seen it happen before. I'll ping a neutral admin. Ryan Vesey 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm that neutral admin, and I am in fact neutral. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked Alan so he can participate in this discussion. See the conditions I set on his talk page, and please be advised that I am well aware that my blocks and unblocks are always subject to community approval. I trust that Alan will not abuse this limited freedom. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That at least fixes things for this case. I still stand by the statement above that it happens all too often and all too often people turn their backs too it. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem with administration of WP by our administrators both individually or collectively. I don't have any animosity to the admins involved in this discussion so my comment is not a case of sour grapes (having said that I do wish Carl would turn a blind eye to my uncontroversial edits relating to the topic ban.) Time and again there has been complaints about the behaviour of admins. Admins should have exemplary behaviour, mind you so should all other editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, you realise that comment actually has no content at all, right? You think there's a "systemic problem" but go on to explain that admins/non-admins are all the same and should all behave in the same way. Do you have a point, or is it one of those Merlot mornings? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Waddaya mean by no content? I put forward an opinion. An opinion is content. My point is that it is good that the whole RfA process is tightened up so only the good ones get through but there are some admins who have atrocious behaviour and I think it is hard to control or get rid of them. Admins control the common rabble so they should be on their best behaviour. To set the example and all that. BTW, I only drink Merlot in the evenings. Probably your mornings. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rambling Man is correct; that was totally content-free in any meaningful sense. Alan, your verbiage was just noise, in the information theory sense, since the logic was so faulty that half of what you said cancelled the other half out. You're not parsing "content" correctly, just as you didn't understand "trolling" properly earlier. I strongly suggest that you stop trying to get into nit-picking arguments here. You were unblocked to make a case for a change to your topic-ban, not to engage in petty bickering over and act defensively and haughtily in response to criticism. Further behavior of that sort is highly likely to convince me to rescind my support of a relaxation of your topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of Alan proposal

Personally, it feels to me that consensus is forming to the effect that the topic ban is overly broad. The discussion should continue, but I would like to add the next step in this discussion. The block by Carl was correct as it applied to the topic ban; however, there seems to be a consensus forming that having this block in place neither helps Wikipedia nor prevents Wikipedia from being harmed. I propose that we unblock Alan Liefting (he is currently technically unblocked, but give him the go ahead to start improving the 'pedia again) as "time served" (he's been blocked for almost a week now) with the full topic ban in place until a decision is made on the above discussions. Ryan Vesey 17:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem sensible: as long as the topic ban is in place, the block is legit and should also remain fully in force. Block conditions should never be complex as they're tricky for admins to enforce and there's a potential for the editor to misunderstand the conditions (or claim to misunderstand them, as happens sometimes - though hopefully not here). Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick, there is no suggestion by Ryan to change the original topic ban at this stage. He simply wants my current block to be lifted in light of the emerging consensus above. Also, given emerging consensus the block cannot really be considered "legit". BTW, I think the current topic ban is a bit easier to understand, and therefore follow and enforce, than the modification to it suggested in the foregoing discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus from the above that the block was made in accordance with the ban conditions, and as such was a legitimate action. The issue is whether these conditions should be amended (which would then lead to the block being entirely lifted), and this appears to have general, though not overwhelming, support from the above discussion. Am I correct in reading your last statement as meaning that you don't actually want the ban conditions altered? Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the block was a "legitimate" action but from a common sense viewpoint and as a means of protecting WP it is completely nonsensical (and no one seems to be helping me to clean out the rapidly expanding Category:Articles with missing files...). And no, I am not saying that I don't want the topic ban conditions changed. I am simply pointing out that perhaps it will be more complicated to enforce. I don't want any sort of topic ban hanging over me at all - but lets not go there! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a block is legitimate doesn't mean it is beneficial. Ryan Vesey 04:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal

Some of you may think that I am in no position to make a deal but here goes anyway. If I am unblocked I promise that I will abide by the intent of what has been construed as an overly onerous topic ban. I will not even do any completely uncontroversial category edits. There is work to do and I am getting behind in meeting my deadlines and clearing the backlog. (Oops, thats right, I forgot that it is not a job. It is just an addiction. ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And if you break the terms of your topic ban? Are you happy to be re-blocked on the current escalating scale with no recourse? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that good sense prevails and policy and guidelines will be developed, which will then allow for the suggested modification to my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You disagree with the way your ban has been handled (including subsequent blocks), the community don't consensually agree with your point of view. Wait, this is exactly the status quo. So if you breach the terms of your current topic ban, things will return to the existing status quo, i.e. you get progressively longer blocks. All you're asking for now is for the current block to be removed? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I read that as 'I am going to try my hardest meanwhile to change policy & guidelines so the actions that got me restricted in the first place will not be subject to restrictions'..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Struck out. Forget I said anything. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So are we done here? Do you have anything further to add to AN or are you now content to sit out the remainder of your latest block? Either way, you should contact User:Drmies who was collegiate enough to allow you the opportunity to edit here despite your current block. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rambling Man--my involvement, as far as I'm concerned, ended with the limited unblock. A "reblock" should be done by someone familiar with the issue and the discussion here. I do note that Alan has made a few talk page edits that do not pertain to this matter, though he noted that he shouldn't be conversing about other matters. Not such a big deal to me personally. Anyway, I am not well-versed enough in the matter to reblock or to leave him unblocked. You all should come up with that consensus, and the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as an "involved" admin, I've been advised to avoid any admin action here. You unblocked him with certain conditions. I suggest you now reblock him per the original conditions since Alan is demonstrating no desire to continue discussion here. It's pretty simple for me. The unblock was to assist Alan's communications here and nowhere else, right? You unblocked him for that didn't you? Please now "undo" the "unblock" and restore the original conditions of the block. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TRM, you are making an incorrect assumption about my intentions or misconstrued what I said. Yes, it is true that I have "no desire to continue discussion here" but that is because I want it resolved so we can all move on. When I said "Forget I said anything" it was for the comment that I struck out. You and I have a strained relationship for some reason and it looks like the tension is increasing again. Your desire to pass punitive measure agaisnt me and which is contrary to the will of most others who have contributed to this discussion is demonstrating that animosity. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not really, just not sure what you need to be unblocked for right now. You made your plea, you retracted your plea, everything else can take place at your talk page or after your block expires. I don't get why you feel the need to circumvent your block now you're not interested in discussing your position here. "Your desire to pass punitive measure agaisnt me and which is contrary to the will of most others who have contributed to this discussion is demonstrating that animosity." - no, I'm just asking that the original block (or the most recent block) for transgressing your topic ban should be re-enacted since you decided to remove your request. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, as far as I understand it there is nothing stopping me from editing my talk page on matters that are not related to the block? Is that correct? Anyway, looking at it from a rational and collegial viewpoint it is best to reply to questions from other editors on my talk page. If policy prevents that it would be petty. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TRM, the conditions imposed on me means that I cannot post on Drmies talk page. I am essentially still blocked from editing. PLease make yourself conversant with the issue before making comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I assume Drmies will be watching this since he unblocked you? I was half-way through reminding Drmies of this scenario and thought better of it. Now I wish I'd pursued it sooner so we could close out this latest episode of Alan's mini-drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Here's the deal, For what little my opinion is worth I still think this block is a pointless waste of a lot of editors time. Alan has abided by the purpose of the block. He has stayed away from the areas that got him topic banned. He made a few passing edits to a couple categories that have absolutely nothing to do with his ban. Block him or unblock him the decision is yours. But do it knowing that there are several editors who have voiced their disagreements with this block and the fact that in all cases the excalating blcoks were done by the same involved admin. This block is solely being done to punish the editor and to make a point. That's it. No harm to the pedia is being prevented with this block. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right, this has nothing to do with protecting WP. I would like to point out that I have a long term strained relationship with the two editors here who want to continue with punishing me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we (well at least I) want to just see things done properly. Alan has been blocked but allowed some latitude to post here by the kindness of Drmies. Two questions into this, Alan has decided to tell us to "forget it" so I suggested we returned to the status quo. Big deal. Seems straight forward enough to me. And no, Kumioko, this isn't a "punishment", it's a standard incremental block on an editor who continually ignores his community-sanctioned topic ban. It's as simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TRM first let me lead this off by saying that I have always thought you were fair and a level headed editor. Your one of the few who I still have a high degree of respect for. With that said, when he said that, he was clearly referring to the struck out comment when he said forget it. Your right about being allowed to edit here. I am glad that Drmies did that. I was one of the ones who fought for that because I personally think it is wrong to exclude a longstanding editor from a discussion like this. I also still don't agree this isn't a punishment. Its clear to me that's what this is at the detriment of the pedia. I am familiar with the background of the case and the grounds for the Topic ban but it is clear as day to me that these edits have absolutely nothing to do with that ban. The only thing they had in common was they were categories, thats it. The situation is comparing apples and oranges. Now I am not going to keep arguing about it because I have basically given up on the community and this is the sort of thing I expect to see. You get users like Alan that get blocked for petty shit like this and you have other users and admins doing whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want and we just turn our backs to it. Its absolutely pathetic the way we treat our editors these days. Its disgraceful and disgusting. It makes me ashamed to tell people I edit because every time I bring it up, they tell me things like I tried to edit once but the told me I was a "fucking idiot and I need to learn to spell first". I hear many stories like that. I stopped telling people I edit. This situation is no exception. We continue to cannabolize our ranks; we burn each other down and then piss on the ashes. If Alan was doing such a horrible job then why is it the exact same involved admin who blocks him each time. I'll tell you. Because he is involved and looking for a reason to do it. Plain and simple. I don't expect anyone to care what I say or care about my opinion. But I wanted it on record I don't agree and several other editors don't agree as noted above and on Alan's talk page. So if the admins in this case want to go ahead and say there is no consensus and continue to the block then fine. But again you are doing it because that is what you want, not what the community wants. Kumioko (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, if you block him, please block me for the same duration! Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said! <personal attack redacted by Dweller> -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, consider yourself extremely fortunate that I haven't blocked you for that egregious personal attack. --Dweller (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the leniency. I am now unsure where the boundary is between describing the behaviour of others and what constituents a personal attack. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Just to clarify I think very highly of TRM. I attribute it to the atmosphere of Wikipedia these days and this is in no way directed at TRM. The atmosphere here is toxic, corrosive and infectious. Even the most respected editors and admins are not immune to occasional acts of stupidity and assholery!. Unfortunately, more and more are making those acts less occasional than common. That's why I have gone from doing more than 10, 000 edits a month (some months over 20 and 30 thousand) to less than a couple hundred a month and 99% are on discussions. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Eh... There is too much focus on Alan's unblock and the conditions thereof. I unblocked him so he could participate in this here AN thread about his editing behavior. I did not unblock him so he could a. make personal attacks or b. have conversations with other editors.

• a. What was redacted above by Dweller was at the very least unhelpful. I don't like civility blocks and this, for me, was not blockable. The Rambling Man considers themselves too involved to act on it and that's probably a wise decision. Dweller's finger hovered over the block button but they refrained, wisely or not. As I said before, if any (uninvolved, I suppose) admin thinks that Alan's edits here are disruptive one way or another I won't stand in the way of ending his temporary freedom to participate in this thread. Again, I won't (re-)block for that particular remark, but YMMV and that's fine with me. I have no horse in this race, no dog or zombie either.
• b. I did not, Alan, unblock you so you could advise other editors who come to your talk page. The proper answer is "sorry I'm on the other line" or some version thereof. Again, I won't block for it, since you produced that answer after a few responses, and at any rate your talk page privileges were not revoked, AFAIK. But please stay on point, and don't comment on your block while your block is being discussed: it's foolish and there's enough bad blood already.

There's a proposal below. I hope you all can focus on that so we can bring this to a close. Ent is chomping at the bit to close this entire discussion, Alan wants some clarity, Floquenbeam is still racking up points for their Christian charity exercise (power to you, Floq), and this needs to be taken care of. In Bradspeak: I have unblocked Alan's one-month block temporarily so he could participate in this here discussion at this here Administrators' Noticeboard. If, in your judgment, he trespasses that privilege and is disruptive one way or another, reblock. Then, </end bradspeak> decide on something, close the thread, have a beer, move along. I am in no way endorsing the use or even abuse of alcohol among editors, though it makes your French more palatable. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's put aside all the personal back and forth and focus on improving Wikipedia. I suggest:

• Alan affirmatively states he intends to follow the topic ban.
• He's declared "unblocked" for the purpose of editing.
• All parties in the discussion stop talking about each other. Not important. NE Ent 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this per the sections above. I should like to clarify that this, and the rest of the unblock discussion I initiated, should in no way assume the topic ban modification should or should not occur. Should Alan be unblocked, he is bound by whatever the topic ban is when he is unblocked and if the modification is closed with consensus to modify, Alan would immediately be held to the new ban rather than the old one. Perhaps I shouldn't have started the unblock discussion as soon as I did, but the topic ban modification was dragging out so I jumped the gun a little. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I am unblocked I hereby affirm I will follow any topic ban imposed on me (even though the current one is seen as overly draconian). I guess I will have to wait for the day that the community decides to create comprehensive categorisation guidelines before any alteration of my topic ban can take place. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• It might look like I'm making you grovel by repeating yourself, Alan, but as an uninvolved admin, I'm just making absolutely sure I understand what is going on. Do I understand correctly that:
  • You were topic banned from all category-related edits outside of mainspace, and have been blocked for violating it before
  • You strongly disagree with that topic ban, and believed at the very least it should have had a narrower scope
  • You made some category-related edits that weren't problematic per se, but which violated the topic ban
  • You were blocked 1 month for it
  • You still believe that the topic ban is unreasonable/unfair/too broad/what-have-you
  • You agree to abide by it anyway, and make no category-related edits outside of mainspace, no matter how obviously correct you believe they are
  • If the scope of the topic ban is modified, you'll abide by that. If it isn't modified, you'll abide by the current one
  • You have not previously affirmed that you will abide by the topic ban; this is new

If this is correct, please say so here, and I'll modify this limited unblock to a full unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• You sum up my stance and my promise with pretty much 100% accuracy. I am also sick and tired of this endless discussion. It is a wasting a lot of time and energy (although some may be here solely for this sort of thing...) Maybe even close this whole AN discussion and we can all go our separate ways. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, then a couple of things. First, you're now welcome to edit anywhere on WP, subject only to whatever topic ban is currently in place. Second, since you're already unblocked, the only way I can figure out to modify your block log is to reblock for 2 minutes, and then unblock so I can add a note about this to the block log. With my luck, this will cause you an autoblock, for which I apologize in advance. Third, probably best if you and those who disagree with you limited your interaction for a while, in order for things to cool down. Fourth, I'll look through this again and see if I agree that the entire section can be archived. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• It should be archived from #Unblock of Alan proposal down. Thanks Floq. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan thanks for being staunch but do you think archiving the whole discussion may be a better idea? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you have no desire to modify your topic ban, yes. It seems to me that there is consensus, or at least close to consensus, for a modification. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to have my topic ban modified but I also want this discussion to end so we can all move on. I am willing to have the current topic ban remain in place and maybe it can be revisited at some point in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Floquenbeam. From my POV I don't think the discussion was particularly heated. Frustrating and interminable but not heated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (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.

Blacklists and assholes

After having seen this on WP:NPP and this on WP:AfC, I was surprised that a new user could create pages with the word "asshole" in them. Aside from perhaps a work by Frank Zappa that I missed, I can't think of a single valid reason to create an article using this word. (And I got Elvis' Greatest Shit created, so I'm not averse to bad language when in an appropriate context). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't think there's a single notable work with the word "asshole" in it? It took me less than twenty seconds to come up with five. IPs and other casual editors add the vast majority of our content, and every barrier that's put in their way hurts us. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. You probably thought I meant I couldn't search for existing articles with "asshole" in the title, as opposed to not thinking of any ideas of new articles. I also said I had created an article on a notable subject with an expletive in it myself, going via this very board to do it, so that's not really the issue - more that creating an article with this title is so infrequent that it would be a net benefit to add "asshole" to the blacklist alongside "shit". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. If several such articles, mostly about notable published works already exist, and "asshole" is not an obsolete word like "hungred", then logically it's a near certainty that more notable works will use this word in their titles in the future, probably the very near future. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would the edit filter block the creation of AFC pages? I just created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit with my non-admin alternate account (containing nothing but a deletion tag and "Page created to test the title blacklist."), and to my surprise it went through quite fine. I was planning to comment on the wording of the message presented when the blacklist prevents the creation of a title, but I'm not sure how to do that without disrupting mainspace. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The warning depends on the regex that the page gets blocked under. (By the way, do note that the edit filter and the title blacklist are two totally different things.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I knew that, but obviously I wasn't paying attention. I was only attempting to trigger the title blacklist. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to find most of the messages here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See also this AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And, for completeness, this thread is when I noted I couldn't create an article with "shit" in it, about a fortnight after that AfD. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the messages. The text of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit almost seems to presume that a false positive has happened and provides full instructions for creating a needed page. I don't understand Chris' last clause. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised Asshole from El Paso doesn't have an article. I might just write this one, if only to try to get it pushed through WP:DYK and on the main page. _{(muahahahahahaha)} caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a change that should probably resolve this issue. Before this change, the title blacklist would have rejected names that included "is an asshole". I've changed it so that it also rejects phrases like "are assholes". ‑Scottywong| confer _ 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• My most recent DYK was Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, the First Sixty Years, so I definitely disagree with the premise "I can't think of a single valid reason to create an article using this word." 28bytes (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. We also have The No Asshole Rule. Warden (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the title blacklist will currently only prevent IP's and non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles that include things like "is an asshole" or "are assholes". There are very few valid articles (like The Devil is an Ass or The Masses Are Asses) that this entry would have prevented. Just the word "asshole" on its own in a page title is not restricted, to my knowledge. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, but not really

I've just seen a registered user place a bogus block notice on an IP's talk page. What should I do, apart from reverting? I'm afraid I've never encountered anything like this before. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Alameda's history, you'll see a lot of problems. I don't think the editor is a bad actor, but more likely generally incompetent. I suppose they need some advice at a minimum, although I'm not sure if the problems are fixable (call me cynical).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident... Salvidrim! ✉ 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you removed a bunch of the false block notices. I've now removed the rest (I think). I've left a note on the editor's talk page, and we'll see what happens next.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK I did not know that and some of my contributions has unexpained edits but some of them did not have vandalism. Alameda15 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK Alameda has said it and we should closed this discussion. Carson30 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Carson30, can you explain why you think you are qualified to call for the discussion to be closed? You appear to have only made 8 edits to Wikipedia - none of which were of any significance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: per this [11] it seems evident that Carson30 and Alameda15 are the same person - and neither account is a net benefit to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've indef'd Carson30 per WP:DUCK and blocked Alameda15 for 48 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the policy or guideline on people who give themselves barnstars? Carson30 has awarded Alameda15 a barnstar. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Aaronsw RIP

[12] FUCK. I am so pissed at this. What a stupid loss. Pardon my language. Those of you who followed his saga will understand. A total tragedy. Could the admins please do the usual stuff about his account and user pages. I just hope it's a hoax but I doubt it. Thank you. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally accounts are not blocked after death, but I have locked the userpage. The talk page is open just incase people wish to leave notes of condolences. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably put something there during the weekend. I'm calmer now, but sleepy. Goodnight. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's no hoax. It is a tremendously sad event; see the Wikimedia blog --My76Strat (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)(condolences)

In case of any doubt, BBC has also put up an article on it. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Block review

• Wingwrong (talk · contribs)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Wingwrong with a reason "for persistent tendentious editing, especially for persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women".[13]

• persistent tendentious editing: Wingwrong edited Talk:Comfort women[14] on 11 January 2013 three month after the previous edit[15] on 24 October 2012. Is this persistent tendentious editing? This block is as if the user violated a topic ban.
• persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women: Is what Future Perfect at Sunrise call denialism a legitimate reason to block a user?

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I had a quick look at User talk:Wingwrong and Talk:Comfort women, and it is clear that "persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women" is accurate. There is no policy that such activity must be blocked, but does anyone recommend an unblock? Is there a reason to expect that an unblock might help the encyclopedia? The user's English is not good enough for an expectation that advice would be understood, and the user recently repeated unsourced advocacy (diff) after a one-month block in August where three separate unblock requests were declined by different admins. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Wingwrong was blocked twice before for similar behaviour; the last time was for a month. At that time, Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) told him that he was "running out of chances", that he needed to make a "complete change in attitude" and that he would likely be blocked indef the next time [16]. Wingwrong's editing has consisted purely of politically motivated national advocacy editing on matters of Japanese foreign conflict (Comfort women, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands), and in particular on Comfort women he has persistently used the article and the talk page for agenda screeds, promoting denialist fringe positions. That article has been afflicted with these kinds of edits from several (usually Japanese) editors for years. It is my position that people misusing Wikipedia for pushing their agendas of Japanese-war-crime denialism should be treated no differently from those who push Holocaust denialism, Armenian genocide denialism, 9/11 "truth" conspiracy theories or other similarly outworn political fringe positions. We block such editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

FPoS is absolutely correct here. This user is here to push a fringe ultra-nationalist position on a large number of articles. While it's good that he stopped edit warring on the articles themselves, it's a waste of other editors time to have to constantly respond to his posts on article talk page that are generally somewhere between wrong and ludicrous. And the viewpoint he represents, especially on Comfort women is held by such a tiny number of people that it qualifies as WP:FRINGE. His last set of edits there (demanding physical evidence) demonstrate he has no interest in understanding or implementing Wikipedia's core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. While Phoenix is correct that the frequency of editing has gone down, the key problem has not. I support the block. It is somewhat conceivable that the user could be unblocked at some point, but he'll need to demonstrate a radically different approach to editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the relevant talk pages, and I have to agree the block is valid. This user obviously doesn't understand (or doesn't care about) our basic policies and is determined to push a fringe POV. Their English skills don't seem to be good enough to make meaningful contributions either. I suppose we could issue a topic ban from all articles relating to comfort women, but almost all this editor's contributions relate to some sort of international controversy involving Japan and the problems are sufficiently severe that they are likely to crop up again if they try to edit anywhere else. Hut 8.5 11:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• A good block, for sound reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• This looks like a good block to me as well - this editor is essentially a single purpose account for pushing a Japanese nationalist POV, and clearly isn't here to develop neutral encyclopedic articles. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of fairness, Wingwrong has stated the following on his talk page in reference to this block:

he Japanese government has consistently denied that "comfort women were forced by the military." In fact, Korean never present Physical Evidence. That is all. I'm not a denialist. I'm "evidence-supremacist". Would be required by the Wikipedia exactly?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Then in User Talk:Wingwrong#Comfort women's question there is more evidence presented to support his position, in particular referencing a Japanese news article that claims that the Japanese government has explicitly supported the position he's pushing, and therefore it doesn't qualify as fringe. I'm too close to the content dispute to offer an opinion on this (plus, I was reading the news story through Google Translate, and that's iffy at best). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to be debating the content issues, but the Kono Statement of 1993 is the Japanese Government's official position on the issue, and it acknowledges that coercion was used to recruit 'comfort women' from Korea and elsewhere: [17]. According to a quick Google search, the current Japanese Government is considering moving away from this position: [18] [19], but that doesn't excuse this POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to clarify what exactly is the problem with Wingwrong's editing. Hut 8.5 (and Nick-D, in different words) says that "almost all this editor's contributions relate to some sort of international controversy involving Japan", but there are many such users that are brought to this board and that's not automatically ground for a permaban. Is it the poor English competency, per Johnuniq? Some people alluded to edit-warring, but haven't provided links to ANEW discussions. I've only seen blocks issued in punishment for talk page rants at AE, and the "comfort women" issue is not sufficiently high-profile to go there.

  Like Qwyrxian, I must confess a personal interest in this issue, but I must draw a distinction between Japanese war crime denialism and attempts to rigorously verify sources. Although such attempts—as Qwyrxian alluded to in Wingwrong's talk page comments—may come from denialist motives (we can't read minds), the end result could help the encyclopedia by spurring mainstream editors to replace low-quality scholarship like R.J. Rummel mega-statistic compilations with more specifically relevant sources with an open methodology.

  Although attempts to downgrade the number of people killed in the Holocaust are universally condemned and seen as Holocaust denialism, mainstream media outlets such as the BBC note controversy over the number killed in the Rape of Nanjing, for example. Liberal Korean and Taiwanese historians have questioned some of the "victim" narratives of Japanese empire-building (some of which are constructed to conceal Korean collaborationism, for example), so we must be precise when we talk about which views are "fringe".

  Although I couldn't really defend Wingwrong as a valued encyclopedic asset, I also think the manner in which this block was executed lacked "due process", to the extent that such a thing exists on Wikipedia because of custom. Can the block supporters demonstrate any past efforts to sincerely reform Wingwrong into a constructive editor, so that we may not entertain giving him a second chance? Shrigley (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The previous two blocks for the exact same thing [20] should have made it clear that he or she was on an unproductive path. You appear to have misread my post BTW - I think that the block is justified because this is a single purpose account which is being used to push a POV, not that he or she is only editing on a single topic as you seem to have interpreted my comments as. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, the consensus is that denialist is worth being blocked indefinitely. The denialism "is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event." So, if Wingwrong is not a denialist, he should be unblocked. Wingwrong is not denying the Heliocentrism persistent tendentiously. The forced / volunteer discussion is a matter of dispute. In 2009, the Japanese government made a cabinet decision "The evidence that the Japanese army or the military officials seized the women by force was not found.".[21] which is exactly the same discussion Wingwrong made. This matter is worth discussing on the talk page and reflecting to the article. Suppressing the discussion of this matter by blocking the user is a gag rule of Wikipedia. Although I agree Wingwrong's way of discussion is poor probably because a language problem. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The position Wingwrong is trying to push is an isolated, extreme WP:FRINGE position, and the fact that the Japanese government endorses it makes it no less fringe (like the notorious position of the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide). Of course, such denialist fringe positions need to be covered in the article, and it is legitimate to use the article talk page to discuss this coverage. But that's not what Wingwrong was doing. He was using the talkpage not to discuss how to cover the position, but to promote that position. He was challenging Wikipedians to debate and refute its correctness (and is still trying to do so on his own user talkpage now.) This is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The Wingwrong's blocked edit[22] is simply placing the refute to the each books presented by User:Binksternet. The discussion is always promote the user's position. That is a discussion. A discussion is to "debate and refute its correctness". Nothing to be blamed by bystanders. You should have participated in the discussion instead of blocking the user indefinately. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)
      • No, on Wikipedia, talk page discussion should never be about promoting our own opinions about historical claims or assessing the merits of such. Talk page discussion must only be about assessing what is the consensus about such matters published in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, talk page discussions are to discuss ways to improve the article per WP:NPOV and all the other relevant polices, and not to advocate the inclusion of one's own point of view. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It is depended on how a user promote her/his own opinions. If s/he promote her/his opinions by presenting a reliable source as Wingwrong presented to User Talk:Wingwrong#Comfort women's question as Qwyrxian pointed out, nothing is to be blamed by others.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
            • That post on the user talk page is actually a pretty typical example of the problematic behaviour. Wingwrong dismissed the sources on the subject by saying that they have no physical evidence, and then advanced what appears to be another original argument on the subject. That's not how we work. We don't try to criticise the conclusions of sources ourselves, or come up with novel counter-arguments to suggest why the sources may be wrong - our articles are based on what the sources say. This has been explained to Wingwrong numerous times, but they obviously don't get it. Hut 8.5 11:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • our articles are based on what the sources say -- except when they don't -- see the recent ANI discussion on what happened to an editor who tried removing unsourced stuff. Warning; it's quite long NE Ent 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • That was actually an incident of an editor section-blanking verifiable content that is what sources say. NE Ent is completely mischaracterizing something to attempt to support a false assertion. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As documented by OP, Wingwrong's frequency of edits on Comfort Women -- zero -- in the past five months hardly qualify as persistent tendentious editing -- they're not editing at all, they're talking, which is what editors are supposed to do when addressing disputed content. The phrasing persistent offensive advocacy (emphasis mine) makes it appear that Wingwrong's being punished for their political views rather than actual WP disruption. As the advocacy consists of two talk pages posts in five months it hard to see how that is disruptive. We require articles be NPOV, not individual editors. Including minority viewpoint's such as the Japanese government's counterclaims is not POV as long as they are weighted appropriately. There is definitely a confounding issue of their weak English skills making it difficult to parse out exacting what article changes they're advocating, but that would be better addressed through discussion and simple direct questions rather than blocking. NE Ent 13:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with NE Ent. A block for being offensive is a block for being in a small minority that most people in a heated discussion don't like. I agree that Wingwrong is blatantly wrong to advocate it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a block for refusing to follow project orthodoxy. Perhaps Wingwrong should have been blocked some months ago for inserting this kind of thing into the article, but that's apparently not at all what was the basis for this block, and a block now for something several months ago would be quite inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tendencious editing is certainly possible using talk pages, too. There's a point at which repeating discredited notions becomes in and of itself disruptive as it just wears good contributors down trying to deal with it. And as for the whole "saying offensive opinions is always allowed" thing, that's just not the case. A point comes that repetition of an offensive position is disruptive, frankly, much worse incivility than a few F-bombs. If we were dealing with a Holocaust denier, would we even be having this discussion? I doubt it. We'd be throwing away the key. And with good reason: It discredits Wikipedia for us to entertain such people, even on talk pages, and it drives away good contributors to see this happening. The fact that the actocities committed by Imperial Japan are less well-known in the Western world than the Holocaust is does not mean their denial deserves any greater tolerance on Wikipedia talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We actually have an article for that ... putting aside the the Godwin's law tangent; it's our mission to "tolerate" reliably sourced minority but not fringe viewpoints. It discredits Wikipedia to censor good faith if misguided opinions we disagree with -- the better solution is education -- explaining to ww the reliable source and original research policies. 16:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing up article coverage and talkpage discussion yourself here, and I must say I'm astonished to see an editor of your experience make such a basic mistake. No, it is not our "mission" to "tolerate" advocacy for such viewpoints. It is, of course, our mission to represent them, in articles (which we of course do). But that's not what Wingwrong was trying to do; he was trying to proselytize other editors for them. And it's nothing to do with Godwin's law if we state that proselytizing Japanese war crimes denial is no different from proselytizing Holocaust denial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, invoking Godwin's law is meant to be done when someone inappropriately compares something/someone to the Nazis/Nazism. Comparing forum moderators to Nazis, for example, is inappropriate. Comparing Imperial Japan's war crimes to the Holocaust is wholly appropriate. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

FPaS and Heimstern are absolutely correct here, and this is a good block. There is a massive difference between representing and promoting extreme fringe views. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between blocking for "persistent offensive advocacy" despite only a few incidents and blocking someone who's constantly advocating for a problematic position. Were this the result of more advocacy of the same position, I would support blocking, but not for "persistent offensive advocacy", because that says that certain positions are inherently unwelcome here. Block only after warning the user in a way such as "Sources are consistently strongly against the position that you're taking, so it is disruptive to continue repeating the same arguments over and over again", because keeping it up is thumbing one's nose at everyone else. It's disruptive to get in the way of reasonable discussion on any topic, but what this user did was infrequent enough that it could easily be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good block. My words before the edit conflict were very much the same as Black Kite's, immediately above, but more verbose - so just read that comment again for my opinion too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock: I see nothing in users contribs since the last block that would indicate this should be extended to indef. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have considered the most recent post and believe that this comment is not a sufficiently sound basis for an indefinite block. Binksternet was citing sources to dispute a claim that prostitution was not generally forced. First source was questioned on the basis that it was a collection of testimony, and such testimonies are not reliable sources for making a factual statement. Looking deeper into that it appears the source is an advocacy organization and thus is not independent of the subject so it can only be reliable as a source about the organization's views. The second it was noted that this was citing a single individual when making the claim. I observe that nearly all of the sources are essentially just going off the testimonies and do not give any indication of independent research into the claims. One of the sources Binkster provided is actually from one of the women who has made these allegations so her book is definitely not a reliable source for anything other than her own view as she is not an independent source. Looking over it, I feel the question about the reliability of these sources are generally apt.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. The first, and probably most significant, is that it appears from their user page Wingwrong does not have a functional grasp of of English. It may be they lack sufficient language competence to successfully participate on the English Wikipedia. Given the language difficulty I can't honestly determine if they're unreasonably pushing a fringe viewpoint or seeking to balance an article. Since we have an article on chemtrails this concept we don't have fringe quackery on Encyclopedia isn't supportable -- the isn't whether it's fringe, it's whether it's a notable fringe/minority viewpoint.
Wingwrong has not been well treated here. They were blocked after making a single edit to Liancourt Rocks for alleged violation of article parole (1rr). After the block expired they asked for clarification / explanation three times on the blocking admins' talk page -- I'm not seeing any evidence onwiki they ever received a reply. While I don't subscribe to the theory an admin has to justify an action to a blocked editor's satisfaction, I'd expect to see some reply per the admin accountability thing. They could've/should've been directed to a policy page or the Teahouse or something. I also see the admin failed to block another editor who was 2rr on the article and instead, asked them to revert. Such preferential treatment simply advances admin conspiracy/cabal theories.
Moving forward I suggest Wingwrong be unblocked with an explanation that Google translate isn't good enough to allow them to participate meaningfully in English Wikipedia and encourage them to focus on jp.wikipedia.org or find a fluent Japanese to English translator to assist them in editing here. NE Ent 19:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would generally agree with this, though I am not hip to the idea of not allowing him to participate due solely to a language barrier. His comments are not incomprehensible and he seems to have sufficient grasp of English to understand what is going on, even if it hampers his communicative abilities. On a number of occasions he has raised legitimate points regarding articles, including the one in question, and made legitimate contributions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a terribly accurate representation of what happened. This edit was made after coming off a one-month block for the same behaviour. If someone returns from a block of finite duration and repeats the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place then they clearly aren't cooperating and an extension to indef is reasonable. In that edit Wingwrong dismissed various sources on the grounds that they don't measure up to their personal standards of proof, which is clear original research. If you look back over the talk page you can see that Wingwrong has made numerous previous comments dismissing sources for an alleged lack of physical evidence and other personal reasons, so they obviously haven't listened to the explanations of how Wikipedia works that they received. The article probation on Liancourt Rocks is much stricter than a simple 1RR restriction, as you can see from the box here. The fact that we have encyclopedic coverage of fringe views is simply irrelevant here - it certainly isn't justification for tenaciously pushing those views in violation of core policies. Hut 8.5 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A user previously warned and repeatedly blocked for serious problem behavior, who is warned then that further misbehavior may result in an indefinite block, does not require further additional warnings prior to indefinite blocking. It is already established that advocacy of war crime denialism is disruptive of the encyclopedia and brings it into disrepute and is serious problem behavior, though this set of war crimes are not the ones we most often have to respond to denialism about. Good block. A more verbose block message with links to all the history would have avoided the confusion, perhaps, but the warnings and prior block notices are still in the users' talk page.

This would not be controversial if this were a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. This is not exactly as bad but is along the same lines. It's nearly as offensive to Koreans, and similar denialism about atrocities in China and elsewhere is to those peoples, as the Holocaust deniers are to survivors and descendants of the Shoah. It may not be as well known in the west, but that's not a good reason to treat it differently.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Free images

I'd appreciate some admin eyes on : Category:Possibly_free_images , Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki possible canvassing regarding Teresa Perales

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.

---

• LauraHale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The last time I tried whistleblowing, at WP:Requests for adminship/Σ, it didn't go too well. Everyone piled on and said I shouldn't have posted IRC screenshots, so this time I'm only going to quote. In a private channel today, LauraHale (often known as purplepopple on IRC) said 11:26 AM <purplepopple> TAP|away: If you get the time, could you consider doing the GA review for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Perales ? LauraHale had been working on the article beforehand, even having an interview with the Paralympian subject to expand the entry. This private channel, same one as I linked to in Sigma's RfA, is open to only a few people, which include LauraHale, myself, Thine Antique Pen (hence with referred to as TAP) and others which shall not be named. Now, I suppose you could consider us all friends. I know TAP is a GA reviewer and so does Laura. But asking someone close, and dare I suggest, involved, to do the review for you instead of waiting? Who could not consider this a covert attempt at a canvass at a pass. Now, I've no doubt the article could potentially reach GA if it is reviewed properly, but one done on request is unlikely to be too thorough and could skip over some demeaning aspects of the article. As of yet TAP has not replied. So, I ask for the community's opinion on is this canvassing, and what should be done? Rcsprinter (orate) @ 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's not unheard of for editors who are friendly with each other to review each other's articles. Now, as to how good a review the other gives... As for any possible canvassing, in my opinion she asked for a review, which is not explicitly asking for a pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• I find myself agreeing with Crisco here. More likely, they weren't asking for a free pass, they were asking for a fast pass, simply getting a review now instead of in a few weeks. Was it proper? Meh, maybe not. Get in line like the rest of us. Was it canvassing? Not really, since they didn't ask for a specific outcome, just a quicker one. Probably not a good idea (because it can be misread, like here) but unless there is more to the story, I don't see it as "actionable". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I on the other hand must be having my cynical day, because I find Crisco's remark about "not explicitly asking for a pass" a little naive. Nobody is going to explicitly ask for a pass. Asking a friend for a review instead of waiting is tantamount to asking for a pass. In my opinion. Mind you, although I think the request is inappropriate, I agree that it's not actionable. I'm sure similar requests for review go on in complete privacy (e-mail and other one-on-one communication) all the time. Well, some of the time. It wouldn't feel right to sanction someone for being a little more open. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

    I totally agree. Bad form due to the medium used, but not actionable unless there is an explicit rule about this that I don't know. Note that an on-wiki request would be fine IMO. Hans Adler 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

    • • Anything and everything can be argued as asking for support, which is why I generally don't cross post my PRs, FACs, and GANs. Even the most neutrally worded request for review can be seen as gaming the system. Unless it is explicit or decidedly not neutral, I don't think we should consider it a violation of our canvassing policy. Not naivety, but a hope to avoid drama by establishing objective criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• What's my opinion? Easy. I'd suggest that Laura is most likely overenthusiastic rather than malicious. What should be done? Well, if ThineAntiquePen takes up Laura's invitation to review it, he gets a slap with a trout. And if Laura treads as closely to the canvassing line in the future, she gets a trouting too. There. Swift justice from Tom's School of Administrative Common Sense™. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If TAP gives a solid review, or ends up failing it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping he has the sense not to. Not because it'd be wrong but because people would make a flap about it and he's grown to be a sensible user who knows that not getting people into a flap even if you aren't at fault is a good way of behaving. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• It is not disallowed, or even uncommon, for nominators to request reviews, so I don't think this in itself is worth sanctioning. I am more worried about the semi-private way in which it was done. It is not the first time. I personally have received an email from Laura (neutrally worded, but a little pandering) requesting I look into a WP:GAR someone started on one of her articles. I also have suspicions of some off wiki contact at a reassessment of Laura's I initiated. Again, contacting other editors and asking them to comment on this processes is not uncommon, but it should at least be done transparently. Maybe that could be made clearer here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How can it be addressed here, if it requires new guideline or policy? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was categorically not asking for an easy pass. Rcsprinter should properly disclaim that this might be retalation for me having criticized his ability to effectively review GAs after Rcsprinter said an article passed at GA that I had contributed to failed to meet a non-existent criteria and because Rcsprinter made the comment without having bothered to read the article in question. Beyond that, Rcspinter has violated rules regarding citing IRC conversations and demonstrated a failure to understand what canvassing is. Most of my GAs take a while to pass and I generally very patiently wait for them and ask others for assistance in fixing these issues. There was ZERO attempt to get an easy pass. The problem here is not me.--LauraHale (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I respect all of you, but let's leave the sniping for now — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rcsprinter, as stated by you, it was said in a private channel and so why publish a private comment that is harmless question and turn it into something that its not. I also wonder if the IRC channel has a policy for "logging" and "publishing"? Bidgee (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, and look who's here, Bidgee—I was just thinking of pointing out how much Laura Hale has banged on in an obscenely public way about what she confabulates might be other people's conflict of interest, when you, her ally at Wikimedia Australia, turn up with a supportive comment. Tony (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Sigh. Think what ever you want Tony but at the end of the day, you're just another troll with your own agenda. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, enough with the sniping. Let's take things one at a time here:
  • Laura, while you didn't violate our canvassing guidelines here, you did put TAP in an uncomfortable position by privately requesting his help. It's not uncommon for users in channels like #wikipedia-en to throw out a "hey, anyone want to do a GAR?", but much like putting a request onwiki, asking in a public channel means you get who you get, and is considered acceptable (by most people, at least). Asking in a private channel where you're friendly on a personal level with the members is a bit less cool, because no matter what wording you use (and no matter how absolutely pure your intentions), you're then asking someone to either review your work favorably (whether because it's good, or because they like you) or to make the uncomfortable choice of reviewing unfavorably the work done by a friend. It's not canvassing, but it is both reducing the chances of you getting a good review and putting your requested reviewer in an awkward position - and those things aren't great. I know you prefer to interact with people on a one-on-one basis for requests, but sometimes that's a bad call.
  • Rcsprinter, while it's good that you didn't publish a whole log this time, you've sort of stepped into an awkward gap here between "misbehavior on IRC" (which is not AN's problem) and "off-wiki collusion" (which is, sometimes, very much depending on the case). Generally if someone is doing something untoward in an IRC channel, the way to handle that is to speak to the channel's ops, because it's their job to handle behavior that goes on there - or, if the ops can't handle it, the Wikimedia GCs, who have responsibility for administering all our IRC channels. Copying excerpts of conversations onto WP, whether in full logs or in snippets, rarely leads to anything but drama, largely because it results in trying to cram together two worlds that only vaguely touch in the normal course of things.
  • Everyone that's sniping in this thread: oh for heaven's sake. Do you think everyone else isn't just shaking their heads and muttering about the "usual suspects" here? We get it, some people are friendly with each other, others dislike each other. Could we at least attempt to act like everyone's also capable of putting aside their personal preferences and evaluating matters on their merits? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Rcsprinter, I question of you have actually read the topic of the channel. ... Also, respectable people are expected not to provide logs of this channel publicly... It is not uncommon for editors to ask other editors to review articles during the GA process. LauraHale did not ask for it to be passed; she asked for it to be reviewed. Personally, I think that Rcsprinter has "misbehaved" the most with IRC, given the RfA log-publishing incident and this one. Both of the incidents occurred in the same channel, which has the topic I have stated above. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I said above, TAP, if you think someone is misusing IRC, you generally want to address that complaint to the ops of the channel you feel they're misusing. Accusations back and forth here on AN don't get anyone anywhere unless it's truly an issue of backroom-collusion about how to misuse Wikipedia - which as far as I can tell, it's not in this case. On either (any?) side. I do want to point out to you, though, that common sense says that a channel topic asking people to not share chat contents is not foolproof - things have a way of leaking out from private chatrooms and private mailing lists, even if everyone does their best to avoid it, because humans are human and occasionally talk to each other out of turn. As a rule of thumb, it's usually best to not say anything in a wikipedia-related IRC channel that you would be embarrassed to say on Wikipedia or to explain onwiki or to Arbcom, because you never know if you might have to someday. This covers things like canvassing, yes, but also just things like in-fighting or name-calling, which we all know aren't allowed onwiki but we can be prone to in more private settings if we don't pay attention (because hey, humans are still human). Just because you don't want people to see doesn't always mean they won't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

    There's a distinction between asking "other editors" to review articles and asking a specific editor. Frankly this entire thread makes me sigh, in line with Fluffernutter's comment above. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (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.

AfD on a high profile topic ready to be WP:SNOW closed

By my reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opération Serval, which is the main article on the current high-profile French military intervention in Mali (the main story on the BBC news website at the moment), is ready to be closed per WP:SNOW. Could an uninvolved admin please do the honours? The article has received 17,466 page views since it was started 3 days ago, and it's not a good look to have it up for deletion for any longer than is necessary. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking the AfD over, I come to the conclusion that a SNOW close would be premature. While I personally just watched a news report on the topic and it certainly seems worthy of note, I see interesting (and numerous) !votes for a Merge/Redirect to Mali conflict#French intervention. Of course, another admin may see it differently, and I'm leaving this thread open for another opinion. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All the merge votes were from the first day of the discussion. The votes since then (when this has been reported as a major story) have been to keep the article separate. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have closed it as a WP:SNOW keep. No one aside from the nominator is arguing for deletion here. Any potential merges back up into the main conflict article can be discussed per WP:PM. KTC (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that we're considering merging the article, the problem is that we've tagged the article with a stupid wiki-insider notice that makes it sound as if we're going to delete encyclopedic coverage. After spending some time trying to reverse engineer what the heck the overly complicated template does -- it's really crappy code, by the way -- I've iar substituted more specific wording the box. Probably broke some bot crap or invisible category crap -- don't care that much because we're supposed to be about the reader, right?NE Ent 11:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination)

This AfD completed its seven days a few hours ago. Because of its BLP connections and especially because its subject has been in contact regarding the AfD, I think we ought to close it, one way or another, as soon as possible. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin would take the time to take a look. Many thanks. I've cross-posted to BLPN --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

SA rename

As a gesture of good will and to avoid unfortunate real-life effects, I've agreed to a rename of User:ScienceApologist to User:Previously ScienceApologist while breaking forward references. The new account acknowledges and points to the previous ones, and SA has agreed to stay away entirely from Wikipedia (and should acknowledge as much explicitly on his new talk page shortly).

Please do not put anything at the old user and user talk pages that point directly at the new account name; the objective is not to reduce visibility or accountability for ScienceApologist, but to explicitly break links from external sites that are used to cause real-life difficulties to the editor. He screwed up, but doesn't deserve this – no one does – and this was done partly IAR as a compassionate move. — Coren ^(talk) 20:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting. So the conclusion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive about Junjunone (talk · contribs) was incorrect and overruled? What about Aarghdvaark (talk · contribs) ([23])? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It was; although I was not aware of that SPI. ScienceApologist disclosed that account as part of the preleminary discussions leading to the current arrangement. — Coren ^(talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (Oh, and Aarghdvaark is definitely  Unrelated) — Coren ^(talk) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• May I suggest that additional guesses, surmises or questions be handled via email, in light of the sensitivity?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi all, wondering what admins thought of this? It does take away some context (which at AFD can be valuable) but surely this is well within his rights? I'm not inclined to tag the article as COI with a pointer to that edit just to pile on what is already heading towards a WP:SNOW result. I was thinking of asking for it to be closed early so we can all just forget about it and move on. Advice would be appreciated. Stalwart111 22:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would just leave it alone and let it run it's normal course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can certainly do that. Many thanks! Stalwart111 23:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention to an RFC/U, please

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 want to highlight this RFC/U for admins' attention: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva.

In an attempt at strict compliance with closing instructions, a motion to close was drawn up on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close. The RFC has been open since 30 November 2012 (that's 33 days, as I write). Nothing important remains unconsidered, and the trickle of new contributions simply aligns with opinions that are already well exposed. The motion to close has revealed overwhelming consensus; the delay in implementing this consensus with a formal closure (and an accurately detailed summary of that consensus) perpetuates uncertainty on the Project (notably at WT:MOS).

Would an admin who is experienced in these processes please take care of it? I request an admin, specifically. The consensus is clear, but the details need to considered with care. Several comments mention an approach to ArbCom if the matter is not settled with finality.

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC/U cannot be closed. You appear to be looking for option 3 under instructions which is a motion to close. However, you miss the general explanation over option 3 at the very top which says "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." Although you have a motion that has consensus, not all of the parties have agreed. So this cannot be closed yet. I might be reading this too strictly, I've only closed a handful of RFC/Us, but that's what I am seeing.--v/r - TP 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)--v/r - TP 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that generally user conduct RFCs are not closed except by the subject user's consent. Generally, user conduct RFCs either fade away and are delisted or are escalated to Arbcom due to the subject user's refusal to consent to consensus. It's also worth noting that while it cannot serve as the sole basis for administrative sanctions, such as a block, a user conduct RFC can be indicative of behavior which could result in an administrator blocking the subject user. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Apteva doesn't accept that consensus there, or at least abide by the spirit of the ban by stopping the disruption (which he seems to be continuing as we speak), then I'm told that a good next step is to request a community ban here at WP:AN. Is there some suggested process for that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is the option of requesting a topic ban here at WP:AN. Remember? That's what happened with PMAnderson, though that ban was later trumped by more stringent sanctions.

I have reviewed the rather confusing provisions for closure of an RFC/U. Option 3 includes this text (my underlining):

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it? And why would any radically different new summary be seriously proposed? Yet I see that Hasteur has attempted another, much weaker summary, and has sought to impose it as somehow superseding those already in place. (See Motion to close (5) at the talkpage, which until I refactored for conformity with the established structure purported to be in a special category, somehow standing above the preceding motions.)

Hasteur seems to have unusual views on the closing of these things: different from the guidelines, and different from views expressed above. I have asked Hasteur to give an explanation, here in this section.

Again, if things do not proceed according to the guidelines, it may be necessary for ArbCom to settle the matter. Let's hope it will not come to that.

Noetica^Tea? 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been at [24] Neotarf (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*COUGH* Noetica, since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first.

1. You have failed to follow the instructions of this page. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. It's a big yellow box.
2. The proper location to request closure of a RfC is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a subsection at the very top of this page.
3. If you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva, you would have seen that the proposed closure I make is weaker only because that's a neutral summary that doesn't impose any next steps. RfC/U is not about making next steps, it's about informing the subject of a significant problem with their editing.
4. You'll see that I've "propose closed" contentious RfC/U's in the same manner before and been thanked for it [25].
5. Finally, your request here is what caused me to come look at the RfC/U again. Finessing the rules is how these lower closes can happen while at the same time leaving tracks for future disruptive behaviors to roll forward on.

I question if you, Noetica, might benefit from a vacation from the area around this RfC/U as you seem to be heavily invested (both mentally and emotionally) in seeking sanctions. Let it go. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious, guillotine? blood? I don't hear Noetica suggesting anything like that. He's just frustrated, as I have been for months, that there doesn't seem to be a way to get Apteva to stop the disruption. I thought that after a few months and warnings my request to AN/I would have been enough to get an admin to give him a firm warning with penalty of block for continued disruption, but it was ignored. Now that we've got a huge consensus that he needs to stop and avoid this area where everything he has tried to do has been firmly rejected as disruptive and against consensus, we're still nowhere in terms of a process to get him to stop. Can you help instead of trying to make Noetica the bad guy here? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hasteur did say this: AN or RfArb, but first see if Apteva will take on board the viewpoints (Apteva hasn't. or at least has not agreed to stop what is being asked to stop). HaugenErik (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I answer your numbered points:

1. Do you mean Apteva? If so, that is explained at Apteva's talkpage. The discussion was not started about Apteva, but about the state of an RFC/U and how to close it according to settled procedures. If you mean I have failed to notify you, please note: You are not the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about how to proceed in a case that cries out for closure when there is already a very strong consensus established, and you have sought to act administratively in the case. Anyway, you were notified of this discussion, at the talkpage of the RFC/U.
2. A request for closure was indeed posted at the location you suggest. I sought action on that request, and that seems to be fair and normal. I also sought clarification of some very obscure closing instructions. Obviously people interpret them differently, so I feel perfectly justified in making this approach here.
3. The neutrality and utility of your attempt at an administrative summing-up are seriously questionable, in the face of a clear expression of opinion from a great majority of the participating editors. Your immoderate language against me does you no credit: "since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first"; "if you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva". By itself, that is a good basis for action concerning your conduct. In particular, for a request or sanctions aimed at excluding you from intervening administratively in any RFC/U.
   I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording, which I say is inflammatory and abusive, and does not reflect the facts.
4. I know that you have been thanked for your actions in the past, and I don't doubt that they were well intended. I am concerned about the present very serious case, in which there is a plain consensus – one that your actions might possibly nullify, despite your good intentions here also.
5. My request here was specifically for an "admin who is experienced in these processes" to deal expeditiously with an important case where a clear consensus has emerged. It was specifically not for a non-admin. It is disappointing that you still intervened. No one is trying to "finesse the rules", except perhaps you (I regret having to say). I came here to get action, but also clarity about Byzantine rules that I am now convinced need re-drafting. (I might take some part in that, because I have experience with clear unambiguous drafting.)

Last, I note your condescending remarks about my taking a vacation. I could make similar remarks about you, with at least equal justification. I am a style specialist, with more edits at WP:MOS than any other editor (mostly to tidy things, and to guard against non-consensual or ill-documented changes), but believe me: I willingly absent myself from there for months at a time. Almost a year, in 2010. It is impertinent of you to make suggestions about my mental and emotional well-being, when I pursue the normal business of assisting to deal with disruption in a WP area that is my specialty. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording also.

♥

Noetica^Tea? 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Noetica: You said

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it?

You yourself quoted the most important aspect of closing an RFC/U. All participants, including the target of the RFC/U, must agree to the close. RFC/Us arnt meant to have teeth. They are a discussion that are meant to get the target to see what their poor behavior is. If they fail, then they fail and you move on to higher dispute resolution. However, ignoring the line that you underlined because you have 28 v 4 votes in favor of your preferred close doesn't mean squat and is completely against the purpose of an RFC/U. Sorry, it's unfair to you, but that's what they are. Hastuer gave good advice, I suggest you take it.--v/r - TP 17:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is nothing against you personally, but the instructions do say specifically that an admin can be requested for the close, and this was done. While non-admin closures of RFCs are often appreciated elsewhere in the interests of clearing backlogs, in my experience, any editors who wander into the area of MOS, myself included, quickly find themselves trying to walk on quicksand. Non-admins who have tried to close MOS-related RFCs in the past have deeply regretted it. A non-admin closure simply will not be seen as legitimate. In addition, you will not be viewed as "uninvolved" since you participated in the RFC/U yourself, here: WP:Requests for comment/Apteva#Outside view by Hasteur, recommending that hyphens and en-dashes be replaced by spaces. The sky is blue, the pope is Catholic, and Noetica is Noetica. Let it go.

So we are back to Dicklyon's original question. Is there a suggested process for requesting a community ban here at WP:AN?

Neotarf (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most people who wander over to MOS make one or two edits, almost 300 in the last couple of years, while less than half a dozen made over 50 edits, and only two over 100 edits each (one of whom quit editing WP because of being tired of "arguing with [deleted] about trivia"). Not sure about it being quicksand, but it has not exactly been what anyone would call welcoming, although the talk page header says "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" (it was missing for part of last year). On the talk page almost 500 editors made one or two edits (about half), and just over half a dozen made over 500 edits each. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, twenty-eight editors have just signed a statement saying they want you to change your behavior, and you are babbling about numbers of edits???!!1! Do you have any clue about what is going on here? Are you willing to pay any attention to them? —Neotarf (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mostly 28 signatures, with sparse comments: Remember that the format of the RFC/U was very limited, with the restriction that other users "endorse" each view (by signature), with little commentary, where the comments were fractionated onto the attached talk-page. For those reasons, Apteva has stated, here, that it will take a while to wade through the various comments (and gobs of signatures) to find real explanations. Plus, remember, that the RFC/U did not require diff-links to prove claims, and so Apteva will have difficulty following some opinions about alleged incidents from months ago, with no diff-link text to provide specific details about each claim. In essense, that RFC/U was a pile of vague claims that there had been some problems, but few specifics. In fact, I think many people do not understand the talk of "false consensus" as meaning that although a consensus was reached to draft a wp:DASH page, that result seemed to have been forced into agreement, and did not account for true opposition, where the results should have been "no consensus" and hence no rule to suggest dashes be used in some cases. Another problem was the notion that "6,000 people" could agree and 1 opposed person be right, because actually, per wp:CONSENSUS, a wiki-consensus must align with policies, as determined by a wider consensus, and no "local consensus" (even among "6,000" people) can override a long-term policy as developed by the combined attention of 110,000 active editors each month on Wikipedia (33,000 editing over 5 article-edits per month). So the issues about "no consensus" were in relation to those problems, rather than the claim that "consensus was being ignored". I hope that clarified the mystery of why consensus needs to be broadened. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban for Apteva

Based on the RFC/U and discussion here, and User:Apteva's rejection of all relevant findings and advice, I propose that we declare a community ban for Apteva, from engaging in pushing anti-en-dash and anti-MOS theories, including the theory that MOS and TITLE are in conflict. After the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, summarized in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close with 28 editors' endorsements, and considering Apteva's rejection of those findings and continued dispruptive pushing of these theories in the New Year, I see no alternatives (since the RFC/U can't be closed without his agreement and bothering the Arbcom with this seems unnecessary given the clear community consensus).

The consensus RFC/U summary says:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

And the continued disruption is evident in Apteva's WT:TITLE discussion, including these 2013 items:

• WT:TITLE diff – holding out for his idiosyncratic view with "The very core of using consensus is that even if 6,000 agree with something and only one disagrees, that one just might be right."
• WT:TITLE diff – continuing his long-lost case of Comet Hale–Bopp being incorrectly named.
• contributors data – showing Apteva dominating discussion at WP:TITLE in this new year, in spite of months of being told by many that this behavior is disruptive.

Rephrasing slightly for the context, I propose the following ban be enacted:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, and his pushing of the theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles, has been disruptive. Based on the consensus reaction of the community, Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for an immediate block and/or a request for arbitration.

I believe any uninvolved admin can close and approve this ban here based on the existing discussions linked, especially given the existing AE discretionary sanctions in place concerning MOS and TITLE; I suggest we get Apteva's response here, and then not bother to repeat the reactions that are so richly represented already in the linked RFC/U and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A topic ban and community ban are different things; may want to clarify. --Rschen7754 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." I'm referring to a community-imposed topic ban. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Ok, that's a topic ban. When you say "community ban" or just ban in general, you're talking about an indefinite block that can only be overturned by consensus or Arbcom and is usually the result of long term abuse. A topic ban, however, is...well you know.--v/r - TP 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The topic ban needs to be defined broadly though, the area of disruption has been wide. —Neotarf (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've been monitoring this from a distance, and the fact that Apteva does not understand what she is doing wrong is quite disturbing and disruptive. --Rschen7754 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  While I occasionally miss these, that is he or she thank you. Or xe. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This should be at ANI, not AN. I have been watching the progress of the RfCU and I must say that a topic ban on hyphens and dashes is long overdue. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a ban proposal rather than discussion of a specific incident, so is entirely appropriate at AN. KTC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This was already taken to ANI. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Apteva disruption —Neotarf (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And if no action was warranted then, and my behavior has changed, which it has (but not my beliefs, which I am entitled to express appropriately), why would any action be warranted today? I would ask that I be allowed to read over the reams of accusations at the RFC/U and correct my behavior on the basis of those accusations. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The difference now is that you haven't stopped beating the dead horse despite the advice from the last ANI. We know you want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way. Repeated consensus has decided against this, and yet you continue to push your agenda, including to the point of disruption of talk page functionality. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It is false that I "want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way". It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately. What we do is not under any one editors control, and wanting something a particular way is ludicrous. Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It's called a "house style", where consensus has decided to uses dashes and hyphens in a certain way, because other style guides have conflicting advice. You don't like what consensus has decide and/or you believe you know what's best for WP - both attitudes are ones that lead to disruption and eventually blocks. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Does this propsed topic ban on hyphens v dashes extend to article content and article titles via the RM process or does it just apply to the MOS guideline? I think this aspect should extraordinairly clear in the propsal. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We have also seen disruptive refactoring discussion, archiving, resetting of bots, tampering with templates, etc. None of this was a problem when Apteva was editing only in article space. —Neotarf (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal includes "must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories". I have not noticed any disruption in article content, but if the dash aversion makes itself felt in articles, too, then the provision "Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes" ought to be enough to keep the disruption down, I would think. I'm not into trying to wikilawyer the details; I'm sure xe can be warned if the behavior seems like it's near the line, so xe's not going to accidentally get ximself blocked. Propose a clarification here if you think one is warranted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the strongly expressed consensus, and the topic ban as a regrettable necessity. (I have closed the RFC/U, though I was involved. It was just a technical matter, since the transfer to this page.) There is no need for a new round of voting here, of course. Everything has already been thoroughly gone over at the RFC/U and its talkpage, with a convincing outcome.
  Noetica^Tea? 23:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Which I reverted - no involved editor can close a non-consensus RfC. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Not helpful to your cause or to anything else, Apteva. I have reverted your reversion. For one thing, you are centrally involved. For another, it is highly disruptive for you to revert a technical closure (fully explained as such), which any editor in good standing may perform, regardless of involvement. Nothing in the closing instructions for RFC/U provides otherwise. I call on editors to assist in keeping the RFC/U duly closed; the discussion is now correctly transferred here. Noetica^Tea? 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Typical. I trust that an uninvolved admin will revert the above action and post a warning appropriately on the above editor's talk page. How many times was the RfC closed and reverted at MOS by the same edit warrior?[26] Edit warring is prohibited. [The only thing I am asking for is that this editor learn to stop edit warring.] Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Uh huh. A quick and dirty link to a complex matter that was thoroughly dealt with at ANI, with no action against any of a whole bunch of parties including some shady old hand posting as an IP? Sorry – no more straws to clutch at. Move this along now? Noetica^Tea? 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, now I remember that sockfarm-infested RFC. Apteva/Delphi234 admitted to being one of the IPs, that resolved to central England, even though Apteva is obviously American. But nobody ever copped to the rest of the IPs, also in central England, but writing in American English.—Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Just to set the record straight, I was not involved in that RFC either as an IP or logged in. I did straighten out the archives and keep the thread from getting archived yet again. Apteva (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• support Whatever it is. I'm happy with an indef site ban by now, after it has gone on this long. Rarely have I seen an editor so clue-resistant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support with broadly defined topics. —Neotarf (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – even here, well into the 11th hour, ban looming, Apteva seems intent via yet more ill-judged remarks upon depriving Wikipedia of the one editor who knows an en—dash from their elbow. (I seem to recall that Socrates did not choose his last words optimally.) Oculi (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban, and Oppose Community ban. Just in case, I'm gonna make it clear: A topic ban may be useful, because the user can still edit and enjoy the good parts of the pedia; also, the virus that infects his desire of changing things and all the drama is gone. I oppose a community ban because whe've had enough of that. I don't want another Jack Merridew case here. Let's just cut it simple, remove what has been bugging the community, and give the user the free will to edit elsewhere and being harmless. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• OpposeConditional Oppose for now, see my comments at the Opposition to a topic ban section. As I said below consider my !vote to become support or partial support if Apteva does not keep to that. PaleAqua (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Switching to pure oppose, with the understanding that if Apteva breaks the voluntary ban, that I will switch to support. Would still see a statement from Apteva agreeing to the terms in the A resolution to the dispute section below. PaleAqua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a ban along these lines, broadly defined—I think we've had enough of this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose RFC/U is a form of dispute resolution. As of right now, the RFC/U has been closed for 9 hours. Give the editor time to reflect on what has transpired. He/she now knows that the community has found their behavior to be disruptive. If they are wise, then they will learn from this. However, if in a week or two the disruption has continued, then we can revisit a topic ban. Right now though I feel such a topic ban would be preemptive rather than solving a problem that may well have been at least partially resolved through the RFC/U. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  That close was to bring the conversation here, after Apteva had rejected the consensus summary of the RFC/U and continued the months of disruption into the new year. Dicklyon (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously the purpose of all of our dispute resolution mechanisms is to help us learn to work harmoniously together, and not call for blocks and bans. It is certainly reasonable to wait a week and see if the RFC helped. But just to be specific, that close was allegedly because of the conversation here, not to bring the conversation here. But this is the "Admin attention to an RFC/U, please" thread, and an admin was specifically requested, and rejected, as the proper close was to just let it finish, which it has, but it is not correct to close it by anyone involved, and that should be reverted. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  AQ, Apteva has soundly rejected what was asked at the RFC/U. Even here in this page, since the RFC/U was closed, Apteva has said: It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. We've waited months since it has been made clear to Apteva that Apteva's campaigns are disruptive; there have been no changes. What is going to happen in the next week? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  I fully agree his behavior and frivolous RM nominations of the past are disruptive. At least for now, he has ceased the behavior that caused the RFC/U, which was his attempts to force policy changes. The first quote you link he is correcting Masem on what his views are and the second he is explaining his reasoning for making past decisions. Now I do think he needs to admit his wrong in attempting to force policy changes and denying consensus.

• I see a lot of editors upset over the long discussions Apteva has caused these last few months, and I understand the frustration. To be honest though, I don't think this editor has reached the point of needing topic ban restrictions. He is coming very close to that point, but he hasn't crossed that line. I think the best course of action is for an admin to give him a strongly worded final warning on his talk page. Looking through his talk page archives, he has not to received one yet. That would go hand in hand with the RFC/U, which I think was an eye opener for him, Give him time to reflect on what has transpired. If Apteva goes back to push for a policy change, then we can revisit a topic ban. At which point I would support a topic ban. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you can argue that Apteva has not received enough warnings. I've made it clear to Apteva several times that this behavior needs to stop, and I know other editors have as well. The comments at the RFC/U should have served as a warning. User_talk:Apteva/Archive_4#Only_warning also—notice the total lack of understanding the problem in Apteva's response: it's others that have the problem. You might be right about interpreting Apteva's comments that I've quoted, but I asked if Apteva stands by those in that context and the reply was only "a temporary 'recusal'"—so by the editor's own words we'll be back at this at some point. This has gone on long enough; it needs to stop. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Not so. There are appropriate ways of bringing anything up and inappropriate ways. What I am asked is to be more appropriate in my editing style. Not a problem. Apteva (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  How can you at this point think that any of this is about your editing style? What are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  It was a polite way of saying bringing up the same issue 100 times. Or 4 times, or however many times it was. And no no one needs to say oh but it was at least x number of times. It was beyond the threshold of some. Had it been someone else, for me, they are welcome to bring it up a million times - it just gets quarantined to a subpage where it bothers no one. Apteva (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed, that section was particularly worrisome. I saw that section when I was reading through his talk page archives earlier today. The warning from MBisanz on Apteva's talk page was over his attempted disruption of the RFC/U. (When I mentioned "giving Apteva a final warning" above, I was referring to the hyphen issue.) Apteva demonstrated his uncertainty on what section of the policy he violated. Assuming good faith here, Apteva has displayed fundamental misunderstanding of a key Wikipedia policy (if this is the case, he really should go back an study a refresher on policy). Assuming the worst, then he is simply playing the I didn't hear that game. Now, for the moment I am assuming good faith on the part Apteva. It's part of the reason I am opposing the topic ban at the moment. Then again, I have usually been very cautious about supporting a topic ban proposal. The other reason is I feel it is too soon after the RFC/U to make a decent decision. The editor hasn't edited enough since the closure for anyone to determine his intentions. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Once again, that is his or her, thank you. And yes feel free to open an AN/I if I bring up what I can not say during the temporary moratorium. I am certain that it is not going to happen. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  AQ, Apteva has been warned about hyphens. Consider the RFC/U, where the message was rejected. I told Apteva this behavior was disruptive here: Talk:Comet_Hale–Bopp#Misnamed. Others have also made this abundantly clear to Apteva, over and over, at countless other venues. It does not affect Apteva's behavior. Look—I have no doubt that Apteva is operating in good faith. Obviously Apteva is totally convinced about these issues, and is trying to help and make Wikipedia better. That doesn't make this behavior less disruptive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per proposer, and on the further basis that Apteva's continued efforts to argue this tedious nonsense about lines that our readers can't tell apart, and wouldn't care about if they could, even as the ban is being discussed here. Nothing short of an outright ban is going to shut him/her up, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

His attitude on his talk page would suggest otherwise. If you think about it, the concern he raised was legitimate. One's keyboard has a dash, yet articles use em dashed. It is a bit odd to say the least. There is a redirect from the dash version anyway, so ultimately the debate isn't worth much, but it is still a valid point. However, he took it too far and argued his point too long after consensus was reached. This resulted in an RFC/U where the community established that continuing to debate the topic was causing disruption. With this in mind, Apteva has two options. He can continue to debate the issue and end up with a topic ban, or he can let the issue lie and go on with editing articles. It's really up to Apteva, does he want to receive a topic ban due to the fact that he debated how many pixels a line should have in a title?

The RFC/U was used as dispute resolution in this case. It has run it's course, the community established that and his continuing the debate was disruptive, and Apteva now knows his options. So far, Apteva has ceased performing the actions that led RFC/U. Providing this remains so, the RFC/U served it's purpose and resolved the dispute. If it continues in the future, then we can revisit a topic ban discussion. Right now, a topic ban would simply be a punishment for causing past disruption. Let the past remain in the past, topic bans are not intended to be punitive, but rather preventive. There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased. So let's lay this to rest. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased". If he/she had, you might have a point - but Apteva is still arguing the case for whatever-length-lines-wherever, even in this discussion. A ban will (hopefully) prevent any more of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What he is asking for in the section below is cooler heads when discussing MoS topics. Yes, this is not the place or the time for it due to the fact that this is a topic ban debate concerning him, but it is a reasonable request. MoS debates can quite quickly degrade into heated exchanges. Followed by editors attempting to topic ban another group of editors or one specific editor. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alpha, you do not seem to be tracking Apteva's actual activity. Instead of considering comments in the RFC/U and trying to settle on how his behavior could change to mollify the community, he simply used it as another platform for obsessive campaigning against dashes. And did the same thing at WT:MOS, and at WT:AT, and other places, as if the RFC/U were a joke. He makes claims that he's backing off and cooling down, but these are just words. His actions have not changed at all, not even after this WP:AN was opened! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well AQ, it's easy to see where you stand on the style matters that Apteva is utterly obsessed with. You are seriously mistaken in thinking that editors dedicated to MOS development want to shut anyone up. That is a distortion of history, and will not stand up to scrutiny. WT:MOS always welcomes constructive involvement from as many in the community as possible. But in the last couple of years MOS has been assailed by three or four editors who refuse to accept its consensually settled role, and do all that they can to marginalise it. Apteva is the most recent of those, and the most ingenious so far. The fast footwork continues, even here. Only as an extreme last resort do editors take an action like this RFC/U, which resulted in overwhelming agreement over its 35 days. The conclusion of the RFC/U, already settled and simply needing formalisation here? Stop the unremitting and wasteful disruption. With decisive action, for a change. Noetica^Tea? 11:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite true, there are many editors over at MOS that are very open to constructive changes to the MOS. However, all you have to do is take a look at the ARBOM case to see that there are...problems. And yes, there have been several editors of concerning attitude at MOS over the last few years. However, there are also editors at MOS that make the place particularly volatile for anyone attempting to hold new discussions. Now I am not going to name names, that is a can of worms I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. However, I will give you a hint, some of them participated in the last ARBCOM proceedings.

The RFC/U closure itself was a procedural train wreck. First, the wording on the leading closure statement was changed and other editors accept, but it now becomes unclear whether or not everyone listed really supports the current wording. Second, the conversation from the RFC/U spills over to AN in an attempt to close, then the RFC is closed by a participant in the RFC/U as moved to AN (effectively nullifying any decisions in the RFC/U). After it is closed, the subject of the RFC/U reopens only to be reclosed by the original closure (wheel warring). And now the supporters of the topic ban are acting like the decision in the RFC/U are binding and consensus based. The only thing that had somewhat established solid consensus was that his continued attempts to change policy was causing disruption.

As for where I stand on the issue, yes, I think having em dashes in titles is silly when every keyboard on the planet doesn't have an em dash key. It goes against WP:COMMONNAME. However, community consensus has been established and I respect that. Ultimately we have redirects that use dashes, rendering the largely cosmetic em dash debate unnecessary. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a WP:SNOWBALL consensus in that RFC/U, Alpha Q. Please look again. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I closed the RFC/U exactly according to the guidelines, in the strict and only correct way after checking in here for advice (see the top of this whole section). Anyone could have done it; someone had to do it; I did it: citing the plain reasons for the technical close, necessary once the process had moved to AN. That is not a train wreck; it is perfectly straightforward course of events, kept on track in part by my diligence and by the work of Dicklyon, despite attempts at derailment.
• The main statement itself was strongly and specifically endorsed, as can clearly be seen. I stemmed the disruption caused by the late addition of alternative wording, marking a clear point in time that was relevant. Again, someone had to. Any attempt to portray the RFC/U as somehow compromised is a plain distortion, for what now appear to be partisan reasons.
• As for ArbCom, some central players at MOS have exerted themselves and gone to extraordinary lengths, in cooperation with ArbCom to achieve peace and consensual stability, in two actions in recent times. In both, an arch-enemy of MOS was a central player. In the more recent case, he appeared as a sockpuppet and did all he could to impugn me personally, until he was exposed and given a one-year block and an indefinite topic ban. No MOS editor was so much as censured or warned; but another vocal advocate against MOS was given a warning. The facts are on record; get them right, please.
• MOS and its dedicated editors, who never rush to litigation and do welcome all bona fide, useful participation, are not under examination here. The topic over the last five weeks has been the egregiously disruptive conduct of one editor. Please stay on topic.
• It is appropriate now for an admin to review what the community has said at the RFC/U, and to complete the process.

Noetica^Tea? 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinionated description of editors in the ARBCOM case, the actual events of the ARBCOM case, the MOS editors, and the current RFC/U clearly demonstrates how deeply involved you are in this issue. You have a very positive opinion about the creator of the RFC/U and a very negative opinion of the subject of the RFC/U. That puts your closure in a very questionable position. There were other uninvolved users that could have closed that debate in time. Now regardless of whether or not your closure was technically appropriate, you should have let another user reclose the debate after the subject of the debate reopened it. If an involved admin had closed that discussion only to have it reopened (even by an involved party), it is very likely he would have asked for a second completely uninvolved admin to review his decision. It prevents drama and further conflict. The alternative is wheel warring, which is hardly appropriate given the situation. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on hyphen and en-dash edits, move requests, and arguments, broadly interpreted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• 'Oppose per AQ, with a warning to Apteva that if they're not banned now, immediate and significant change in behavior will likely be necessary to avoid a ban in the future. NE Ent 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Noted, and I am certain that it will not be an issue. No ban is needed because of the voluntary moratorium. Apteva (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Apteva has been the single most obsessively tendentious and disruptive editor, on style matters he does not even properly understand, that I've ever encountered in 7+ years on WP. The topic ban should be extended to Wikid77 and Enric Naval LittleBenW, who form a triumvirate with Apteva of incessant WP:FORUMshopping and asking every WP:PARENT they can think of, again and again and again, because they refuse to acknowledge and pretend they can't see that virtually everyone else who's ever commented on the dispute disagrees with them, with their their tag-team WP:BATTLEGROUND abuse of talk pages, or usually both. It should also be extended to LittleBenW who has recently joined them; after his own block and a topic ban for precisely this kind of "style warrior" WP:SOAPBOX browbeating and canvassing against diacritics in article titles, he's simply switched to anti-dash campaigning, and gone right back to it. All four of these people seem to me to have begun as well-meaning, active editors working on improving articles, but have descended into some kind of WP:GREATWRONGS Hell of rage against anyone who dares to disagree with them, their community-abusive tactics or their badly broken logic. They are no longer here to write an encyclopedia, but to wage a typographical jihad just for the hell of it; they don't even seem to care any more what nit-pick they're trolling about, as long as they can keep the attention piling on and keep the flames burning higher and higher, wasting as many other editors' time as possible. My hope is that a broad (not just hyphens & dashes), MOS & AT topic ban (a la PMAnderson) for at least a year will solve the problem. If not, well, we all know where ARBCOM is. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Clarifications: A community ban would be okay, too; whatever works. Regardless what kind it is, it needs to include dash/hyphen, and preferably style issues more broadly, not just at MOS and AT/NC talk pages, but generally, including on article and user talk pages, XfDs, etc. Apteva does not competently understand complex style matters, or WP policy, but is 100% convinced he does and that everyone else is basically just crazy or stupid when they don't agree with him, so he'll never actually improve in this regard. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Come on now. I have dropped several issues when I saw that I wasn't getting anywhere. My last activities have been arguing in WT:MOS in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_133#Comet_Hale-Bopp. And one RM for a minor planet (they are named by the same authority as comets) that I shouldn't have started because it was obviously going to fail. I have currently stopped because of: being tired + holidays + unsure of how to proceed + Apteva hickjaking the threads to discuss again airport names and others. In the future I might get around to emailing the IAU again and making one focused discussion in WT:MOS for only that particular topic. I have given up on other hyphen/dash names, MOS editors demand an arbitrarily high amount of proof that I can't meet for any of those groups of names. I didn't comment on Apteva's RfC/U because I am not comfortable with his behaviour. I even advised Apteva to stop participating in MOS discussions and go back to editing articles. It's a pity that he didn't listen to me. I guess I should have insisted more. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take you at face value on that, and strike your name, then. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've struck all my mentions of you, but I want to be clear why I included you; you showed a pattern of "following Apteva around" to post responses that seemed to entirely bolster his anti-consensus viewpoints, and to be engaging in the same kinds of anti-MOS conspiracy theories. Now, you seem to be suffering from the same "if I pretend there is no consensus, there is no consensus!" delusion. Just above, you simultaneously say you have given up on hyphen/dash and want everyone to notice how you drop issues when you realize you're not on the consensus side of them, yet in the same breath you vow to dig some kind of phantasmal "smoking gun" out of IAU to wave in our faces. You are not listening. For the umpteenth time, WP's MOS is not bound to do what some particular field does in their own journals just because they do it; we have our own house style, just as they do, and where theirs conflicts with ours, we are apt to reject their style quirk. (And they have some really weird quirks, like dropping the hyphens from hyphenated surnames, which MOS would certainly not tolerate.) Most importantly, you are "pulling an Apteva" in ignoring that we already have a long-standing, difficult-to-arrive-at consensus on hyphens and en-dashes, and are planning your own mini-campaign to go get more "proof" from IAU that we're all "wrong". I named you for a reason here the first time around. WP:JUSTDROPIT. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The IAU email is because of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#What_multiple_reliable_sources_explicitly_say_-_continuing. Unfortunately, I got dispirited by the frontal rejection of the first email. The thread has since been derailed by you, Apteva, Noetica and Dicklyon. Near the end of the thread there some attempts to rescue the thread by Peter Coxhead, Quale or Neotarf, but they are all drowned in the noise..... It's all very sad..... --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think anything Wikid77 has done warrants any kind of sanctions. I've seen nothing terribly disruptive, unlike the months of forum shopping and tireless crusading that we've seen from Apteva. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take months to be disruptive. Wikid77 says everything Apteva does, in all the same places, with all the same logic flaws, conspiracy theories about MOS, endless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness, and stubborn, outspoken refusal to acknowledge consensus. I call WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it does takes months. We gave Apteva months. Wikid77 joined him only about 33 days ago, and has been much less vocal and persistent; probably less than 1 related post per day. He is entitled to express his opinion, and entitled to support Apteva, to be stubborn, and to not acknowledge consensus, as long as the volume of contributions doesn't rise to a disruptive dominance like Apteva's does. Not entitled to call himself uninvolved, though. Let's not derail the discussion by dragging in people who for whatever reason take Apteva's side. Focus on the disrupter. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per SMcCandlish. --John (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I understand the concerns, I understand the frustrations, and I understand the desire to get this thing done and archived. I do hope, though, that something voluntary - a promise to abstain as described below - could be achieved rather than an all-encompassing topic ban. Depending on events in the next few hours, I may reluctantly support a topic ban. dci | TALK 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose per Apteva's comment below. dci | TALK 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

order=-edit_count

• I can assure everyone that I will not be discussing hyphens and dashes. No topic ban or block is called for, and would certainly immediately be appealed, wasting even more of our time when the proper thing to do is close this, accept that I have agreed to a voluntary moratorium, get back to real work improving the encyclopedia and let bygones by bygone. Hey it is a new year and this is hardly the way to start out. Apteva (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Apteva, this is good news, thank you. Can you confirm that this is permanent, that you will not discuss hyphens, dashes, or MOS/AT interactions? Thank you! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oh dear, I see above you said "temporary moratorium" again after I asked this. I can't see any reason why we would want to go through this again later; a topic ban seems to be the only way to resolve this, there has been quite enough disruption. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Apteva, any chance you could agree to the terms in A resolution to the dispute section below? PaleAqua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  It is not very well written, and there is no need for it. Obviously we all follow all guidelines and policies. Obviously those change from time to time, but the principles behind them rarely change. Even though the five pillars page has been edited over a thousand times little has changed in actual content. Obviously some editors have pointed to half a dozen issues they have had with me, mostly from editors whom I have warned about violating policy or guideline. Obviously I am willing to learn how to edit in a manner that will not lead to them having any issues with me. I am only here to help. Apteva (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Holding the community to ransom by explicitly threatening to waste even more of our time with bureaucracy if you don't get your way? Not a great development. Besides if your promise not to engage in this dispute is even remotely genuine then why are you so opposed to a topic ban? No, no thanks; we've already explored the avenue of voluntary topic bans and it failed miserably. It's time for more formal action to end this and so I support the topic ban proposed. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Not "good news" at all. Apteva is trolling. This is all a game to him. Just topic ban him, let him appeal and lose, and let's all get back to doing what we came here for. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib.

Agreed. Way too little, way too late, way too slippery, as always. This latest desperate and utterly forced dodge is groundwork for yet more ingenious disruption. We have seen all this before, and the natural assumption of good faith has long expired. Apteva needs to show real insight voluntarily, and genuine change – and that means hearing the advice that admins and other experienced editors have been giving for many months, without being dragged kicking and screaming into reasonableness. Noetica^Tea? 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I fully support a broadly interpreted topic ban in this case. There’s no downside here for Apteva since they claim they will voluntarily adhere to a topic ban anyway. However, there is tremendous upside here for Wikipedia. Our titling policy, naming conventions, MOS, etc. is a minefield of contentiousness already that disrupts WP every day in many ways. That has to change. A broadly interpreted topic ban in this case will serve as a message to others who seek to challenge already fragile consensus with forum shopping, tendentious editing and the “I am always right” attitude. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban of Apteva: After days of consideration, and concerns about wp:TAGTEAM hounding of User:Apteva, I see that people are willing to hound anyone who supports Apteva, but I will not empower those people by topic-banning Apteva, nor User:Enric Naval, nor myself (User:Wikid77), nor others who oppose the pro-dash push to force dashes into titles where the wp:COMMONNAME spelling has used hyphens for many years, decades, or centuries, as in the case of the 1887 "Michelson-Morley experiment" (which has been spelled with a hyphen in over 93% of reliable sources; see top 1,000 entries in Google Scholar search). However, if anyone asks why Wikipedia has such widespread use of dashes, when many grammar or punctuation errors exist in the same articles, then I think I can begin to explain the bizarre imbalance. Meanwhile, I applaud Apteva's willingness to reduce discussions about dash/hyphen problems, and I do not see the need for a topic ban, and BTW, I also support Apteva's wishes for a Happy New Year to all! -Wikid77 (talk) 01:13/05:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikid77, I think that you are mistaken here. I think that Apteva has stepped over the boundaries of disruptiveness. And you are following his path, as if he was an example to follow. He is not. By following his example you are buying numbers to get yourself blocked in a not-very-far future. Apteva means well, but his actions in WT:MOS create a lot of noise and no improvement to the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Apteva is basically correct, in almost all posts which I have read; however, perhaps the message is not understood in some venues. The big issue to me, is that a guideline (wp:MOS) does not override a policy (wp:COMMONNAME), where instead, a policy should be changed to reflect a suggested guidance as becoming a stricter rule of policy. People have rejected the pro-dash naming, as unlikely to gain consensus, in the title-name policy. The result is: there is no consensus to change wp:TITLE to force dashes. I am not shouting that "MOS is totally wrong" but, again, the core problem is when trying to consider a guideline as overriding a policy (wp:TITLE), then we might as well write essays which override guidelines to then override policies. See that problem? Another problem is that endashes titles are unusual, peculiar, or rare in the world at large, and that makes Wikipedia seem imbalanced to some readers. As a straight-A student in both high school and universities, I learned to notice very small details, and the widespread overuse of dashes looms large in my view. Then, another problem is wp:Accessibility between hyphens/dashes (for both keyboard and display) which, as a computer scientist, I understand in extremely fine detail (among the thousands of Unicode values), as having developed early search-engine technology (multi-word hypertext scans) years before Google was founded. However, for years here, I ignored the hyphen/dash debates, as imagining that other users would re-balance Wikipedia to align with the world-at-large usage, and that did not happen. Hence, I came to investigate why Wikipedia has pushed dashes in such an over-the-top, fanatical fashion. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem unaware of this clarification to WP:TITLE and thus to COMMONNAME. If COMMONNAME ever applied to dashes, it doesn't now. Art LaPella (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctant support of topic ban of Apteva: I am particularly impressed by this statement, in which he boasts that he is but one of the few people who knows how to uses hyphens and dashes properly. This implies that he still thinks he is right and all others who disagree with him are wrong, in the face of the considerable number of editors who have expressed dissatisfaction with his flying in the face of consensus and his chronic recalcitrance. I have no problems to him expressing his opinions or concerns, but he keeps on banging his drum tirelessly whilst clearly having stopped listening a long time ago – because everyone is wrong, of course ;-). Whilst I may have been tempted to further assume good faith, the belligerent statement above strongly suggests that a topic ban may be a minimum that will be needed to end the continuing disruption. If he has no intention of continuing to discuss or otherwise war on matters related to dashes and hyphens widely construed, then a topic ban will not affect how he behaves from now on. If, however, his intention is to continuing to argue and lawyer as he has so far done on this page, then the topic ban will have bite. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 05:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  That certainly was not meant as a boast. It was meant to show that that was an area that I was competent to make contributions, in fixing other editors lack of awareness, and I certainly hope that will reconsider. I do sort of liken it to not being able to use the letter k. Apteva (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Apteva has been disruptive in the area of hyphens and dashes, and moreover seems to be not be able to admit that he's wrong or that consensus is against him. I'm not saying that dashes should be used over hyphens in the names of comets, airports, bridges, etc., or hyphens over dashes. I'm just saying that Apteva always believes xe is right, which makes consensus-finding impossible. David1217 ^{What I've done} 08:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Strange. I get the same vote as everyone else, that is just the way WP works. Sometimes I am right sometimes I am wrong. It is not an issue. Apteva (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The disruption has to stop, and it is obvious merely from this discussion, let alone the RfC/U, that the only way to achieve that is to topic ban Apteva. Discussion of what kind of dash to use should only involve editors who understand how to operate in a community that depends on collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?)

Unresolved

The closer did not specifically take note of the community's consensus to ban Apteva from pushing "any position ... against the MOS being applicable to article titles", and now Apteva has restarted his disruption along that line, by introducing a proposal at WT:TITLE that is so far from any possible acceptability as to be disruptive even if it were not specifically banned behavior. I will ask the closer to review his closing statement and see if he is willing clarify the terms of the topic ban to Apteva. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles, today Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• How does the wording of the topic ban cover that edit? Monty₈₄₅ 22:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Apteva's comment at WT:TITLE is a violation of the hyphen/dash topic-ban (by User:Seraphim: AN ban-close 11:40, 6 January 2013), and most others here agree, as asking for "clarification" to widen the topic-ban to apply to article titles. In fact, while editing that wt:TITLE thread myself, I had noticed Apteva's posted comment, and thought, "Good that this is not a post to wt:MOS, but instead far removed from style issues in there" because wp:TITLE is a policy (with wp:COMMONNAME to name article titles to match reliable sources), and only wp:MOS deals with dash/hyphens per the MOS people insisting that dashes are a style issue, not a title-spelling issue, and so Apteva's post was far away from any hyphen/dash debate. However, claiming that Apteva made a ban violation seems like obvious 3-month wp:Wikihounding by User:Dicklyon (posted here), who also requested the topic-ban against Apteva, after starting the wp:RfC/Apteva (started 30 November 2012), and posting the most comments there. The pattern is becoming undeniable. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:15, 11 January, 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly concur. This user is not going to stop unless herded into a corner. I repeat that the editor appears to have abandoned most productive editing in favor of playing WP as a MMORPG of "who can troll the most disputes". This has to stop. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, when you said, "herded into a corner" ([27]) that sounds like talking about cattle and then you said "troll" but I thought you considered Apteva a mere insect; I guess your personal attacks are getting slightly less vicious. Please re-read wp:Civility, about working with human beings. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not exactly have a minimum edit requirement (or if it does it is exactly one edit), but no I have not abandoned productive editing, and am currently about half way through updating all of the solar in country articles and just created Solar power in Greece. Apteva (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• For my own thoughts here, I would say that this edit is clearly related to Apteva's activity in the area of dashes/hyphens, and that this is both a violation of the ban and that no extension of the ban is necessary for it to be covered as such. I would see this as a clear attempt at gaming the ban by not technically mentioning the previous dispute subject. However, I would encourage opening a discussion at WP:ANI for wider input. As I imposed the ban myself, I would not be comfortable also unilaterally imposing a block based upon it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not asking you to block, but to revise and clarify your closing statement of the ban, in accord with what you just agreed it includes, perhaps using the wording that I quoted, that so many editors endorsed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have no intention of skirting or breaking the topic ban that is already in place. MOS and Title cover a lot of other topics and it is solely those that I am addressing. I will, though be appealing the topic ban, and discussion is welcome when that is done. The dominant response is that it is not a violation of the ban. Apteva (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Discussion is welcome [when you have appealed the existing topic ban]" And what happens in the meantime? You continue to act as if there just isn't any topic ban? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What may surprise everyone is that the subject of the topic ban is of no interest to me. What is important to me is building a world class encyclopedia that everyone can be proud of, and if that is wrong, then point me to a better project that has any hope of achieving that objective. In the meantime I have every intention to follow the topic ban. That is what to expect in the meantime. Apteva (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There was also this edit, on a discussion of MOS punctuation styling that took place on the WT:TITLE page. —Neotarf (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Per "I don't see anything here that violates the topic ban", that is not an issue. But the place to bring it up first is my talk page, not where it occurs, as it has nothing to do with the discussion. This has been at the core of the incivility at MOS, although secondary to the edit warring; discussing editor conduct, and not sticking to discussing ways to improve the page. This is not an appropriate habit to get into. Editing Wikipedia is not like being in a chatroom discussing anything and everything with everyone. There is a correct and an incorrect place for discussing things. Apteva (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been brought to your attention at your talk page. [28] People can check these things, you know. —Neotarf (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The sequence is instead of someone bringing it up on my talk page, it was brought up on the policy talk page at 23:10, 8 January 2013. Then long after it was settled, it was added to my talk page, at 01:14, 11 January 2013. I am not complaining about bringing up a settled issue on my talk page. What I am talking about is the inappropriateness of bringing up editor conduct on any guideline, policy, or article talk page, ever. It simply is not appropriate. That is what WP:FOC discusses. Focus on content, not conduct. Apteva (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Settled? No, several editors expressed their concern that this was a violation of the topic ban, since the community consensus was in favor of also restricting Apteva from pushing the "theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles". However this phrase was not written into the ban notice, so no one followed up on the issue, but merely requested that Apteva leave it at that. —Neotarf (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The job of the closing admin is to determine consensus and decide on what action is required. As it was, the closing admin went beyond what was asked, not less than what was asked. Bear in mind that everything requires consensus, not just what one editor wants. That is where it stands. Many of those voting for a topic ban, yourself included, were barred from voting on any sanctions, because per policy, sanctions can only be applied "via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". That point was never brought up. So yes there is a topic ban, no I am not happy about it, no I have no intention of violating it in any way, and yes I plan on appealing the ban. Apteva (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The closing statement for the RFC/U, signed by twenty-eight editors, says:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

Pushing this theory over and over is exactly what Apteva has been doing, again, over at WT:TITLE.

I would add my voice to Dicklyon's asking for clarification of whether this activity is included in the topic ban. —Neotarf (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The closer User:Seraphimblade has said that it is included, but said for this to be Apteva's warning. And though the told me to take it to ANI, someone there complained that I was forum shopping when I did. So, he skates again, but next time, here. I don't expect there will be a next time, though, after this clarification, which will hopefully be as effective as a block would have been. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Another violation

This edit again advocates for overthrowing what the MOS says about hyphens and dashes and titles. Does Apteva get immunity by saying it to Arbcom in the guise of a withdrawal of his topic-ban appeal? Or can we stop the disruption now? Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If ArbCom functions as our highest pseudo-court in all the land, anything should be discussable if it is related to the goings-on there and not against what ArbCom instructs. While your wording is off, I'd posit it's not blockable (and technically shouldn't be counted an offense). --Nouniquenames 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. If I'm ever topic banned and feel a need to publish a polemic on the topic, I'll do so in an Arbcom appeal, and then again in a withdrawal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Off topic - proposal to get at the real root of the problem

Whereas, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. This is fostered by creating and maintaining an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Whereas, Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Wikipedia as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. Whereas, Wikipedia exists only because of the community that creates and maintains it. Disagreements between editors on a wide variety of issues frequently occur. The airing of disagreements in a respectful and sincere manner for the purpose of resolution is normal and indeed desirable in any such collaborative project. Where disputes cannot be resolved amicably through the ordinary course of editing and discussion, the project's dispute resolution mechanisms may be used. Therefore, appropriate dispute resolution shall be applied, such as discussion, DR, RfC, and mediation to resolve any conflict that may exist between or within the WP:MOS and WP:Article titles. Furthermore, to remove the incivility that currently exists at WP:MOS, both the MOS and its talk page shall be treated as a Dispute Resolution page, and not edited unless a DR volunteer is present. There shall be no discussion of other editors, no discussion of how to apply the MOS (those questions shall be referred to the WP:Help desk), and no discussion or reference to violations of the MOS anywhere in Wikipedia. Discussion will be civil, and consist solely of improving the MOS. Anything else will be deleted or removed to the relevant users talk page. This sanction shall remain until either removed by Arbcom or the end of 2013. --Apteva (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC) oppose MOS isn't the problem, you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose per WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 00:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose—A lot of these whereas clauses are good, but the but the proposals are pretty far out in the weeds. How can we improve the MOS if we can't discuss whether it lines up with style that is in use? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Those whereas's are all Arbcom motions that all passed unanimously, so I would hope that all of them are good. What we are supposed to be doing, in my opinion is writing an encyclopedia. We write a few articles, write some guidelines, and go back to working on the encyclopedia. A better place to discuss style issues is at the help desk. Doing that has the added advantage that those who do not know a period from an asterisk can learn too, instead of the present method where only a few MOS specialists hang out. If you come upon something that is not in the MOS and you think it should be, then that can be brought up at the MOS talk page and if others agree added, or even just added to the MOS and if others disagree it can be discussed. But unless it is obvious vandalism it is better to discuss instead of edit warring, which is what is being done now. The above proposal I believe will go a long ways toward improving the current incivility that exists at the MOS. Apteva (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose a thicket of strange transplanted verbiage, in which we discern yet more ducking and weaving from Apteva. We've seen all of this before. These smokescreens were a great part of the problem; how do they now get to be a solution? NoeticaTea? 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose, per put a ****** cork in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. If Apteva has now accepted a voluntary topic ban, maybe the above "proposal" should be stricken. It's just a cut-and-paste from some page anyhow. —Neotarf (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Not an appropriate way to resolve the problem. dci | TALK 20:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose: More hand-waving and pretense that it's all everyone else's fault. It's a hard thing to say, but not everyone is well suited, temperamentally, emotionally, educationally, rationally, etc., to work in a broadly collaborative environment where compromise and the ability to understand others' viewpoints are required on a daily basis, and WP:Competence is required. Apteva, I think you need to read WP:5THWHEEL, and think about it, hard. I concur with Neotarf that acceptance of a voluntary topic ban moots Apteva's own stand-offish and impractical counter-proposal, so it should be boxed. But voluntarily agreeing to leave the matter alone for 30 days does nothing to moot the proposal further up, with a lot of support, that Apteva be formally topic banned indefinitely on this "issue". I reiterate that I think, like PMAnderson's topic ban before he was blocked for sockpuppetry, it should be a general MOS/AT topic ban, and also be extended to his WP:GANG, Wikid77, Enric Naval and LittleBenW. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to a topic ban

Moot; topic ban enacted

I realize that there are valid viewpoints on both sides of this argument. The consensus definitely appears to be in favor of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible, and while doing so ensuring that it does not continue. Is it really necessary, though, to topic-ban Apteva? Yes, his role in this dispute has engendered controversy and resulted in general commotion in various places here on Wikipedia, but I think that merely resolving the dispute in accordance with consensus should suffice. This should be done without the additional imposition of a topic-ban or associated threat of a block. Instead, discussion on this topic should be limited or even entirely restricted for a given time; when it is allowed to resume, it must be done in a way that only discussion, and not related alterations to Wikipedia, ensues. dci | TALK 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I no longer care about the baby, but this bathwater is getting cold. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, the issue is old, and the discussion a mite tiresome; but is a topic ban really appropriate, given circumstances? Based on a recent conversation I held with Apteva at his talk page, I can say confidently that he really does have reasonable intentions at heart. Why not give him a chance here, and move along? dci | TALK 02:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Give Apteva a chance? Give us a break. Has any editor been given more chances to step back from egregious widespread disruption? Apteva has squandered every such opportunity, and continues to do so. Let's move along. By all means. NoeticaTea? 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) When the editor in question has agreed to consider stepping aside from such topics for a time, I believe we can afford to give him a break. At any rate, we can all benefit from withdrawing ourselves from the rather minute details of dash length, and the least we can do is request a cessation in pressing this matter, from all parties. That way, we can wrap things up without burdening users with topic bans and the like. Personally, I don't like the idea of forcing someone to stop propagating their opinions; I think it's perfectly fine if Apteva does so, as long as he doesn't undertake overly controversial actions in the process. dci | TALK 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC) There is the presumption of a right to express opinions, and then there is flagrant interminable and widespread abuse of that presumption, perverting it to disrupt work at half a dozen major development sites across the Project and innumerable user talkpages and pointy RM discussions. No glimmer of insight in evidence, and no hint of any reform. There are limits. We reached them about eight weeks back. NoeticaTea? 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC) And that's being chartiable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Support Apteva's has made a few comments like [29] recently, and I haven't seen much new in the way of move requests or the like. With my !vote changing to partial support of the topic ban if he or she makes another such move requests or reopens a new discussion on horizontal lines. As mentioned in the RfC/U I do think Apteva should be allowed to make terse / brief comments in discussions started by others on dashes, hyphens and the like, though would probably be best to hold off for a while on those as well. PaleAqua (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC) A comment of "That sounds fair enough" is a far cry from committing himself to stopping the disruption. At many other places he has essentially promised to keep it up. If he wants to take a voluntary respite from disruption, let him propose that here. His proposal above is hardly in the right direction. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) PaleAqua, I'm confused. What exactly are you supporting here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Basically I am as sick of this nonsense as everyone else, and have agreed to back off, or recuse, as indicated above. I only hope that all of us have learned something from this, and will all have a great and productive new year. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Being sick of it is understandable. But you still haven't said you've heard the problem, nor promised to stop it. So a topic ban is needed, it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Apteva, in the last few hours just above you said It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless—are you sticking by those, or what do you mean here by "as indicated above"? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Lets back up a little, what was proposed, as I understood it, was a temporary "recusal" from the dash-or-hyphen dispute, which I agreed to. This is, of course a voluntary recusal. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I do not mind anyone responding inside a post but please dup the sig so that everyone can see who said what. Apteva (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Is that a yes, you are sticking by those statements? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes that is a yes, and yes I am sticking by those statements. Apteva (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC) See what he wrote immediately below; he's being cagey, but is clearly indicating that the minute his self-imposed 30-day period of hoping people will forget, he's going to go right back to it, because he feels he is Right. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Most of the books written use hyphens and dashes in a certain way, is what I was saying. No one can change that. It is a fact that per WP policy it would reasonably be expected that WP would do whatever the majority of those books do, per the well established policy of common usage, instead of doing what only one out of 50 do. That is the crux of the problem. But that can wait for another day, year, decade or century. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. I do a lot of RCP and WP:RM, but for the time being will ignore any that involve hyphens and dashes. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC) There is no "policy of common usage" that applies to style. I think you mean the "use the most common name" point in article titles policy. It's been explained to you at least 20 times that AT covers facts of substance and MOS covers style and grammar matters, and that MOS's function is to observe the various different possible solutions to any given style dispute, pick one (sometimes arbitrarily – welcome to real life) and recommend that editors stick to it. Your sheer inability (or stubborn refusal, take your pick) to understand how WP policy works and why is one of the reasons I'm asking for a broader topic ban; you need to stay entirely out of style and article naming disputes indefinitely, until you fully understand what makes WP tick, because almost every time you raise a policy matter, you get it wrong, but you go on months-long, compulsive, whinging, passive-aggressive and frankly unhinged-looking tirades and campaigns about the tiniest nit-picks you have failed to understand properly. You know solar power and some other topics. The only way it is likely for you to become a productive editor again is to stick to those topics, unless and until you "become much more wiki", and internalize how WP works much better than you have so far. If I were you, I would not touch another style or naming issue here for at least a couple of years. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose any such bargaining, with no prospect of anything clear at all as a solution. We are dealing with an editor who once advertised intended candidacy for admin at RFA, for bureaucrat [sic] at RFB, and some other high office, in a random order. When Apteva did in fact go for RFB, the ensuing time-wasting and contemptuous game was taken seriously. (!) See an archived response at Apteva's talkpage. It makes fascinating reading. That was preceded by an RFA attempt, and followed by another. The quixotic campaign we are now having to deal with is the latest in a long series, and one that has drained most energy as the community attempts to absorb its impact. What on earth can we expect next time around? If there had been any frank statement of regret or contrition, we might reasonably give Apteva another chance. But there has been none. It's time for action, not foot-shuffling and setting ourselves up to be hoodwinked yet again by an experienced trickster. (Strong and strange language? Well, I can think of nothing more apt for this extraordinary situation.) NoeticaTea? 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Comment. If Apteva has accepted a voluntary topic ban, then we are done here, yes? There is nothing left to do but write up Dicklyon's proposal in a separate section and let Apteva indicate agreement to abide by it. What is the usual procedure for this? Does it get recorded somewhere? —Neotarf (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Voluntary topic bans are non-binding and the editor therefore does not face strict consequences in breaking their self inflicted ban. Community topic bans are binding and are generally considered to be a negative thing to have placed on oneself. One of the chief problems with community topic is bans is the fact that any of the editors that were involved in the past dispute (i.e. this one) will keep a close eye, waiting for what they believe to be a slip-up. I have seen it happen enough times. They will then race here or to ANI in an attempt to have community wrath brought down upon them. That's one typical way Wikipedia loses editors. If you stalk AN long enough, you will notice that there is always a small group of editors that will support a community ban almost every time one is proposed, especially after an incident that generated significant drama. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Voluntary editing restrictions can be as binding as the community would like to make them; this restriction was discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents, duly recorded, and a block was once issued for breaking the restrictions. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Voluntary restrictions are certainly binding. The basic difference is that instead of an immediate block it allows the editor to revert their mistake and requires AN/I action, allowing them to defend their action. I do not expect violating the restriction. I also see that I made six other statements of agreeing to the temporary moratorium that were lost during an edit conflict, but I doubt they need to be recovered. Apteva (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) The only meaningful ban would be one that Apteva is willing to agree to, and that can be made binding. If there is no format for such an agreement, we must make one. If we cannot make such a format, we must form such an agreement anyhow, per WP:IAR. —Neotarf (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Bans are only appropriate if someone just will not quit, often followed by using socks to evade the ban. In this case I have agreed to quit, and so obviously a ban is not called for. If someone avoids a ban, and obviously there is no software that prevents violating a ban, then preventive blocks are issued to stop the continuation. None of this is needed, as I have agreed to edit in a manner that is appropriate. Nothing better could be hoped for. Apteva (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose Apteva has voluntarily accepted a 30-day topic ban before, with no subsequent improvement. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia to opposing the topic ban. The note about "as quickly as possible" misses the mark. Apteva's disruption has been going on for months; no one is looking for a rush to judgment, but rather an actually useful outcome to end the disruption. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) But there was some change in behavior during this time, even if the original offending behavior started up again in full force after the time had passed. —Neotarf (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose this attempt at bogus compromise; Apteva is simply trying to get out of trouble and avoid sanctions. As Noetica noted, he's done this before with no change in behavior; he's actually worse this time around. Note also that he prevaricated, to put it politely, about this just before New Year's Eve; he stated at the RFC/U about him that he had already "backed way off" and wasn't going to argue about this issue, but has since done almost nothing but argue about this issue, in at least 3 different forums that I know of. Four, counting this one. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose—I think that merely resolving the dispute in accordance with consensus should suffice.—I would have hoped so too, but the entire point of this is that Apteva does not hear what consensus is. Apteva can not recognize that there is consensus on this issue, demonstrated time and time again. Instead, Apteva constantly re-opens these discussions. It is very disruptive. discussion on this topic should be limited or even entirely restricted for for a given time—This isn't necessary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) This is not a case of I do not get what the consensus is, it is a case of a dozen or perhaps only a half dozen editors not wanting to hear that that consensus might not be a consensus at all. This does not need to be discussed here. The fact is that we all need to go back to productive editing instead of filling this wall of text anymore. I get it. Can we move on? Apteva (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose given the amount of circuitous discussion that Apteva et al have been leading on the topic surrounding the whys and wherefores of hyphens-are-better-than-dashes. SInce in practical terms they ought to amount to the same thing, I would prefer to see an imposed topic ban rather than an eleventh-hour face-saving moratorium that can be breached without sanction and can be wikilawyered. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 10:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A resolution to the dispute

Moot; topic ban enacted

Can we agree on the following wording to resolve the entirety of this dispute? The recent dispute regarding appropriate usage of hyphens, dashes, endashes, and emdashes has reached a point where continuation of it is neither beneficial to Wikipedia, nor conducive to a collaborative editing environment. To resolve this dispute, several things must be realized. First, consensus is on the side of those who favor the extension of current dash usage, as recommended by the Wikipedia Manual of Style in its present form. Therefore, editors will continue to use dashes in this style. Although there are valid concerns about the correctness of this approach, it has been approved by consensus. Second, Apteva has agreed to refrain from continued editing and actions related to this topic, when those actions result in changes contrary to consensus-based decisions. This agreement will be recognized by other editors, and will not prohibit Apteva from expressing his views on the matter in his userspace or in the context of non-confrontational, collaborative discussions in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Third, Apteva's withdrawal from the abovementioned areas is to be considered voluntary, unless he indicates otherwise at some point in the future. Fourth and finally, discussion of this matter and related negative interactions will cease, given that they are detrimental to our goal on Wikipedia, which is, of course, the creation of a free online encyclopedia. The following editors agree to the above: dci | TALK 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (as author) Support I would agree to this with the striking of "or in the context of non-confrontational, collaborative discussions in the Wikipedia talk namespace" since continuation of it is not beneficial to Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC) It's been done. dci | TALK 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wait – I'd like to hear Apteva's interpretation and promise to abide by this, here, before accepting it. If it accomplishes the same thing as the proposed topic ban, it should be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE, given his response above at 21:53, essentially declining to accept the terms proposed here and threatening further disruptioin, followed by this post continuing to characterize the dispute as errors that must be fixed. Does he think he can skirt his "voluntary recusal" by just not using the word "dash" in his comments? Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose as straw man to thwart dash/hyphen debates: I see that agreeing to this proposal would implicitly "rule" that dashes are the no-longer-controversial choice for "all Wikipedians" from this day forward, but instead, we cannot allow a threat against Apteva to be bartered by a community promise to not contest a false consensus to use dashes. This is a classic "argument from pity" fallacy, to accept the conclusion so that "poor pitiful Apteva" could live in peace. Nope, it is just another use of Apteva as hostage to the pro-dash onslaught against wp:COMMONNAME spellings with hyphens. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Please allow me to clarify that I have no intention whatsoever of using Apteva as a "hostage", Wikid77; nor am I attempting to thwart constructive discussion. The above proposal is just a summation of what appears to be views that both parties could agree on to resolve the dispute. dci | TALK 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose a topic ban would do the same thing and would actually be binding. This is too little too late. --Rschen7754 19:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Per Dicklyon, if it accomplishes the same thing then I guess. But I'm sympathetic to Rschen here; why not make it binding? Why have this conversation all over again if Apteva "indicates otherwise at some point in the future" and starts up the disruptive behavior again? We'd also of course need to hear something explicit from Apteva, which I don't think we have heard at this point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'm attempting to contact Apteva, in the hopes that he'll post an explicit statement here. Regarding the quote you cite, I think that then, if he "indicates otherwise", a topic ban would be appropriate. I'd rather not burden anyone with sanctions if they're genuinely willing to reform or abstain. dci | TALK 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Well, Apteva does seem to have agreed to 'a temporary "recusal"'—but what is the point of kicking the can down the road here? But sure, if Apteva agrees to stop pushing these issues in any forums on Wikipedia—not just temporarily—then that's fine, of course we don't need sanctions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Conditional support depending on a explicit statement by Apteva. PaleAqua (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Would it be fair to give him until 26:00 or 27:00 to give the statement, then, if not, to pursue the only remaining option? dci | TALK 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Seems more than fair. I will reconsider my !votes after that time. Alas, it is probably already too late. PaleAqua (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose. This is to little, too late, and has severe wording and logic problems. For one thing, it badly miscasts the debate with a straw man: No one has proposed any extension of current dash usage"; what has happened is that Apteva and his handful of cronies have attempted to destroy that part of MOS, and have made it clear that it would be the first wave of a long-term concerted attack on the integrity of our style guide, about which they hold WP:CABAL conspiracy theories. Note carefully that no where, ever, at any time, in any forum in which Apteva and crew have waged this holy war against dashes (and diacritics and whatever else is bothering them that month), has Apteva or any of them (Enric Naval, Wikid77 and now LittleBenW) actually acknowledged that they understand that Wikipedia consensus has come to a conclusion that differs from theirs. They do not believe that any consensus exists for MOS or anything it says at all. It's all just a grammar-fascist plot, you see. This must end in a topic ban (and a broad one - Apteva and the other frequently behave this way about other issues, not just dashes), or it is just never going to stop. Other issues with your wording: "Dashes" is a superset of "en dashes" and "em dashes". That item's ending in passive voice is grossly inappropriate. Everyone already realizes all of this, but for four individuals. Third point makes no sense; Apteva would never say "make it involuntary!" Fourth is vague and overbroad. I certainly won't agree to censoring myself about punctuation at WT:MOS, or about this WP:AN case and what it means, or whatever it is you don't want people to talk about. A topic ban is a perfectly normal remedy for entrenched patterns of disruptive tendentiousness like Apteva and sidekicks have demonstrated, and there will be no question what it means or whether it can be enforced or just dropped one day. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I have to say I'm slightly confused by some of your comments. All that was meant by what you call the creation of a straw man was that things shouldn't be changed the way Apteva and others want them to be. I'm not sure what you mean about the passive-voice thing, but I suppose that's probably an error in my wording. As for the content itself, I am not trying to "censor" you or prevent anyone from discussing anything. I'm trying to prevent repetitive, fruitless discussions that have the aim of changing how hyphens and dashes are used. As for myself, I am uncomfortable with silencing someone's relatively-valid opinion on the Manual of Style, and think that the problem could best be stopped with voluntary abstentions. It appears we disagree rather vehemently on this point. dci | TALK 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, we do, for reasons Noetica has explained clearly: Apteva's made these "voluntary abstention" promises before and gotten worse on the issue not better, even just in the last two weeks! I reiterate that this is the most disruptive (non-vandal) editor I've ever encountered. Should have had a topic ban several months ago already. He's thrown away every last shred of assumption of good faith that that has been proffered. Sorry if I somehow misunderstood your argument as a straw man, but it says what it says; "extension of current dash usage" is the exact opposite of Apteva's goals, as he wants to eliminate it (mostly or entirely, depending on which argument of his you read on what day). Passive: "several things must be realized", which could apply to anyone or everyone. "Apteva must realize several things and clearly indicate understanding of them" would get to the actual point. There is nothing fruitless and often not even repetitive about punctuation discussions at WT:MOS, only when someone with a serious nit-picking axe to grind shows up an tries to bury the talk page in recycled complaints. "Trying to prevent...discussions" you suspect, from a distance, might be "repetitive and fruitless" is "silencing someone's relatively-valid opinion on the Manual of Style", but multiplied by however many people there are participating on the MOS talk page! Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the idea that the needs of the many outweigh those of the one? If a topic has become disruptive because of one editor, the solution is to get that editor to drop it and stop disrupting; not just telling everyone to shut up. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose latest attempt to dodge the obviously warranted outcome. And what is that sinister outcome? A topic ban! Not Guantánamo, not summary execution, not a site ban – only the community's justified insistence that editors contribute where they are competent, and leave others to do the same unmolested. Now, in particular: This latest dodge fails to cover the range of the conduct issues (see, way above, what the RFC/U actually came up with), and the themes and forums involved. Let the process be finished here; or as SMcCandlish has pointed out, ArbCom is the scheduled next stop for this train. NoeticaTea? 21:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) To update anyone commenting in this section, Apteva has explicitly agreed, a few moments ago, to an abstention in one of the above sections. There are so many at this point that it's hard to keep track of them, but I am certain it's up there. dci | TALK 21:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I was asked to strike the alternate proposal and did so, and asked to reiterate that I will be honoring a voluntary moratorium on discussing hyphens and dashes, and I will be voluntarily honoring a moratorium on discussing dashes and hyphens. There are no proposals that need to be agreed to or opposed, other than ask for an uninvolved editor to close this thread. Should I break that promise, feel free to bring it up at AN/I (briefly), and log any action taken, if any is taken. I strongly doubt that will happen. I am here solely to improve the encyclopedia, as we all are. So now that the drama is over can we all get on to other issues? Apteva (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Um, not, there's still the open issue of an involuntary topic ban, which is supported by a majority of the respondents. Your short-term voluntary "I won't argue about this" proposal has no effect on that. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Dci, unfortunately this abstention is merely temporary; Apteva has now made that clear. This is very unfortunate. We don't want to go through this again later; this editor has caused enough disruption, and it needs to stop, now, for good. Apteva's ongoing recalcitrance has made it abundantly clear that the only way for this unacceptable disruption to stop is a topic ban. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) The reason it is temporary should be obvious. The moratorium amounts to not using the letter k. While I can certainly agree to not bring it up or discuss it right now, it will certainly be appropriate to bring it up or discuss it at some point in the future. When is a question that has an obvious answer. When the time is right. I am not the first editor who has suggested this topic and I will definitely not be the last. Saying that I can never discuss the letter k is absurd. Saying that right now there are editors who are sick and tired of me bringing up the topic, is reason enough to respect that, even though I can certainly think of better alternatives, all of which are moot at the present time. Apteva (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose I would refer to my comment above. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Oppose any compromise based on a topic ban (voluntary or otherwise) that is of fixed duration because that would merely defer the problem as Apteva is driven to explain to everyone why they are wrong. Perhaps other people are wrong, but endlessly going on about something like dashes is the worst kind of disruption as it drives away sane editors. It doesn't matter whether Apteva is right or wrong (the wiki will survive), but the disruption needs to stop, not merely be deferred. Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding against Apteva

As an uninvolved editor who did not realize Wikipedia's forcing of en dashes into titles was so peculiar, unusual, and rare compared to widespread use of hyphens in titles as spelled in over 92% of wp:RS reliable sources, I first became alarmed by some low-key, understated remarks made by User:Apteva in late 2012. When I looked at the history behind the unusual forced use of dashes as pushed by wp:DASH, I found some people objected to overuse of dashes but they were ignored. Then, to my shock, several users have kept attacking Apteva with unfounded claims of "disruption" as listed in wp:Requests_for_comment/Apteva, but with little evidence to show a pattern of "disruption" rather than merely continual posts about the rare use of dashes in real-world titles where the wp:COMMONNAME spelling uses hyphens in the vast preponderance of sources. Now that this wp:AN topic has spawned a "ban Apteva" section, posted by the exact same editor who had initiated the wp:Requests_for_comment/Apteva (created-4771), who also posted the most (2x higher) edits to RFC/Apteva, I think a pattern of hounding is becoming clear. I invite others here to post evidence of how long this pattern has continued, also by other potential wp:TAGTEAM editors, to determine the extent of the abuse, and what can be done to protect Apteva from further attacks. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I left you a note at your talkpage regarding the recent dispute. dci | TALK 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, as I am really concerned that wp:advocacy for pro-dash styles has gone awry. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77 is the furthest thing from an uninvolved editor; he so deep in the thick of this "issue" that I've recommended he be included in the sanctions. I have long half-suspected he's a sockpuppet of Apteva, or vice versa, but I'm not sure the prose style is similar enough for that to be true. The so-called logic and the tendentiousness are a 100% match, though. Wikid77 should not cite WP:ADVOCACY, as one of his principal activities for the last two weeks here has been acting as as Apteva's advocate. Kind of an unusual spin on "wikilawyering". The only WP:TAGTEAM at work here is Apteva, Wikid77, Enric Naval and, lately, LittleBenW. Note also the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again – Wikid77, like his comrades-in-arms in their stylistic holy war, has had it explained to him again and again and again that WP:AT (and its WP:COMMONNAME section) address matters of substance, and rely on WP:MOS for matters of style. Everyone on the system appears to understand this, with zero cognitive dissonance, except these four editors. And they are not stupid or insane, it's a safe bet, since their mainspace edits seem sensible. Thus, this can only be a trolling game they are playing to make a disruptive point, all at Wikipedia's expense. PS: Wikid77 needs to re-read WP:HOUNDING, since he's obviously badly misinterpreted it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikid is "uninvolved"? Not according to this stern warning from admin Bisanz, about Wikid's post at Apteva's talkpage, headed "Beyond dashes" (well worth a look). And Wikid has recently posted a long four-part tirade against en dashes at WP:TITLE. Wrong forum, dead horse, implacable resistance to consensus choices already made. There's involvement and involvement. No one has to warn me for posting a war plan at a co-conspirator's talkpage. My publicly declared agenda is to serve, along with some others posting here, in the consensual development of MOS, and the quite separate area of rational article titling to serve the readers in the best way we can. Some editors have zero expertise in these areas; some of us have a great deal, and we just want to get on with the job. Wikid, Apteva, and one or two others have made doing that job all but impossible. So we have no option but to follow correct procedures in search of a solution. Hence this discussion, toward the decisive and measured outcome that the community has voted for at the RFC/U. Noetica^Tea? 22:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, considering his tens of thousands of bytes of comments defending Aptiva, egging him on, and maligning the MOS, it is shocking that Wikid77 would refer to himself as "uninvolved". His Dec. 2 edit summary "endorse proposal to keep fighting excessive-dash rules in wp:MOS)" set the tone. They even whined to Jimbo about it together! Jimbo was not amused. In fact Wikid77's anti-en-dash lobbying extended even way beyond Apteva's narrower theory opposing en dashes in proper names; Wikid77 single-handedly opposed en dash even in eye–hand coordination and Michelson–Morley experiment for example, and acted like someone was proposing to use en dashes indiscriminately in places like double-barreled surnames (no such proposal has ever been made, yet he spent a lot of ink lobbying against it!). Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment nobody's hounding him, nobody's following him around WP and reverting his edits. He's so ever-present around these pages (particularly MOS and AT) that he's difficult to avoid. The criticism he's generated was something he has brought upon himself. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  That is he or she, thank you. But, I think that is a stretch. I can think of at least one who has quite likely been watching my edits like hawk, perhaps hoping that I will make one that warrants a block, and spending inordinate amounts of time doing that. But no there is no one that is reverting all of my edits. And nor am I watching anyone's edits, other than watching everyone's edits (WP:RCP). Apteva (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Isn't that called "paranoia"? You and Wikid77 are essentially inescapable, you bring typographical nonsense up so redundantly in so many places. It's one of the major reasons you're being recommended for a topic ban to begin with. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps consensus has changed (or didn't exist that way), but a small contingent of very vocal editors drown out the community as a whole who might be perfectly happy using the more accessible (and possibly more correct here) character. --Nouniquenames 06:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what happened here though. A small contingent of very vocal editors started forum-shopping to show that changed consensus, but got no support. The editors you allude to as very vocal only became very vocal after being "normally vocal" resulted in continuing WP:IDHT from the small contingent of disruptive editors. The community as a whole, that hypothetical entity, would have to actually chime if their perfectly happy preference is to become a new consensus (WP:SILENCE), and the forum shopping presented them plenty of opportunity to do so. But it turns out that the community as a whole is perfectly happy with the current consensus and would be happier without the disruption of the small contingent of very vocal editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare this to other cases

I'm frankly rather shocked at how some people are are trying to bend over backward to keep assuming good faith in the face of a mountain of proof against it. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing. It's so similar, they could almost be the same user, down to ever detail – ever prevarication, ever broken promise, every fallacious debate tactic, every pretense that consensus isn't really against them, etc., etc. No one at that incident report is trying to help the problem editor dodge a long-overdue topic ban. And Darkstar1st has been considerably less disruptive than Apteva. The key to both cases is the unresolvable conflict between trite and non-credible apologetic language on one hand, and repeated, almost wiki-suicidal, refusal to acknowledge that consensus is not on their side. In both cases it ultimately means "I will do it again, and you can't stop me." At any given time WP:AN, WP:AN/I and/or WP:ARBCOM usually have several such cases ongoing that fit this exact pattern. Policies, guidelines and essays like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE, etc. were not written because someone like that "might" show up some day, but because they're already here, the personality type is readily identifiable and toxic in a collaborative editing project, and individuals who evince it are a serious problem here. One that cannot be dealt with though voluntary promises. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and respect your concerns about the way "some of us" have responded to the dispute. But there are reasons why some of us have done things the way we have. I, for one, think that disputes and problems of this nature ought to be handled by realizing them for what they are. They are pointless attempts to alter things from what consensus has determined to what a minority prefers. Those in the minority tend to have good intentions and often are reasonable or even excellent editors, yet they create disruptions by their actions. To end these disruptions, we shouldn't slap people with a "topic ban" or some similar sanction. We shouldn't fight misguided offensives with well-planned campaigns; these approaches only reinforce problems which have led to the issues described here [30]. Instead, we should do our best as editors to resolve the issues, not by shutting them down and shelving them. In some cases, it means explaining what's gone wrong, and then accepting a statement of abstention, which I hope to see here within the next few hours. dci | TALK 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DCI:

Been there, done that; didn't work, won't work again.

Noetica^Tea? 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And there's no "issue" with MOS to resolve or shelve; it's just noise. One editor (or even three) trying to pull a WP:FILIBUSTER do not magically force consensus to its knees at gunpoint until it changes. The only issue here is tendentious, pointy, trollish, disruptive editing that goes against consensus (and a consensus that was established through a big, formal process). The remedy for that is simple: Topic ban. It's just how this gets handled, routinely, when the disruptiveness rises anywhere near this level. This case is very unusual for the amount of abuse the community has tolerated and the length of time we've let it go on, with numerous parties trying to reason with Apteva and co., to no avail. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Apteva has agreed to what is effectively a long-term abstention, making a decision above to work on more productive things. dci | TALK 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So? It didn't last before, or the time before that. Why would it this time? Just minutes ago, Apteva posted yet another message claiming that MOS is wrong. Can you not see the pattern here? Consensus simply does not exist for this editor unless it happens to conveniently agree with his pre-conceived notions. There's a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." How many times are you going to let Apteva fool you? Isn't twice enough already? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basically the issue is someone puts something into WP, and it is wrong. I fixed something in a BLP by request from someone who personally knew the person. It was really unbelievable the length that it took to change the consensus opinion that the wrong information was wrong. I do a lot of WP:RM and I see a lot of contention. I do not care how many times someone brings up that Foo should be spelled Foobar. We have an orderly process for dealing with it. We allow debate for seven days, then attempt to choose one or the other using well established policy. If someone brings it up again that day, no problem. If they bring it up again too many times we create a subpage to discuss the issue, so that it is discussed in an orderly fashion and does not interfere with other items that need to be discussed on the talk page. This issue is no different than any other contentious issue. It does not take walls of discussion to resolve. Nor is it appropriate to ban or block everyone who disagrees, or brings it up. For now, I certainly have other more important things to do. And once again, happy new year. Apteva (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion on confining this debate to a subpage or "list", a compromise Apteva might have accepted at that time. Art LaPella (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• • This is basically proof that you need a topic ban. Even after an RFC/U and a AN proposing a topic ban you just will not stop arguing that there is no consensus and that MOS is "wrong" and that you are "right". You're clearly going to hold this view until the end of your days, and you're never going to let it rest unless the community effectively forces you to do so or be banned. This "issue" is not contentious. No one is contending but you and two or three others. One or a handful of angry ranting voices is does not make a sea change at being louder and more aggressive and out-of-hand just cements resolve to not feed the trolls. You are not, for the love of whatever you believe in, being topic banned because you disagree with something; it's because you constantly, willfully, seemingly haughtily and for your own self-gratification, violate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DE, WP:TD, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:POINT, WP:CONSENSUS, etc., etc., etc., all in the name of WP:WINNING on something WP:LAME. If you were actually correct about hyphens, I would still support a topic ban, because no one has a right to violate virtually every other policy and guideline we have governing editor interaction, for months on end, making everyone interacting with him miserable, just because a trivial fact about a punctuation mark turned out to be on his side and he just wouldn't let the matter go. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • May I suggest the following? We ought to focus not on forcing Apteva to "conform" his beliefs, but on ending this dispute as reasonably as possible. At this point, given the other comments Apteva has made that demonstrate a willingness to move on to other things, we should allow people to go their own ways with their own thoughts. Wikipedia is, after all, the free encyclopedia. dci | TALK 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva can believe whatever he wants; that's not the issue at all. Continuing to argue a point in forum after forum when you're being RFC/U'd and WP:AN'd for doing so tendentiously is a sign that something is seriously off-kilter between the user and the project. Apteva only a few days ago (and not for the first time) made a similar promise to move on to other things and stay away from this issue, but within hours was right back at it, and has been at it, arguing this infernal anti-dash nonsense, on at least four different pages the entire time (here, RFC/U, WT:AT and WT:MOS, probably others). Apteva's "comments...that demonstrate a willingness to move on" are not credible. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  That is he or she thank you. The above post of mine has absolutely nothing to do with the MOS. I did not say "someone puts something wrong into the MOS". I said "someone puts something into WP, and it is wrong". Happens thousands of times every day. Some get fixed, some not. We try to fix errors when we find them, but some are more obscure than others and harder to find RSs that can be used to correct them. To suggest that I was talking about the MOS is blatantly false. Believe me, I appreciate the blue links, and read all of them, but it is not in Wikipedia's principles to try to introduce errors, or to try to suppress anyone from bringing them up, although it can be extremely frustrating for someone who has not made a few thousand edits to understand how to get it done and how not to get it done. And no I am not talking about the MOS. Apteva (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever. You were earlier, and yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and... Just ignore the first 5 words of my prior response to you ("This is basically proof that") and I still stand by every word of it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• When Apteva wrote "Basically the issue is someone puts something into WP, and it is wrong", he was basically justifying his continuing disruption by his usual argument, that his only intention is to fix what's "wrong". Basically, the problem is that he thinks he is the only authority that can determine what's wrong. That's why this response is a violation of the "voluntary recusal" that he had half-heartedly agree to; by continuing to push this tired point of view, he is proving his inability to let go, to respect consensus, or to hear the community. It's a lost cause to try to compromise with him. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• This issue has nothing to do with my beliefs or knowledge. I check how many sources use one spelling how many use another, and if there are more, in this case 50 times as many, I recommend that we use the 50 times as many way. It is not rocket science, and it is not my belief, and I would be astonished if anyone or more than a very few, thought we should use the spelling that only 1/50 use. Apteva (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's possible for SMcCandlish to engage in polite and rational discussion. Maybe he has never heard of the Golden Rule? Maybe Wikipedia needs a separate namespace for bullying and insulting people, for canvassing and organizing lynching mobs? LittleBen (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• PS: Echoing Art LaPella's suggestion above: <quote>Previous discussion on confining this debate to a subpage or "list", a compromise Apteva might have accepted at that time.<unquote> LittleBen (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP is nothing but compromise. No one gets to have anything "their way" we all work together, cooperatively, and harmoniously, to create Wikipedia. All disputes are always resolved by compromise. And seriously, I appreciate all of the suggestions and I am certain that everyone will be pleased with the results. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um... very much not. One of the most serious problems with a demand for compromise is that it motivates each party to stake out their most extreme position. In the context of Wikipedia, compromise is especially inappropriate if it means departure from a neutral and appropriately balanced point of view. That's not to say that compromise can't work, but the statement that "all disputes are always resolved by compromise" is flat-out wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  One of the difficulties of English is that can often be misinterpreted. By compromise what I meant is that we all work together cooperatively, and harmoniously. Nobody expects to "get what they want". Everybody expects to compromise with other opinions in favor of adopting a consensus view. Not that we always compromise the best answer for a worse one that is a compromise between the two suggested wordings. That is a different meaning of compromise than was intended. I was using the first meaning, not the second. wikt:compromise Apteva (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is troubling to see two editors who are, shall we say, not well-regarded here, try to advise Apteva on how to be a successful editor. —Neotarf (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

List other editors told to not oppose dashes

Moot (straw man - no editors were "told not to oppose dashes".

I am wondering which other editors have been badgered to keep quiet and not oppose dashes, after reading the above, intense remarks, as insisting that User:Apteva not even hint at problems in Wikipedia which might be considered to include problems with incorrect statements in the wp:MOS (Manual of Style). I am extremely concerned that others editors have likely been threatened to keep quiet and not oppose the overuse of dashes in titles which have used the wp:COMMONNAME form as spelled with hyphens for years, decades, or centuries. The amount of vitriol, hostilely aimed at Apteva, seems completely unjustified by one person's actions, and it appears that Apteva is being hounded for punishment in retaliation for other editors who dared to oppose the demands to use dashes where rarely used in the world at large. More investigation is needed to list other users who have been pressured to keep quiet about the excessive use of dashes, or perhaps other hotly-debated issues of the wp:MOS document which have been fought by threatening the opponents. This debate is not just about a 3-pixel difference in "short horizontal lines" (dashes/hyphens) but rather, an intense form of cyberbullying which needs to be studied in more detail. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC) You're right that this is not about a 3-pixel difference in horizontal lines. It's about your incessant disruptive forum-shopping over your abject refusal to accept that consensus is against you on this dashes-and-hyphens point. Rather than let this lie for even one day, you've gone and flooded WT:AT with off-topic rants against dashes again. I've suggested multiple times for good reason that this proposed topic ban needs to apply equally to Apteva, you, and LittleBenW (who has engaged in similar behavior, almost immediately after being topic-banned for doing the same thing with regard to diacritics). All three of you, who edit in lockstep as a single-minded anti-MOS editing WP:GANG, need to stay out of MOS and AT discussions until you understand WP policy and community norms better and stop turning forum after forum into scorched earth. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 11:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Wow. That comment sort of backs up Wikid's point incredibly well. Just saying... --Nouniquenames 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I stand by every word of it. Wikid77 displays a consistent and downright defiant refusal to address WP policy and procedures the way site-wide consensus does, instead willfully misinterpreting anything and everything whenever it is convenient for him to do so. He then launches debate after debate in forum after forum, recycling the same faux issues endlessly with a long-running game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has been pushing these misinterpretations of policy and his necessarily fallacious conclusions draw from them, with a forumshopping tendentiousness that has become quite disruptive. This has jack to do with dashes and hyphens, and everything to do with gaming the system and browbeating editors all over the site, on article talk pages, at guidelines and policies, at the village pump, you name it, over and over again, all just to "win" a Crusade-level campaign about some piece of stylistic trivia. My message is Stop the disruptive editing and back away from the horse carcass, then get up to speed on how WP actually operates before bringing up this crap again. That's completely different from "keep quiet and not oppose dashes". If you seriously believe WP:HOUNDING applies, as Wikid77 claims, simply because I've been critical of this long-running, coordinated pattern of disruption, feel free to AN/I me. There's a motion at page-bottom to just close this entire section, including this subsection. If you have further issues with me (like, maybe, explaining what policies you think I have violated that made you suggest that I be topic banned), you know where my talk page is. This WP:AN case isn't about me, it's about Apteva, Wikid77 and LittleBenW. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is RFC/U enough?

Moot; topic ban already issued.

Just as is seemed as if the waters would be calmed by Apteva's apparent willingness to agree to a voluntary topic ban, individuals drawn to the disruption have been busy elsewhere at WP:TITLE WT:Article titles#Hyphen anecdotes and at the Arbcom's capitalization case "Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions" [31] —Neotarf (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps an RFC/U for each editor who discussed dashes over 6 months: As I noted above, there are numerous editors who have been arguing (and fighting) about the hyphen/dash problems (longer than my 1-month discussion), and Apteva has walked into a minefield of past resentments, pent-up anger, or repressed rage about former editors who opposed the push for overuse of dashes where hyphens were the common-name choice for decades, with perhaps other issues about the wp:MOS document, where Apteva re-ignited old conflicts and raised the ire of prior editors who were tired of people not consenting to "their" prior consensus. The whole concept of "consensus" is to get the consent of nearly all participants, acting in good-faith efforts; otherwise, a simple vote of the majority would make the decisions (see how wp:consensus is not really us-versus-them, as a vote would be?). However, many people just do not understand that is how we defined consensus back in 2006, when the issue of "supramajority" was questioned as a potential deciding factor in disputes. The next person who walks through the door, with different ideas, then helps to determine the new consensus. The fundamental key to consensus is easy to show: "Two people debate an issue, and one reports they have reached consensus, but the other disagrees". Bingo. That is called a "false consensus". Yet, still, the results of "no consensus" need to be understood, where no rules can be imposed because no rule is agreed to meet a consensus viewpoint. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC) That would be unbelievably WP:POINTy, and would flood the RFC system. No one is upset with Apteva for anything to do with "former editors". You have no idea what you are talking about and have not been paying attention. Apteva is being WP:AN'd for Apteva's actions, as are you for yours, albeit less formally, though I'm tempted to make it a formal proposal for an independent topic ban after your flooding of WT:AT with more off-topic obsessive forum shopping. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 11:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Apply the same topic ban as Apteva to Wikid77 and LittleBenW

I formally propose that the exact same topic ban applied to Apteva also be applied to Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for near-identical patterns of abusive, tendentious, forum-shopping disruption, as noted above in the WP:AN regarding Aptiva, as well as at the Apteva RFC/U, and at WT:MOS, and at WT:AT, and at WP:VPP, etc. In particular, please note:

• Wikid77's anti-MOS collusion on Apteva's talk page[32] for which Wikid77 was block-warned[33]; his combativeness in all of these forums; and his recent WP:BATTLEGROUND-spamming of WT:AT with completely irrational, off-topic rants about dashes and MOS, despite being warned by an admin not to engage in such activities. Like Apteva, Wikid77 has entirely worn out both the community's patience and any capacity for us to assume good faith any longer. See the several "planning out how to take down MOS" threads at User talk:Apteva/Archive 4, especially #Beyond dashes, which incidentally also indicates direct participation by Enric Naval, who now disavows any further involvement. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discussion of hyphens for endashes, wherein Wikid77 makes it clear he is not quibbling over specific uses of en dashes, but wants to entirely ban them in favor of commas and brackets, a position that has no support whatsoever. (He's entitled to have whatever opinion he likes, but not to disrupt forum after forum about it.) Evidence gathered by Dicklyon earlier: Wikid77's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality laid bare: "endorse proposal to keep fighting excessive-dash rules in wp:MOS)" set the tone. He and Apteva even whined to Jimbo about it together! (Note the long array of blatant straw man arguments that mischaracterize MOS's actual punctuation advice, and cast everthing in terms of conflict.) Jimbo was not amused. Here's another: Wiki77 opposed closure of the pointless, forumshopped WP:VPP thread against dashes with "Too late to stop this thread" and "There's no stopping this discussion", an obvious WP:WINNING-focused stance. The noisome thread was, of course, summarily closed as no consensus to change MOS to stop recommending the appropriate use of dashes; Wikid77, like Apteva, nevertheless continued in the jihad, right up to this very day. User:John also notes this and this, re: previous Wikid77 topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• LittleBenW passed that point some while ago and has already been blocked and topic-banned[34] for it, with no meaningful effect at all. He took up this anti-MOS, anti-dash issue, posting at the Apteva RFC/U in support, immediately after being subject to a nearly identical topic-ban for his tendentious campaigning against diacritics; he is WP:GAMING the system to return to anti-MOS verbal rampages by simply swapping one pet peeve he can browbeat everyone about for another. An argument can be made that this actually deserves an extended block as well as a topic-ban, and perhaps a community ban. Retracted: Since he only just got involved in the dash/hyhen mess, I don't think LittleBenW's participation in it rises to that level yet, on re-examination; but it's clearly an in-spirit evasion of the topic ban intended to get him to stop being disruptive on style issues. It is clearly bad-faith behavior and an observably established habitual role of abuse of the system. See also conspiracy theory about MOS as "thought police", block for similar disruption re: diacritics, diacritics MOS topic ban, blocked again for NPA relating to the same AN/I, supporting Apteva and Wikid77 at WP:Requests for comment/Apteva and its talk page (free to do that of course, but it shows the beginning of his jump from diacritics to dashes), advocated what amounts to WP:OWNership of articles to prevent "outsiders" (i.e. MOS, or really anyone but fans of hyphens) from having any input on hyphens/dashes in article titles. Note: LittleBenW's editing, since his MOS-related topic ban on diacritics debating, has actually been largely constructive and positive. I want to reiterate that I do not support a block in his case. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Handsomefella, below, also points out that Wikid77 was part of the disruptive LittleBenW anti-diacritics WP:TAGTEAM in 2012, that used exactly the same "forum-shop this to death and beyond" tactic. There is clearly a pattern here of organized, willful disruption and tendentious campaigning. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not following these editors around, and have only looked at a few page histories. Both of these users have been clearly, unmistakably engaged in a pattern of miring every forum they can raise their pet "issues" in simultaneously, in pointless circular argumentation, using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and trolling techniques, which have escalated to the level of WP:TAGTEAM efforts at organized WP:Griefing of MOS and AT, in a WP:GREATWRONGS-style campaign about a matter of typographic trivia. LittleBenW's entry to this particular dash debate is late, but fits his diacritics pattern of histrionics. Enough is enough. Both of these editors have also made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and surely can continue to do so if they stay out of style disputes they cannot refrain from campaigning about and do not fully understand anyway. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Updated with evidenciary links, clarifications, etc., 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. These users have previously been defending both views and actions of Dolovis and GoodDay in the diacritics debate. They may be entitled to do that, but one can't help thinking that they are taking Apteva's side just because they've been there before. It's hard to imagine such a commitment by three editors on an issue such as hyphens and endashes based on reason. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: It's not based on reason; it's an organized griefing campaign. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are talking pure BS, gross exaggeration, and lies, as usual. As I have said repeatedly, I couldn't care less about hyphens vs. dashes, but I do think that Wikipedia would be a very much better place without your WikiBullying. Apteva has always been courteous and helpful to other users, in my experience, which is a big contrast to your loud and abusive behavior. Wikid77 also seems to be pretty reasonable, trying to reach a fair compromise that doesn't involve bullying and blocking. LittleBen (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Compare this to User talk:LittleBenW#Notice of Administrator's noticeboard of incidents discussion (2): "You are talking rubbish. I have not been edit warring about diacritics, that's a blatant lie. LittleBen (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)", shortly after which you were blocked and topic banned for edit warring about diacritics. Your knee-jerk response to any criticism seems to amount to "You are talking [some word for trash or excrement]; you are lying". For all I know you have some kind of script that posts these repetitive responses for you. This isn't about Apteva any more, it's about you. Wikid77 can speak for himself. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: quote from WikiBullying: "Stating a real policy when it is necessary is not considered WikiBullying". You have repeatedly accused others of bullying, intimidation, threats and lynching. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and report all those you've accused to WP:AN/I, like WP:WikiBullying says? I guess maybe you don't follow that guidelines/piece of advice either. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's not just WikiBullying, it's also unreasonable criticism and screwing up other peoples' good work without any rational discussion. LittleBen (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, what are you waiting for? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Waiting for him to self destruct. He's not worth wasting time on, he's surely incurable. Surely some people will never learn that Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly, civil, and welcoming community until all the enthusiastic people with specialist knowledge, and all the good editors, have left. LittleBen (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editors who demonstrate those traits don't get blocked repeatedly and topic-banned. There is nothing "friendly" about a deluge of forum-shopped putsches against punctuation you have an obsessive loathing for, a campaign you once already refused to back down from until AN/I made you do so. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I kind of knew that you wouldn't follow through. It's just hot air from your side, or possible not even that. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to be able to say that LittleBenW filing his own RFC/U or AN/I, accusing me and whoever else of "wikibullying" and whatnot, would be instructive for him, because it would fail and and he would learn something about how WP works and what its policies mean, but he's shown near-zero ability to learn from failed campaigning attempts, so why would that be any different? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support for LittleBenW both; having already been the subject of a topic-ban on diacritics LittleBenW has simply moved his tendentious editing to another forum. Like the OP, I would actually suggest that this persistent pattern of behaviour deserves a block, not a topic-ban, or else I'm sure we'll find ourselves back here again. I would like to see more evidence before supporting for Wikid77The links below are plenty, especially the single one provided by John. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

More evidence: I've added it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No block: I do not support a block or a sweeping community ban for either editor, only a topic-ban, though a broadly-construed one about MOS/AT tendentiousness generally. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said repeatedly, I couldn't care less about hyphens vs. dashes. But I think that other editors deserve to be treated civilly. LittleBen (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• So why did you recently post a call for an out-of-process RFC that would prohibit anyone, like regular MOS editors and any editors who follow MOS (i.e. almost everyone), from participating, and allow participation only from people who, due to their inclination to do whatever the IAU says, automatically oppose dashes in favor of hyphens? That's an extremely partisan position to take on a punctuation matter, exactly like the radical anti-diacritics campaigning that got you blocked and topic-banned; any attempt to actually implement such a bogus poll would be insanely WP:POINTy. You clearly just need to stay out of styles issues that you don't understand, and stay out of them entirely until you understand WP policy better; virtually every time you cite a policy or guideline you do so incorrectly, but never, ever listen when this is clearly demonstrated to you. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's productive for a lot of editors who are totally uninvolved in an issue (like foreign language article issues, or geeky subjects with different language usage rules) to canvass a lot of their cronies in order to bully editors who have considerable subject knowledge and/or have been directly involved with an article or topic area for a long time. People who understand vocabulary and usage in a subject area should be consulted, rather than changes being arbitrarily imposed. LittleBen (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep "Easter-egg" linking to User talk:Montanabw#Unreasonably criticism as if you think there's some kind of "smoking gun" dispute between me and that editor that makes me look bad. You have negelected to do your homework by simply reading the related threads at my own talk page and the relevant wikiproject, which show that there is no extant dispute, and instead collaboration on how to approach WP:AT with a clarification, and how to clarify questions of "breed" definition and notability elsewhere. "Oops." — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the threats on my talk page were posted before there was any mention of me here. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Calling a WP:AN notification a "threat" is only part of LittleBen's victim lore. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• In point of fact, I had already mentioned him several times, along with some other involved editors in Apteva's tag-teaming, in the now-hatted discussion above when I left that notice. I am required to leave such a notice; see top of this page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support extending topic ban to both after reading this comment. --John (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I was rereading this and this and recalling that Wikid77 has previously been involved in pretty problematic editing in a narrow area and then improved after being topic-banned from that area. Does that mean we should feel easier about using a similar approach here? Or does it mean we should start to think about a site-ban? --John (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think a site ban would be highly inappropriate. If a topic ban worked, why would a site ban be considered? Anyhow, I can't see anything so incredibly awful on Wikid77's part that would merit a full ban. dci | TALK 22:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Topic-ban is fine. I'm trying to resolve an actual issue of disruptive editing patterns and tendentiousness here, not "punish" people. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wait – I think this discussion represents fair warning to Wikid77, and he can see the clear evidence of the community's reaction to Apteva-style disruption, so if such behavior continues, a ban or block will be in order. But he has not been through the process of warnings and attempts to resolve the dispute that Apteva had been through, and his obnoxious anti-consensus activities so far would not on their own rise close to the level of a community restriction (if experience with what it took to throttle Apteva is any indication). Yes, I agree he has added fuel to the fire, but it's not his fire. Let's wait and see if things settle down now that Apteva is banned from such activities. If not, we'll be back here soon, but I don't see why he would put us through that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • He has been through the warning process, more than once, and even topic-banned before. See his talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough and they're adding to the disruption. --Rschen7754 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, beneficial to the encyclopedia with no detriment to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocking, banning, restricting editors in anyway, isn't the answer & it's not enviroment friendly, which is what Wikipedia should be. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In cases of disruption, the community has two choices: be "friendly" and permit the disruption to continue, or (after discussions fail) topic ban those causing disruption. Wikipedia will survive even if totally incorrect horizontal lines are used, however, the community may not survive another decade of bickering repeatedly over the same points over and over again without respite. Even in this discussion, they are continuing to fight the good fight. Johnuniq (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would suggest waiting, per Dicklyon. dci | TALK 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC) My new comments can be found below. dci | TALK 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I see proper notification of this discussion has been given on the respective talk pages, but I seem to remember that the first step of conflict resolution is to attempt to discuss the problem with the individual directly. I suppose this typically takes place on their talk page. Has this been done? —Neotarf (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I had a brief discussion with LittleBenW on his talk page in which I encouraged him to distance himself from the MoS drama. dci | TALK 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've had discussions with Wikid77 about this issue in particular in multiple places, including his talk page, and with LittleBenW recently on diacritics warring, which he's migrating to dash warring from. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban of LittleBenW: The proposed topic ban against User:LittleBenW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by the heavily involved wp:MOS editor User:SMcCandlish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (author of essay wp:SSF) is completely premature, where there has not been sufficient talk-page dialog to address concerns in actions, with time to calmly evaluate responses from LittleBenW to reply to careful, polite questions, rather than as threats to keep quiet or else. After that, perhaps an RfC/U for LittleBenW would be the next step, in attempting a wp:dispute resolution. Also, any false claims of collusion between LittleBenW and myself (Wikid77) should be cause for alarm, because we have never even posted to each other's talk-pages (see: User_talk:LittleBenW..history), and I am not an involved editor in debating actions by LittleBenW. I am concerned that this rush to topic-ban LittleBenW about hyhens/dashes, after a prior topic ban about diacritical marks, will act as wp:Wikihounding against LittleBenW to silence opinions, rather than try calmer methods of dispute resolution. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:26/23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You call all criticism "wikihounding". Of course I'm heavily involved in MOS; that is not damning (and neither is writing an essay that precisely zero people have been able to refute, even in part). I wouldn't have noticed this disruptiveness if it didn't keep ending up at MOS and spinning out from there to VPP, article talk pages, AN, RFC/Us, etc., etc. (places I mostly don't read). LittleBenW was subject to a topic ban the entire point of which was to getting him to stop being disruptive about style issues. It was unfortunately very narrowly worded, so he's just used that fact as an excuse to game the system by simply switching to another style nitpick to be tendentious about. Raising this concern is not "premature", it's standard operating procedure when an prior topic ban seems to not be working. I apologize if I was not clear earlier. I've never suggested that you and LittleBenW have directly colluded on this, but rather linked to proof of you collaborating with Apteva on explicitly disruptive plans against MOS and for editing-warring incessantly about hyphenation. Separately, I've shown LittleBenW wading into the anti-dash nitpicking shitstorm, pretty much immediately after his block expired, supporting you and Apteva on two pages, and making anti-consensus proposals of out-of-process pseudo-RFCs that only permit dash-haters. I hope this is clearer. I think everyone else already understood this. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm close to supporting topic bans for both these: Apteva was maybe the general, but these two are as about as bent on the crusade as the former. I'd be happy for this to be seen as a "final warning" for Wikid77 and LittleBenW. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: it appears that several of these editors have, probably informally, formed some kind of pact to oppose any proposal to sanction the others, thereby hoping to stop the community from reaching a consensus on sanctions, and ensure their own ability to continue the disruptive editing. Just check which editors oppose. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support any sort of ban on Wikid77 for this sort of repetitive quibbling. No views (yet) on LittleBenW . Oculi (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. I might be able to support iff User:SMcCandlish is included in the ban, but this looks too much like a campaign against one side of an issue. --Nouniquenames 15:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  It might look like it, but is it? I haven't seen evidence that would support a ban myself (granted I haven't looked very hard) so I am not supporting the ban, but this is a nonsense reason to oppose it. It is certainly conceivable that 3 editors on the same side of a content issue ought to be banned. "I might be able to support iff User:SMcCandlish is included in the ban"—whoa, that was from nowhere! Or did I miss it? Why would you support a ban of SMcCandlish?? HaugenErik (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not actually calling for his ban. In my opinion, though, he's gunning pretty hard for this, and the other two seem about as undeserving of a ban. If anything, it could be gaming to win a dispute. I'm against the ban. If the community decides one must be enacted, I want all of those gunning for the ban under the same terms. That includes (quite strongly) SMcCandlish. Especially if you read his essay (linked elsewhere here). --Nouniquenames 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and calling for an out-of-process topic ban is WP:POINTy, which you well know. I have neither violated any policy nor been a disruptive editor with regard to this issue. Your demand is akin to a jury saying in a criminal case "Yes, put the burglar in prison, but put the homeowner in the same cell, just for asking that justice be done." DOES NOT COMPUTE. It would certainly be far more censorious than just topic banning the editors who are actually being disruptive. And there is not "issue" here other than disruptive editing in various forms; this isn't an actual style dispute, much less a content dispute. See details in response to Shadowjams below. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  Note also #nun; Nouniquenames is actually in the same anti-dash camp as Apteva, Wikid77 and LittleBenW, and is approaching this incorrectly as a dispute about style questions rather than an administrative issue of consistent patterns of disruption. I.e., his !vote is essentially off-topic and confused about what WP:AN is for. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the same reasons Nouniquenames is getting at. This feels too one sided. I'm always nervous about the possibility of using bans and blocks to win content disputes. I'd agree that the editors are clearly aligned in interest, and have been obnoxiously persistent, but some of this process towards banning is going too quickly. Shadowjams (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  No one established any deadline by which this discussion had to be concluded, so your "too quickly" complaint does not apply. This is not a content dispute, it's a disruptive editors behavior issue. The question over which these editors have been disruptive is a style matter, but that's still not a content dispute (see Separation of style and content). To the extent that it's superficially similar in some ways to a content dispute, it doesn't matter. As the original WP:AN against Apteva concluded, consensus did not change and was not going to change to support his (and these two additional editors') anti-dash warpath. I.e., there is no actual dispute, in any sense that WP:CONSENSUS would recognize, about that matter, just never-ending whinging about it from a militant tagteam of editors who will not stop beating the dead horse. How can the debate be one-sided, when none of the three editors who are the subjects of this WP:AN discussion are blocked, and all three have edited this page to put their responses in? (See below about User:Alan Liefting, who was blocked and unable to respond with regard to his own unrelated topic ban; very different case). The weak nature of said response is a telling indicator that Wikid77 and LittleBenW are having considerable difficultly avoiding well-deserved scrutiny and criticism, for genuinely disruptive (especially tendentious and forum-shopping) editing patterns. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nouniquenames. Though I would not be hesitant to support either editor if they chose a voluntary respite from the MoS (and think that doing so would be beneficial), the pro-ban atmosphere is a bit thick with intensity. I would prefer a calmer, more "neutral" resolution to this dispute than "ban 'em all." However, I would oppose any serious attempt to topic-ban SMcCandlish. dci | TALK 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  What sort of "calmer, more 'neutral' resolution"? Why would be be "neutral" about violations of WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:PARENT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAPBOX? Further, why would be be "neutral" on this with regard to two users who have already been previously topic banned for the same kind of problem behavior, one of them only about two weeks ago? I'm genuinely curious about your rationales on this. And "per Nouniquenames" isn't a strong one, since that editor is clearly misunderstanding the nature and history of the debate, and like Shadowjams mistaking it for a content dispute, but it's entirely about disruption. All three of these editors could actually be right about dashes (they're not, but just go with it for a moment), but this would not give them some holy natural right to be disruptive about it. That is the issue and the only issue here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Here's proof that Nouniquenames is actually in the same anti-dash camp as Apteva, Wikid77 and LittleBenW, and is approaching this incorrectly as a dispute about style questions rather than an administrative issue of consistent patterns of disruption. I'm skeptical that you would continue to be "per Nouniquenames", given this. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  I suppose it would be more accurate that I supported per the rationales put forth in Nouniquenames' comment (excepting the unnecessary topic-ban comment). Although it may seem like poor judgement, I would have supported even had I known the details you mention in your reply. dci | TALK 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but you did not answer my questions, and they weren't rhetorical. It's unclear what you are proposing in place of this proposal. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  Regarding "extremist proposals:" many of the proposals above are unrealistic and extreme, including those propagated by Apteva and Wikid77. And, regarding "neutrality": I would prefer a solution to the problem drafted by people who have not been staunchy opposed or supportive of one particular "side" in this dispute. dci | TALK 18:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm a person who has not been staunchly opposed or supportive of one particular "side" in this dispute. I've made no arguments other than the consensus should be respected and the disruptions should stop; I don't care which of hyphens or dashes are used, except as far as consensus-respect goes. Extending the topic ban to those who continue the "I didn't hear that" disruption is a fine, neutral solution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  Suffice it to say I'm uncomfortable with the intensity on the two opposing sides of this dispute and would prefer resolution elsewhere. That said, I respect your attitude and approach, JHunterJ, but I disagree on how best to come to a resolution. dci | TALK 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think that suffices. ArbCom comments have also indicated that this is the correct place for resolution. The intensity of the sides doesn't change that, nor does it change the correct resolution: stop disrupting Wikipedia when consensus goes against you or be topic banned. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Update: ArbCom has endorsed the topic ban on Apteva and reaffirmed its endorsement of the dash consensus from 2011, by rejecting Apteva's appeal, 8–0 yesterday. I don't see any impediment at all to extending this twice-endorsed solution to the other two disruptive editors on the matter, since none of the opposes raise any points that are not easily dismissed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Shadowjams --My76Strat (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  Nothing Shadowjams said is actually applicable, and "per whoever" !votes that provide no additional rationale are generally ignored by closing admins. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with Shadowjams and My76Strat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  Nothing Shadowjams said is actually applicable, and My76Strat just "me too"'d Shadowjams. You've not provided any actual rationale for opposition. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - behavior does not rise to level necessitating a ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  A consistent, organized pattern of violation of WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:PARENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, WP:GAMING, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and more, certainly constitutes "behavior...necessitating a [topic] ban"; even only 1/5 of those problems stacked up together into one long-term pattern of obsessive, disruptive campaigning about style quirks would be enough to qualify. What on earth, in your view, would qualify if this clearly demonstrated ten-point modus operandi doesn't? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Update: See also the fact that ArbCom has recently upheld both the validity of the Apteva topic-ban remedy in this case and the extant MOS consensus on dashes/hyphens per the 2011 RfC, by rejecting Apteva's appeal of these matters, 8–0. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although past experience indicates a near-certainty that Wikid77 will take his unique style of argument-by-five-thousand-paragraphs-of-text-distributed-over-a-dozen-pages to a new and unexplored area of the project once he's topic-banned here, every little helps. No particular opinion on LittleBenW. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  That sounds like a support to me, at least with regard to Wikid77. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the discussion immediately above

Instead of an immediate topic ban (which has drawn a few suggestions to wait a bit), why not try something else? Would it not be possible to impose some sort of "editing probation" on both Wikid77 and LittleBenW, during which neither would be the subject of either involuntary or voluntary sanctions. During this period (30 days?), their behavior could be monitored off and on to ensure that they are not engaging in tendentious or unhelpful actions regarding the MoS. If they do, a topic ban could be imposed; if not, things can be left alone. dci | TALK 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose behavior has gotten to the point where a topic ban is needed. --Rschen7754 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't a proposal, just a suggestion meant as an alternative in the case consensus favors warning the editors. I just wanted to put something forward so that a less "heavy" sanction could be applied, or so that the editors could have a way of relaxing behaviors which may have drawn criticism. dci | TALK 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They need to chill out, starting now. —Neotarf (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in exploring the concept of "binding voluntary restrictions" that was entertained briefly above. As pointed out in a discussion above (now hatted) there is some precedent for it here: [35] Here is the close: [36] I understand a block was later issued for violating the restriction.

There are some obvious advantages. The Project is less likely to have to waste time chasing down socks, as was seen recently with PMAnderson. The editor with the conflict has the opportunity to save face, and demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with the Project, also a firm motive to edit in a different area. This is particularly valuable in cases where the editor has done productive work before and truly believes they are doing something to benefit WP, however misguided. I would suggest that an agreement might also be entered into even after a formal restriction has been decided on, in addition to it. —Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the exact terms, I would might actually be okay with this WP:ROPE approach. I am not on some kind of warpath against these two editors personally, I just want the disruption to stop. I don't want to see either of them blocked or broadly community banned, and would be happy with a simply topic ban, or your even milder approach. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Note that most !votes about the proposal to extend the topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW are in support, and the opposes are all weak. PS: The "chasing down socks" thing won't be a serious issue. These editors are such repetitive "broken records" on their pet peeves that any attempt to sockpuppet on those topics will be readily detectible. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely; the concept, in my mind, has roughly the same impact but has a more positive air than a sanction. Further exploration would be beneficial to dispute resolution, IMO. dci | TALK 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not support a proposal that may be seen to want to silence all who are ignorant about dashes, or are opposed to using them in this publication. However, let this be an official warning to anyone seeking to follow in the footsteps of Apteva to cease and desist in behaving in a similar manner, as such behaviour will not be tolerated. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's never been about ignorance of or disagreement with dashes. It's about behavior patterns that make Wikipedia a miserable experience for every other editor who runs across this three- (formerly four-)way WP:TAGTEAM when they're obsessing over some bit of typographical trivia and forumshopping it to Hell and back. The underlying content dispute could have been about sea urchins or flag icons or whether Bill Clinton should move to William Jefferson Clinton or whatever; that part's irrelevant. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound foolish, but are you [Ohconfucius] referring to the topic ban proposal or to exploring voluntary restrictions? dci | TALK 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I confess to feeling ambivalent about this. I think Apteva needed to be shut up, so the topic ban was appropriate and necessary. Hopefully, 'the other two' will see some sense and lie low, or otherwise they will have sense knocked into them. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Voluntary restrictions" draft

Off-topic; belongs at WT:BAN, and a thread for it has been opened there.

Regarding voluntary restrictions - I have begun to develop a page in my userspace regarding the subject. It's at a very preliminary stage, and addresses the nature of a voluntary restriction and areas where one is best used. Anyone is welcome to comment or contribute. dci | TALK 03:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Um, I just boldly added this to the policy, since there don't seem to be any objections, and it is something that is already being used successfully. Might as well specifically allow it; maybe it will help someone else's conflict, and help with editor retention besides. If anyone wants to opine, discussion is here: WT:Banning policy#Binding voluntary restrictions. —Neotarf (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Evidently too bold, since it got reverted by two regulars here. That said, I'm tentatively okay with the idea being applied here, at least in LittleBenW's case. He's stated clearly that he has no interest in pursuing further disputatious editing about hyphenation. I remain considerably more skeptical about Wikid77, because of the four nonsensical anti-dash rants he recently posted to WT:AN]], but WP:ROPE is generally effective at rapidly demonstrated that a wayward editor really is ready to stop being disruptive or really is ready for stronger sanctions after all. I reiterate that I just want the tendentious disruption to stop (by which I inclusively mean "not just on this micro-issue about dashes, but all style-and-naming Wikipedia meta-issues"). If we can get there without any more formal sanctions, then huzzah. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Heh, without so much as one word of discussion. Forget good-cop, bad-cop; looks like this crowd will not be satisfied with anything less than a pound of flesh. —Neotarf (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Well, WP:BRD is almost always immediately applied to pages like this, and there's no policy that the reverter has to be the one to start the discussion. You should probably open a proposal thread at Wikipedia talk:Administrator's noticeboard about the material you're trying to add. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) At AN???!? I did start a discussion on the talk page, as I indicated in the edit summary; courtesy has become an anachronism here. —Neotarf (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Right, WT:AN, not WP:AN; you're trying to introduce changes to how WP:AN works, so they would need to be discussed on its talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Re: "I did start a discussion on the talk page" – I just looked at WT:AN and there's no such thread there. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Just saw this comment here, ...no, the discussion was started on the topic ban talk page, but am no longer interested in pursuing the subject, as it does not seem to be helping to calm the current disruption. —Neotarf (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing this discussion?

I would suggest an admin close the "Admin attention to an RfC/U" section; it has grown extremely long and hasn't been excessively active today or for a significant chunk of yesterday. The only remaining issue, whether or not to topic-ban two additional editors, probably won't attain enough consensus to either pass or be prevented; this discussion could be restarted at the bottom of the noticeboard, to enable more participation. dci | TALK 00:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The other remaining issue is enforceable voluntary topic bans; I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but someone suggested I post about it here. One of the reasons given for rejecting a voluntary withdrawal from the topic in that RFC/U is they did not view it as being enforceable, however there is a precedent for enforcing such a ban. —Neotarf (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that the issue is getting any traction. It looks to me like everyone who cared about that entire thread and its subthreads, like enforceability of voluntary topic bans, has already moved on. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I take that back; closing this would be very premature. The proposed extension of the topic ban to the two other anti-dash battlegrounders is still in play (new support !votes were added, and the opposes are all faulty). More importantly, see #Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?); Apteva is back at it again. The "enforceability of voluntary topic bans" bit is off-topic here (should be at WT:AN, the talk page; Neotarf indicating posting a thread there about it, but there is no such thread there). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This was posted at WT:Banning policy, not sure why WT:AN is being recommended; however I have lost interest as it merely seems to be encouraging further disruptions from Wikid77, LittleBen and now GoodDay, whose original "enforcable voluntary topic ban" has not turned out to be particularly successful. This is what happens when a disruption in one area goes on too long. The disruption becomes so widespread that it attracts individuals who are disruptive in other areas and they congregate in an area they had no previous interest in, and begin to disrupt that area as well. These newcomers have been egging Apteva on, when the community has been trying to send a different message to Apteva. Initially, when they saw a topic ban was being considered against them too, they backed off, but now the disruption has started up again. —Neotarf (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned this entire thread and its subthreads are dead now, including the proposal to extend the Apteva topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW (there was a lot of support for it, but it wasn't unanimous, and the alternative – to simply have the fact that the proposal was seriously considered stand as a warning against further programs of style-related disruption from those two editors – is well-reasoned enough. The "enforcing voluntary restrictions" discussion belongs at WT:AN, not WP:AN. The only other semi-active subthread left really belongs on my talk page if the other editors wants to pursue it. Might as well close and hat the entire thing at this point. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have rescinded the above comment since another !vote in support of extending the topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW has been posted, and every single one of the opposes is somewhere between weak ("me too" and IDONTLIKEIT) to pointy and procedurally invalid to completely refuted on every point. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in pursuing the idea of "enforcable voluntary bans" any further at this time. I did start a discussion at WT:Banning policy, and got a positive reaction from Wikid77, who is now being considered for a topic ban. In the meantime, the original model for the proposed change has not turned out to be a poster child for the concept. —Neotarf (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've become a bit confused on what exactly has been occurring. Has Apteva violated his topic ban? And, less importantly, why has the above section been closed as "off-topic" when it was created in response to this discussion? dci | TALK 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, Apteva violated his topic ban, broadly construed. Dicklyon, I think, has proposed that it be clarified to prevent any further WP:GAMING. The thread on "enforceable voluntary bans" was marked off-topic because it's off-topic (its a proposal to modify banning policy and WP:AN procedure, not a proposal to do anything in particular with this WP:AN case). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A most unproductive discussion

This discussion has become nothing more than an array of extremist proposals, none of which have gained much traction and all of which have instigated controversy. The result - editors attacking every facet of one another's arguments, with no effective resolution to the dispute being reached. There is absolutely no need to continue to clutter space on this noticeboard with the discussion. Let an admin review and close it and temporarily shelve the idea of topic bans for Wikid77 and LittleBenW. Note that I'm not suggesting we silence discussion of this matter, but merely start a new section at WP:ANI, where concerns could be laid out for more expedient resolution. Regarding the new Apteva controversy, that can be sorted out at the bottom of this page, where it really ought to be, not in one of the convoluted sections above. dci | TALK 00:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion seemed to be having some effect on calming the disruption, I imagine that was why it was allowed to remain open. Any suggestions to close the discussion just seem to encourage Wikid77, LittleBenW, and now GoodDay, whose "voluntary topic ban" does not now appear to have been very successful. —Neotarf (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to insinuate, as I said, that I want everything shut down. I want to rid this noticeboard of this long discussion, and to (immediately) transfer and reopen the Wikid77/LbW/GD discussion to the bottom of the page. dci | TALK 01:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You would like to be rid of this long discussion? The disruption at MOS has been going on for a looooong time. I had hoped to start a new article today, but instead find myself once again using all my wiki-time for damage control from a user that was supposed to be topic banned already.—Neotarf (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, archiving the discussion of the rationale for extended remedies and then reopening the proposal for extended remedies simply guarantees not only that the long discussion will happen all over again, doubling the amount of time an editorial attention, but also that the tendentious editors will get yet another opportunity to be tendentious about this WP:LAME style obsession of theirs. And this is not a WP:AN/I matter, since it's not an incident, it's about a long-term, WP:TAGTEAM disruptive editing pattern. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What "array of extremist proposals"? There are only two proposals, and they are not extreme, but SOP: That Apteva's topic-ban be clarified a bit so he stops his brand new campaign of WP:GAMING the system by exploiting its vagueness as a loophole, to continue his anti-dash, anti-MOS holy war at WT:AT; and extending the topic-ban to his WP:GANG members Wikid77 and LittleBenW, based on piles of evidence already provided, by multiple editors. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom?

Moot: ArbCom declined the case 8–0.

This really should be sent to ArbCom IMHO - the discussion's gone on for way too long and there is no consensus. --Rschen7754 09:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I could not agree more. An arbcom case on the whole "small horizontal lines" war is long overdue. Thge community does not seem to be able to resolve the issue or to stop the endless, pointless arguments about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Agree ArbCom should debate short-horizontal-lines war: At first, I thought endashed names were a budding world-style trend, but then discovered even major journals allow editors to mix hyphen/dash usage, and any pro-dash trend from years ago is likely to fade as computer software scans for dashes as being who-cares-hyphens (see hyphen=dash to Adobe Acrobat). Recent anti-hyphen trends, over the past 100 years, even drop hyphens totally or diaresis dots (re: teenage, windowsill, naive; recently: e-mail, email), so I suspect endashed names to also fade, not grow. WP needs to drop the extra horizontal wp:STICKpixels, and only ArbCom could say that without getting a topic-ban threat. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) The community has reached a consensus, but the attempts so far to stop the endless, pointless arguments about it has not worked. The topic bans proposed would have helped, but if ANI is unable to do that, ArbCom might, but it seems like overkill. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC) It is likely Arbcom is the only feasible option at this time. dci | TALK 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC) ArbCom would be overkill at this point, because a WP:AN remedy is available. "The community... resolve[d] the issue" in 2011. The "endless, pointless arguments about it" been coming from 3 to 4 editors, period, one of whom is topic banned (Apteva), and one of whom disavows any further interest (Enric Naval). Please do not miscast this as a "Wikipedia can't come to consensus on this style point" matter. WP did come to consensus on it, and ARBCOM endorsed that consensus as valid. ARBCOM might again be the needed solution, but it would be about a few editors' disruptiveness, not about dashes. However, I note again that the proposal above to simply extend the topic ban here to the other two disruptive editors (Wikid77 and LittleBenW) – both of whom have been subject to such topic bans before because they will not stop tendentious campaigning against MOS consensus – has no opposes that have not been shown to be faulty, and a large number of supports which have not been refuted. The relative merits of the arguments indicate a clear actual consensus to proceed as proposed. Doing so would obviate any need to drag ARBCOM into a second case about this for no real reason. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Arbcom -- is the best place for these sprawling multiple editor issues, where almost everything seems to be claimed to be "irrational" if its "on the other side." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I'd like to draw your attention to the request that Apteva has filed: WP:A/R/C. --Rschen7754 03:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I think the only appropriate response to that filing is: Facepalm . — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC) ArbCom thought so, too. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My last proposal (I promise)

Can we agree to this, as it's highly unlikely Arbcom will address anything (plus, Apteva's withdrawn his request)?

• Wikid77 and LittleBenW are discouraged from taking further actions in opposition to the dashes section of the MoS. They are asked to refrain from discussion on the matter. It is noted that perhaps they should stay away from MoS topics in general, but they are not required to do so. If they continue in editing patterns deemed disruptive by the community (basically, continuations of the patterns complained about above), they will be subject to topic-banning or blocks. This agreement is not a topic ban, as both editors have claimed that they are not intending to fanatically support their POV on dashes, and the community will assume good faith for the time being.

dci | TALK 00:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction: The ArbCom request was overwhelmingly rejected, not withdrawn. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors who support this proposal:

• dci | TALK 00:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC); as author

Editors who oppose this proposal:

Editors who are neutral on this proposal:

• I could live with it, as a last-resort, wishy-washy, WP:ROPE compromise, but the more stringent proposal is still in play, above, has a lot of support, and has no opposition that has not been refuted. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal:

This weaker version of the "extend topic ban to Wikid77 and LittleBenW" proposal pretty much guarantees that the disruption will continue on this and similar issues, in multiple forums, until it ends up back here for a topic ban or block re-discussion. I really don't see the point in a "This isn't really a topic ban, but if you don't treat it like a topic ban, we'll make it a topic ban" proposal. It's just a topic ban with loophole that permits more disruption until we go through all of the above again and turn it into a proper topic ban. Why bother? Once is more than enough, and an examination of the actual relative merits of the support/oppose responses to the stronger proposal shows that it does actually have consensus already. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:34, 16 January 2013 (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.

Demonym for New South Wales article

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 problem is over the demonym for residents of the Australian state of New South Wales. Two terms in common use exist, "New South Welsh" and New South Welshman". The infobox for the article on New South Wales previously only had "New South Welshman", as well as including a hidden note in the box stating that "New South Welshman" is the only proper term regardless of gender, and warning editors to not add "New South Welsh". Back in December 2010 I ignored the hidden note however, having watched a video with the State Premier using the term "New South Welsh". This was subsequently undone by AussieLegend with an edit summary claiming that only natural born-and-raised Australians are credible sources. I reverted that edit once myself pointing out the ignorance of such a suggestion considering the position of the source, and that was again reverted by AussieLegend. I walked away and haven't touched the article until recently, hoping that users with such unhelpful outlooks on sources had "moved on". Early this morning I came back to the article, and re-added "New South Welsh" alongside "New South Welshman", then went to bed. About an hour after that edit, I was again reverted by AussieLegend with anotehr unhelpful edit summary. I have attempted to provide various sources on AussieLegend's talk page, including a newspaper article dating back to 1860 showing long historical use of the term "New South Welsh". He has chosen to overlook my sources.

I attempted to open a dispute resolution, and that was closed as insufficient and premature. However that assessment is wrong for a few reasons. First, I have tried talking with the user on his talk page, but it is clear that such a discussion will be completely unfruitful. Second, the issue was discussed on the article talk page by various users who never came about to any solution, and while AussieLegend claimed in his edit summaries back in 2010 that the issue was resolved on the talk page, that clearly is false. Third, I am under civility and editing restrictions which greatly limits my ability to engage in the issue myself without some form of involvement from the Community.

Because A: I have provided numerous sources for "New South Welsh", B: AussieLegend has been unable in 2 years to provide any source on the exclusivity of "New South Welshman", and C: "I never heard it so-and-so" is not considered a factual basis for making decisions on Wikipedia, I need community consensus to add "New South Welsh" to the infobox alongside "New South Welshman". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find any edits by you on the talk page. Can you point me to them? The talk page discussion you link to is from 2006. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

28bytes have a {{minnow}} for asking a stupid question. They aren't any. NE Ent 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fry should open a discussion at Talk:New South Wales and include the references at User_talk:AussieLegend#New_South_Welsh. Then, if no one responds, try WP:RFC and/or WP:3RD. NE Ent 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited the talk page of the article. I did not back in 2010 because I instead walked away from the issue, I can't remember why it was a long time ago. This time I chose not to because when my addition was once again reverted, AussieLegend personally asked for sources, which I provided on his talk page. Because of my restrictions, and quite frankly my energy, I don't have time to keep arguing with him, which it looks like all would come from continuing to engage on his talk page. Another reason I have not attempted to gain consensus on the talk page of the article is because I feel it will not be enough, AussieLegend has made the article personal by inflecting that "New South Welsh" can't be on it because he "never heard of it". Fry1989 ^eh? 21:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case my suggestion would be to start a section on the article talk page, present your sources there, and let other interested editors comment. If arguing with AussieLegend is stressful, then don't; just make your case and let others chime in. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try, but forgive me for not having too much faith atm. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See concurrent discussion at ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Addshore

I am currently (self) nominated to become a member of BAG (Bot Approvals group). Any questions and input you may have is invited with open arms here. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC - even if you're not involved in the Wikidata project, this is something that admins should be aware of that will happen in February. --Rschen7754 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's editing restrictions

Some of you may remember the hot water Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) got hisself into last year, and the indef-block that resulted from it. That block was lifted (OK, nice passive there--I lifted it) with certain conditions and restrictions (more details here, for instance). In the meantime, Homer has, as far as I can tell, stayed out of trouble and has edited productively. He comes to my talk page with questions about reverts and such, he hasn't been brought up on any of the boards, and he hasn't been edit-warring (again, all this to the best of my knowledge: I'm not exactly following his every move). Anyway, it seems to me that I can loosen some of the restrictions he's been under; in a nutshell, from a limited 1R (I urged him not to make reverts in contentious areas and to keep me posted of problem edits he would before have Twinkled away) to 2R. More explanation on his talk page at User_talk:Neutralhomer#Reverting.

I'm bringing this here because I can fully understand admins having concerns still about Homer, given what he was initially blocked for, and the matter caused some controversy (or at least discussion) last October. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification — by "initially blocked for", do you mean the incident leading up to the indef, or do you mean this edit, which is linked in his first block log entry in 2007? Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It might be helpful if you linked to a more complete history, here. Saying "some of you may remember the hot water" and "given what he was initially blocked for" is a tad vague, it it not? What did Neutralhomer do, and when did he do it? Has he done similar things before, or was it a one-off? Which accounts has he edited under? What, specifically, were the conditions of his unblock, and how were they arrived at? Finally, did you discuss this request with him at all, or are you springing it on him as a surprise? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The administrators who were involved with those various discussions know what I'm talking about, and if they're not and they're interested, there are plenty of links on the talk page discussion I linked to. No, I am not giving a complete history; a brief redux should do. This isn't about the unblock; it's a simple note about loosening some editing restrictions. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The AN thread leading up to the indefblock (which, Nyttend, is what I would guess Drmies is referring to) is here, with a section asking for a community ban for Neutralhomer right below it (obviously, that request didn't gain consensus). The ban request was specifically in response to Neutralhomer's actions during the thread, as admitted in this diff. My opinion is that I have no opinion, but I will be happy to do more digging here when I have more time, to find out what my opinion might be. bonus points if you know what that's a paraphrase of Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WK, did you call to see what condition your condition was in? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Benjamin Franklin" in an episode of "John Adams"? Yeah, I Google'd it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies, I'm not faulting you for bringing this here, because that seems to be the prevailing approach in this type of situation, but WP would use up a lot less bandwidth on bikeshed issues if we just left these decisions up to the admin who understands the situation best (i.e. you). IMHO, just do what you think best. You were trusted to use sound judgement on this before, no reason not to trust you to do it now. I'd hate to see this degenerate into a "I think the 1RR should last for 3 more weeks" ... "Well, I think it should last 4 more weeks" ... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Floq. I disagree partially, of course, or I wouldn't be here--thing is, we didn't really formalize much about mentorship and all that, nor did the community really build a consensus on conditions. Not that they needed too, and I'm the last person to want to be so bureaucratic, but Homer came awfully close to being banned. I'm pleased to say that he hasn't even come close to getting into trouble again, and I suppose I wanted to mark that publicly. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, well I've "voted", so I'll go find something to do and leave you to your self-inflicted discussion :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• I trust Drmies decision to slightly loosen restrictions, and would support his judgement to decide further lifting in the future. Homer will ping me when Drmies isn't around, so I'm familiar with the situation and have noted a good effort to avoid issues. Some restrictions are still warranted but a slight lessening seems to be a good idea at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As the unblocking admin, Drmies is probably in the best position to judge this one. I'm all for editors who learn from their mistakes regaining full editing privileges over time. A block that is learnt from should not be held against an editor for ever and ever. If Drmies thinks the restriction can be loosened to 2RR then I would support such a course of action. Neutralhomer is no doubt aware that any repeat of the original behaviour would result in another indef block. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, if need be we can always tighten them back down again. Kumioko (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Too drastic; support reducing to 1.903 RR. NE Ent 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • <(())>< Here is your trout, Ent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Seems sensible. NH has been a good editor whenever I've come across him. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC).
  

• I don't know what constructive things Neutralhomer used to do, but I think there is reason to be very sceptical. My first contact with him was in 2009 after he was a first responder to an admin's question at AN, managed to push things in a very bad direction [37] and closed the thread after the innocent IP victim was blocked. I had to reopen the thread and leave a few harsh words there, resulting in gracious apologies by several admins for blocking or not unblocking. After which Neutralhome attacked me on my talk page [38] for having notified him when I reopened the thread. I don't think he ever apologised or understood why he was wrong. (The issue was edit-warring against this static single-user IP on their own talk page.)
  It's interesting to see that he was indeffed recently for phoning an IP's employer to get them sacked.
  Is there reason to believe he is going to learn from this? He has now promised to stop editing TV chain articles completely. That's good, but I am not very optimistic: (1) In early 2008 he socked while blocked for a "fuck you" (in Polish), then continued with another sock after being caught. (2) In April 2010 there was the block summary: "Misuse of the Twinkle automated edit tool, despite multiple instances of being chastised for its misuse and repeated instances of his agreeing to stop using it at all."
  TLDR: Don't rely on any assurances. What seems required here is strict topic/behavioural bans enforceable without discussion by blocks. I doubt that 2RR is enough without a supporting topic ban. Hans Adler 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Hans: I am not going to defend what I have done, but I have tried to do better. Unlike most, I screw up a good bit, but not for the lack of trying. I do try to be a better editor. For example, after the "fuck you" in Polish, the editor that I directed that to and I are on speaking terms and we aren't snapping at each other's throats. After my last block, I voluntarily gave up TWINKLE. I work with not one, but three different admins to make sure my nose is kept clean. I actively triple-check everything I am going to say and if I think I am being to snarky, I let an admin say it for me (they are better at getting a point across without snark). That last one actually helps me in real life as apparently I am too blunt when I speak. Comes with the territory, I guess.

To say that I need strict topic bans when I have limited my editing to just radio station pages and a couple non-radio pages (town pages, a Faroe Islands network, the ELCA page, and the usual talk pages) with the only TV station posts on December 23rd when a new TV network took over (and that was just to change a Wikilink), would be the same as blocking me. I would like to think I am doing better, but anymore limitations and I am pretty much not editing.

@Everyone: I am trying my best to make the last block the last block. Prior to my last block in October, I had gone almost a year and a half without a block. That's pretty good for me consider my block log and yes, it sucks. I could say a million times I am trying, but I can only say it enough before people say "yeah, right, heard that before". Something I don't like to admit, mostly cause it is used against me and people think I used it as a crutch, I have Aspergers, which is a high-functioning form of Autism. I am not great in any social situation, but everyday is a learning experience. I am blunt, but people with Aspergers tend to be blunt. We aren't rude, we just speak our minds, which tends to get us in trouble. I try to change my behavior but like with everyone, we fall back into old habits, so do people with Aspergers. Am I making excuses? No. Should this excuse my behavior? Definitely no. But please know that while it seems like I am screwing up and getting better repeatedly, I am actually trying. I am trying to be a less snarky person, less blunt, less on the attack and more to help, walking away from areas that I genuinely like (TV stations) to avoid conflict, asking for help from others (not something I am big on having Aspergers, think Psychology). I try daily to act "normal" here and before my October block, I did go too far. I even went so far to get a medication change to prevent that from happening again. I am trying.

TL;DR: I'm Autistic, not an excuse, I'm trying, stick with me, don't punish me, I'm trying to get better, to do better, to act better, to edit better. I'm trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the information. You were of course under no obligation to volunteer it, but for me this changes everything. Under these circumstances I support relaxing your restriction even without a topic ban on TV chains. I am assuming that you will continue to work closely with other editors, and that they will assist you to stay out of problematic areas without the need for any explicit threats.

I happen to believe that being autistic is a valid excuse for occasional overreactions. Of course, on the negative side, if things ultimately don't work out, it can't prevent a full ban. Hans Adler 02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to work with Drmies, Dennis and others, probably after the restrictions are all lifted whenever in the future. I don't want people to see my Aspergers as an excuse or a crutch, or treat me different, which is why I don't volunteer it that much. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any reduction in restrictions. Frankly, if you don't think it's an excuse you're doing a pretty good job of trying to use it as one - and I haven't seen a single point here that actually addresses why you got in hot water. Editors saying "fuck you" in polish was not why you were blocked. Giving up twinkle does not solve why you were blocked. "Being blunt" is not an explanation for your behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, people with Aspergers do have a lot of trouble judging appropriateness in social situations. While they may be up to speed with their academic work, it takes much longer for their people skills to mature. It's just the nature of the condition. The steps outlined here, a change in medications and especially "three different admins to triple-check everything", seems like a reasonable plan. If only there were more "normal" people with such self-awareness about their personal limitations. —Neotarf (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ironholds, Homer was blocked for outing, for a pretty bad version thereof. He has not engaged in such behavior since. It seems to me that he gets in hot water when he gets caught up in revert wars, esp. if he believes he's reverting vandalism (and it's established that he's not always been correct in establishing whether something is or isn't). That's why a revert rule was a good idea, at least in my opinion, and that's why I think 2R is a good idea: essentially it's self protection. You may have noticed, on his talk page, his mentioning a particular sock who's active in that field that Homer chooses to work in, and he was asking if he could simply revert those sock edits since there is an SPI, proof of socking, etc. I said no, precisely because I want him to stop thinking that he is exempt from 3R even if he is absolutely positive. Moreover, his past edit-warring typically led to all-too much personal involvement (i.e., cussing and yelling, sometimes an extension of bluntness if I may put it that way), and he did address that point. So, I have good reasons for proposing what I did but, as I said before, this is subject to community approval.

  On that note: I don't want his restrictions relaxed because I'm supposed to be trustworthy (ask around; the stock of my reputation has certainly plummeted recently); you should choose to agree or not based on his recent past which, in my opinion, has gone well enough. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ironholds, this is why I don't volunteer my having Aspergers, because people take my volunteering that information as my creating an excuse. It's not, it's me telling you and everyone why I act the way I do and what I am trying to do to change that. I am aware that Wikipedia isn't a therapists office and we aren't here to stand around and help NH get better. I'm doing that on my own, offline, what my volunteering my Aspergers is to show is that yeah, I have a problem, yeah, I am trying to fix that, yeah, I screwed up in the past, yeah, I am working with others to prevent that from happening again. One should never use or view Aspergers as a crutch or excuse, a person should acknowledge it is there, it isn't going anywhere (God knows I wish it would) and to work around it (I have to on most days). It isn't an excuse, it's something alot of people deal with and get better at overtime. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I'm one of those people. And I cannot understand, even with my experience of the communications and propriety problems it causes, how it could possibly have led to the actions you took. Ironholds (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not force NH into this corner, but I can say that with the research into ASD I've done, I'm not as surprised as you are Ironholds. The typical Aspie becomes very focused on something - anything. Sometimes "common sense" is placed well into the background in favour of "immediate resolution". Not that I want to speak on behalf of NH, and I'm sure not excusing the behaviour, but it's not abnormal (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins is right. The "this needs to be fixed now" part of my brain drowns out my common sense with a megaphone when I find a problem, something out of place, something that isn't right. It literally drives me nuts. I am almost having to redo the "wiring" in my head to stop "this needs to be fixed now" part of my brain from kicking in. It is tough, but the meds are helping, and that "fix it now voice" is being slowly (but surely) replaced by my "common sense voice" in my head. (Note: No, I don't hear voices, just a figure of speech) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Drmies' decision. Drmies knows what he's doing and is trustworthy, and I'm quite certain he'll take appropriate action if the relaxation doesn't work. Neutralhomer is genuinely trying to do better, and that's worth supporting. After all, we're only talking about relaxing from 1RR to 2RR here! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support relaxing; if any new abusive behavior starts, we can always ratchet back up again. But staying out of hot water for a while and complying with the restrictions is the right way back and seems to have been successful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support relaxing the restrictions. I'm confident in Drmies' opinion and I trust Neutralhomer to be on his best behavior. Ryan Vesey 03:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting restrictions and request that Neutralhomer edit another Wiki for four months. In this diff, you can see that I was not able to work up and post an analysis before the unblock was carried out.  If I recall, Fram was the only other admin involved in the decision to unblock.  Give Neutralhomer credit for being forthright about the action, but in the WP:AN post of "04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)", NH states that his goal in calling the editor's employer was to get the editor unemployed so as to stop alleged vandalism on Wikipedia.  A look at the WP:AN closing statement shows, "There's not going to be a consensus for a community ban, nor is any admin going to be dumb enough to unblock, so we can all move on."  So in effect, community discussion has been bypassed, both at the time of the failed community ban proposal, and at the time of the unblock.  Caveat: I have been the target of personal attacks by both Neutralhomer and Drmies.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: Forgive me, but it is 3:13am EST and my brain isn't working (lack of sleep) but I don't remember personally attacking you. Whenever I did, I am sorry. It doesn't really do much at this point, but there is no reason I should have personally attacked you and I shouldn't have been stubborn enough to not apologize immediately. I was then, I'm not now. I am sorry.

I would like to address one thing you said in your linked post above: "Time is needed for behavior change". You are right and you are also wrong. Yes, behavior changes do take time...but with someone with Aspergers or Autism, they don't take 4 months or a year as you stated. They take many years, sometimes never, depending on the person. Not saying that is going to happen in this case (I would hope not) but it does happen. People on the Autism spectrum vary in many ways and behavior, like with all of us, is one of the toughest things to change in someone on "the spectrum" (ie: the Autism spectrum). People on the spectrum are highly resistent to change and we don't respond well to it. We must want to change before we will. I do want to change, I want to stop being as blunt as I have been, I want to stop being snarky, I want to stop being an asshole to anyone and everyone around me. It's a process and like with anyone, spectrum or no, it will take time and it will take more than a year, more than 5, I don't know how long. Autism, Aspergers, PDD-NOS, childhood disintegrative disorder, and Rett syndrome (the conditions on the Autism spectrum) are a learning experience and one that is a lifetime long. I'm not asking for Wikipedia to stand still while I get "better", I am just opening up on a subject I don't like talking about, my Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support slight loosening of restrictions Look, I'm not going to get into a discussion of how ASD/Aspergers causes X and Y - indeed, from what I see, NH is not using it as an excuse or crutch for his behaviour anymore (yes, long ago he did, but he's not now). Do I know for a fact that ASD has caused some pretty bad decisions on his part in the past? Yup. Blocks and restrictions are designed to prevent future problems, and if someone can show me somewhere how NH has willfully and/or recklessly violated his conditions over the past 3 or 4 months, then please show me where he caused those problems - I'm not seeing it. As such, the restrictions have been successful, and granting him some additional freedom is due as part of the rehabilitation process. Besides, it's not like we're giving him access to delete the entire wiki - we're simply going to allow him to be a normal editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Surprising support. I was the editor that called for the community ban and I'm disgusted with what NH did. I'm also fairly shocked that he was unblocked without (it seems) further discussion here. However, given that he is back and has been editing, it seems without offence, I am consistent in my opinion that people can change their ways and that we need good contributors. I'd support the easing of restrictions, but I'll be leading even stronger calls for a community ban if I see NH being reported here for disruption because, frankly, outing editors in a bid to get them dismissed from their jobs, is an offence far far worse than the vandalism, misuse of bots and other infractions of policy we normally dish out bans for. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Dweller, I had forgotten (or maybe I never knew) that you had indeffed him, a decision I thought understandable. I thought, though, that there was significant discussion at the time possibly at ANI about my unblock and the restrictions. I can't really be bothered to look for them right now (gotta pee and really I shouldn't be wikiing of right now), but if you thought there wasn't enough discussion, I'm sorry, and I hope (with good reason, judging from your response here) that it hasn't been a disappointment. At any rate, I certainly didn't feel at the time that I was going rogue by unblocking Homer. Let me point out as well that I myself had serious run-ins with Homer years ago; I suppose he and I have both changed enough to come to an agreement. Thanks for your response here, and I hope that you won't have reason to regret your words. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support loosening restrictions, probably fully. Seems we're at a weird technocratic point where NH knows exactly the process, and it's just slowing NH down from doing otherwise normal work. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Just to note that I took over mentorship of Neutralhomer for a while whilst Drmies was unavailable. During the period he was under my wing, I was pleased with the work that I observed and how he handled issues he came across. More than that, I was impressed that he spotted potential issues and discussed them with me early on. Unfortunately, other commitments have meant that I am no longer able to mentor Neutralhomer, but I agree with Drmies on this relaxation. Support Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha, the big shot drops by. How you liking the new job, Mr. arbitrator? Thanks for helping out, by the way. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support but... leave the reins in Drmies' hands. If Drmies feels the restriction should be returned later, that is fine as a unilateral move. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Lift editing restrictions - Let him edit. Enough micromanaging. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support loosening restrictions. I vaguely recall some disputes with Neutralhomer in the past, but I think that Drmies can be trusted to do the right thing, and the remarks by Worm seal the deal for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Drmies and think they'll make a good decision. And think they'll be brave enough to reverse it if necessary. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation Committee page is outdated

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

This problem should be answered, or indeed fixed, at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Outdated.3F "This Wikipedia page is outdated. Please update this Wikipedia page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information." There is nothing on the Talk Page, and nobody seems to be paying any attention. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an administrative issue, discussion is in fact underway at the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback RFC now being drafted

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is now being drafted. Any and all users are encouraged to add a view or polish up the page. The RFC is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 21. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with possible range blocks

• ANEW report
• My talk page discussion

There is ongoing IP disruption of multiple articles based on the report at ANEW and the update by User:RJFF. Although I've semi-protected a few of the articles, that doesn't seem to be sufficient (too many articles) to protect User:Danrolo's IP puppets. I believe the best fix is range blocks. There would need to be more than one because the address ranges begin with different high-level qualifiers. I don't consider myself good enough at this to determine the most efficient blocks, so I am seeking help. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are you going to throw in an indef block and possibly a ban proposal, or do we feed out more rope? Sorry Bbb--that sounds like I'm ragging on you; I'm really ragging on us, since that talk page suggests action should have been taken much earlier. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you're referring to the Danrolo account itself, I extended the block to a week yesterday, and I'm prepared to indef him, but it wasn't my number one priority because he's blocked. I was more interested in preventing further disruption from his puppets, and indeffing the master won't fix that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he's working out of a /15 and a /16. That's be 192K addresses. I'd really have to be convinced the guy is a major disaster before I'd put in a block that big.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. So what's the alternative?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Widespread semi-protection. I wind up keeping custom lists. User:Kww/Fragments of Jade, for example, and I can monitor it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Kww/Fragments_of_Jade. —Kww(talk) 03:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How does one operate on such a massive range? Is it something one can do intentionally, or do we simply have a sockmaster whose ISP uses a ton of dynamic IP addresses? Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Does he always work on certain types of articles, or is there a pattern to what he adds/removes from articles? If so, you could consider making an addition to the edit filter that prevents edits from his IP range only if they match a specified pattern. I can help with this, if needed. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

His favourite thing is adding ideology labels to the infoboxes of political parties. He rarely edits the actual text of articles, because his English is too poor. He seems to consider himself an expert of all party systems around the world. In order to stop him you would have to semi-protect all articles on political parties of every country. --RJFF (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, it's controlled by the ISP. There's little a user can do to control it, and certainly nothing that I wouldn't consider covered by WP:BEANS.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Scotty, based on what RJFF says, is an edit filter possible (doesn't sound like it)? Assuming it's not, should I keep a list like Kevin has and have RJFF feed me pages to add to the list? I must say that the idea of semi-protecting that many articles in response to socking seems almost as bad to me as a huge range block. Putting aside the distasteful defensiveness of the actions, it prevents innocent non-auto-confirmed accounts from legitimately editing a very large number of articles. Do we handle it like normal protection, meaning we don't protect the article until the disruption reaches a certain level (that would mitigate the effects somewhat)? And how long do we protect the articles for? Again, if that's the plan, I would be in favor of escalating lengths depending on the disruption, just as we would do with a normal RFPP request. Thoughts on any of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I can only share my techniques. I don't do it except for very persistent cases. I start usually with one month duration, go to three if it seems to be going on for a while, and rarely go over six months. I add articles to the protection list for any edit by the sockmaster. I understand your reticence about protecting large groups of articles, but if the other choice is having large groups of articles disrupted, I think it's a good tradeoff.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If there is any type of pattern to the editing, then the edit filter would be preferable. For instance, if all the articles he edits are in the same (or similar) categories, or if he adds/removes the same text often, etc. Then, we can create an edit filter that only restricts editing if both the IP address is in the right range and the pattern fits. Could you post some diffs, or link to a list of his typical contributions? That might be the best way to determine if there is a pattern that the edit filter can detect, or if the only solution is a massive semi-protection campaign. Also, per WP:BEANS, we wouldn't want to post details about the actual pattern here, but perhaps discuss it off-wiki instead. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss particulars about a pattern. ‑Scottywong| express _ 05:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Danrolo is not interested in Wikipedia rules, community or talk pages. He won't read this. (Nearly) all articles he edits disruptively are on political parties. So they should be in sub-categories of Category:Political parties. Is that definition narrow enough to install a filter? Mostly he adds or changes something in the "ideology" and "position" parameters of the /Template:infobox political party/ in the respective articles, like here. --RJFF (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • And do we have the list of IP's he uses? Someone indicated it was a /15 and a /16 subnet, but didn't indicate the IP. I think I can come up with something in an edit filter. Why don't we try that, and if it doesn't work, we'll resort to protecting? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I think I found the IP's on your talk page. I've got 186.78.0.0/15 and 190.22.128.0/17. I have edit filter 525 in test mode right now to see what it catches. I'll check on it later to see what we found. Let me know if those IP ranges aren't right. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• The IPs start either with 190.22... or with 186.79... --RJFF (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for pitching in. Based on Drmies's suggestion (way above), I've indeffed Danrolo and tagged his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The filter is not working yet. He was able to make these contributions that are typical for his editing pattern. --RJFF (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RJFF asked me on my talk page to semi-protect Saenuri Party, an article affected by this latest puppet (now blocked). I have no problem doing that, but what's the status of the filter? Scotty, you said it was in "test mode"; I assume that means that you're seeing whether it catches things but not actually preventing the edits. Did it catch the edits by the latest puppet? Should I semi-protect the article in the meantime? I'd just like to coordinate a bit here, that's all.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the filter wasn't active. It's standard practice to put a new filter in test mode for awhile to make sure it's only catching the edits you want it to catch. To date, it has caught 6 edits, which can be seen here. I'm satisfied that the filter is working correctly, so I've gone ahead and activated it a few minutes ago. That log page linked above will now show all of the edit attempts made by the user, and the filter will now start preventing these edits from being made. If you see any other edits get through, let me know. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the filter has caught 3 edits since it was turned on, and prevented him from editing. Now we'll see if he decides to quit, or if he trys to adapt to outsmart the filter. Here are the 3 edits (two are identical, he probably tried it twice to make sure it was real): [39] [40] [41]. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Scotty. Two questions. First, is there a way to add a filter to one's watchlist (or something like that)? Two, are we going to block each IP who trips the filter?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial CfD proposal

A rather controversial CfD proposal to delete more than 1,000 empty categories could do with more participation from all kinds of experienced editors. A note has also been posted at the Village Pump. Since the cats under discussion are not individually tagged, other means to raise awareness about this and get a broader discussion are used instead. Fram (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a note at WT:WikiProject Council, which is the hub for WikiProject announcements. Did anyone tell WT:1.0? The assessment scheme is theirs, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or does Ohsweken, Ontario appear to have the invalid category Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August 2,010 at the bottom? I can't seem to figure out how to fix it. ☂ (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Its coming from Infobox settlement, still trying to figure out where. Monty₈₄₅ 03:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently introduced by this edit, when the date was added to the use of Template:Vague in that infobox, but I can't see why that went wrong. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So whats happening is someone tagged the population total with {{Vague}} and used the date parameter date=August 2010. The problem that {{Infobox settlement}} runs the content of population_total= through a formatnum: magic word, which is causing 2010 to be formatted as number, 2,010 before its passed on to the category. Other then removing the vague tag, which seems pertinent, I don't see a good solution. Monty₈₄₅ 04:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a solutes to this problem when User:Helpful Pixie Botused to run. I forget what it is right now. Rich Farmbrough, 06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Delate Carson30

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 can you delate this user account because it is a sockpuppet of me Alameda15 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User accounts can't be deleted. You can just stop using it, though.  Sandstein  23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alameda15 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering indeffing Alameda. Carson30 has been indeffed as a puppet of Alameda, but Alameda continues to treat the Carson30 account as if it's a separate individual. It's almost surreal with Alameda giving advice to himself and then Carson30 following the advice. It's game-playing. In addition to everything else, the editor is simply WP:NOTHERE, and I see no benefit to the project to allowing him to amuse himself here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe he doesn't understand what a sockpuppet is, comfusing it with meatpuppet? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, it's the same person. They have the same English problems. They even misspell delete the same way. Even if I'm wrong, it's immaterial. He/they are either playing game or he/they are bananas (a technical term).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indef both and have done with it. They're clearly not here to edit constructively. GiantSnowman 20:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• He was talking to himself in the first 2 edits to his own talk page, so this is nothing new. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They came. They edited, making a couple decent contributions [42] [43]. They decided to get cute and make a sock. They got caught and the sock is blocked. They're trying to clean up the damage. Maybe they'll go back to editing, maybe they won't... but there's no point to blocking Alameda now. Cluelessness ≠ maliciousness. NE Ent 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Stupid punitive block, not preventing anything. NE Ent 22:12, 19 January 2013 (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.

Rich Farmbrough restriction enforcement is now being discussed

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. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding restriction enforcement for User:Rich Farmbrough. Any and all users are encouraged to comment. --Kumioko (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we typically notify AN about AE threads? I'm confused why this is appearing here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its typical. I just know that very few editors watch AE so I left a short blurb here and at Village pump policy. Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Right but...why? AE is a completely different venue than either AN or VPP - neither of them handles AE-related stuff usually. I mean, reading the AE request, it looks like you're dissatisfied with the service you and Rich are getting there, but because of that, this and the VPP post look uncomfortably like forum shopping. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to forum shop and I tried and think I accomplished the task of leaving a non biased post. The fact is that very few even know about AE, even less watch it. Regardless of my feelings on the matter or which way the vote goes, I think more than 5 people need to comment on a discussion about a longterm and accomplished editor before they are blocked for a year because some people consider the use of Excel automation. I didn't want to post details here but that's it in a nutshell. Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do see this as canvassing and definitely related to how the process is going there, since you are defending Rich there, and he is on the verge of a fairly severe sanction. The primary "audience" for AE are the admins who frequent the place, and are conversant with the byways and policies of that area, so I see little benefit from turning an AE thread into an AN/I-style thread by advertising it here. I would suggest not doing it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment moved from hat notice herein lies forum shopping NE Ent 03:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: Thanks for the heads up. You may be right that that this issue could benefit from a broader input. I appreciate your neutrally-worded notification. Bovlb (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the hatting and restored the redacted title. A brief, neutrally-worded invitation to participate in a thread on another forum is not forum shopping in the way we define it here on Wikipedia. The OP did not encourage discussion here, and did not conceal the existence of the other thread. Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've made a poor call here, Bovlb. Forumshopping is "try[ing] different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." In this case, Kumioko didn't like the answers he was getting from the admins who staff AE, so he applied to two places completely unrelated to AE, hoping to bring in voices saying the answer he wanted, or at least voices who weren't experienced at AE. Yes, he worded it neutrally. Yes, he told them to comment on AE, not here. No, that doesn't change the fact that he came to two unrelated noticeboards to try to get AE admins overruled because he didn't like what they were saying. You'll note that the AE report is now full of people who don't appear to understand AE, the history of the particular case at hand, or how arbcom findings/sanctions interact with AE - which makes any resolution there other than "too many shouting voices make it impossible to reach a conclusion" significantly more difficult. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if this is anything at all, its Canvassing. But since canvassing clearly states in the first 2 paragraphs that this sort of notification is allowed, I don't believe its that either. I also wasn't trying to get the AE admins overruled. What I was trying to do was bring in more than 5 peoples comments. I didn't ask for non admins and I didn't ask for folks who didn't have experience. Quite the opposite. I left a neutrally worded response in 2 places where I knew that expereinced editors frequented. If I was looking for newbies who didn't know the ropes I would have left a note at the Teahouse or on Jimbo's talk page. Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's forum shopping. " Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful". NE Ent 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Where has the OP raised an issue here? It was a simple notification. GiantSnowman 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The key to consensus on Wikipedia is making sure there as few participants as possible? Given that RF's talk page has 495 watchers it's not surprising there are multiple commenters at AE. NE Ent 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@fluffernutter: Thanks for the feedback. Forum-shopping, as we define, it is raising the same issue for independent discussion in multiple places. What the OP did here is canvassing for input to a single discussion, and in a way that was well within the guidelines. There is absolutely no basis that I can see given here for describing this thread as forum shopping, hatting it, or redacting the section title. I'm not sure how I can explain that any more clearly. Arguably, taking steps to conceal a discussion from a broader audience might constitue inappropriate canvassing in a reverse sense.

If there is a reason for taking such unusual steps to suppress this thread, it needs to be articulated directly, instead of hiding behind an inappropriate application of "forum shopping". If the AE board has problems with inappropriate participation that's a problem that needs to be handled there, not by forcing it into obscurity. If there's something important to be known about participating in the arbitration enforcement process that is likely to be unknown to people who read the Administrators' Noticeboard, then I'm sure everyone would benefit from your explaining it here. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The question I have to ask is why this particular AE discussion was crossposted here, and not any of the others. --Rschen7754 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Meaning depends on context.

1. Are AE thread notifications routinely crossposted to AN? No.
2. Are readers of AN likely to be sufficiently uneducated to know where AE is if they want to stalk it? No, there's a link to it at the top of this very page.
3. Were AE admin regulars (S-blade, lethal puppy, FPas, Sandstein et. al.) asking for additional viewpoints? No.
4. Was the initial reaction at AE tending towards significant sanctions for RF? Absolutely.
5. Is Kumioko known to have very strong pro RF opinions. Yes.
6. What possible reason would there to be for Any and all users are encouraged to comment other than to hope the proceeding would change course? I certainly can't think of any.

Thus, forum shopping. quod erat demonstrandum NE Ent 20:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly objectionable and just fine to provide a brief neutral notice here. Shadowjams (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that there should be a notification left somewhere about AE discussions but its not my responsibility to do so.

@NT, It should also be noted that I frequently comment on discussions regarding editors at Arbcom. Not just Rich. In fact I think I have participated to some extent to nearly every user related (and many of the others as well) Arbcom case for the last couple years. I would also note that for the last couple years I built a reputation for voicing my opinions regardless of the venue. If something is stupid, I'm gonna tell you regardless of precident or hurt feelings. I used to hold back and said things in a nice and politically correct way but I got labelled as a jerk and a butthole anyway so I figured I may as well just tell how I feel. I would also note that anyone can participate in these discussions and AE regulars need not be the ones to ask for additional viewpoints. Anyone can do it. Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your brief, neutral message was appropriate. The false allegations of forum-shopping or canvassing should be withdrawn and apologies tendered. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Chantoke: The great disappearing act

The existence of Chantoke (formerly Parsh) is rubbed out from the face of Wikipedia. I get User account "Chantoke" is not registered. message. However, the user had left an incomplete GA review as well as nominated an article for GA. Where is he gone??? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They vanished NE Ent 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"courtesy vanishing does not include the deletion of user contributions", but user contributions have also disappeared. Confused. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The contributions credit will have been renamed, perhaps to something like vanished user. Expect not to get any more responses to the GA review or nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I happened to have handled the abandoned GA review, there was nothing in it other than "review started" and so I requested it be deleted under G6 housekeeping and it was. All the other contribs are still there but just listed under the "vanished user" account name it was renamed to. This really is no big deal, what admin action are you requesting? Zad68 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Article feedback opened

Hi all,

The request for comment on article feedback has opened. All editor are invited to comment, endorse other users's views, and/or add their own view.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Title: Question regarding Wikimedia Commons interactions between users

Hello! I am interested if misbehaviour on Wikimedia Commons can lead to sanctions on English Wikipedia. More precisely, I'd like to know if the uncivil speech of User:CoolKoon on a Wikimedia Commons discussion page, where he insulted me and User:Yopie by calling "Czechoslovak mascots" is punishable also on English Wikipedia and can lead to sanctions as interaction bans. To be noted that this editor is under Wikipedia:ARBEE warning and I had several conflicts with him in the past here on en.wikipedia [44] [45]

I am worried that he could consider that his affirmations on Wikimedia Commons talk pages could not affect his account here, so he can resort to a less self-consored speech. --Omen1229 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking to the general principle, each WMF site is independently run; however, crosswiki behavior can be considered if it continues here, and we generally give fewer chances to such crosswiki violators. --Rschen7754 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We also don't do punishment - we do prevention. As an addition to the above by Rschen, Wikipedia can do Wikipedia-wide bans, but they're rare, and not done here directly on en.wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK

• Brief discussion

I need some input as to what to do next. As you can see, the discussion on the guideline talk page has not attracted a lot of comment. It doesn't seem to me that I can just change the guideline on my own, much as I'd like to. What would be the best course of action? WP:VPP?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That and/or an RFC. Being bold is a great idea when editing content, but policy changes, not so much. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Another admin has now commented at the talk page, perhaps because of this thread. Beeblebrox, do you think it would be acceptable to open a topic at WP:VPP that just asks editors to comment at the guideline talk page? I could also insert an RfC at the talk page as you suggest.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking misbehaving bots

Wanting to let everyone know about the new {{Bot block message}}. Over at WP:ANI, someone reported that CrimsonBot was misbehaving, so I performed a standard block: indef with no autoblocks and a message at the operator's talk page explaining what was going on. Unfortunately, this has contributed to the operator's sense that Wikipedia's not enjoyable, and he's retired. With this in mind, I looked for a boilerplate template to be used on the talk pages of operators of good-faith, approved bots that have been blocked because of malfunctioning, but I couldn't find one. Toshio Yamaguchi has written the new template (in response to my request at WP:HD), and I believe it's ready to go. Please make necessary tweaks and updates when you think of them. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot owner should NOT have taken the blocking of their bot personally ... my own was blocked because it was operating in error. It in no way reflects on the BotOp .. technology is not perfect. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone e-mailed CrimsonBlue (talk · contribs) to see if he'll re-consider his retirement? GiantSnowman 16:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

While BWilkins is right, it's no big deal, Nyttend should not have blocked the bot regardless, as it hadn't edited in two days. A simple message to the operator's talk page notifying them of the issue is advisable and equally effective. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are 4000 inclusions of the template the bot was incorrectly replacing and, as I recall, only half had been done at the time of the block. Blocking was the correct thing to do (and kudos to Addshore for reverting the bad bot edits). NE Ent 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's precisely why I blocked it; if it had been done with the task, I would have left it alone, but I didn't want it to do two thousand more incorrect template changes when it got going again. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit concerned about this - some bot blocks do give the operator permission to unblock the bot explicitly. --Rschen7754 19:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well we don't have to use the template. Pretty sure that we don't routinely give permission, and when one of those exceptions occurs, we can just leave a custom message. This isn't meant to change policy one little bit. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

admin parameter added to template. NE Ent 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Will that always display "you may unblock the bot" to admins? If so, it shouldn't be added; even admins shouldn't normally unblock their own bots. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if the user of the template intentionally adds the parameter. (Personally I don't think it's ever a good idea for an admin to unblock their own template, but that's between ya'll. ) NE Ent 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that instances like this would always be better to use a custom message rather than a template. Yes the bot had only got part way through the task and blocking was probably the right thing to do, but as above the bot hadn't edited in days, may have been able to be resolved without the block. Also in regards to admins unblocking their own bots, I disagree in saying that they cannot. I have always unblocked my bot after it has been blocked due to errors. The bot operator is the only person that knows when it is safe to unblock the bot, essentially what you would be doing is asking someone that can unblock the bot and that knows it is safe to do so to ask another admin to unblock the bot who would know less about the situation. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Addshore, I agree with you (in most cases) but recent arbcom cases have really muddied this. To some, it is a truly egregious violation of INVOLVED to unblock your own bot in any scenario without explicit permission. I've never blocked a bot, but if I did in a case like this and the owner was an admin, given the recent arbcom noise on this I would almost certainly say "go ahead and unblock once you've fixed this" in my notifying message. So for me, I guess I can't use this template, generally. Again, I haven't blocked a bot and don't do a lot of blocks anyway so don't change it on my account, I'm just trying to provide a perspective here. HaugenErik (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The message will say When the concerns have been addressed, you may unblock the bot. if the template is posted with admin=y (e.g.

{{subst:Bot block message|[[User:ExampleBot]]|admin=y}}) 

NE Ent 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem with a bot op unblocking their own bot once they've fixed whatever problem prompted the block in the first place. Requiring them to ask another admin to do it is pointless bureaucracy, in my opinion. As Addshore says, the bot operator is in the best position to know whether the bot is ready to go back online. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ya'll got a source for that contention? "Inexperienced managers sometimes gamble on the success of a project by skipping thorough testing or having programmers do post-development functional testing of their own work, a decidedly high risk gamble." NE Ent 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's say my bot goes nuts and is blocked. I think I fixed the problem and then unblock it, but it continues to go nuts. Well, then I'm rightfully on the hook for unblocking it. But let's say, instead, I ask another admin to unblock it, telling them it's fixed, so they unblock it, and it goes nuts, and now both of us look bad. How is that an improvement? The unblocking admin isn't a QA department; the bot op is ultimately responsible for the proper functioning of their bot, whether they unblock it themselves or go bother another admin to do it. 28bytes (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, why do you assume CrimsonBlue's decision to stop editing is related to the bot being blocked? I doubt he has a problem with it, he has personally asked me to block malfunctioning bots in the past. Secondly, the case of blocking a malfunctioning block is so rare as to be a case where a custom message should be typed. It is a very simple thing to do. Finally, if a bot was blocked for malfunctioning, and you fix it, then you can unblock it. That's just common sense. Prodego ^talk 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He left a message at my talk page in which he notes that this block was part of his reason for retiring. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been issues in the past related to bot operators unblocking their own bots which have resulted in significant expenditures of dispute resolution resources and significant sanctions for the bot operator. NE Ent 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't legislate away incompetent bot operation. No matter who unblocks, you are still taking the bot ops word that "the problem is fixed". Prodego ^talk 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions, I hope, for unblocking a still-malfunctioning bot. Sanctioning anyone for unblocking a fixed bot would be a bit daft. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but again, arbcom and many others certainly do not. Unless and until WP:BOTISSUE is amended to reflect what you and I see as common sense, it is probably best to explicitly and clearly give admin bot owners the goahead if you block. HaugenErik (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the "don't unblock your own bot" language in WP:BOTISSUE is a very recent addition: January 5, 2013. I strongly disagree with that change to the policy, so per the usual procedure I'm going to undo it and start a discussion on the policy talk page. 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 18#Unblocking bot accounts. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of having a flag to say that the operator is an admin and may unblock (as opposed to contacting the blocking admin or a noticeboard), I suggest that there be a flag to say that unblocking is at the sole discretion of the bot operator. With this flag, admin operators can unblock their own bot (uncontroversially), and non-admins can post an uncontroversial unblock request. The flag would be used when there is no reason to believe that the operator would allow the errors to continue. This allows the blocking admin to disclaim ownership of the block, reduces unnecessary drama on noticeboards, and levels the playing field slightly between admins and non-admins. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And at the end of the day after a bot malfunction I am sure any BotOp, after fixing the issues, would test their code again and watch their bot edit for a duration before they deem it to be fixed. (EC by Bovlb), After reading what you have written it would almost make sense to have a flag for all botops to control the status of their bots on wiki, I am not saying the ability to block and unblock, but maybe something else, just a thought. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

...and not to throw a wet blanket on the whole template idea, but I suspect in almost all cases a brief, personal explanation as to why you're blocking would be preferable. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My whole reason for wanting a your-bot-was-blocked template was because I feared that my personalised note to CrimsonBlue was ungracious and thus part of his reason for retirement. I wanted to know if we had a gracious template that would get across the you're-not-in-trouble message, since all our block templates are meant for more-or-less bad faith editing, not misbehaving bots. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As a bot operator, I'd find that template singularly unhelpful: I don't want reassurances that I'm not in trouble or vague statements that "something might be going wrong", I want diffs showing problematic edits, and (assuming it's not something self-evident like page blanking) an explanation of why the diffs are problematic. See [46] for an example of what I consider a good problem report, and [47] for a bad one. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd envisioned leaving a two-part message: first the template, and then a message explaining the problem or linking to a discussion about it (e.g. an ANI thread), except of course in cases when the owner had already been notified about the issue. Boilerplate here is meant as a reassurance that the operator's good faith isn't being doubted and that the blocking admin is hoping to see the bot fixed instead of seeing it being stopped permanently. That's why I preferred my wording, which solidly asserts that the bot was broken and that it needs to be fixed; when something might be going wrong, we should warn the operator, and we should only block a bot when it's plainly going bonkers. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I still fall into the "don't template the regulars" camp on this one, but perhaps other bot operators have a different view. I've posted a note on the bot owners' noticeboard requesting their feedback. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. My suggestion was aimed at helping anyone who might otherwise question the subsequent unblock. I don't think anyone was arguing that a template would supplant the need to explain the specific problems with the bot behaviour. Bovlb (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I wont lie the block did come as a shock to me, I think it is important to note here not all bot owners realize that a block on their bot is not a bad reflection as an editor, me included. I support this template and hope that it is used. The block did have an impact on my decision to retire, however not because of the blocking admin. A conversation I had with an experienced admin MzMcBride off-wiki is what had the biggest impact in my decision to retire, as he did say that it is a poor reflection on me as a bot operator, which is where my interests lie and that is the last thing I want. It's better to not edit then be a net-negative to Wikipedia. I wanted to clear this up so this discussion can be more about the template and not about my retirement. CrimsonBlue (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather certain that MzMcBride would not have suggested that a blocked bot is a poor reflection on the editor - a bot owner that does not respond to issues about their bot would be, but not a blocked bot. As the discussion was off-wiki, we'll never know - but MzMcB knows far better than to have made any such suggestion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For those of you that may want to discuss Bot policy clarification in regards to bot blocking and unblocking by admin botop then please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Policy_clarification ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Several weeks ago, Dennis suggested that an "Editor of the Week" recognition be created over at WP:WER. The purpose would be to recognize not those such as Dennis, who receive lots of acclaim already, but to an editor who:

• Writes or significantly expands articles on a regular basis.
• Cleans up articles by, for example, adding sources, expanding citations with the necessary information, aligning prose with the manual of style, or improving the quality of the prose through copy-editing (such as making the text more concise and removing redundant wording).
• Serves as notable voice of reason in discussions with other editors.
• Performs behind-the-scenes work, not normally seen by the general community.

We are looking to recognize the under-appreciated, dedicated content contributors who go about what they do quietly and who often go unrecognized. Dennis suggested that a note might be placed here, in case any of you have come across an editor who may meet those criteria. You can nominate someone here. You can read about the project in general here. Make sure, if you use the shortcut, that you make sure the "ot" is "ot" and not "OT", as otherwise it will redirect here. We've recognized two editors thus far, and are looking for more nominations. Thanks in advance. On behalf of the seven or so of us actively involved in the project's administration, Go Phightins! 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to say we don't need more awards and encouragement, but User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive is a useful thing to check out. Maybe some extra help or coordination would be good too. --Jayron32 06:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• One great way of turning "under-appreciated, dedicated content contributors" into divas more concerned about their FA star galleries than improving the project is by glorifying them through easily-politicised awards, IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, we could assume good faith...Go Phightins! 12:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you mean nothing but the best. That doesn't alter the historical precedent that awards like this seem to result in cliques and more than the odd editor going off the rails in an effort to collect prizes. We already have WikiLove if editors simply want to show their appreciation to others in an informal manner anyway, and it's not obvious why a formal system would improve upon that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Because a few editors might turn into a Diva is not a reason not to do something. Anyway, I don't see how such a program can be managed without creating a "EOW Clique" or cabal. Someone has to pick the weekly winner and it shouldn't be a popularity contest nor should it be one person's arbitrary decision if it's a community-sponsored program. However, there is no reason that you or Dennis couldn't manage your own personal "EOW" similar to how people do User:Rlevse/Today/Archive.--v/r - TP 17:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can think of several editors worthy of such recognition, but the problem isn't the editors who are voted EOW, the problem is the ones that aren't. I mean, if editors are going to be nominated, then presumably there has to be some function to oppose their candidacy? Could you just imagine how dispiriting it would be if a hard working editor were nominated, and then people start coming along and saying this editor doesn't contribute enough, this editor gets into edit wars, this editor isn't collaborative? What starts off as a nice gesture could turn unpleasant against an editor that has made decent contributions. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The WMF t-shirts initiative managed to avoid that problem, more or less. One area where the WMF t-shirts initiative did generate negative vibes was over whether banned editors should be "recognised" in that way. The editor of the week initiative won't have that problem because, if an editor was banned some time ago, they won't be eligible anyway because they won't have made any important contributions this week.

In a similar way, the editor of the week initiative also has a slightly anti-WP:DIVA element, in that if an editor is temporarily in "retired/sulking" mode, then they won't be eligible to be editor of the week because they won't have made any contributions that week. (The "you have to be in it to win it" concept.) So DIVAs will be less eligible, editors still contributing will be slightly more eligible - which after all is the point of editor retention.

I do admit that there is a potential problem if nominations are aimed at being a political football rather than based on the editor's contributions in that week. So for example if someone were to nominate a recently blocked editor with a very large number of edits, or an arbcom "whistleblower", or an editor who feels harassed by arbcom and administrators, or an arb who some parts of the community feel was unduly rude about that editor but other parts of the community didn't... not wishing to spread WP:BEANS about, but it should be obvious why all of these would be extremely bad choices, choices based on politics rather than choices based on contributions in that week. Hopefully "who go about what they do quietly and who often go unrecognized" implies it will never descend into this sort of political "popularity contest" divisiveness. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Betty, to date we have not been notifying nominees that they've been nominated and surprising them with recognition, though naturally as this becomes more recognized, people will start to watch it more often. We do have some guidelines on it at the page. Go Phightins! 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re the t-shirts initiative — I appreciated the way that was framed. I saw some names there whom I didn't believe should be sent shirts, but I said nothing because the initiative was set up in such a way that it was plainly not meant for disputes or "doesn't deserve a shirt" comments; the creator(s) made it clear that we were trying to overlook difficulties. If we could frame this proposal in the same way, Betty's highly relevant comments might not come true frequently enough to be a problem. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Group awards better: try WikiProject of the Week: Among the 2,000 (many inactive) wp:WikiProject groups, there should be plenty to praise. In general, group-based awards are safer to judge, in terms of total output, less diva-naming, and fewer problems of awarding a fraud later found to have pirated other work or diagrams. There was a famous story of a guy (no names please) who competed in a company for "Employee of the Month" and was finally caught "inventing problems" so that he would be seen as the most-helpful, quick-working employee in the company. It was amazing how fast he knew how to fix "broken" things around the workplace, as if he already knew exactly which electric plug was loose, where a missing tool was stored, which file had been corrupted, which errors in a report led to false totals, or whatever (you do the math!). Naturally, the guy was the "hero of the workforce" until people discovered the truth, and how hard he worked to create problems which caused others to suffer desperately until they received his amazing help. I think he was about to win "Employee of the Month". Ya buddy. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Beeblebrox as a possibly compromised account

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.

---

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) and his talkpage are on my watchlist. Having viewed the most recent series of edits to his talkpage, including the final one with the edit summary "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT", I have blocked Beeblebrox indefinitely as a possibly compromised account. This spate of behaviours does not appear to be consistent with Beeb's usual behaviour. Does anyone think we need an emergency desysop? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a fairly typical response (even if left unsaid) to anybody who attempts logic with the user Beeblebrox was having a discussion with. So, probably not compromised. --auburnpilot talk 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Helpful. No, we need an unblock, then a level-headed discussion about outbursts etc. No reason to suggest this account is compromised in any way. Please unblock. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• And his account is now locked. I'm 99% certain from a behavioral perspective that he is not compromised, but I'll defer to those who know more. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would support a 24 hour block, as "FASCIST IDIOT" is pretty bad, but no this isn't compromised. (As evidence the IGNOREMETA a year ago). --Rschen7754 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It won't matter as long as he's still locked, he can't log into his account to edit. MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why was he locked? Do meta admins globally ban someone based on the out-of-process claim if a single person now? --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Compromised accounts are generally locked to prevent the person who compromised it from having the ability to change the password or email address associated with the account. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree with the measure taken as the account clearly wasn't compromised, as I tried to point out having interacted with the user before, the measure is not taken by meta admins but m:Stewards and it was a temporary precautionary measure due to Beeblebrox's access to advanced user rights. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unlocked a few minutes ago. --Rschen7754 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this probably should use more words: Due process. You had an opinion that someone yelling was a compromised account, and didn't bother to clear it with anyone, especially since he hadn't done any admin actions that needed immediate stopping (not that this would have stopped those, mind you). Not really the best idea. And if he warrants a block for "fascist idiot", no comment, but it will be a different block than this one. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Under normal circumstances, if two of the most recent four edits for an administrator account involve telling other editors to "fuck off," I think it's not outrageous to be immediately concerned that the account may be compromised. (I say this not knowing Beeblebrox or how he normally interacts with others, granted.) user:j (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support short block for that wholly unacceptable comment, unsure if the account is compromised - we need to e-mail to find out. GiantSnowman 21:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, we don't need email to find out, as there has been absolutely no evidence, let alone proof, supplied that it was compromised. Evidence that the person on the other side of the keyboard was perhaps unusually pissed, but that's never proof that the account is compromised. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • CU has said it is not compromised. --Rschen7754 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Couple thoughts here: First, no, he's not got his account compromised, that's Beeblebrox's style that we're seeing. Second, ugh, why must it be Beeblebrox's style. This is the sort of thing people complain about when they say that admins call people names, etc. It's not ok for Joe Editor to do it, and it's not ok for Joe Admin to do it, and it doesn't matter how upset or frustrated either of them claims to be to excuse it. Third: This immediate unblock has made things even more uncomfortable - Bwilkins had already been informed that the "compromised" bit was an error, and whether that part was or not, Beeblebrox has indisputably violated our civility policy. It pains and embarrasses me to have to say it about another admin/functionary, because we're supposed to be the people who know better, but a block for personal attacks was called for here. I would much have preferred letting the blocking admin (or AN) reconsider the block as an NPA block instead of what's now likely to be a bouncing ball of blockage because of the immediate unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The statement seems to me not inconsistent with the user's past comments, which are not the most civil that I have seen. I suggest that the block be switched to one for Civility violations or whatever, and that the Arbitration Committee consider withdrawing the user's advanced user right as this sort of conduct is most definitively not acceptable. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I did the lock since the account involved belongs to an oversighter. Considering the sensitiveness of his tools I choose the more prudent way to protect the Project while a local checkuser was checking whatever the account was compromised or not. Please note that lock is the only countermeasure (except for deflag) which can prevent misuses of oversight, while the block cannot do it. My apologies for the inconvenient though I prefer the risk to lock an user for some minutes by mistake than having a serious leak of suppressed contents.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If an oversighter were compromised, the much more likely thing is they *wouldn't* make it obvious. If I had a compromised oversight account would I be yelling fuck you on my talk page? No, I'd be quietly tittering at all the hidden gems. --Golbez (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually a compromised account can last only until the owner finds out the hack, so the "silent method" is probably useless. Anyway I'm not a psychiatrist so I can only make a deal between security and moderation.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I am super thrilled about having my account locked by the same steward who defended a meta admin's "right" to troll my talk page[48]. Ironically, you above all should have known that when someone tries to bully me I tend to tell them off. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I completely forgot that issue (and you were, btw *so* wrong, while Nemo was wrong too, probably just a bit less wrong than you), recalling it I don't find anything related to the current problem: I had two users reporting of a possible oversighter compromised account so, unless a check has been performed I prevented any abuse by temporary disabling the account. The useless incivility of some answers of yours (saying "I'm used to do so" is not a justification at all) aren't my business at all ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't react well to bullies. I'm referring to Kosh here, not B. Not content to just go away, he appointed himself the civility police as well as the content police, and was equally inept in both roles. So i told him to fuck off. Then he tried to re-open the closed thread, so I told him to fuck off, and that he was a petty fascist idiot. That is in fact exactly what he was acting like. A user persistently posting to my talk page after being asked to stop is the only situation that has ever compelled me to tell another user to fuck off, and I completely stand behind my right to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Administrators and holders of advanced user rights should set the example, and not dish out personal attacks when feeling frustrated. I stand behind your right to behave like this once in a while, I do not stand behind you doing so in a position where you're representing this project. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, i only do it when someone won't stop posting to my talk page. I don't believe trying to maintain some degree of control over the ability to close a thread on my talk page constitutes "representing this project". I was representing myself, nothing more. I don't see any need to keep discussing this either. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. FWIW I also have the admin bit and would probably have told Kosh exactly where to go as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2013 (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.

Do the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies apply to administrators?

This is a notification that I posted a discussion about administrators at the Village Pump --Senra (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Block review requested

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.

---

• Doktorspin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ihutchesson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ihutchesson/Archive

I think these blocks need a community discussion. They are blocked as socks. Doktorspin is claiming that they are in fact two Wikipedians living together, and that the he used the other account by accident. As a matter of policy that is generally not ok, but is it really so far-fetched that we must block them both, one indef and the other for a month, for what they claim is s simple mistake? I placed the unblock on hold while consulting with the blocking admin, User:Someguy1221, who seems basically unwilling to reconsider, citing behavioral evidence, and undid the hold on the unblock request, so I am bringing this here for further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To my naive eyes, this looks to be a variance of the little brother argument, as there is indeed strong evidence they are the same editor; the attitude displayed on Doktorspin's talk page fills me with further unease about the situation. GiantSnowman 16:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the little brother argument involves blaiming someone else. This person is saying "yes, I did it, it was an accident." I don't see that as the same at all. Their attititude is exactly what I would expect from someone who feels they are being railroaded and wiki-lawyered into a permanent block. If the finding of socking is upheld, that is what it will be, socks are the exception to the "indefinite does not mean infinite" rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming they are the same person, it is precisely the same as the little brother argument.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Whoops, I used my partner's account by mistake, honest" and "whoops, my little brother got on my laptop and started messing around, honest" are very similar defences. GiantSnowman 16:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. One excuse blames another, the other excuse takes the blame. Similar at a glance, perhaps, but at a closer look the psychology and rationale are totally different. --Nouniquenames 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a matter of policy and precedent, I think we should start with the presumption that Doktorspin's explanation is false. I also think that when two people (partners) live together, they do NOT share the same computers (Doktorspin mentions "access to the same computers"). I haven't reviewed the underlying details.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? I know AGF is not a suicide pact but it seems like everyone just wants to disregard it entirely here. My wife and I use the same computer all the time, as I am sure many couples do. She has no interest in editing WP so I have never had this problem, but it is hardly unprecedented. I don't want to call anyone out, but experienced users may recall more than one situation where even admins have had similar problems. When they admitted their error and promised not to let it happen again we accepted that, why is everyone soooo convinced not to even consider the possibility here? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't let anyone touch my computer, not my wife, my partner, my closest friend, or my dead grandmother (on my maternal side). But I suppose people's level of trust varies considerably. Perhaps we should do a survey.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are editors with such a relationship. My spouse and I each have a computer, but we use each other's too. --Nouniquenames 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone in the world is wealthy enough to have a computer for every member of the household. Just saying. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A very good point. (Indeed, some have zero computers; I'm aware of at least one prolific contributor who does all their editing from a public library.) 28bytes (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a load of malarky. My wife and I have totally different interests in articles, even though we have the same "schedule" in many cases. We also use the exact same computer(s). However, I would not be averse to unblocking both with restrictions:

1. only one account is allowed to edit any article or its associated talkpage, ever.
2. they must take great care to logout at the end of any editing session, and will take even greater care in verifying that it is them who are logged in
3. future violations will lead to both accounts being indefinitely blocked

Probably more restrictions would fit in ... but WP:ROPE and WP:AGF are at the crux of this. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look at the toolserver report, Talk:Suetonius_on_Christians Do you overlapping, let's pretend to be two people edits? Nope. Do you see something that's plausibility, oh I thought I was logged in, didn't realize you had borrowed my computer? Yep. So, in case of doubt, we're supposed to assume good faith. Simply unblock both and require they cross link users pages with {{User_shared_IP_address}} to avoid future confusion per policy. NE Ent 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Question Are these accounts blocked "ONLY" because they share the same ip address or was there some inappropriate editing going on as well?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They appeared to be socks, and a CU was run. The blocking admin and Doktorspin seem to have a different recollection of the exact series of events, he claims he admitted to it before the CU results were in, Someguy seems to feel it happened the other way around. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question for me. What disruption or damage to the encyclopedia were the alleged sockpuppets doing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The disruption was confusing a talk page discussing by using the pronoun 'I' to refer to edits of the other account. NE Ent 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And that's it? No edit warring, no personal attacks, no copyvios, no unreferenced BLPs? Sounds like a pointless set of blocks from that angle, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Admission came before CU. spin resigning ihuchession posts, DQ's CU statement three hours later. NE Ent 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And, since we do not have cameras in their house or the ability to read minds, we can never know for sure if he is telling the truth or not. All we have left to guide us is our own policies, and I believe AGF is the most relevant here. Our other option is to assume this user successfully hid their socking since at least 2008, until this mistake blew the whole deal. Does anyone really believe that? . Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock and encourage the use of {{User shared IP address}} as recommended by NE Ent, so that if both editors edit the same article or participate in the same discussion, other editors are aware of the connection. We have current and former arbs who share computers with other longstanding editors; let's not have different standards for new editors in the absence of some evidence that the editors are doing something nefarious. As an aside, the idea that someone would marry a person that they wouldn't trust to use their computer seems a bit weird. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, now, comments about relationships are generally ill-advised. I remember one woman who said that another couple couldn't possibly trust each other because they didn't share finances, whereas she and her husband did. Interestingly, the sharing couple divorced and the non-sharing couple are still very happily married. Each to his own.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that in one recent case the "little brother" argument seemed to ultimately be found to be factually accurate. I also think there is a rather real chance of us sooner or later encountering identical twins, with even more identical editing and language patterns, perhaps editing the same topic area because of their remarkably similar interests in general, perhaps in relation to some classes they might be taken together. I have no particular objections to seeing the block in place, but I think it does make sense to advise the parties in question that they are free to try to contact some administrator in a more direct manner, possibly through skype or some other means, to try to establish that they are in fact two different people who might just occasionally be using the same computer or internet connection. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The "little brother" case usually applies to alternation between useful article edits and juvenile vandalism. That's not what we're talking about here, is it? Unless there's some evidence of bad edits beyond a single incident of making a similar article edit, I'd recommend unblocking, per WP:ROPE, with a strong recommendation to be more careful in future, and avoid editing the same article. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really think that Beeblebrox really understands what a sockpuppet really is. Two accounts editing from the same ip is not sock puppetry. There was no disruption or attempts to game the system. No evidence that any one of these accounts was being used as leverage in the debate. I would call this a bad faith attempt to get a rival editor blocked for technicality. I think that both accounts should be unblocked immediately and the blcoking admin should be censured and have someone explain to him/her what a sock puppet really is as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, could you please review the facts of the case and possibly re-evaluate your remarks about me? I am the one tryong to get this block overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My Mistake.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I really do not want to spend much time on this, so I will make the passing comment that having looked at the edits, I now actually think there are two physical human beings there, of differing characters, Huchesson being a low key person (based on his tone) and Doktorspin a more aggreesive/argumentative type. Yet, I am not sure if the September and October 2012 edits indicated by Rschen7754 ([49] & [50] and [51] & [52]) were the same person or different people. I think the issue on the SPI involved the previous edits from 2012 as well. Now I will stop, type no more and let you guys figure it out. History2007 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the links above are quite concerning and why I think they should remain blocked. --Rschen7754 18:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The blocks seems bad (looking back, it may have looked fine walking in,) and should be lifted. --Nouniquenames 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I was the one who encouraged Rschen7754 Someguy1221 to make the block. As I saw it, on the SPI page they said "I used a computer yesterday that had already been logged on", so right there we have sharing of accounts, which is a big issue. Now I can't go over the CU results again just yet, but I seem to remember that the edits were very closely timed together on the same IP. That said, being it's a first violation, I think that Bwilkins has the right idea towards an unblock, as blocks are meant to be preventative. If they stay off of each other's accounts, don't cross the same subject area, and be very very careful about IP editing, then I'm willing to AGF. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, that was Someguy1221 who made the blocks --Rschen7754 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to give the impression that I think everything is ok here, but I am concerned at losing one or two long term contributors over what appears to be a mistake. Did Doktorspin act carelessly? Yes, clearly he did. Was it malicious or actually intended to deceive? Doubtful, but even if it was I think the message has been sent by now that the two of them need to be more careful about this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rschen, I obviously need more french vanilla today. I'll reply to the above when I get home. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doktorspin made this edit at 09:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC). Four minutes later, Ihutchesson made this edit, followed by this and this; then, a mere three minutes later, Doktorspin made this edit. All of the edits are made from the same IP, using the same operating system and (not particularly common) browser. I'll leave it to others to draw whatever conclusion they want to draw from this. T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• They were sitting on each other's laps? Playing musical chairs? Distracted by the dog chewing on the cable? Good faith my foot.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Those diffs show spin working on Marie Stopes (1st and 5th) while Ihutchesson was working on Haven (2nd, 3rd, 4th). This is sockpuppetry?? It's hardly suprising multiple computers in the same location would have the same browser installed and isn't it the IP of the router that shows up in a log? Like many words, uncommon is a tricky one in that its meaning depends on context. Chamicuro is a very uncommon language in the context of the world, but if one person in a particular dwelling in Peru is speaking, it's highly likely another person in the same dwelling is, too. NE Ent 20:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. While my wife and I used different computers with different software, I'd have to believe that for a lot of couples one person would maintain both computers. In any case, even if this is one user with two accounts, I'm not seeing anything that would be abusive socking. And I suspect it's two users given the analysis above about writing styles etc. Block wasn't unreasonable, but time to warn the users to be sure they don't abuse the situation and unblock. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • My wife and I have a single laptop between the two of us, and we often use the same account and browser. Luckily this isn't a problem because she doesn't edit, but just saying it's not really that strange of a situation. And I've edited from the shared computer at my parents' house, which is likely the same computer my sister has used to edit Wikipedia with her account (Again, not a problem, since she's been inactive for a couple years). ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, we have three computers in frequent usage, for which I do all the maintenance, installs, updates and fixes. That's the only time I touch my partner's computer, though that doesn't stop me from accessing webmail, checking forums, etc, while I'm there. The problem in this recent incident was the computer in the lounge room, which I wouldn't have expected my partner to use, but this was vacation time and it's close to the kitchen. -- spin|^control 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC) copied from tp by Ent

I wasn't aware of the reassigning of signatures three hours before the checkuser, but I still would not consider on par with admitting the alleged mistake. That said, the abuse in this case is giving the appearance of being two different people in current and historical content disputes. That said, the purpose of my block is to prevent Doktorspin from interfering with normal dispute resolution processes. Although I still believe that they are one person, the problem would also be solved with the unblock conditions suggested by Bwilkins. The reason I haven't unblocked is that I don't believe the excuse. But if spin and hutch agree to these conditions, I wouldn't object either. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I contacted the user on his talk page, laying out the conditions set above that seem to be the general consensus on his talk page and requiring an answer from both parties before proceeding with anything. If the reply is deemed satisfactory and agreement to the conditions is settled, I will unblock (or will let Beeblebrox, the reviewing admin, do so), as the blocking admin explicitly said he wouldn't oppose an unblock if the conditions are accepted. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Considering the fact that both accounts have been active for years and that, as far as I've seen here, no violations of our sockpuppet policy have occurred whatsoever except for a very recent mistake, I am inclined to recommend an unblock (unless the next reply on Doktorspin's talk page is somehow highly unsatisfactorily). It's not uncommon for partners to have similar interests and thus editing patterns, and if the situation was a problematic sockpuppet case, it would have arisen a long time ago. I also see a part of the community seems to lean the same way, although with (justified) concerns. Salvidrim! ✉ 05:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looking through the above discussion, and associated evidence, while I am not entirely convinced that they are in fact two separate editors, I think the claim that they are two distinct editors is sufficiently plausible that an unblock is appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we allow page overlap (editing the same page) with the exception of responding to RFCs, XFD, and any voting situation? This seems a reasonable response to the concerns brought up at the account's talk page. --Nouniquenames 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

... but what about tag-team reverting, etc? Do they as a couple get WP:6RR? It's all about the appearance of false consensus, which is exactly what WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT is about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know, we've had users accidentally share a laptop before. How'd that turn out? We made one an administrator and elected the other to ArbCom poor sap ... so is it really that big a deal to let these folks you know, like, edit? To date no one has shown any usage of overlapping accounts for tactical advantage ... they're not editing Climategate or The Beatles or vote stacking the infernal Mexican-American War article title discussion. They overlapped editing on Haven, hardly a contentious hotbed ... why are we still talking about this? NE Ent 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with NE Ent here. All you need to do is say "I'm married to X" on your user page. Simple. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Very true. This is the exact reason I emailed ArbCom the moment my little brother registered an account. Speaking of WP:BROTHER, I recall one case where it actually proved to be a valid defense. In fact, I think the third and fourth conditions imposed in that unblock might serve as a good general rule for situations like this, especially since the more broadly worded "try to steer clear of each other's areas" is preferable to any sort of bright-line rule. And the interaction analysis doesn't seem particularly damning. The vast disparity between how many edits came from each account (i.e. 6 vs. 137, 225 vs. 7, never 120 vs. 85 or anything close) is exactly what one might expect to arise from two partners living together - Hey, honey, what are you working on? Oh, such-and-such article. Oh? Looks like section X could use some work. Hmm, yeah, but I'm working on section Y for now. Oh, okay, I'll take a look at it myself then. Aww, thanks. See? Both plausible and kind of sweet. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Two accounts been here for years, contributing constructively without problems, and the only "offence" is plausibly explained by one person accidentally using the other's logged in account, with neither having done any harm whatsoever? Should we AGF and unblock? Of course we should - unblock already! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That's one of the daftest SPIs I've seen in years, and both the reporter and the closing admin should probably lay off SPI for a while until they get over the everyone-is-a-sock mentality that occasionally seems to infest people around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee said "the only "offence" is plausibly explained by one person accidentally using the other's logged in account, with neither having done any harm whatsoever?" That is not quite right if I may say so. As the person who noticed the "mistake" in the first place, could I point out that there was a consensus discussion going on at the talk page of Suetonius on Christians.Ihutchesson suddenly appeared on the talk page and started making points seemingly supporting the same line of argument as Doktorspin. Other editors very conscientiously, in my opinion, started re-weighing the discussion as if there were now two editors, not just one, in support of that line of thought. Had "Ihutchesson" not made a slip and referred to an edit made by "Doktorspin" as one "I", ie "Ihutchesson" had made, the discussion could very well have continued under the false impression that there were two editors, not just one as was actually the case, supporting that line of reasoning. I have made no effort to get either of those users blocked and have no opinion as to whether they should be blocked, but I do think something should be done so that it is not possible for one person to create the misleading impression, whether inadvertently or not, that there is more than one person supporting his opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2013 (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.

WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC

This has support so far, although BWilkins has suggested I go slow. Feel free to edit or comment. If nothing changes, I'm inclined to take it live in around 12 hours, so we're going to need some maso closers in about a week. Note that this is a 3-part RfC, and after the first round, the voters have the option of asking for new closers, after they see your closing statements. (That's necessary because success in the second and third rounds depends on the voters having a lot of confidence in the closers.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that page is tl;dr for me. Looking at the page I find it very hard to figure out what it is all about. A meta-meta-meta RfC about how to word enother RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What we've found in many years of trying to reform this ten-year old process is that the way that people usually approach RfCs hasn't worked (not once) for problems as complex, and voters as dug-in, as are involved in RfA reform. I am terribly sorry that I have taken more than my fair share of air-time to discuss the problems. But I can't remake the RfC system into something that will work for this particular problem, and then apply it to the most intractable problem on Wikipedia, in 25 words or less. This format is getting some support at WT:RFA#New RfC, and you may need to read that discussion as well to figure out what's going on here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (I hope I'm not being too snippy ... it's just, if that's TLDR, then you don't want to go anywhere near this RfC, because I'm deliberately structuring it to try to get people to say more than they would normally say ... and the people who engage in RfA reform discussions generally don't need any prodding to give you pages of thoughts. I'm not looking forward to it; I just don't see any other way forward, and so far, neither has anyone else.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw ... if the concern is how much the voters will have to read rather than the closers, I'm going to be breaking the big RfC into a series of little RfCs, and telling the voters for each piece only what they need to know (and referring the curious ones to the big page). - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First phase is live at WT:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1. It's more digestible. - Dank (push to talk) 05:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since it's clear it's not going to succeed, I would have no problem with someone closing the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks early, so as to not confuse the issue by have so many RfA-related RFC's happening at the same time. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsalting needed

Soulbust/PewDiePie should be at PewDiePie, but that title is currently WP:SALTed. Can an admin please un-salt the title and move the page, since PewDiePie is the work's most common name? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done just to fix the borken page-move, but I haven't checked to see if it was substantial recreation of the material in the previous AfD. Salvidrim! ✉ 23:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Say, what's the usual procedure -- should deleted history be restored in this case? Salvidrim! ✉ 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the sources and they all suffer from the same problems that were expressed in the AFD. Two PRWeb sources, some trivial blogs, primary sources, and trivial mentions (one sentence) in actual reliable sources.--v/r - TP 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This was in User:Soulbust's userspace, he was a major contributor of the article (as far as I can see), and I find no explanation as to why it was moved to mainspace. He wasn't the one to do it, I believe. Should I be re-userfied? Salvidrim! ✉ 00:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I cam across this as a candidate for speedy deletion as being recreated after AfD, I'd likely delete. Much of the text is the same and there is not a substantial difference between the deleted version and the current version unless you count the removal of content. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What? I can find absolutely no content that's been reposted from the deleted version; it's entirely newly written and nowhere near a G4 candidate. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After a moderately quick readthrough, I also find that the text and sourcing is not subtantially similar. It is not completely different, obviously, but definitely not a G4 candidate in my eye. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I agree with the comments from TParis; he doesn't look notable. Still, thanks for moving the page in question; it would have been silly to hold up the pagemove until we'd decided whether it was a repost. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor who moved it from Soulbust's userspace to article space had also done the same with his own user talk page, so I have a feeling this should stayed userfied. I pinged Soulbust for him to reply here before porting it back to his userspace. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning against userfication. Presumably Soulbust feels that it's as complete as it's going to be (why move it to mainspace otherwise?), so he probably doesn't expect to be able to develop it more thoroughly. As is, it doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, and the long deletion logs for sv:Pewdiepie and sv:PewDiePie suggest to me that there aren't tons of Swedish-language sources either. Basically, we're apparently faced with choosing between deleting it from mainspace and moving it to userspace to become a WP:STALEDRAFT. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the page was in Soulbust's userspace but he was not the one to move it to mainspace. I'm waiting on a reply from him but all signs point to a draft that wasn't ready to be moved. The last improvement(s) to the page while in userspace wasn't old enough to qualify the draft as "stale" IMO. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. I mean that we shouldn't move it back to his userspace now that it's out, simply because he's unlikely to make it a proper article about a notable subject. Either he'll leave it alone, or he'll move it back into mainspace where we get this thread repeated; the best thing that will happen is a WP:STALEDRAFT. Bedtime. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I was mostly responding to "Presumably Soulbust feels that it's as complete as it's going to be..."; I see nothing that would lead to that assumption and that's why I've asked the user to comment. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 07:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oops, you're right. Too sleepy when I wrote that, I guess. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's Kevin Canzanello (talk · contribs) that we should all be paying attention to. The account did this move, and also did this move and this edit. If you see the ironic edits from 2011, please remember how young the accountholder claims to be now. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright so, I've seen the page has been moved so that it doesn't include my name. However, I was planning to contribute more information as I looked for more sources (and will continue to do so) so it would benefit the article and make it less likely that it would be speedy deleted or nominated for deletion. To make it clear I have no problem with it being moved back to User:Soulbust/PewDiePie and I have no problem with the article being currently placed in it's own main namespace. Soulbust (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Back at User:Soulbust/PewDiePie now. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue / soapbox

This lawsuit spam has been reverted many times by many editors for obvious reasons but keeps being put back. Can the page be locked for a while? 50.100.156.249 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. I have semi protected for a month.--Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 50.100.156.249 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a site notice regarding the main page update problem?

We're getting LOTS of repeat questions regarding the main page update problem which is being discussed at this thread, among other places. Every few hours or minutes or so, a new user, unaware of the problem, posts a thread somewhere asking what is going on. Maybe something to the affect of "Yes, we know that there's a problem and we're working on it" may head off some of the questions. Any thoughts or ideas? --Jayron32 15:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable -- do we know if it's affecting all the projects or just English Wikipedia? If it's all the projects maybe we should kick it to WMF. NE Ent 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Editnotice set. Take it down when needed or if you disagree with the idea of having it there. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please close the comment in the editnotice! It screws up stuff! --Nouniquenames 17:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Noticed that myself and just done. Dpmuk (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Oops, sorry. It did that the first time, but I'd left out a fontsize option, so I thought that its omission was causing fits. Closed my browser immediately after setting it the second time, so I didn't notice that it was still a problem. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that was spectacular -- reformat every Wikipedia page for three minutes! Maybe test in sandbox first next time? NE Ent 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I previewed and nothing appeared to be wrong. Apparently it only applies the coding to the rest of the page (or to other pages) when it actually exists. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, don't worry about it - these thing happen. You just have to deal with about 25 IP accounts complaining that the service they don't pay anything for doesn't work ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some things you gotta sandbox, not just preview. Like create in one sandbox and test substitute in another. That said, Ritchie's right, not the end of the world. And most or all of the 25 IPs won't know who to blame. NE Ent 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• It is just the main page, or multiple pages??? NE Ent 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• It appears to be several pages that are screwy, according to some comments I've been seeing. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Images available as a set of tiles

Was poking around wars that are underrepresented at FP. I don't think this is quite there - it's not exactly a high-EV item, it's sabre-rattling propaganda with an unrealistic composition: http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8080/ImageServer/scrollnav.jsp?filename=1176346232375000.jp2 Still, propoganda has its place in historical documentation, and it's in use. However, when it was uploaded to Wikipedia it was cropped. Now, there's reasonable debates to have about including the information outside the main lithograph borders in specific Wikipedia uses. However, A. we should have the version with the title and such, which was definitely part of the artistic intent, and B. If the image is tilted, it should be rotated before cropping. If you look on the left of the version we have updated, you'll see a triangular wedge, showing it wasn't rotated to straight before cropping.

Anyway, the image that led me to the site probably isn't the most valuable on it. Something like http://dl.lib.brown.edu/repository2/repoman.php?verb=render&id=1302200074363500 or http://dl.lib.brown.edu/repository2/repoman.php?verb=render&id=1203005953500000 is probably far more valuable to us - but I get off topic.

To get to the point: For the common situation where the highest-resolution version of the image can only be downloaded as a set of tiles, what software, people, or alternate message board should I go to? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even sure this is the question you're asking, but if you need an extremely high filesize file to be uploaded (past max upload limit), you can file a request in bugzilla for it to be done server side. Legoktm (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) commons:Help:Zoomable_images is a good place to start, although at a glance it doesn't look like any of the scripts will work with the brown.edu site unmodified. If that's actually the case and you don't feel like coding but are still determined to get an image, you can just get the tiles by hand one at a time and then use Photoshop/GIMP/Imagemagick to stitch them together. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

At full zoom, there are literally thousands of images to stitch together, which is effectively impossible to do by hand. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I know ImageMagick handles hundreds of files just fine, so it should be able to do thousands as well, and setting up a script to just download them all as a batch shouldn't be too hard. Was that first file for the 18th Royal Irish the one you were really interested in for right now? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest a code of conduct: If you favor article deletion, try to avoid changing the article, particularly removing large sections of it

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 seen someone put a label on an article to delete it. They then removed over 2kb of text. This message is NOT to complain about a specific article but is to alert others to try to avoid conflicts of interests.

This is a clear conflict of interest. I can see why some people may want an article deleted. If so, they can start the process. However, they should not start removing text from an article. To really be clear of a conflict of interest, they should actually stop writing anything in that article, though a good faith and genuine attempt to improve it would probably be ok.

In real life, that might be like petitioning the city to condemn a house and get it torn down. In the mean time, they are allowed to spray graffiti on it or bring in a bulldozer and tear down the garage.

People should write here to show their support that those who favor an article be deleted should generally refrain from writing in that article, at least temporarily. SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles are not ever deleted because of the text they do or don't contain (excepting things like widespread copyright violations and the like). There is no "conflict of interest" to deleting an article after text is removed because the absence of that text does not make the article more likely to be kept following an AFD discussion, nor does its presence make it more likely to be retained. The main reason for deletion is the suitability of the topic itself as the basis of an article, and that is quite independent of the amount or quality of the article text. --Jayron32 01:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

An article can be deleted because it is poorly written. Or it can be an important article but the text that shows its importance is removed. By ruining an article, the chance of deletion increase. Why not just maintain the highest ethics by not removing stuff if you propose that the article be deleted? Jayron, you are encouraging potentially questionable behavior. I am for acting ethically. SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Because none of what you said is true, SMK. No article is ever deleted because it is poorly written, unless it is so poorly written as to be incomprehensible. And an article's importance can be stated just as well in the deletion discussion as on the article itself. Furthermore, as you have found, an article's history is preserved regardless, and everyone who participates in a deletion discussion can see it if they choose. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If references are deleted, for example, then it can be buried in the history and never found except by a detective with hours of spare time.

Sample

Look at this article with stuff removed. It looks questionable whether the article should exist. If you look at the unedited article, it's clear that it should exist....

Geoffrey Till, FKC (born in London, England, on 14 January 1945) is a British naval historian.

The son of Arthur Till, a Royal Air Force officer, and Violet Till, Geoffrey Till studied at King's College London, where he received his B.A. in 1966. Then, he went on to complete his MA in 1968 and PhD in 1976 at the Department of War Studies, King's College London.

On a NATO Defence Fellowship, he was a visiting scholar at the United States Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

POSSIBLE REACTION: So what, delete this Geoffrey Till guy.

Return to discussion

I am frankly shocked that people are rushing to the defense of conflicts of interest. It would be ok if someone wrote "that's not too common". However, there is overwhelming support of those who want deletion and, in the meantime, delete parts of the article. If you are for deletion, you should either temporarily stay away for the duration of the debate or only make uncontroversial and clear improvements. SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethically, if an editor encounters an article that they think does not belong on Wikipedia and has issues, they should propose it for deletion and edit the article. Leaving garbage in an article probably hurts its chances at AFD more than helps as people read it. Removing undue weight, unsourced allegations, poor sourcing - all of that should be done regardless of one's view about an article. That is how to act ethically. Telling someone to ignore a problem is simply unethical. Ravensfire (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the first logical response so far! Then those that favor deletion AND remove stuff should do so very carefully to avoid a conflict of interest. Those that favor retention will clearly try to improve the article. Those that favor deletion should be extremely careful not to make it look like they are destroying the article. If others agree with the last two sentences, we are on the same page! SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There no inherent conflict of interest. The only interest here is the creation of an encyclopedia. That's it. Trying to assign motives to people like you are doing is counter to Wikipedia's goals and pillars. You need to STOP doing that. You aren't happy that an article you created is being proposed for deletion - you aren't the first one. A far better use of your time would be to read up how you can show the subject is notable and work to improve the article through good sources and improve the writing in the article. But trying to blame people for doing what they think is correct (and that nobody else has seen a problem with) is going to lead you down a dark path. Ravensfire (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. You accuse of me creating an article. I have done nothing like that.

Besides, Ravensfire, you are also wrong when you write... Trying to assign motives to people like you are doing is counter to Wikipedia's goals and pillars. You need to STOP doing that.....(THEN YOU DO JUST AS YOU ACCUSE, 'TRYING TO ASSIGN MOTIVES TO PEOPLE')......But trying to blame people for doing what they think is correct SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You think what you're doing is correct. They think what they're doing is correct. Tough. See dispute resolution for how these things are handled on Wikipedia. We certainly don't handle them by banning people from making edits based on their opinion of a subject's notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The removal of reams of unsourced personal opinion was, as you put it, an "uncontroversial and clear improvement". Your user name suggests that you are editing with the agenda of advocating for Melissa Ketunuti, which the content of your edits confirms. That's totally not what Wikipedia is about. Reyk _YO! 01:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think SMK is referring to the article Murder of Dr. Melissa Ketunuti and the edits made by WilliamJE. All I can say is go talk with the other editor first if you disagree with an edit. If you still disagree, bring it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. As for the deletion attempt, you can simply remove the proposed deletion tag if you don't agree with it. I could nominate it for AfD if you would prefer to continue this debate in a more appropriate environment. Funny ^Pika! 03:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• There are two kinds of changes: those meant in good faith to improve the article, and those meant to strip it of meaningful content. I've done many deletions of promotional or copyvio material from articles at AfD to make them more acceptable. Sometimes the amount that needs to be removed is most or even almost all of the article. On the other hand, sometimes people have removed essentially everything, usually with the excuse that the references for it aren't adequate, and sometimes even proposed it for speedy as no content or context. So,Often indeed much of the content of an article is material which cannot be documented or where the documentation is totally unacceptable, but if removing them would leave the material without substance worth saving, the AfD should be the place to say so. If anyone can think of a simple wording to distinguish the possible cases and where to put it, that might be helpful.

But it isn't wise to try to change policy to accommodate disputes over a single article or to deal with a one-time special case. If something in particular needs doing that isn't covered by the rules, or someone is being disruptive in a way we have not yet specified, that's why we have IAR. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, the removal of this was absolutely correct anyway, the article itself isn't the place for claims about its own notability, nor for documentating an imaginary Wikipedia "incident". Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of material can make an article more likely to be kept

In some cases, a very, very bad article, with a lot of fringe or unreliable content, can switch from Delete to keep after enough of the bad material is deleted, letting the small amount of good material be seen and evaluated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Witness Neuroepistemology (AfD discussion), for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the prod. It should go to AfD, where it will be deleted. The IP is probably a sock geolocating to Rio. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors that are swayed by the remove of content as to keep an article at AFD over a delete need to be reminded that AFD is not for cleanup; an article in bad shape but otherwise meeting inclusion requirements shouldn't be deleted just because its in bad shape. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was AFD by me and not because the story needed cleanup. I've worked on badly written articles, especially those of notorious sockpuppeteer Ryan kirkpatrick, before he was banned. I do however avoid cleanup work on articles I either plan to AFD or think will be deleted eventually simply because I don't feel like wasting my time. Any articles I AFD are for notability, not memorial, etc not because they are sloppy.

Also I feel a need to comment on the removal of the PROD. On his talk page, Nathan Johnson wrote- "The PROD was contested by a new user. I simply removed the tag for xem." Nathan has to be referring to SMK. SMK was told not once[53] but twice[54] about removal of PRODs. While SMK is a new user, he has been savvy enough to find this board, read up on what SPA means, and more. He had opportunity to remove the prod but chose not to. Nathan overstepped by taking down the PROD....William 15:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is for uncontroversial deletions that don't meet the speedy deletion criteria. This does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. This is not an uncontroversial deletion. Therefore, use articles for deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't the rationale you wrote[55] on your talk page- "The PROD was contested by a new user. I simply removed the tag for xem."...William 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Administrator note At a glance I don't see that anyone else has mentioned this, so just for processes sake: This is not the place to make policy proposals and the chance of an actual policy change coming from a discussion on this noticeboard is basically zero. If you want to make a real policy proposal that has at least a chance of being implemented use WP:RFC or WP:VPP, and list the discussion at WP:CENT. This is a matter for the broader community, not just admins and those that watch this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2013 (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.

Range block needed

We've got an IP editor in the 65.88.88.xxx range that is only editing to use the article talk pages as a forum. So far the posted from 65.88.88.253, 65.88.88.203, and 65.88.88.41 (that I'm aware of).

Is it possible for someone with an understang of how to range blocking to apply few day to week long one to the range?

Thank,

- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking 65.88.88.0/23 might be best, but let me check for collateral damage first. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

An anon-only block on that range should be okay. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK... th down side is, though I've got the mop, I haven't done a range block. Just drop 65.88.88.0/23 into the regular block page? - J Greb (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There's some more info at mw:Help:Range blocks. Legoktm (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• As long as we're talking range blocks here, User:Mbz1 mis doing some very obvious IP socking at User talk:Drmies. One IP has been blocked but they have posted from two or three others. Despite the obviousness I suspect the community would find me "involved" due to past conflicts with this user and the admin who blocked the one IP does not appear to be on-wiki at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The history of the talk page shows no two recent IPs that can be put into any rangeblock; it's too wide.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess doing a little whack-a-mole with the individual IPs probably won't discourage them either, nothing does. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for 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.

---

Hi all, earlier today Media-hound- thethird (talk · contribs) was reported on ANI for misusing his talk page while blocked; to make a long story short, I ended up indeffing him without talk page access. I extended the block to indefinite because the user was displaying a massive battleground mentality which, in my opinion, is better handled through an indefinite block than a time-limited one; I also revoked this editor's ability to edit his talk page, because he was clearly abusing it. As such, I believe that both the indefinite part of the block and the no-talk-page one are necessary, because each one addresses part of the disruption caused by him. The combination, however, may appear draconian, as another administrator has pointed out on my talk page. So, here I am, asking for a review of my actions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have done both at the same time, just indef and then give them a chance to respond to that. (And these days I'm very much coming round to the feeling that letting blocked editors rant on their talk page is generally harmless, unless there's something especially bad.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, I should say I support the indef - this it not a case where a time-specific block would be likely to work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the sequence of events, Salvio's not quite clear here. FPAS blocked him for 2 weeks on the 25th, then upped it to 120 days about 40 minutes later, after a review of the guy's edits. Media-hound then spent the next two and a half days raining fire and brimstone on just about everyone, until Basalisk removed his talkpage access, without extending the block. Salvio extended the block to indef about 3 mins later, presumably unaware of Basalisk's action. This guy seems to be the archetypal POV warrior, with a great TRUTH to tell, INJUSTICE to right or whatever. I'm sure Amnesty International are bloody thrilled to have him batting for them. In short, no objection here to Salvio's action. The guy still has UTRS and BASC if he wants to keep going. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • presumably unaware of Basalisk's action: indeed. This was due to a problem with my internet connection... I have already discussed this with Basalisk. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• IMHO it is obvious that any time spent explaining procedures to that user would be time wasted—it would be better to do some work at WP:HELPDESK where editors may consider advice given. The indefinite block (until there is a clear statement that shows an understanding of the problem, and how the editor will work within the community in the future) is essential. The user posted a gentle but clear violation of WP:NLT: "The issue of Wiki fail in having systems and correct signposting for Abuse-Bullying-Harassment is being taken up with the Wiki Foundation UK as there are relevant legal issues due to UK laws changed in November 2012" (diff). Perhaps talk page usage could be restored with a clear explanation that it is not available for general expositions, and must not be used to continue disputes, particularly with hints of legal repercussions. Then remove talk page access after a couple of days if the page is further misused. Johnuniq (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Given Elen's synopsis, I'm not seeing why we should restore talk page access at all - the editor has abused the privilege, and lost them. Given that they're indeffed for NLT, there is no interaction we should be taking with them anyway. Leave both block and lock in place until and unless, as noted above "there is a clear statement that shows an understanding of the problem, and how the editor will work within the community in the future". One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not to push causes, not even good ones. Unless there's a clear indication this editor gains understanding of that, which seems unlikely at this point, the block is appropriate and should remain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find I agree. Whether or not any of us would have revoked the talk page I see no compelling reason to restore it. On another note, I tried to hat the whole thing in order to highlight the message that they should use UTRS or BASC to appeal further, and for some weird reason it didn't work, some of the content would not be collapsed. Never seen that before. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (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.

Number of page watchers tool deprecated

Hi. It's now possible to view the number of page watchers via the "info" action. For example, at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=info>, you can see that Main Page has over 76,500 page watchers. In the coming weeks, I'll be deprecating the watcher tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The info page itself has a link to the old tool at the bottom, under "External Tools" -- I have no idea how that's edited. NE Ent 02:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Pageinfo-footer. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for updating that page. :-)

The link is also available from MediaWiki:Histlegend. I'm thinking that replacing (rather than removing) the link from there makes more sense, but I think I'd like to develop a better target for the link first. I guess there are two approaches to take: (1) replace the watcher link with a link to action=info; or (2) replace the watcher link with a link to action=info with an anchor to the number of watchers row, preferably highlighted (like we do with clicked references). Option 2 is my preference, but the underlying HTML currently has no support for this. The tool is only deprecated, not yet abandoned, though, so there's time to work all of this out. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I like (2), and I suppose this is better than nothing. (It's quite bizarre that the id for that sub-table begins with #, though. Is that typical?) AGK [•] 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't code, so I can't solve problems, but I'm good at pointing out problems for others to worry about. Currently, if a non-admin clicks on your (MZMcBride) tool and there are less than 30 watchers, it comes back and explains "fewer than 30 watchers". If a non-admin clicks on the action=info page instead, for a page with less than 30 watchers, the page watchers line is just gone. So for non-admins looking at MediaWiki:Histlegend for a page with less than 30 watchers, clicking on "Number of watchers", for both options (1) and (2), are just going to confuse them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see three bugs here, but I probably won't have time to file them until later. I'll post here after I do. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it anticipated that a link to the "info" action will replace the link to your tool? Otherwise, it seems the only way to get to the info action page is to manually edit the url. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you go to the History tab for a page, there's a "Page Information" link in the toolbox on the left. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That link isn't just on the history tab. KTC (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the skin; in MonoBook that's the only place I see it. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In both Monobook and Vector, the "Page information" link should be present in the "toolbox" section of the sidebar for any action (history, view, edit, etc.). If it's not, there's a bug.

AGK: bugzilla:42629 is the bug you're describing, pretty much. Floquenbeam: bugzilla:44252 and bugzilla:44253 are the bugs you want. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've updated User:Jake Wartenberg/centijimbo to reflect the change; if I've made any mistakes, someone please correct me, though I've obviously tested it on my own userpage and found no issues. Incidentally, should we perhaps move it to templatespace? It's Wikipedia-related (if not particularly related to improving the encyclopedia), and has been edited mostly by users other than Jake (who appears to be only intermittently active). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, where is the "Info page" or "Info action?" I see no tab, page or button so labelled. Edison (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a link to it from the history page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition, you can add ?action=info to the end of a URL and you'll get the info. Ryan Vesey 03:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's also linked to as "page information" in the toolbox on any page. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a related discussion at WP:VPT#Have we lost the count of the number of watchers?. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation into Russian

Every few days I see the edit filter catching translation of wikipedia page into Russian, eg Special:AbuseLog/8140504. Is this malicious or likely to be an accident - eg software that translates a browser page content, and then user hitting save? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's thoroughly weird. Why would the browser plugin translate some things but not others? But why would someone attempt to translate random words while leaving other random words untranslated? Even putting chunks through Google Translate takes a bunch of time, since there are so many untranslated words; what kind of vandal or other bad-faith editor would put this much effort into turning the page into macaroni? I can't imagine any logical explanation for it. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I'm beginning to think that it's somehow automated, rather than being a misguided would-be translator. Look at what it did to the convert template: {{convert|5004|mm|in|1|abbr=on}} becomes {{convert|5004|мм|в|1|abbr=on}}. Wiktionary notes that в is sometimes a preposition with the meaning of "in" — humans would render this as "Дюйм" or keep it as "in", because no human would turn an abbreviation for "inches" into a preposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome offers automatic translation of foreign-language pages, doesn't it? Couldn't this be a result of someone setting the browser to translate English pages to Russian and then trying to edit here? Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another: Special:AbuseLog/8125404 a sencond level header translated, which I blocked as a spambot, but I now think this is inappropriate. And another Special:AbuseLog/8080180 just a third level header section being translated; Special:AbuseLog/8080167 another one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one didn't get blocked at all; how did it get through when the others didn't? Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit filters are not guaranteed to run, perhaps due to too many resources being used. So it is not surprising that some are missed. Jafeluv could be on the right track. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That edit was caught. The filter is warn only, though. And the foreign language filter wouldn't catch these because the edit delta was close to 0. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, well here is another caught one. Special:AbuseLog/8151197. So should we treat this as abuse? Or treat it as an accident? Or should we tighten the edit filter to catch this more? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Filtering IP edits that insert Cyrillic charactes into section headers would probably catch most of these. While there are legitimate reasons for using Cyrillic text in articles, I think having it in section headers is a pretty rare case. (Btw, I tested the translation feature with the newest version of Chrome and contrary to my suspicions above it doesn't seem to translate anything inside the edit box.) Jafeluv (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NOSHARE

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.

---

It has been brought to my attention at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by IZAK that the account MrJuddsStudents (talk · contribs) is a shared account with multiple different "editors" moved in/out based on them being students of Danjel (talk · contribs). There is a reasoning for why the account is set up that way, but this reasoning is not listed as an approved reason for the sharing. I am bringing this question to clarify if this usage is permitted per the User Name conventions.Hasteur (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Of note, there is a discussion at ANI regarding Danjel. Danjel has elected to blank the AN notices from both accounts. Hasteur (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As stated on my userpage, students propose edits that they want to make, I then directly supervise their work and take responsibility for the edits. This is necessary to protect their privacy and prevent them from posting from identifiable IP's per WP:CHILD as they are too young to legally own their own accounts, and to create a degree of separation between my work as an editor and my work as a teacher.

The account is clearly marked in several places as being connected with me, including in the edit notice, and on the User talkpage and vice versa on my userpage. The account has not, thus far, edited outside of its own userspace (where a student was preparing some work for later).

This is now the second thread started at an administrative noticeboard in retaliation by supporters of Epeefleche, whose conduct I have called into question at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche, at which Hasteur is an active participant. The other thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Short_term_block_proposal:_User:Danjel. This is now taking the form of WP:HARASSMENT, for the purpose of supporting Epeefleche's cause. Yes, I blanked the notices per WP:BLANKING. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Blanking vs dealing with them (or responding to them) has different perceptions. Blanking suggests that you deny the assertion. I cite your lack of any sort of edit summary acknoledging them instead going for a null edit summary or a system automation indicating reversion. Please indicate how calling the policy question on an account that may have been set up both in violation of laws regarding children and in contravention of wikipedia best practices. WP:CHILD is an essay specifically dealing with protecting children from predators whereas WP:NOSHARE is a policy that has very specific exceptions written into it. None of the exceptions seem to fit the situation here, so yes I think it's wise to call the question in front of a larger community if the account should be prohibited. Hasteur (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Thank you for the explanation, Danjel. What you're doing is definitely not permitted by the WP:ROLE policy. However, I seriously question the idea of sanctioning anyone for this account's behavior — it's being used to protect privacy, it's being done under direct supervision of an experienced editor who's taking responsibility for it, and it's being done in full acknowledgement without an attempt to avoid scrutiny. WP:ROLE was definitely not written for this situation, so let's implement WP:IAR here. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend: cheers. The first sane voice I've heard today. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

With the implication that the rest of us are not sane? Care to refactor your statement? Hasteur (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 Please illuminate how information revealed at the RFC/U that I have acted upon in what I the most prudent method constitues harassment? I echo the sentiments at the ANI thread that it appears you see editors who allign on the side of policy and best practices as being in collusion with Epeeflechee and therefore a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I strongly advise you to step back and give experienced editors and administrators the opportunity to consider your actions with regard to this account. Hasteur (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Role accounts are not permitted. Period. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the role account is, it's just not allowed, no exceptions. The editors who are using the account can create new personal acconts, or use IP accounts. There is now convincing reason -- except for avoiding scrutiny -- that they must use the role account. Block, please, for blatant violations of policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually they can't make their own accounts. Or at least, Wikipedia shouldn't let them: COPPA. Hence why it's my account, under my responsibility, and I technically hit the "save page" button. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Every rule has exceptions. The reason for wanting to do this is ... significant, anyhow. I don't know whether it's compelling enough, but it merits discussion. The account doesn't at all allow them to avoid scrutiny. We owe them serious consideration, not just unthinking attempts to feast upon new users. WilyD 11:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the MrJuddsStudents account hasn't been used since September 2011, and the edits which were made under it were restricted to user space (and seem entirely inoffensive, and potentially useful). What's the issue here? - there seems to have been no harm caused by the account (even if it does at least technically breech policy), and no particular barrier to Danjel taking a different approach in the future given that this isn't a 'live' project. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Err, it was a group account so an elementary school teacher could easily keep an eye on what all the elementary school aged kids were doing. That seems like a worthwhile goal, although it's technically in violation of policy. Why someone's complaining now, I have no idea. WilyD 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I know why. As I said above, I've raised an RFC/U against a friend of Hasteur's. This ([the thread at ANI calling for me to be blocked]) seems to be retaliation by drama. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is iar still a pillar? Yep.

Was content affected? Nope.

Is this even a current issue? Nope.

Should we move on? Yep. NE Ent 11:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the contribution list for the account.[56] As you can see, the sole activity in the account is on a page in the account’s user space, User:MrJuddsStudents/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna, and the last contribution by the account was more than a year ago. Interest in this account only arose during an RfC/U about an unrelated matter. See IZAK's view criticism of children's account. I too suggest moving on. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should drop this particular matter, but a wider discussion of how to handle situations like this with elementary students would perhaps be useful. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I need to point out that I'm seeing two misconceptions by danjel here. First, that COPPA prevents minors from creating or using accounts here. This is untrue - Wikipedia is not bound by, and doesn't abide by, COPPA. It's not and it never has been, though the fact that Americans tend to assume everything is ruled by COPPA makes this a common misconception. This is a multi-national website and has its own policies (and lack thereof, in some ways) regarding minor editors. Second, that his students could not edit out from under the umbrella of his account without grievously violating their own privacy. This is also untrue. Anyone can create an account (or they can be created for the students), and once they're editing under an account, their IP is not shown or available anywhere (except in the checkuser interface, but that's a very special niche case). Account holders are not required to disclose anything about themselves, and in fact minors who edit are encouraged (and sometimes forced) to not disclose any personal information at all; there is absolutely nothing to stop danjel's students from each creating a pseudonymous account, with his guidance on what to share/not share about themselves, and happily making all the edits that want.

  In other words, there's no valid child-protection or privacy-protection reason for these students to be sharing an account rather than each having their own, and given that their sharing an account with danjel is obviously not in line with our policy (which exists for very good reasons of attribution, among other things), it should stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll disagree with the "there's no valid child-protection or privacy-protection reason for these students to be sharing an account". I wouldn't want my young children using their own account on any site that is open to the world. It may not be COPPA, but it might well be common sense. If my kid's teacher was to suggest having them edit Wikipedia, I'd want it done this way. And having an experienced editor taking responsibility for those edits would be good from Wikipedia's viewpoint. In this case he should have asked first, but not a big deal IMO. He made it clear what was going on, which holds to the spirit of BRD. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I will try to start an RfC on this over the weekend if no one else gets to it first. It isn't clear this is a good idea, but it's not clear it isn't, so a wider discussion would be nice. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - I meant there there is no reason among Wikipedia's policies/guidelines that makes what danjel is doing valid. If the children's parents object, that's an entirely separate issue (and has nothing to do with COPPA), and in my view common sense would say that if parents are concerned about their children editing wikipedia, that's better dealt with by not letting children of concerned parents edit Wikipedia than it is by violating Wikipedia's policies to do it anyway. It's possible that this jury-rigged solution pleases the concerned parents, but from Wikipedia's perspective, it doesn't matter if violating policy makes them happy, because it's still a policy violation. And I'll add again that by doing things his way, danjel is failing to attribute the work to its author(s) - a fact which parents and students may not think to care about, but one which Wikipedia's policies do care about. We don't prohibit role accounts just to annoy people - there are very good reasons why we hold to "one account-one editor". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2013 (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.

Excessive relisting of nominations at AfD

HERE is our guideline with respect to relisting deletion debates at Articles for Deletion:

"...if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.

That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the "relist" template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient.

Extensions at AfD used to be rarities. However, participation at AfD seems to be down while automated tools have made deletion nominations easier than ever and lately these same automated tools are seemingly used to make third and even fourth extensions of debates, ostensibly due to lack of participation. No rationales are provided for these third and fourth extensions, even though the guideline is quite explicit that they should be. Little is to be gained by singling out the administrators who are punching some sort of "EXTEND DEBATE" button or whatever the hell they are doing; a quick glance at any recent daily AfD debate page should be sufficient. I would merely like to note that this is a problem — it clogs up the works at AfD — and the problem is getting worse. It is time for administrators to start exerting a little authority on nominations surrounded by apathy — either No Consensus Keep them or No Consensus Delete them if nobody cares enough to comment one way or the other... Carrite (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have noticed this phenomenon as well. the last major discussion about this issue that I am aware of was Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll, in late 20120 and the consensus arrived at there suggested that more than two relists are probably excessive in most cases although there is no hard limit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• If I'm relisting a debate for more than a first time I'll make a note on the AfD saying why I'm doing it (i.e. BLP issues, something that's changed on the article). Otherwise, they should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Treat them similarly to uncontested PRODs. Reyk _YO! 21:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is effectively one option. Closing as no-consensus is the other (per WP:NOQUORUM). Admin's call. I think that's reasonable.Hobit (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can a editor like me who is uninvolved close a long-running AFD as no consensus? This AFD[57] has been going on two weeks....William 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• There's no such thing as a no-consensus delete, but if the only person who's cared to comment after ample opportunity is the nominator for deletion, then I'd say that's an ipso facto local consensus to delete (though of course that should be overridden if the closer judges the rationale insufficient or what-have-you -- successfully flying under the radar is no reason to carry out a bad deletion). —chaos5023 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my belief is that it is not written in stone that No Consensus closes are to default to Keep in every case. Many of these are more or less the same as uncontested PRODs, in my view, and "No Consensus" ending in deletion seems an appropriate result in some cases. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, this is right. Unscintillating has it in WP:NOQUORUM. No Consensus defaulting to Keep and "Soft Delete" are the options in this situation. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is covered in WP:Deletion process in the sections WP:NOQUORUM and WP:RELIST.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Some examples from AFD patrol:
  • Luis Livingstone (AfD discussion) — discussion opened on 2012-12-19, relisted five times
  • Helen Flynn (AfD discussion) — discussion opened on 2012-12-20, relisted five times
  • Rico Beats (AfD discussion) — discussion opened on 2012-12-23, relisted four times
  • European Kindred (AfD discussion) — discussion opened on 2012-12-26, relisted four times
  • Sad Beautiful Tragic (AfD discussion) — discussion opened on 2012-12-28, relisted four times
• There are quite a few discussions at AFD that look like this:
  • Public Relations Student Society of America (AfD discussion) — discussion opened on 2013-01-03, relisted three times
• Here are some discussions that look (as one's eye travels down a per-diem page) like they have participants, but in fact have none other than the nominator:
  • Fast + Epp (AfD discussion)
  • Kyong Hae Kim (AfD discussion)
  • Hookson (AfD discussion)
  • SERP-Chem International Master Course (AfD discussion)
• Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know I frequently relist in excess of the suggested limits. My reasoning is that someone has taken the time to find a problem with an article and, while I may not be knowledgeable enough to opine, I can see there are problems with discussion that are worth further review. Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Management of Sri Lanka for example. The only two people to comment are in favor of retention, but both of them seem to have a very poor understanding of sourcing. While it would be a candidate for a no consensus close, I have an unproven suspicion that further review by skilled editors would find the sourcing deficient. Leaving it for another relist seems like the best way to do that. MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is of course part of a larger problem. After years of what I would call over-participation at AFD, the community seems to have swung in the opposite direction and AFDs with only one or two edits are now much more common than they used to be, or so it seems to me anyway. I think AFD got a bad rap because there were/possibly still are too many regulars with a WP:BATTLE approach to the process and that turns a lot of people off. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly support the suggestions above to treat an uncontested, uncommented AFD in the same way as an uncontested PROD - perhaps relist once and then delete? This certainly won't solve all the problems of uncommented AFDs, but it'll simplify it a bit. It is certainly strange that we're effectively saying "using PROD is a quicker way to get something deleted" in borderline cases! Andrew Gray (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would, and will, support that practice. Where I'm still conflicted is where the only comment is in opposition to the nomination or the only two comments in response to the nomination disagree, or where there are only a couple of people commenting and it is obvious that they don't understand our policies. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please block my account

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.

---

Over the last couple months I have found that I no longer wish to edit but I somehow lack the will to stop. I beleive in the project but I no longer believe it will succed and I do not believe that the majority of editors want me here anymore anyway. I am asking for my account to be blocked for a month. I believe that time will be sufficient for me to "break the habit" of wanting to edit and this will save me and the community the trouble of finding a way to get mysefl blocked. Good Luck to all who still have faith in the project. I wish I still did, but I don't. Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a script enforced wikibreak. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. It will prevent you from logging in. Ryan Vesey 20:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. what Ryan said. We generally do not block users upon request. Consider using the script above. Thanks for your contributions, Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks NE Ent 20:43, 28 January 2013 (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.

What to do about obvious minority sentiments?

What is the proper course of action to take when dealing with a holocaust denier, birther, truther, tax protester, etc.? They can post stuff to talk pages without specifically violating any rules, though you know they will never, ever learn, and there's no point in communicating with them. Yet, a block or even a threat of a block seems too pre-emptive to make sense, unless we assume that all of this ilk are trolls. What is the general solution to this issue? --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And I apologize if a question like this doesn't belong here, it just didn't seem to fit in a pump either. --Golbez (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignore them (aka "Don't feed the trolls") if there is no point in communicating with them and they're not violating rules. If they are violating rules (disruption would be a likely one), then the usual rememdies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you were referring to ImthatIm (talk · contribs), the answer is we block them on sight [58]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't wanting to bring up a specific person yet because honestly I was too lazy to notify them. So I went with the vague question. :P --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ps thanks for taking one for the team, I should probably send a fruit basket or barn star or something --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fruit basket will be fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just want to note that we should be careful with true "minority" opinions; calmly and competently presented, they can be valuable. However, the four examples you provide (and the specific example you didn't provide, but FP@S ferreted out) aren't really "minority" opinions, they're "lunatic fringe" opinions. FP@S's solution is the best you can usually do in that case; I've never seen someone on the lunatic fringe back away from the cliff edge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

On that note, I've been a part of this "CIA-funded cover-up of the truth" (aka "Wikipedia") for quite a few years now, but I've never received my money. Is issuing the check the WMF's job or do I contact the CIA directly? Thanks, Manning (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a user named "Manning" contacting the CIA would be prudent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• It may not be relevant to this case, but advice concerning appropriate coverage of minority or fringe views can be sought at the Fringe Theories noticeboard.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request a permanent topic ban on an editor who is making continual moves and ignoring ongoing discussions

Moved to WP:ANI

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need closers for WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC/1

The first round closes around midnight EST on Tuesday. I'd prefer just a little discussion of how the closers want to approach this before the actual deadline, since a theme here is that the standard RfC format hasn't worked for this problem, and I (and the voters) will be looking for your ideas. I was hoping for 3 closers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this comment as I was about to post a reminder message to WP:BN. I take it no one's offering?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I offered before and that stands, but only as part of a panel. Something this major will require deliberation and discussion, not a unilateral decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, was just about to ping you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to serve as part of a panel. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I offered as well, and it too stands, but I would also recommend this be a panel because a close this big needs collaboration to ensure absolute neutrality.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're offering, Cyber, but this is an unusual RfC: after the first closing statement, the voters will decide whether they want you guys to stick around for the next close ... because you guys are charged with coming up with a good (or least-bad :) compromise later on, and "selling" that compromise to the voters is part of your job. Since there was an objection when you offered before, let's see if we can get 3 closers who don't get any objections. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'm ok with that. I'm just here to contribute to Wikipedia and help out.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since everything seems to be running smoothly and we have at least two closers, I'd like to back off and allow the RfC to morph into whatever the participants and closers want it to be. Are you guys okay with asking the participants if they're happy to keep you as closers, after your first closing statement? Are you on board with the idea of trying to craft a compromise that you believe the voters will be able to support? Are you willing to discuss the approach you want to take to the RfC with the voters? If so, then I'm outtie. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Big job for just 2 this. I think you should get another Admin. closer to help share the workload. Leaky Caldron 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No argument from me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Leaky here. I would go as far as adding a fourth to the list of closers.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd numbers are generally preferable. No, it's not a "vote", but an intractable two-against-two split would just mean that we'd have to find three to five more people and start over. It would be better to prevent that from the start by having either three or five people involved. That said, I don't think I'd want to wish any RFA reform discussion on any of my friends.

(ArbCom should start handing out these discussions as sanctions: "You were rude, but it wasn't bad enough to desysop you, so instead your punishment is to close the next three policy-related RFCs." ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree on the odd number, as we don't want to reach a situation where we have a deadlock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Round One was due to be closed 8 hours ago. Also ... you guys are on board with the basic structure of the RfC, right? - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's something that not many want to close but, would rather get involved in. Perhaps it's time to look at some possible closers that aren't completely objection free.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to the two current closers; hoping to get some resolution today. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If it prevents a clearly unsuitable candidate from closing the RfC, I am willing to offer my candidacy, but only if there are no better candidates (and I'm serious). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've hatted the RfC; proposal is at the top of it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you just call me "clearly unsuitable", or was that a general statement?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that's a general statement, cyber. I'd be willing to help close this as well, if needed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yay ... but we may have lost one as well, Basalisk's talk page says he doesn't know when he'll be back, and he hasn't responded so far to email. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, odds are good this will be covered by Seraphim, Ed, and either Basalisk or possibly me. See the RfC page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So just to clarify Seraphim, Ed, and Dank are closing.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No response from Basalisk yet, we all want to give him a couple of days before I step in. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing topic ban violations by Apteva

As documented here since Jan. 10, Apteva continues to violate the topic-ban that the community overwhelmingly supported, which said (see [59]):

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, and his pushing of the theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles, has been disruptive. Based on the consensus reaction of the community, Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for an immediate block and/or a request for arbitration.

Unfortunately, the closer's statement of the ban to Apteva left him too much room to test the boundaries, by omitting mention of the part that I bolded above; he wrote:

Based upon both the below discussion and the linked RfC/U, it is clear that Apteva has exhausted the patience of the community in this area. On these grounds, the following is enacted: Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion.

On Jan. 10, the closer User:Seraphimblade clarified:

For my own thoughts here, I would say that this edit is clearly related to Apteva's activity in the area of dashes/hyphens, and that this is both a violation of the ban and that no extension of the ban is necessary for it to be covered as such. I would see this as a clear attempt at gaming the ban by not technically mentioning the previous dispute subject.

Apteva's latest violation of the community-imposed topic ban is yet one more attempt to modify a policy page to not say that the MOS is applicable to TITLE styling: this diff – not just by advocating his approach, which would be banned behavior, but actually modifying the policy page! (I reverted)

This time, an enforcement block is unquestionably needed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply an editor who loves to disrupt Wikipedia to make a wp:POINT being disappointed that I was not blocked. The discussion on my behavior wasted countless hours and occupied 134 pages of text (about half a million bytes). Apteva (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that User:Dicklyon is continuing a relentless push against Apteva, and I advise to consider an interaction-ban between Dicklyon and Apteva, perhaps to include a MOS-topic-ban against Dicklyon. This endless pattern of Dicklyon dragging Apteva into ANI, RfC, AN, ANI, etc. is becoming too much. Dicklyon has been in over 130 talk-page disputes or debates with Apteva (see talk-page intersects). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you escaped a block (and "merely" received a topic ban) should hardly be read as condoning your behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, this looks rather to be an editor who likes to WP:GAME the project by testing out the exact limits of their community-imposed topic ban, whether out of spite or just for the hell of it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly did learn from the experience, and have no intention of gaming or testing. I am here solely to improve wikipedia and no other purpose. Apteva (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Continuing to toe the line this way, after coming so excruciatingly close to a block last time around, is a remarkably foolish thing to do. Enough of this at ANI, I think a block is needed. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love it how people quote topics that sound applicable but are not. "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." My edit was solely to improve the link and make it more useful. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. Your Wikilawyering notwithstanding, the standard, applicable definition would be "...using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for a desired outcome." It seems you haven't given up your desired outcome which, no doubt, you consider "improving Wikipedia". --Calton | Talk 09:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• What exactly is the allegation here? I'm not seeing anything particularly controversial about the edit which was allegedly the cause of this thread... Carrite (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The offending edit removed the see-also link "* Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article titles) – for guidance on styling of titles", replacing it with just a generic link "* Wikipedia:Manual of Style", which was a step in pushing his disruptive agenda to say that the MOS does not apply to TITLE styling (see the bold in the resolution that the community overwhelming supported, above). He has been at this for many months, wasting megabytes of disruptive discussion at many venues, but refuses to ackowledge that consensus is against him. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) This is part of the continued WP:IDHT problems discussed at the RfC/U and the topic ban. Although with this edit Apteva did not explicitly mention dashes and hyphens, it's part of the same dispute, from what I can see (and similar to what prompted Seraphimblade's clarification quoted above). The final clarification/warning from Seraphimblade has apparently not had much of an impact, so unfortunately we are left with blocking as the next measure. As they have not previously blocked for violating the topic ban, I would suggest a 24-hour block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate that I think this behavior is clearly part of the problem that led to the topic ban, as "Does MOS apply to titles?" was a common topic of contention during it, and Apteva's involvement with that question was overwhelmingly as relates to dashes. I don't have any particular opinion as to what the answer to that question should be, but it was an area Apteva was involved in as regards dashes and hyphens. I'm not impressed with the behavior here, and would not object to rewording the sanction if we need to do that, but the idea was to stay away from that area, not try to nitpick at technicalities. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think a 24 hour block would be appropriate here. --Rschen7754 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarifying that I would support all the way to indef, as it has been proven that Apteva is not willing to listen to consensus. However, the community isn't at the point of supporting an indef yet. --Rschen7754 06:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Apteva may have violated the topic ban by filing this AE case against Noetica. The comments by Noetica were given in the context of whether to include the Hale–Bopp comet in a list of article titles on the relevant policy page. It was clearly a discussion over the en-dash issue and reporting Noetica for comments made in that discussion would seem to run afoul of the "broadly construed" aspect of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Let's see if I can summarize:

1. Changing, not removing, a see also link is pushing a disruptive agenda (per Dicklyon)
2. Even if the topic ban wasn't violated, the user should be blocked (per Paul Erik)
3. Apparently using AE is against a topic ban (per The Devil's Advocate)

It seems this can be closed as no admin action needed (except maybe some very large trouts). A few individuals need to find something more productive to do, it seems. --Nouniquenames 04:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that is not even remotely what I said. It is about the fact that he is using AE to report an editor for comments in a discussion about using en-dashes, an editor with whom he has disputed the use of en-dashes. Personally, I think discussing someone's conduct in a discussion about use of en-dashes falls under the "broadly construed" part of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• It's not what I said either. I do think the topic ban was violated; Seraphimblade's clarification explains why. The intention of a topic ban is that the user disengage entirely from the topic, which Apteva is not doing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Block, fairly clear attempt to circumvent exact wording of topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Enough already. Apteva has been disrupting WP:MOS and WP:TITLE pages since October with his unique theory about dashes and comets. The theory got no support, and everyone else has moved on, but Apteva continues to disrupt MOS and TITLE. —Neotarf (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Without advocating a specific course of action (I'll leave that to others) these actions represent an unambiguous violation of his topic ban. The idea of topic bans is to allow a Wikipedia user to use their talents in areas far afield from ones that encourage them to have behavioral issues. Apteva is showing no signs that they wish to comply with this idea; indeed their actions seem to consist of testing the boundaries of the ban, which is a clear sign that they have no real intention of obeying it in the long term. --Jayron32 06:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with Jayron32, SarekOfVulcan, Paul Erik, Rschen7754, et al. (And see below for an issue no one's noticed yet that is blockworthy in and of itself.) Even without Seraphimblade's clarification that this activity is in fact directly covered by Apteva's topic ban, it would still be WP:GAMING/WP:LAWYERing to skirt the exact wording of it. Furthermore, even after the hopefully forthcoming block expires, the topic ban should be extended to cover the Manual of Style and its applicability more generally. Apteva (a.k.a. Delphi234 a.k.a. Oakwillow a.k.a. 199.125.109.*) has been arguing, tendentiously, disruptively and in an unbelievably parent- and forum-shopping manner, about style matters, from hyphenation to capitalization, at MOS, at RMs, VP, everywhere, for months on end, and not only has not slowed down after being RFC/U'd and WP:AN'd and partially topic banned, but has stepped up his pace, even disrupting WT:AT with off-topic rants, and trying to modify the wording of WP:AT against consensus, etc. It's long past time for this to stop.

  Some editors simply are not temperamentally suited, or knowledgeable enough, for collaborative editing and consensus building on style matters, because they are brow-beating prescriptive grammar holywarriors who believe they are "Right" and must "win" to address a "great wrong", by campaigning everyone else half to death, with the aim of simply wearing opposition down until nothing is left of them but a bloody stain. Such editing patterns become the end-in-itself of editing WP, instead of improving the encyclopedia when left unchecked, as Apteva's has. It's an unfortunate oversight that the topic ban was so narrowly worded, and this should be rectified, as it was with PMAnderson (general MOS topic ban; he was eventually blocked permanently for abusive sockpuppetry used to evade the ban.)

  Another, now-obvious, alternative is an indef-block of Apteva and an application of such an extended topic ban to his Delphi234 sockmaster account. See this barely-escaped ban/block for deceptive sockpuppetry: User talk:Delphi234#Usage of multiple accounts. The Apteva account was permitted to continue to exist only after this editor clarified that User:Apteva would only be used for editing solar-power articles and related (and Delphi234 would not be used overlappingly). Yet here we are, with User:Apteva moving further and further away from such article writing toward WP:SPA-like, anti-MOS wiki-picketing and editwarring. The editor continues to use both User:Delphi234 and User:Apteva almost every single day to edit solar/wind/nuclear energy articles in a way that makes it seem like two independent editors, despite being administratively warned twice (on pain of loss of one account and a possibly long-term block of the other) against doing so, as impermissibly deceptive, by admins Lucasbfr (now Luk) and Wknight94, over four years ago. That seems like entirely separate grounds for indef-blocking the Apteva account, as well as for a temporary but not trivial block of the Delphi234 alter-ego (which the user says, at that user-talk discussion, is his main account). I repeat what several of us have been asking, at WP:AN and WP:RFC/U: How long is this user going to be permitted to abuse Wikipedia for his own entertainment and POV-pushing? (Reminder: We've been tolerating it, for no reason, since at least October 2008!) The similarity of all this to PMAnderson's pattern of abuse is striking (though his soapboxes tended to actually be considerably more reasonable than Apteva's). PS: For the record, I think Apteva/Delphi234 does good article writing and sourcing on topics he knows a lot about, such as solar power and the energy grid. Style in English-language formal writing, and how WP operates at the policy level are decidedly not among those topics.
  — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  This requires more careful review. Delphi234 and Apteva's contributions have not been directly overlapping -- one edits nuclear/wind, the other solar, and every time Delphi slipped up and posted to a WP-space discussion instead of using the Apteva account, they self-reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• The solar/non-solar energy editing is a hair-splitting distinction only Apteva is apt to notice or care about, since energy topics overlap (few articles on solar power never mention any other kind of energy, or vice versa). He's obviously using the two accounts to pose misleadingly as two different people editing energy topics, something that two admins told him to stop doing several years ago, or lose one of the accounts and be blocked for a while on the other one. His privacy claim is moot, since his attempts to hide the fact that both accounts are the same person failed dismally over four years ago. He also promised to use the Apteva account for nothing but solar editing, but has instead repurposed it for massive anti-MOS disruptive forumshopping. Either of those admins, or any other admin, would be within their authority to indef block the one account and block the other for some non-trivial amount of time on these bases alone. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The correct response from Apteva would be something like "Hmmm, I did not think that would be a problem, but if people here think it is, I will make sure to give edits like that a very wide berth in the future". Examples of wrong responses are as shown above: accuse Dicklyon of disrupting Wikipedia, and talk about previous discussions wasting countless hours and taking half a million bytes. That latter point (the amount of time/space taken to discuss Apteva's behavior) would be sufficient to convince most editors to stay a long way away from the topic, but it appears that Apteva is made of sterner stuff than most editors, and more blunt instruments will be required. The next violation should invoke an indefinite block until a convincing reassurance is forthcoming. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that conversation has already taken place: [60] —Neotarf (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per blocking policy, blocks are not punitive but preventative and none is warranted as I obviously did not consider that an infraction or infringement in any way of the ban which I am under. I would like to call everyone's attention to the recent warning on my talk page, and suggest that is sufficient. I apologize for the trouble that edit caused. See also links do not have explanations, as what is an explanation for one editor is meaningless for another, and so bare links are all we use. So yes, sorry, and I do promise to do better in not making anyone think I am doing something that I am not in the future. Peace and happy editing. Now all of us I am sure have better things to do. There are certainly 4 million articles and a lot of other issues more important than this one, which has already been dealt with. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you say, per the blocking policy, blocks are preventative and a block here would be to prevent you from continuing to violate your topic ban. Precisely because there are 4 million articles to work on, why don't you take the hint from your topic ban and move on to non-MOS related stuff. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Be more than happy to. The best way to accomplish that is rescind the topic ban, or at least not issue a block. There is clearly no chance of my violating the topic ban though. Apteva (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• You've done little but violate the topic ban since it was implemented. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Block for 1 month. Testing the edges of a broadly-construed topic ban is a great way to get the ban widened. 1 month block to see if it sinks in. Then offer some WP:ROPE. User has a habitual habit of promising not to be interested in something to avoid sanction, then returning to the same behavior after the waters have calmed (see my user talk). (Noting, as usual, that this does not mean that others involved in this dispute should not be blocked/banned; simply that this user should.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block - sigh, following on from the topic ban proposal which they show minimal respect for. Also, I still don't understand why this user has 2 accounts, and I still don't see how they think they will ever pass RFA with this kind of behaviour. GiantSnowman 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A long block like that would not serve to do anything other than hurt Wikipedia. I recently brought a third article to GA, and would likely a fourth in the next month, which would be delayed a month should a long block like that be administered. This would be a classic case of biting your nose to spite your face. Look. I get it. I do recommend though, dealing with the incivility at the MOS. Not by blocking everyone or topic banning anyone, but by treating the talk page as a DR page and only edited if a DR volunteer is present and issuing warnings to anyone acting incivil, in particular, violating wp:FOC or WP:NPA. Apteva (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia will cope without you. Even on articles that you WP:OWN and that clearly no-one else could be capable of working on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That misses the point. Wikipedia is unstoppable, and with or without anyone will do just fine. However, it is not to our advantage to ask anyone to delay their work needlessly. I do not own any articles, but I am expert in a dozen subjects encompassing several hundred articles and I do focus most of my attention there. Apteva (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question - would such a block apply to the Apteva account, or to this editor's other account(s) too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Both/all - though as stated above I fail to see why they need a second account. It appears to be one used for the disruptive editing, and leaves an ill feeling in my stomach. GiantSnowman 16:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I too would question the good hand / bad hand accounts, especially as they're clearly being used quite contrarily to how they proposed that they would use them. However that is a separate question. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, both/all - topic bans apply to editors, not accounts. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block very clearly a repeat of the tendentious behaviour that led to the topic ban. Suggest 1 week, to escalate as normal if issues recur. Block should be implement on both accounts and I would endorse an examination of the Delphi234/Apteva overlap--Cailil ^talk 17:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block and suggest dropping the topic ban altogether. --Nouniquenames 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block. No idea why the editor's continuing test of the boundaries of the topic ban would lead one to conclude that the topic ban was the problem here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  It seems the problem is not just one editor. --Nouniquenames 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  I can only refer to my topic ban as the letter k ban, but it is a fact that it was imposed to get me to stop bringing up the letter k, even though I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium, yet the very editors who wanted a topic ban keep bringing up the letter k themselves, as if now that there is one less vote they might be able to get agreement on the topic. So yes, vacating the topic ban is a valid proposal (and even vacated I would still honor the self imposed moratorium on bringing up the topic). Apteva (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Psychodramatic histrionics like this refusal-to-get-the-point nonsense are not going to win you any supporters here, only cement resolve against your "righteously" indignant disruption. You're basically trying to hang yourself with rope you don't even have. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  (to Nouniquenames) How is the problem not being just one editor a reason not to fix the part of the problem that is just one editor? We can block no disruptive editor until we can block all disruptive editors in one indivisible action? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  Imagine an area overrun with both snakes and rats. Both are annoying to the property owner, but a sort of balance is achieved between the two. Now imagine if only the snakes were removed. Basic biology tells us the place will be overrun with rats. --Nouniquenames 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Of course, how silly of me. Apteva's disruption was holding other users' disruption in check. Ridiculous. It is my opinion that the Wikipedia editor population is not analogous to snakes and rats, and your basic biology rationalization is just that, a rationalization. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first thing that needs to happen here is to limit this editor to one account. Regardless of whether they're legitimate per WP:SOCK, if we have an editor under a topic ban who's continuing to test the boundaries, I don't think we need to force the community to track the edits of two separate accounts. AGF only goes so far. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What for? If I try to test the boundaries let me know about it. It is not going to happen. One warning is sufficient. As pointed out I am very careful not to conflate the issue or violate policy, and self revert when necessary. Apteva (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You've already tested the boundaries more than once, and once should have been enough. Certainly before this thread, I knew that the Apteva account was under a topic ban, but had no idea there was a second account and I'd bet that applies to many other editors as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) "One warning"— you mean other than the RFC/U and numerous noticeboard threads you've been the focus of? In which you did the same shameless "sorry sir, won't happen again sir" backpedalling that you've been doing in this thread? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Neither was a test. Both were made under the clear understanding that there was nothing wrong with the edit, as they did not conflict with the letter k topic ban. The RFC/U was before the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block: The grounds for the block, as supposed violation of the prior topic-ban, are baseless. An edit to the policy wp:TITLE to re-link a see-also link to "wp:Manual of Style" is not a discussion about hyphens/dashes. Instead, the argument to block for a proposed topic-ban is a "straw man fallacy" of highlighting a different paragraph as if it were the actual topic ban. I hereby declare the improper topic-ban as vacated and request an uninvolved admin to unblock User:Apteva. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account

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.

---

Several people above have commented that Apteva should be restricted to one account. There's no need for the community to monitor several accounts of a disruptive, topic banned editor when they edit on the same topics. Both the Apteva account and Delphi234 account have recently made edits to renewable energy topics. Diffs: as Apteva and as Delphi234.

• Support as proposer. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is a solution in search of a problem. All solar articles are edited with this account and no solar articles are edited with any other account. All other energy articles are edited with the other account. No MOS edits are made by that account. None. The only three items edited with this account are WP:RCP, WP:RM, and Solar, as well as any WP guidelines or policies. There is a very clear distinction and no problem with doing so. Apteva (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone possibly need one account for editing solar power articles, and another account for editing wind power or renewable energy articles? This is far from "a very clear distinction", in account terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not a legitimate use of an alternative account. And is actually an admission of violating WP:SCRUTINY. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as original proposer, above.  :-) The distinction Apteva is claiming is basically one that only he will notice, as energy/power topics overlap. Apteva/Delphi234 is clearly masquerading as two independent parties, and was warned not to do so, particularly in energy topics, by at least two admins, yet has continued to do so for several years, and this editor promised that the Apteva account would only be used for solar power topics, but has instead repurposed it for MOS-related disruption as well as pretending to be someone else while editing energy topics. The privacy claim made at User talk:Delphi234 is moot since that talk page and the sockpuppet case both make it clear they are the same user. If there was no evidence of disruptive editing by either account, no big deal, but the opposite is the case. Both userpages' talk histories consist largely of complaints and problem reports, which is always a bad sign. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support They can't even be trusted with one account. As they're not an editor in good standing - and it appears that they have indeed used both accounts to edit the same subject area, fully support this restriction (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Bwilkins and my personal perspective of this situation. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Bwilkins. --Rschen7754 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Apteva has no real reason for using two distinctly-named accounts; the ones he provides are not necessary to productive editing and have the potential to be further misused. dci | TALK 01:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support reasonable restriction --Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The extra difficulty caused by the second account far outweighs any benefit (no benefit?) created by the second account. Ryan Vesey 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The promised clear purpose for each never happened. Patience has been exhausted far too much with just one account, we certainly don't need two to watch. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - no clear evidence that multiple accounts are a problem here. --Nouniquenames 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It has long been policy that alt accounts should not edit in the same topic areas as a user's main account. therefore, using two accounts to edit different articles in the same topic area in an almost identical manner is a problem, and that Apteva is doing so is clearly demonstrated above. And in case it is not clear I support this restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as one who has been frustrated in attempts to tighten up alt-account practices on en.WP. Alt accounts, except where admins really need them for a narrow range of purposes, lead nowhere good. Tony (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I don't see why xe needs two accounts, and that fact that xe appears to use them as good cop/bad cop is unsettling. GiantSnowman 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The second bullet point in response to this proposal is from Apteva who could only offer "This is a solution in search of a problem" and "no problem with doing so" as reasons to oppose the restriction. After all the community time and effort spent dealing with this user, a good reason for running two accounts would be needed, and none exists. Given all the fuss, one account is more than enough for the community to monitor. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, editor can't be trusted with one account, as Bwilkins observed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as well. Blackmane (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I was initially unconvinced until I ran a wikistalk of Apteva and Delphi234 - the overlap is considerable on the renewable resources topic[61]. In light of this the policy issue for me is that it is unclear from the User:Apteva page that this is an alternative account. And while the User:Delphi234 age does clearly link to Apteva as its alternative account the other does not. Someone just viewing User:Apteva will have no idea that Delphi234 is the same person. This is made worse by virtue of the fact that Apteva has far more edits than Delphi234. And since there have been numerous pages where this overlap occured WP:LEGIT has been broken IMO. In view that Apteva has nearly 6,500 more edits than Delphi234 I suggest limitting them to the Apteva account--Cailil ^talk 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see obvious links flagged between both accounts, "above the fold" on both userpages. As I'm unaware of a formal requirement to use any particular style or template to indicate this, then I see no breach. I also see only a trivial overlap between their edits. The claimed distinction is obscure and nit-picking, but has broadly been followed, such that I wouldn't claim it has been breached. Despite that though, I favour "de-alternating" this editor (specifically an indef ban on one account, without other prejudice). The reason is that although there has been no clear breach of policy on alternates, neither has any value been demonstrated for them. Alternate accounts exist, some use them, many dislike them, but our broad position is one of rather grudging acceptance. Yet to be accepted, they have to demonstrate some tenuous claim of need. The default position is not that everyone should have as many as they wish, unless proven otherwise. It's up to the editor wanting one to give at least some justification for this. Apteva is failing to do so. They're not an editor in sufficiently good standing to be given quite such free rein as is usually granted: they had that privilege once, AGF kept it for them despite repeated provocations, but enough's enough. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we're going to let them back and edit in a while – but it's also the encyclopedia where many other editors run in circles after this sort of pointless editor-created malarkey and there is no inalienable right for one editor to keep generating more and more of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Whatever the circumstances were that prompted the allowance of the co-existence of the two accounts at the time, there appears to me to be no reason now to allow it to continue, considering Apteva's behavior. Further, I would recommend that an CU be run to be certain there are no other accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (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.

• Oppose one-account limit. There is insufficient evidence to show improper use of the 2 username accounts (Apteva & User:Delphi234), as somehow acting as if being 2 different people in deciding issues. Perhaps discuss this 2 more days, to see if any credible evidence arises; otherwise, remove the one-username restriction. However, I advise to check for collusion between several of the above editors who seem to dogpile in accusations against Apteva, then discount those "Support" !votes as being co-involved editors trying to force the outcome of a POV dispute. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  You've missed the point. There is insufficient evidence to show proper use of multiple username accounts. Several of the editors being familiar with Apteva's disruption is evidence of sentience, not collusion; that you categorize their actions as a "dogpile" is evidence of your assumption of bad faith, not of their collusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not an "assumption of bad faith" but rather, it is just "bad" when 7 or 9 co-involved editors support an unrelated sanction against an opponent editor, all within a period of 11 hours, when non-involved editors state there is no evidence of multi-account violations. -Wikid77 (talk)

Apteva blocked

I have blocked Apteva for a period of 2 weeks. His actions are an obvious violation of the spirit of his topic ban and there needs to be no ambiguity in his mind that the topic ban requires he stays away from editing in this area. I believe the comments in the main section demonstrate support for a block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the alternate account? GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Although permanent resolution should come from the sub-section above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So the ongoing discussion about a block above including suggestions as short as 24 hours was just taking too long? Seriously. What. The. Crud. --Nouniquenames 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In cased you missed the policy, nouniquenames, a BLOCK applies to the person, not the account. As the editor in question has multiple accounts that they use in the same areas I merely made an identical-length block to the alternate account as per policy. Its final viability will be determined above. It was NOT indeffed because, as I noted, that's being discussed above. I think I now better understand your cryptic - and poorly-thought-out message on my talkpage now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder why Nouniquenames keeps turning up every time Apteva and his anti-MOS WP:TAGTEAM are under scrutiny, supporting them and running interference against everyone else's attempts to rein in their abuses. I also note a history of snarky, incivil edit summaries like "oppose another stupid idea" and "apparently no one has anything better to do", coupled with an excessive focus on lodging complaints against other editors, including handing out WP:TROUTs right and left. "Apprarently" not having "anything better to do" isn't something Nouniquenames has taken some time to self-reflect about. Hint: When consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that the behavior patterns exhibited by an editor – Apteva in this case – are consistently and undeniably disruptive, tendentious and system-gaming, one is exhibiting a refusal to get the point problem oneself by throwing up repetitive, not-a-snowball's-chance verbal shields in efforts to defend the disruptor. PS: Yes, yes, three times yes, this has been taking too long, and the block was overdue (I also firmly predict it will be too short and will have little to no effect). Apteva has been at this WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality campaign of MOS-attacking for months, and has been at abusing multiple accounts to deceptively edit energy articles for years. Very few editors get away with demonstrable patterns of disruption and sockpuppetry for this long. Delaying yet further while he continues to blame everyone else and insist he's doing the Right Thing, without any signs of understanding the views of others, and, well, blatantly lying about his willingness to stop, isn't going to help anyone or anything. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, taking too long. By about four months. Your early close of this enforcement request (which I reverted) didn't help matters, really. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By that point it didn't matter. The blocks were put in place already, despite the open discussion. Cowboy tactics in the worst way. Hatting was intended to show that there was no need or purpose in continuing the discussion (as the end result was apparently determined already). It's not that I doubted supports were lacking when compared to opposes, it's the blatant disregard for the very processes intended to promote a workable atmosphere. The Jamaican Bobsled Team clause, if you will. People should be screaming from the rooftops on this, but there's essentially silence. It's very disheartening. --Nouniquenames 07:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• The sanction might be enough to cause him to sit back and be more circumspect for about 24 hours after the block expires. What's more of a joke is that one or other account should have been indeffed for engaging in deceptive socking, but was blocked only for the same two weeks. Long live socking [sic]! -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The false claim of "deceptive" is violation of wp:NPA. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Paid editor actively spamming

Hi, guys. We not a note via OTRS that Shark Internet Marketing is actively spamming people with their article-writing, link-adding service. Might be worth keeping an eye out for increases in promotional editing, in case some of their recipients take them up on it. (Why anybody would respond to - and thereby encourage - spam is beyond me, but somebody must or surely people would stop doing it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to figure out who that lady in the video is so we can AFD her article. <evil grin> §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, just trolled their live chat feature for a bit to see what we're up against. It appears that the claims of a legion of editors who can help in editwars and AfDs is BS. Which means that all they're really doing is creating articles that meet our content standards... while I don't condone paid editing, it reminds me a little of a comedy bit I once saw about a bank robber whose ingenious plan is to simply work for a bank for a few decades, thereby stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars - at some point, "pulling one over on us" just becomes doing exactly what we want. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I always find it funny that companies/people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a Wikipedia entry when there are so many of us willing to write one for free if the person is notable. Considering the writing style of the page, I'd be surprised if any companies ever shelled out the money asked. Ryan Vesey 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will try to be careful not to publicly out the man behind SharkIM (although all the needed information is public), but after some research I've managed to identify him... hell even got his phone and address! Guess all those years as a collection agent really honed my cyberstalking skills... A quick search for any wiki articles or accounts for him or associated companies/ventures turns up nothing, so at least that's one concern resolved. Might give SharkIM a call tomorrow, ask for a sample of their work, see if it's actually good or real cause for greater worrying. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to connect to the Shark Internet Marketing website. Have they folded their tents and stolen away into the night? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I still see live? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I just tried again with a couple of other browsers and still couldn't connect. Perhaps my firewall is blocking it for some reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Where to post an RfC about Reviewer privileges?

Hm, I expect to be answered and trouted rather efficiently, but I cannot seem to find an answer; I'd like to propose that editors with the Reviewer flag, in addition to having their edits autoreviewed, would be able to edit FPP'ed pages. An alternative would be to have an additional protection setting, restricting edits to sysops & reviewers (for example, that wouldn't be used on MediaWiki pages and such).

In any case, I doubt this is the correct venue (although if it is -- good!), so please just point me in the right direction and it'll be a pleasure to direct myself wherever needed. :) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:VPPR is one possible place, though a separate RfC page in the project space would also suffice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I can't remember where it was, but I'm pretty sure there was something a little while ago to try to split out some sort of "edit protected pages" right. It was a very sensible suggestion, but like most attempts to change anything related to admin, it hit the usual immovable wall. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any chance of any proposal like this succeeding - there is always too much "No, that's not my pet solution, we should be doing X instead" opposition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I got the idea from reading answers to questions in the current RfA. I find it a tad silly for an obviously experienced content editor to have to get the "full admin package" just to be able to bypass making edit requests. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• The ongoing big RFA RFC is likely to cover unbundling as a possible solution; it might be worth holding off any other specific suggestions while that's going on. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, category 3 in that RfC includes unbundling, and Round Two should be starting soon. Also, the ongoing discussion about PC2 suggests that the second RfC is coming sooner rather than later, and your suggestion feels more like a PC2 thing than a PC1 thing to me ... I wouldn't object to throwing that on the pile of things to discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the recent discussion about granting selected non-admins the right to edit protected pages can be found here. Graham87 12:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

XKCD alert...

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.

---

...for Star Trek Into Darkness. [62] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both capitalization versions have been SPP'ed and FMPP'ed, I FPP'ed ~*~StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs~*~ just in case sincee XKCD readers can be rather creative. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've salted the mouseover text suggestions as well - ~*~sTaR tReK iNtO dArKnEsS~*~, xX_StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNess_Xx and Star Trek lnto Darkness. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek into Darkness

Moved from WP:ANI

Moved from ANI to consolidate discussion NE Ent 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the film article Star Trek into Darkness, there has been a very extensive debate about whether or not to capitalize "into" for the article title. I know, I know. There was a discussion to move the article to Star Trek Into Darkness that lasted from December 11, 2012 to January 9, 2013, and the discussion was closed as having no consensus. The discussion continued after the closure, but to me, it seemed to be winding down to accepting a modification of the lead sentence until we could find new evidence to revisit the article title. The discussion was posted at XKCD here, which led to an inflow of comments, mostly in jest. I assume this is what ultimately led to a new request to move, created by DillonLarson (talk · contribs), who previously had not edited since November 6, 2012. I do not think this new request is proper because there is no new evidence, and the arguments will be the same as it has been for the past two months. It stirs the embers when they were just cooling off. I wanted to see if there was a possibility of speedily closing this new discussion for being premature and very unlikely to be productive. Hence my request here for admin intervention. (EDIT: It's possible that the XKCD posting would lead filmmakers and linguists to comment on this issue. That's the silver lining I'm hoping for.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse Erik's request for a speedy no-consensus close of the move discussion. It would appear that maybe because of the coverage this page has received, non-regular and new editors are being attracted to this discussion. I know it isn't WP:CANVASSING, but it seems to have had a similar effect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll also endorse Erik's request. It's far too soon for this to be started up again. douts (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'd also like a speedy conclusion to the move discussion, it will solve nothing. Coverage of the discussion is now starting to spread to other websites (gizmodo, for one) and will only bring more people into the argument. And for "more people" read "trekkies", who will die for the cause. I think you'll find that this will simply run and run until "Into" is capitalised. Nsign (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the parallel I made to WP:CANVASSING, as it brings with it a bias. We need to shut this down now. It is clear that a lot of the "new" contributors are not that familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and are paying little heed to previous discussions on the matter. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the real name of this move "Star Trek into Darkness", or is it "Star Trek: Into Darkness"? As in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" rather than "Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion with a note that discussion should be reopened before long. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend! Hopefully external assessments will be forthcoming. Bugs, my impression is that the filmmakers are using the title in different ways. They indicate in some promotional materials that "Into Darkness" is a distinct subtitle, yet in the official synopsis, they say in a sentence, "...Star Trek Into Darkness." So it's variations on this and the capitalization guidelines and people wanting to make exceptions because no outside coverage has used lowercase "into". Not to mention that comparing this title to previous titles may not be accurate, as it is a rebooted franchise. I think that's kind of it in a nutshell; the discussion is a lot of elaboration (and I do mean a lot) on all these different points. Hence why we need new evidence to establish consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the filmmakers use an "implied" colon in their titling. I note the silliness of "E.T. the Extraterrestrial" when it's "E.T. [....] The Extraterrestrial". It's funny how wikipedians ignore sourcing in favor of their own obsesson with their own manual of style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I think the discussion has covered implied colons too. :) I certainly hope readers are like, "HAHA, Wikipedia is silly... hmm, this is a pretty informative article about the film..." Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness for XKCD. It's from them that we get the wonderful effort of Malamanteau Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely close this down! As someone who was is pro capitalisation, I believe this move suggestion so soon after the old one was closed due to a "No consensus" (although with more people saying yay than nay and consensus defined as a majority, I don't see how this was the case, anyway, I am going off topic and mumbling, see what this has done to my mind?) to be borderline disruptive and not in the best interests of the article. Yes, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but there are better ways to go about it and the waters need to calm before being disturbed again. This comic (which to be honest I don't quite get how it is funny feel free to drop by and explain) has further inflamed the situation with editors with no interest in discussing the change dropping by and being disruptive, both Annon and account holders. MisterShiney ✉ 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• The RM speedy close was ill advised. That RM was for a different option to the previous, was made by a previously uninvolved editor, there were new arguments, a significant number of new people joining the discussion, and the people calling far a speedy close were involved. It tastes like OWNership by the previous talk page regulars and is unwelcoming to new faces. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you see things my way. DillonLarson (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closer here. This is nothing of OWNership; I'd never even heard of this movie before I saw this ANI thread. If I'd been attempting to cast a supervote, I wouldn't have asked that it be reopened before long. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The OWNership thing is that previous talk page participants have decided what future talk page participants may talk about. Who said anything about "supervote"? If you did anything wrong, it was a too-quick close /admin action. Did you follow WP:RCMI? What explicit or implicit "speedy close" criterion did you follow? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because this was going nowhere fast and wasn't going to end up productively, so there was no point in keeping it going. It's just a common-sense thing, not a specific "suggested by point _, subpoint _, clause _ of policy page _". Your objection in your final sentence made me think that you believed me to be overruling consensus in order to force my opinion on everything, when really I had no opinion at all about one side versus the other; my only opinion was that the discussion was becoming disruptive (through nobody's fault; that's how it had just transpired) and that we'd do better if we stopped and waited for a little while. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Just wait a while? Are you following the page? I think WP:RM needs some simple instructions that simplify things for non-RM regulars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly following it; I only went there because of the furor here. If this were an RM that I'd closed as don't move or even as no-consensus, I'd probably advise that the waiting period be in the order of months. Since I closed this purely because the move itself was hitting the news, I definitely don't advise that we wait that long; just please wait until the news is elsewhere, which will probably be just a few days. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really know what this place is or why I have been called here, but I thought perhaps you would like me to say something. I do not know if this is some sort of court, as there have been numerous accusations launched against me, but I feel it is in my best interest to respond diligently to them in any case.

• "The discussion was posted at XKCD, which led to an inflow of comments, mostly in jest. I assume this is what ultimately led to a new request to move by DillonLarson (talk · contribs)." No, neither xkcd nor "jest" led me to do anything. I saw an area of the encyclopedia I thought I could help improve and I tried to do just that.
• "DillonLarson (talk · contribs) had not edited since November 6, 2012." What does this have to do with anything?
• "I do not think this new request is proper because there is no new evidence, and the arguments will be the same as it has been for the past two months." I must admit that I was not aware until recently (and obviously did not take part in) the previous discussion. I saw that there was a discussion that failed to reach consensus regarding a change that I do not believe would have even helped. So, you are incorrect in your blatant assumption that there is "no new evidence" (or at least no evidence that, in this request, was being applied properly (or at least no evidence that, in this request, was actually introduced to solve the specific issue at the heart of the request)). I should know; I made the request.
• "It stirs the embers when they were just cooling off." I've heard this from a few people. Again, I was not aware of the great personal toll the previous debate took on those involved. I was only motivated by my love for the encyclopedia. I apologize if anyone misunderstood my motives.
• "As much as I'd also like a speedy conclusion to the move discussion, it will solve nothing." This was my stance during the discussion--if that is what you can call a number of considerate editors attempting to discuss something while being yelled at by a few boorish trolls. Ultimately, however, I understand if the community was not ready for a fresh, constructive discussion. I just came home a few minutes ago and was going to request that the request be withdrawn and put into hibernation for a while. I see that someone took the liberty to do that for me.
• "DillonLarson (talk · contribs) is disruptive." No, that was not my intention at all. I understand now that some people mistake change for disruption. Again, I apologize if my actions appeared to be anything but the work of a concerned editor.
• "DillonLarson (talk · contribs) is WP:POINTY." No. The point of POINTY is that open discussion is better than abusing the encyclopedia. My request was simply an attempt to generate meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, other editors clearly wanted to hinder the discussion to avoid being called wrong; if that isn't POINTY, I don't know what is. (At this point, the trolls have succeeded in getting the discussion halted, so this is a non-issue.)

Again, I apologize if my creation of the move request was misconstrued some sort of political or otherwise unsavory move. This was not my intention. Like I said before, I was in support of pausing the discussion until a suitable time came to revisit it; it appears this has been done for me (Thanks to whomever was able to make that happen). Although I do not know if this is the appropriate venue for a quick bit of thought, I'll try anyway: Regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" in the Star Trek question (And, honestly, how much does it matter?), I encountered some really nasty things in that discussion. If you are one of the few editors in the discussion who could not refrain from being a rude, loutish fool (you know who you are), I suggest you either (a) follow the guidelines of this encyclopedia and choose to be WP:CALM, learn to not be WP:POINTY, and realize that Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING or (b) expel yourself from this project--Wikipedia needs caring, thoughtful team players. And, with that, I suppose I'll go. Perhaps I'll take one of those WP:WIKIBREAKs everyone's been talking about... DillonLarson (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dillon. Don't worry, you are not on trial here. At WP:AN and WP:ANI, we are supposed to notify editors that we mention. I felt that the new request to move was premature. I did not cast a specific !vote in the previous RM discussion because I could see where everyone was coming from. Though I excused myself from the circuitous debate, I kept track through this because it was the most active talk page. We are dealing with three variations here: Star Trek Into Darkness (official), Star Trek into Darkness (applied MOS assuming no subtitle), and Star Trek: Into Darkness (MOS assuming subtitle). What I meant by the lack of consensus is that even though Star Trek: Into Darkness was not officially mentioned in the RM template of the first request, it was still discussed as part of the trio. In short, it did not pop out as the title that beat both Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek into Darkness. When the new RM discussion started, I could see all the same arguments being re-hashed. My perspective is that there was not a new case being made, especially not one that would solidify a consensus at long last. I understand that you thought that yours was a new case, but I feel that the resulting comments repeated those of the previous RM discussion. Beyond your request, I do think that there is a set of editors on that talk page who could recuse themselves from a future RM discussion (especially one that can reference outside commentary about capitalization without being tongue-in-cheek). It would be useful to revisit with a new set of editors. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If we know that it is going to ultimately go "Capital I" anyway, um... why is anyone trying to keep it not-capital-I. (please list reason below ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected

Apparently semiprotecting is not sufficient (an autoconfirmed editor just added "by pedantic drones" to the lead section) so I've fully protected it for a day. Seriously, people. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Unproductive page activity was really up that high that you couldn't just rv? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got no objection if someone wishes to revert the protection. 28bytes (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

...and the full protection is apparently insufficient as administrators are now carrying on making into/Into edits through protection. Ah well, what can ya do? 28bytes (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to request fuller protection, but that doesn't exist. If we can't trust the administrators to abide by the rules on an article, it shouldn't be closed to other editors. I've requested a protection level reduction. Ryan Vesey 01:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ignoring all rules, as is Manning Bartlett, because the situation is an utter catastrophe. Hang me afterwards if you like. Protecting it was the completely wrong move as it left the article in an utterly broken state. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You changed the lead sentence on the protected page on your own. It's now inconsistent with the article title. Why not go ahead and make the move? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because page moves are messy and hard on the database server when there are lots of revisions. I thought I'd wait and see how much I got yelled at first. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

NB. The article is protected, not the talk page. I misunderstood and almost got a bit upset. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious from a common sense point of view that this article should be titled with a capitalized "Into". Just google it, and see how everyone else capitalizes it. I would like to unprotect the page though, so I want to see agreement on the title first. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally we should look for people that have never even seen a Star Trek movie to make the most unbiased possible decision. —Soap— 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• shyly raises hand* I've never seen a Star Trek movie (so I really don't know why I jumped into the mess, probably because we were being ridiculed for enforcing a non-existent title style on a movie). Ryan Vesey 02:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to open up a new move discussion; however, the one opened up earlier today was quickly closed by consensus here. Had I known the first one existed before I was informed by xkxd, I would have weighed in. In any case, I opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#COMMONNAME should take precedence. Ryan Vesey 01:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that we don't have enough policy, the problem is we have too much policy. No more rules, use common sense. Prodego ^talk 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The article should be unprotected and immediately moved to its correct (yes, correct) title Star Trek Into Darkness. If we're going to diverge with reality then the burden is on the people leading us into the great unknown. To prove I'm a good sport I'm willing to undertake both actions. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Or we could desysop you for editing through protection when no consensus exists and violating a long-standing guideline to do so. Don't like the rule that we have prepositions of less than four characters in lower case? Get consensus to change it. Don't abuse your bit to get your way and hide under the cover of IAR to do so.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but far from hiding I believe I'm acting in plain sight. Call it abusive if you want but I refuse to allow the misuse of process and policies to bring the project into disrepute. If you disagree with that line of thinking then that's your own lookout. If you think I've acted abusively open an RfC and get consensus for that view. By all means, continue this absurd charade. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, that it is so obviously wrong to use "into" that I think Mackensen's action can be justified. The manual of style is not and has never been a set of rules, it is just a list of common practices which should be used if there is no reason not to. It is a guide, not a rulebook. Prodego ^talk 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was so obviously wrong, we would have consensus on the talk page. If there was a consensus to use "Into", then his edit would have been fine. There wasn't. He edited through protection in accordance with his personal opinion, not consensus. That's flagrantly wrong.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I believe there was consensus to move the page in the first RM, and thus consensus to move the page. Prodego ^talk 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I tended to think so as well, but the move speaks for itself. We could make a movie about this and call it Wikipedia Into Madness. Should be a thriller. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus. That is not true. A small majority favored "Into" of "into". This move violates the policy of consensus. A few editors are all upset over a cartoon so you have abandoned policy to try to make Wikipedia look better. Shame on you. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring your comment. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? I'm angry with what you have done and I think the claim that the original move debate had a consensus for a move is utter nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we're a community of editors and there's no call for profanity, though we've all done it and worse. Anyway, unless I'm to be site-banned discussion should be confined to the article. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion of your misbehaviour should be handled here, not on an article talk page.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you really want to; I tend to think the article is more appropriate. I made an edit to a fully-protected page; I had not previously edited the page and was not involved in a content dispute. I believed the edit had consensus, although I had reason to believe it would be contested. Otherwise, I moved an article not moved within the last several months after the article was unprotected. Anything else? Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that talk page, how did you come to the conclusion that there was a consensus strong enough to warrant editing through protection?—Kww(talk) 03:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because one edit was backed by policy and sources and one wasn't. There was also local discussion about the lede (from today), and no real disagreement the existing lede was a disgrace. That's why I thought so. It's possible I was wrong about that, but I acted in good faith and did not edit war. Nothing in WP:PP was offended today. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll strongly disagree there: we never match title capitalization to sources, never have, and no policy basis forced your hand. You acted because you decided one that one side was right and chose to favor it. It blatantly violated WP:PP in both letter and spirit. I'll wait for other admins to chime in, but I hope to see consensus that your misbehaviour was blatant enough to warrant action.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"[A]cted because you decided one that one side was right and chose to favor it"; I don't agree with your wording, but that's more or less how consensus works when administrative action of some sort is required. That's what Anthony Appleyard did when he (wrongly) closed the earlier requested move as no consensus. He decided that he thought no one was right, and that the existing state of affairs didn't offend policies (or didn't enough to justify doing something about it). I'm having difficulty squaring your comments with your expressed views at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29#File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png, but that's perhaps beside the point. You say no policy basis forced my hand. I'm not sure what that means. Policy never forces you to do anything. However, if policies did force hands, then WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and we generally follow it. You're making some pretty serious accusations and I think you need to back them up or consider stepping away. Mackensen (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It was clear to everyone, except a few editors who had lost perspective, what the correct title was. Lots of editors were dying to do what Mackensen did; he was merely the first to be bold enough to do so. He certainly did not act alone. There are a few editors who disagree with what he did, of course, but it doesn't look to have been so far beyond the pale that any kind of immediate administrator intervention is needed or appropriate. Mackensen obviously believes he acted correctly and is not going to change his mind because a few editors are carping at him. If those editors feel so strongly about the issue that they require further action, I do think that RfC would be the appropriate venue, not any further discussion here or at the utterly beleaguered article talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Compromise suggestion: "Star Trek oghounto Darkness". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia INTO Lameness NE Ent 03:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur that Mackensen's recent actions appear to be in-line with policy and directed towards converging on consensus. (I was reading along and commenting at the time, and came to roughly the same conclusions). --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether Mackensen was right or wrong, I sincerely hope no one files an RfC or ArbCom case over it. Randall Munroe has pointed out in his inimitable way how silly it is to generate kilobytes of text angrily arguing about whether an "i" should be capitalized, so let's not do more of that. 28bytes (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care about the "i". I'd tend towards "Star Trek: Into Darkness", myself. My issue was solely with editing through protection.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood. But as the admin who placed the page protection he edited through, let me just say that I wasn't thrilled that he did it, but I don't think we'd be well served by going down the RfC or ArbCom paths over it. If he made a habit of doing that, of course, I'd feel differently. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

User reinstating RM after being told not to

User:Ryan_Vesey keeps trying to (re-)start a Requested Move on the talk page. This seems horrendously ill-advised to me, since it was an RM that caused the media blow-up in the first place. If people keep reinstating RM's then the situation will never resolve. I'd like to go to bed now. Can someone else convince them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And now reinstated by a 2nd user. [63] . Am I the crazy one here, or is this behavior crazy? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it seems weird to me that there's a move request "to" the current title, instead of away from it, but it also seems a little odd to me to that you are calling for BRD when you know the page was indefinitely full protected just after the bold move. No non-admin can move it back. How exactly is Ryan supposed to perform the "R" in BRD, if not through a move request? 28bytes (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Page is not full protected. I do note a move protect. I recommend this protection be removed within 24 hours. You are not required to literally revert in the BRD procedure. You may directly contact the person who made the original move instead. (In this case: User:Mackensen).

Even if a move request was the only option, it is now known to be a really really bad option here as we have seen, and should thus not be used. Discussion by other means is a better idea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

An admin moved it after the move request was made. Ryan explained on the Talk page [64], and mentioned in an edit summary [65] that he felt an uninvolved editor should close it, rather than someone who'd taken part in the discussion. —Frungi (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the story. I initiate a move request, Kim Bruning says the other move request "blew up", calls me a scientist [66] and removes the move request portion of my move request. The move was performed unilaterally; however, contrary to Kim Bruning's opinions, my move request was in fact a move request, and he shouldn't have been changing it. I can't imagine that his actions didn't fall under refactoring. The page was moved unilaterally, but I restored the move request for the reason I laid out in this comment. He removed it again, and I got a little angry [67]. He removed it a third time, and I was about to restore it, but decided to let it go. On my talk page he has implied that I am insane and left an explicit warning [68] where he stated the previous RM "blew up"; therefore, "We will not do another RM here". His reasoning here is unambiguously flawed. He went on to say "If you continue to reinstate RM, without discussion, the correct action is to get you blocked on the obvious grounds that we do not want another blow-up". Apparently, attempting to use Wikipedia's processes for achieving consensus is grounds for a block. Frankly, I'm a bit ticked that a) this all occurred and b) I've been brought to AN for it so I'd like to see some boomerangs or trouts, but I'd be willing to settle for this to be put to rest. There are very clear reasons that we have processes for getting things done, and that's because when things are done according to process, issues like this are avoided. Ryan Vesey 04:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't even realize he'd implied that I was insane here in addition to on my user page. Ryan Vesey 04:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a quote by Einstein. If you do the same thing twice (here: ~same move request, on same page, for ~same reasons), you should expect the same outcome both times.

Regardless of the hypothetical reasoning you supply, the empirical outcome was known.

Reaching consensus is a good idea. It is probably a good idea to use a *different* procedure to the one that has been empirically shown to fail to reach consensus. :-P That's what User:Mackensen was up to, you see. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, overriding previous consensus and action unilaterally is not a good idea. I understand that it was a quote, but you were clearly implying that my action was insanity, which it was not. We have a policy here on Wikipedia, which says that consensus can change. The previous move request got bogged down into irrelevant issues of subtitles and the like and was closed 3 weeks ago. I initiated a new discussion to see if consensus had changed. Furthermore, your allegation that the RM procedure has been empirically shown to fail to reach consensus is incorrect. A vast majority of requested moves do reach consensus, so there was nothing wrong with the procedure, the issue was the discussion. Ryan Vesey 05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, I wouldn't worry too much about the "insanity" quote. It's a pretty common phrase, I doubt anything derogatory was meant by it. 28bytes (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 28bytes I didn't mean to imply you were personally insane. (though our behaviors can appear insane to each other when we work from different basic principles, of course ).

I think it is globally established (as in "the entire world now thinks" ~literally) that the RM procedure on the particular page, with regards to the capitalization of a single letter, has definitely failed. Spectacularly.

I reject that there was a valid "previous consensus" on this page.

See: Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus for more detail.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm not getting through, can really no one help?

• Given that a page title change RM somehow blows up and makes the news (and XKCD).
• is it then not horrendously irresponsible to start a new RM practically back-to-back to the old one?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus what a bunch of dumbasses. --التنغستن كاربايد (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2013 (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.

Peteerh and Peter9709

Resolved

Peteerh (talk · contribs) appears to be evading a 2-week ban by becoming Peter9709 (talk · contribs). Peter9709 makes pairs of edits that adds and then deletes the same information or vice versa, the same as Peteerh has, on Dallas soap opera articles.

Similar pairs of edits:

• Peter9709: [69][70]
• Peteerh: [71][72]

Similar edits:

• Peter9709: [73][74]
• Peteerh: [75]

-- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Blocking new account indef, increasing block duration for old account.  Sandstein  21:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct Chemical equation

Greetings! Please remove protection or correct mistake (url) on Web-page Chemical equation

• Master of Chemical Equations - Real chemical equation balancer.

Many thanks. Angorohovski —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• The proper way to deal with this is to file a {{Edit semi-protected}} request at the talk page. Just looking at the URL, I'm thinking that the change will not be made as Wikipedia's not here to help you with your homework. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD question

If an AfD gets no comments, should it be relisted or treated as an uncontested prod? nableezy - 01:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Current consensus is that it should not be treated as an uncontested prod (except for certain exceptions); it should be relisted a limited number of times and after relisting, if no participants join the discussion, eventually treated as no consensus, defaulting to keep. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain that a bit? I dont see how it is functionally different. nableezy - 02:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Occasionally I see a proposal on a noticeboard or village pump to treat no-participant AfDs as prods but as far as I can recall none of them have gotten very far. As Reyk notes below, the closer has discretion to do this per WP:NOQUORUM, but doing that by default is not something that's gained consensus as far as I'm aware. (I could of course have missed such a discussion; links welcome.) 28bytes (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the only part that's really different is the relisting part. According to WP:NOQUORUM, when there are no participants admins are just as free to soft delete as they are to default to keep. This is essentially the same as PROD, where admins won't delete if they disagree with the PROD rationale. It's just that in AfD, admins will usually relist in the case of low participation, unless the debate has already been relisted twice or more. There's nothing in the guidelines to say that they can't use one of the other options instead of relisting, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is functionally different, since an article which was kept can only be renominated if new circumstances have been discovered why this article is not suitable for Wikipedia, whereas if the article was left as no consensus it can be in principle renominated at a later time with the same arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but has that ever happened before? ZappaOMati 02:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahira Amin. nableezy - 02:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOQUORUM, they can be treated as an uncontested PROD, but the closing admin has a lot of discretion. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reyk has this correct. The closing admin has a lot of leeway here. That's why they get the big bucks. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• If there has not been a contested PROD before and the nomination brings forth a credible rationale for deletion, then I would tend to soft delete the article. If there was a previously contested PROD, I would relist once, and if that doesn't help, close as "no consensus" with NPASR. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with this; it doesn't make sense to soft-delete something if a PROD has already been contested, so I would also tend to relist in these cases. Additionally, if there is already a contested PROD and the AfD has been relisted twice or more, I tend to leave a comment rather than close the debate or relist it again. I have been automatically relisting debates with no participants, but after this and the similar thread above, I think I will switch to soft deleting rather than relisting if the deletion hasn't previously been contested and I agree with the rationale. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can't ever recall an AfD going for three relists without any comment from anybody at all. I would say that if after a number of relists, then if there really is no comment, then the community is not interested about the article, so close as "no consensus" and leave it. When in doubt - don't delete! If that leaves an unsourced ten year old BLP on here, somebody will surely notice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The trouble with that position is that you do have a !vote for delete even in that case - the nominator's. So a "no consensus" is technically closing against consensus.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • A consensus of one? 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, it's still one-nothing for delete! Obviously it would depend on the strength of the nomination of course - a WP:JNN nomination could easily go for no-consensus, while a well-argued "this is why" would be a firm deletion. (And UBLPs would always go in the round file.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• My general rule of thumb is "relist twice then WP:SOFTDELETE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Why delete? Shouldn't the default of an inconclusive discussion(s) be to keep? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Because 1 person (the nominator) raised concerns about an article to which there were no objections. It's like a WP:PROD that runs the full 7 days; if no one speaks up, then off it goes. In either case, the decision can be overturned with no objection. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, I see the logic, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• HAve to agree on the general terms that an AFD that has received no commented outside the original nomination, including a relisting or two, should be treated as an uncontested PROD and deleted at the admin's discretion. If the AFD is a result of a contested CSD/PROD, I'd edge more towards no consensus given that the contest is an implicit reason to keep - not a great one, but enough of one if the nom is not a strong reason either. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Please note that this question is also being discussed, in general terms and as it relates to relisting procedure, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RFC.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User:14.139.240.246

This unregistered user has vandalized multiple pages and been warned multiple times. I suggest that this user receive a ban, as they have received their fair share of warnings. FrigidNinja (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}} for one week by User:Elockid. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rfc in Talk:Progressive utilization theory

Could I get an administrator to take a look at Talk:Progressive utilization theory and its recent edit history to decide the appropriate place to place an Rfc header? Closing or collapsing some of the lengthy discussions might also be helpful. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this has been resolved. Thanks again! Location (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

User:Swagle was blocked (for good reasons). After discussion at User talk:Swagle, I've contacted the blocking admin, User:Bencherlite, and he's emailed me to say he's happy for Swagle to be unblocked - but he only has phone access at the moment and can't do it himself. As I'm on an admin break and don't have the tools right now, would someone be kind enough to oblige? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Applebee's

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.

---

A recent IP user added a highly offensive racist screed to the article. Would it be possible for an admin to please remove that revision from the history? [76] --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting this was already handled Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 3 February 2013 (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 OTRS team needs help!

OTRS is receiving an increasing number of emails, and we are greatly in need of more volunteers to catch up and help prevent backlog. OTRS volunteers choose how many emails they'd like to answer and have access to a large number of templated replies that can be used or modified to speed up processing. Your private information would not be exposed to the public; replies are issued from a shared Wikimedia email address.

We are looking especially for people who are strong in any or all of the following areas:

1. Familiar with processes on Wikipedia and able to answer routine questions about them (some common responses include refdesk referrals; explanations of deletion processes or how to edit. The kind of thing you might run into at the Teahouse or Help desks);
2. Familiar with acceptable licenses for images and text and willing to handle correspondence related to permissions (many routine, but some issues include unclear statements of permission or permissions issued by people who can't be clearly connected to the source);
3. Familiar with policies regarding living people and organizations and able to assist article subjects with lightweight needs (updating logos, correcting small information) or serious concerns (allegations of gross inaccuracy; bias).

For more information about volunteering, please see m:OTRS/Recruiting. This is a great chance to be part of the public face of Wikimedia. We can't always help people, but we do our best to leave them impressed with our professionalism and responsiveness. Please consider helping out, and please spread the word to others about the need.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact the OTRS leadership team members. Thank you! Rjd0060 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be very glad to volunteer for a number of reasons... but I would prefer, if possible, to get some pre-application mentoring. Any takers? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Salvidrim. Feel free to send me an email and we can talk! Rjd0060 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reposted. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013

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, protect this page. Anonymous users are writing incorrect content, even vulgar. Thanks in advance. --Павлица (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎.--В и к и T 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is now protected.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (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.

Publicly-revealed passwords

I'm an admin, but I've logged out because I just left a message at the talk page of the user in question, and I don't want it to be easy for anyone to go through my contributions to guess what user I'm talking about. I'll Special:Emailuser you if you respond to this thread and say that you're willing to help.

I just found a newly registered user whose userpage has had a few different revisions, the earliest of which included the account's password. The user removed this phrase in his or her next edit, but it's still publicly visible in the page history. To test it, I logged out and tried the username and password, and I was able to log into that account, although of course I immediately logged out again. Should we RevDel the revision text and the edit summary, since the password is in both of them? Or what about Oversight, or simply doing nothing? The latest version of the userpage also includes an email address, so I warned the user that it might not be a good idea and provided directions for a U1 speedy deletion if he or she decides not to keep the email address publicly visible. 98.223.199.119 (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The last case I know of/remember the password was RevDel and the account blocked indef (forever) as compromised. However I only remember of one case that exists so.. I'm not an administrator so someone else will need to take action. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RevDel, and compromised account block. --Rschen7754 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it okay for me to do it, or should I ask someone else off-wiki? 98.223.199.119 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes do it! Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what account your talking about (as I was wondering what to do with it myself (and who to report it to)) and imo, at the very least it should be revdel'd and as mentioned above possibly blocked - Happysailor ^(Talk) 02:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, deleted, and revdeleted. Thanks for the advice! Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

With unified login, I'm pretty sure it's advisable to ask for an account to be globally locked if it is compromised. Since I'm not sure what account is being referred to, you can do so at Meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind I decided not to be lazy so worked out which account it was and made the request myself. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no harm in locking the account, tho I note that I had already looked into whether that was needed and as the user has never edited outside of enwiki, I figured it was unlikely they'd show up somewhere else :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember we don't actually care so much if the original editor shows up elsewhere with this account. The only reason they were blocked is because of the compromise so we have no problems with them editing elsewhere with this account, it isn't ideal but not really a reason to block. The issue is whether it's likely someone will use the account to make mischief or whatever elsewhere from seeing the password here. Them having edited elsewhere is not going to make it much more likely people interested in editing elsewhere will have seen the password here. So whether or not they've edited elsewhere doesn't have much effect on the risk the account is compromisable elsewhere. However there is perhaps less reason for someone to try to re-use the account if they don't think it may be an advantage which could arise when the account has an established identity elsewhere which someone is hoping to re-use or for that matter if the account had an established identity here (which this account did not) which someone hopes people will recognise from their interactions here, but not to the extent they know it was compromised. But anyway my impression is whenever Jack Merridew went on one of his password spreading rampages these accounts were locked, I don't think anyone cared whether or not they had edited elsewhere. The big difference there was these were much more high profile cases so it was much more likely someone would have seen it or would be able to find it who was interested in creating problems elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Histmerge needed

The Mullets and The Mullets (TV series) had the same content, but somehow, the former got hijacked for a dab page, and the content on the show moved to The Mullets (TV series). Can an admin please do a histmerge, and put everything at title The Mullets, since there's nothing else by that name? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

{{done}} Prodego ^talk 02:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

PC2 for Mangoeater targets

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets

User:68.40.217.90

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

This user continues to vandalize wikipedia by adding incorrect information despite having been blocked previously. A longer term or permanent block should be warranted. Spanneraol (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to support your claim, ensuring that the edits are clear cases of vandalsim and not simply unsourced good faith additions. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits that caused the previous two blocks were ridiculous without even looking into it. The more recent edits actually appear plausible, if unsourced. Do you know for certain that what he's adding is incorrect? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is adding information to various baseball player pages stating that they have signed with teams that they have not signed with.. and he has done it several times. Spanneraol (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks, since it's technically a BLP-policy violation. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look at my request at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Richard III. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done by David Levy. Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of geonotice

Resolved

I don't know the best way to highlight this, given that {{Edit protected}} only works on talk pages, but someone may want to remove a geonotice as requested here. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any clue what page needs to be edited to remove it? I went to remove it, but I found that I have no clue where to go. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The page is MediaWiki:Geonotice.js. Lookin' at it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That should do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guessed that it would be MediaWiki:Geonotice, which obviously doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my first instinct, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks guys.

I didn't know which MediaWiki page it was either so it is interesting to find out.

Yaris678 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An old userpage impersonating me.

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 only just noticed this userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rihetoijer, on which the user has copied-and-pasted my userpage contents (User:James Cantor), including the claim that Rihetoijer is me.

I'm not aware of any other actions under that user's name, and the page is now old (2009). I'd blank the page myself, but I think it's better done by someone else, along with whatever other appropriate remedies.

Thanks.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise just took it down. Thanks, that was fast! — James Cantor (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2013 (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.

Revision deletion requested on Tyrone A. Mitchell

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.

---

Could an admin have a look at this article - I believe everything before this diff is a copyright violation of this page and should be revdel'ed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

While it obviously was copied, the website it was copied from is an official US Army site. I'm pretty sure that makes it PD, as discussed at the AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding (based on Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and sources thereof) is that it makes it PD only in the United States, whereas CC-BY-SA makes it free everywhere and anywhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

IIRC: since the WMF is based in the US, we only really care about two things as far as PD is concerned: the copyright status in the US and the copyright status in the country of origin (in this case, also the US). Since the material is PD in the US, it's allowed to be used in Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I was concerned about reuse outside the US, but WP:REUSE effectively says "you're on you own", like fair use images. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 13 February 2013 (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.

WP:OFFER accepted, your input requested

Dewan357 (talk · contribs) sought my talk page to request an unblock; see User_talk:Drmies#Dewan357. They have an extensive SPI archive, having been blocked and socked on for instance Mughal Empire (still under protection because of Dewan's IP editing, last seen possibly August 2011). They claim not to have edited since August 2012 and I am inclined to believe them, but then I also dug a bunker in my yard and wore a tin-foil hat through December 1999. I don't know if accepting their request can come with conditions, like not editing those areas that got them in hot water in the first place; I have not identified those areas, but a discussion here can clarify and specify. It's up to you all. Also, I'm not sure if it's kosher for them to respond here at AN if needs be from their IP address; I don't have much of a problem with allowing a blocked editor to comment on their own talk page, my talk page, and this discussion, but that's up to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No comment on block or unblock, but I thoroughly agree with your final sentence. Block evasion is a problem because it's generally disruptive, and commenting here in a reasonable manner isn't. Of course, doing anything else (or commenting here disruptively) is a comlpetely different issue. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that the user is blocked. We have a convention to cover instances in which blocked users wish to comment on this forum. Tiderolls 08:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A convention that as many people seem to dislike as like. King of Hearts even sometimes does that trick where he sets up an edit filter that blocks them from editing anywhere but their talk page and AN. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The normal process is for the blocked user to post what they want copy/pasted to AN/ANI on their talkpage, plus a {{helpme}} request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the normal process {{unblock}}? NE Ent 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've followed the procedure laid out in WP:OFFER. Can we get to discussing the actual topic now? Drmies (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock. NE Ent 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support per WP:ROPE more than anything. It's been long enough since the editor has exhibited disruptive behavior that we should give him the chance to start again. I'm sure there will be plenty of watchers to address any problems. Ryan Vesey 03:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I am still supportive for an unblock per WP:ROPE. If his edits are disruptive, block him. If his edits aren't disruptive, we will have gotten out of this cycle of socks every couple of months and the encyclopedia will be the better for it. The August/September issue could easily be an honest mistake, especially since it was early September. The editor most likely though he last edited in August, and that it had been six months. It's been over 5 months without socking anyways, which is long enough for me. The edits to Rschen's page were not intelligent, but not enough to change my mind. Again, will those opposing an unblock think of how easy it is to re-block if this goes sour, and what would be lost by leaving Dewan blocked if he actually is going to be productive? On a side note, I had literally no idea I had ever been involved with a discussion related to Dewan before. Ryan Vesey 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am inclined to Support the unblock too, provided that we keep an eye on him to make sure he follows the right path. Maybe some mentoring, in the case that Dewan357 (talk · contribs) or Drmies considers it appropriate, could do some help. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per evidence given my Elockid. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Since August 2012, eh? This begs to differ. If I remember correctly, there were other more recent instances. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Dewan357 lies, as Elockid points out. He has lied in unblock requests, he has lied in ban appeals, and I see no reason to believe that he will ever stop lying. I see no benefit in unblocking him. As for Drmies's question, this is the editor that Drmies encouraged to continue socking by restoring his edits after I had reverted them.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I will also point out that his claim to have been in high school is pretty dubious: he's been at the College of New Jersey for his entire sockpuppeting career.—Kww(talk) 04:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• His userpage confirms it. If the IP is him, then he either lied about being in college (or an alumni) back then or he is lying to us now that the he started this behavior in high school. I have some serious doubts about the validity of his claims. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Elockid. --Rschen7754 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, since it is apparent that Dewan357 has had no compunction about lying to Drmies about his (in)activity on Wikipedia, in response to Drmies' direct question about whether or not he had edited since Drmies extended WP:OFFER in August 2012. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This user has done this before repeatedly (August 2010) where he accepts the offer but then went on socking anyway. He did that in March 2010 also with the same assurances about not editing but he lied and was editing again in less than a week. No reason to believe him.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. Admittedly I haven't done any exhaustive research on their editing history, but in reading through some of the editor's recent posts - a gut feeling just tells me that something is a little off. Now, having said that, I do trust Drmies a great deal, so if this is a project that he wants to take on as far as monitoring and mentoring chores, I'm willing to reconsider. @Kww: Accusing a fellow admin. of encouraging socking is a pretty serious charge. Now I'm not familiar with the situation surrounding the two of you, but perhaps it's something the two of you need to hash out between yourselves. (outside the drama limelight). — Ched :  ?  06:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's been thoroughly hashed, Ched. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Banning proposal for Dewan357 has the history. There's no doubt that Drmies acted in good faith, but there's also no doubt that combing through a sockpuppet's edits looking for good ones to restore encourages sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 06:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, per discovery by Elockid of socking in September. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Evidence is that the editor has violated the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER and taken advantage of an admin (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Offer was made in early September after this incident. As such I have kept my word my not editing. I wrote August by accident. Again the Offer was made after due to this incident when Drmies intercepted these [edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kww#Gota_Work_etc.] on September 8. It was then he made the Offer. (24.184.37.87 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

You did however give Drmies assurance that you have not edited since August 2012. I understand people make mistakes but you're other statement that you said the behavior started in high school makes me at least doubt your claims. The behavior started in August of 2009 and you claimed that you were in high school. I am not going to go into details about this for obvious reasons, but assuming your story to be correct, you should have started college at Fall 2009 or Fall 2010. So you basically graduated with a BS degree in 1-2 years? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I started editing wikipedia in high school before 2009, thats what I meant. As such my behavior of edit warring with Pakistani Wikipedians started then. Also as mentioned the OFFER was made in September after my September 8th edits. (24.184.37.87 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

• Oppose. Kww appears to have a solid basis for his/her allegations of socking. It would be nice to be able to suggest that Kww take the next sock eruption to WP:SPI, so that s/he's not alone in pursuing this, but I don't think that's a good solution because checkusers can't provide much documentation of their actions when block evasion is done by anonymous IPs. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Dewan was given instructions by Drmies to "...limit your edits with this IP to my talk page; I'll be glad to copy to AN if needs be, and if they decide there that you can respond (briefly, to the point) in that thread, then you can." But Dewan isn't listening and can't control himself and is demonstrating precisely that he will not follow instructions.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to explain the error I made. Sorry, I will not make any further comments. (24.184.37.87 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

• Oppose I don't see any indication that now should be different given past behavior. Dlohcierekim 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

• The foundation has mandated that we will have socks. Obviously that's not the purpose of the founding principles, but it's part of the effect. As they say "People who strongly disagree with them are nonetheless expected to either respect them while collaborating on the site or turn to another site"
• Dealing with socks is a Sisyphean task. It's understandably frustrating.
• Some editors have been granted sysop bits by the community to minimize disruption for the good of the community; they should act more as conductors than policeman, the goal is minimize disruption, not enforce "justice." (Cause there ain't none here).

  

• As the graph at the right illustrates, sometimes the efforts to deal with socks become more disruptive than the socking; socking becomes trolling, and trolling can only be deal with by starvation.
• The worst scuffles and most disruption to Wikipedia DR spaces are not admin-cabal picking on hapless autoconfirmed editors flareups, but admin on admin. Admins have implicit power and authority, know how to play the game, and admins tend to defer to each other in the spirit of not wheel-warring. Admin pissing contests benefit no one.
• Whatever KWW's original intent, he has lost his way.
  • This 8 Sep 2012 block is problematic. It incorrectly references Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357 but there was no SPI -- the page was last updated in 2011. Judge Dredd style quack blocks are problematic in general, but linking to an SPI that didn't happen isn't forthright.
  • Although the IP is dynamic, no message was provided to the account (e.g. no {{Uw-ablock}}). What's the next person who ends up with that IP supposed to think if they wanna edit?
  • Reverting removal of talk page notice [77]
  • Maintainance of User:Kww/Dewan357; while just listing articles isn't sufficient that a {{db-attack}} csd is going fly, the intent behind the page does not bode well.
  • The exchange on User_talk:Drmies/Archive_37#Restoring blocked editors edits is not good.
  • KWWs attempt for CBAN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive239#Banning_proposal_for_Dewan357 did not get community support.
• Although Drmies is generally in the Zen - iar category of admins; he's pushing the envelope here. WP:OFFER was not followed -- blocked editors are to contact admins via email or IRC, not socking on their talk page. IAR only works as long as no one objects; objections have been raised. NE Ent 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Both KWW and Drmies should just move on, ignore Dewan357, and disengage from each other. If Dewan continues to sock and otherwise be disruptive, there are lots of admins who can deal with it; if Dewan wishes to request another unblock in six months (as the current one is trending toward not happening), they can contact another admin.
KWW should delete User:Kww/Dewan357. NE Ent 14:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I maintain several such pages, for the sole reason of being able to scan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Kww/Dewan357 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Kww/Fragments_of_Jade easily. I routinely point to the SPI investigation of socks I block in their block log. I truly resent the implication that there is something wrong with blocking socks or reverting their edits.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent's analysis is spot-on and his proposal looks pretty reasonable to me on all points. I particularly agree about the exchange between the two on Drmies's talk page and the badness thereof, but we really don't have to get into that if this proposal becomes a thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, there's one tiny flaw in NE Ent's analysis: Dewan357's talk page access has not been removed, so the best way of requesting a standard offer unblock would be simply to post an unblock request on their talk page from their account, the same way anyone else would, rather than having to resort to email or IRC. The fact that, out of all these choices (and Dewan357 obviously knew about unblock requests, as they've posted several), they ignored them all and chose IP socking does not bode well for future improvements. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I hate to be a party pooper here. I am the messenger. Until Dewan posted the various links on my talk page, just now, I didn't realize that this was the editor KWW had a conflict over; I had completely forgotten. Ent implies that I'm engaging KWW in this thing--I'm not, since I didn't know. So there is no "moving on", Ent--I don't understand why you would suggest that I'm re-engaging with KWW here. I didn't completely agree with Kevin's actions then--so what? I'm not even advocating that Dewan be "unbanned" or whatever, I am just the messenger. There's new evidence of socking? Great--that's news to me.

  As for this "I didn't follow the rules by allowing him to post on my talk page", that's a bunch of nonsense. If that's a rule, then you know where you can stick/file that rule. He's supposed to email me? I don't need more email. I don't wist to converse via email about wiki matters. I don't want to have to cut and paste diffs via email. I don't want socks/banned editors to have my email address. (Badness--WK, you gotz to be kidding.) IRC? I don't even know how the hell that works and I have no intention of learning. I'm a Wikipedia editor. I have a talk page. That's what it's for. Talking. If you really, really love me and want to be my friend we can do that on Facebook. If you think I abused something (WTF?), then change the wording in OFFER: who the hell cares what happens on my talk page?

  Kevin, just to make matters clear and undo what's being insinuated here. 1. I had no idea that this was the guy we had a dispute over. 2. So we had a dispute a half a year ago--big fucking deal. You and I both have better things to do than to fight over old stuff, and I have no intention of fighting with you over anything; as far as I'm concerned this is all water under the bridge. 3. I don't know if you oppose unbanning this editor (haven't read everything here yet--just got done grading a bunch of homework) and I don't care: your opinion is your own, and I'm sure you thought about it. 4. I don't know if I oppose unbanning this editor: I have not looked at all the evidence. Chances are, I have no opinion on the matter which is one of the reasons I brought it here. 5. I'm not this guy's champion: I'm just an admin trying to do my job, which is to mediate, in cases like this, between a blocked/banned editor and the community (NOT VIA EMAIL). 6. Kevin, I hope you're having a better day than I am, since I had to grade a bunch of homework and my mood is being soured by some of the implications in this discussion.

  Oh, after looking at a few more comments here: Ched, I have no intention (again) of championing anyone, or mentoring them. I have better things to do than mentor a prolific socker. Also, I resent the implication that I encourage socking by having looked for good edits, but opinions differ on that: I can't say I care. And now I'm going to leave this love fest. Thank you all for your input! Drmies (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• One more thing: Ent, I'd appreciate it if you did NOT use this discussion to pontificate about socking and starving and mitigating and the future of Wikipedia and especially Kevin's actions as an editor and an administrator. Kevin acted in good faith, and I happen(ed) to disagree, but this is, or should be, a simple discussion about whether a former socker is indeed a former socker and can be welcomed back into the loving bosom of our community. And maybe I should repeat that I have no stake in this, no dog in this fight, nothing; I am neither for nor against Dewan's return. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't read Ent's analysis/proposal as an indictment against you, although as I re-read the "disengage", "pissing match", and "pushing the envelope" part, I start to think that maybe I should have. The point I thought Ent was trying to get at, and the point I was agreeing with, is that when an editor who's blocked for sockpuppetry avoids the normal avenues for an unblock that--having used them before--they unquestionably know about and uses an IP address to directly request an admin to unblock them, it's not a good sign or likely to lead to an unblock, and starting an AN thread that's unlikely to result in an unblock is just giving him more attention; that's a sentiment I can agree with, although I never doubt that you did it with the best of intentions. I don't think Ent was particularly pontificating; "do not feed the trolls" is a pretty well-established tactic. (Sometimes, it even works...) I wasn't seeing it as a "Drmies did a no-no, let's smack the shit out of him" or as a "Drmies and kww are in a pissing match, we better cut them down to size" type thing, although again, given the use of that phrase, perhaps I should've. For the record, the "badness" to which I was referring was Kww's twisting and misquoting of the banning policy to castigate your edits; I left it deliberately vague because it's history (some might even call it ancient history), and I thought (and still think) it's a bad idea to invite a rehash of that conversation. The criticism of kww probably comes from his comment above, where he says, "As for Drmies's question, this is the editor that Drmies encouraged to continue socking by restoring his edits after I had reverted them." On first reading, that sounds like kww still has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it, so although I suppose directing y'all to "disengage" isn't exactly accurate and a bit more dramatic and less one-sided than was called for, I think the spirit of it--letting bygones be bygones or whatever other trope one decides to use--is a good one to follow, and a good one for people to suggest. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What I'm saying is, I didn't even know there wuz bygones in the first place. If some here think Kevin did anything wrong, it should be discussed separately. Thanks WK, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I never doubted it; it seems to me that Kww has all the bygones (if there are any to be had at all), but I didn't really think it was important to quibble about the semantics of mutual vs. one-sided bygones-letting-be. Sorry; didn't mean to imply anything else. And yes, I agree that, if we're going to have a discussion about Kww, which I'd probably rather we didn't, it should be a separate one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll fess up to a tad of irritation over this issue: given the discussions in September, I was a bit surprised that neither Drmies nor Ryan Vesey remembered being involved in a flare up over Dewan357 when the timing of flare up itself demonstrates that Dewan357 is lying. Drmies and I have a profound disagreement about how to handle editors like this, but, that said, I don't hound Drmies about it, nor do we wind up in constant conflict.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blame old age, Kevin. That's what I do. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

I intend to relaunch this process; it was going fairly well up until my long wikibreak, when the people I had entrusted to do the things that would have ensured its survival - for instance, one arbitrator had promised me he would make sure the already-voted-and-agreed-upon presence on the main page, which would have given it enough prominence to attract contributors, as well as the incredibly useful bargaining chip that Featured Pictures has used very effectively to get companies, institutions, and individuals to release material, in the interest of exposure. There were also problems with a few people who insisted that it had to have impossible standards from the start, before it had time to collect the community that allows featured pictures to have such high standards (For comparison, consider the first year of Featured Pictures or the first few Featured articles to today's. All other featured processes have had a gradual building up of quality.)

But, never mind. I intend to relaunch this; I suspect it doesn't really need much more than people willing to participate, and more exposure. Anyone interested? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus is required to relaunch it, I believe. The talk page is the obvious place for this. Tony (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I encourage you to go ahead with reviving Featured Sounds. Edison (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'll support this as well. I was somewhat involved with the project in the past. ThemFromSpace 04:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• I jump here to support too. I never got the chance to see FS working, and I'd like to see it working again by now. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• As one of the the last director of the FS process, I strongly support it's revival. Tony's objections do need to see the light of day and some of them do have merit. I have some ideas on what needs to be done to the process to bring it to life, too. The status quo didn't work. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• If someone would attend to closing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Ban lifting discussion got archived without closing, I believe I have some suggestions that address many of the contentious issues that led to the project's demise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What on Earth has this got to do with AN??? Tony (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

editor Brews Ohare - is there any solution?

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 am having trouble with user Brews ohare, and am seriously concerned with his capacity to edit Wikipedia. I am suggesting a permanent ban on user Brews Ohare. Does anyone else agree with this proposal?

Complaint: It is unwise to have this user editing Wikipedia. He can write quite well (dangerously so), but his comprehension is atrocious - including his knowledge of those subjects contained in the articles that he is modifying. This often results in multi-layered Talk discussions, which involve correcting his misinterpretations infinitum. I don't have this amount of time, and think it is better spent in service of Wikipedia in general rather than administering one particular editor.

I have spent nearly a year now cleaning up after Brews Ohare (I cannot even estimate the number of hours spent - well over 100). I have tried my best to direct him personally towards a more constructive and reflective editing path. He doesn't seem to have an appreciation for the serious nature of content inaccuracy (including the importance of communicating perspectives commonly held in the literature), let alone the fact he is editing an Encyclopaedia. The total cost of time laid upon Wikipedia editors here cannot be justified.

Here are just some examples of content inaccuracy which exceed my time to administer (note it may be more worthwhile reviewing some of the content which has had to be reverted instead). Note he is in the process of continually deleting one or more of these notices;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_mental_causation Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causal_closure Importance-section|date=February 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_determinism Importance-section|date=February 2013

A current example of his ability to function professionally as a editor is here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physical_determinism

Thanks for your time.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from participating in physics, broadly construed, which physical determinism certainly falls under. There has already been one trip to arbitration since his return from a block, resulting in a final warning over his behavior.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A few notes here: (Keep in mind that I have never worked with either of you, and consider myself wholly impartial in this matter.)

1. CBAN requests are very serious. They require a LOT of evidence, and should ideally contain as few inflammatory terms as possible. Starting your complaint with It is unwise to have this user editing Wikipedia. He can write quite well (dangerously so), but his comprehension is atrocious really doesn't help anything. (Btw, what does it mean to edit "dangerously well"? Whatever it is, sounds cool! What do I have to do to make my edits so good they're dangerous?)
2. You have, according to Popups, 788 edits. Brews has 36,255. Now, his history with ArbCom shows that there are clearly some issues with his editing, but I don't think you really get to claim that he's wasted a huge amount of your time. To spend "over 100" hours dealing with him, you'd have to be spending an average of 7 minutes on every single edit... if you are doing that, you might want to give WP:TL;DR a gander.
3. I don't know what you did wrong with your diffs, but please fix them. I hope you can appreciate the irony of complaining about somebody's competence and then making formatting errors in the complaint.

So please clean this up if you want it to go anywhere. If you don't, I'm just gonna close the thread, since at this point it's nothing but some vaguely substantiated personal attacks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Brews is Long Winded/Handed for sure but he is here to help this project. I'm not here to say that this doesn't cause some issues but if we boot him because he wants to spend his time explaining himself that is ludicrous. he isn't trolling, and he is lending his considerable knowledge and expertise to Wikipedia at no cost, we should be thanking him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

comment Banning/blocking is the last resort. Have you tried mediation? Conflict resolution? Seeking a third party to offer help/advice? A little unsure of how one can edit dangerously. Dlohcierekim 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocking is actually one of the first resorts if an active ArbCom remedy is violated, which is mentioned above. If the ArbCom remedy is indeed being violated, then an ArbEnforcement should be applied and logged as appropriate in the right areas. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I didn't realise he was banned from participating in physics (which would surely benefit at least some editors on Wikipedia). Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "dangerous", I am referring to the difference between systematic versus heuristic persuasion (for example adding up the number of words, appealing to emotion, etc). I don't think Wikipedia is a good place to use this form of argument. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The arbitration case is logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light (WP:ARBSL). Much of it is historic, either expired or superseded, but the current ban is logged under Motions (#7), and the warning is at the end of the Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions section. The warning was issued less than two months ago, and was due to his editing of Free will and its talk page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment

I said that if RBB couldn't provide some specific examples of actions warranting a ban or sanctions, I'd close this as nothing but unsubstantiated criticism. (Remember, of course, that editors subject to sanctions have just as much a right to a collegial editing environment as do the rest of us.) So, true to my word, that's what I'm doing. Any editor is welcome to reopen this if they can advance an actual argument for banning or sanctioning, or if they can make the malformed diffs below work. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am re-opening this, with some diffs which I think illustrate the physics ban infringement. All from Physical determinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• [78], includes 'a concept only relevant to the mathematical models of physics and other physical sciences'
• [79]; 'That limitation leaves open the question whether there is a physical "theory of everything".'
• [80]; 'In different words, physical determinism holds that all physical events occur as described by physical laws.'

The first edit was the first to the article, so creating it. From the start it's been a mixture of physics and philosophy.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you should post this on WP:AE where Arbcom Enforcement Requests go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2013 (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.

Semiprotection of an AfD please

Jaimin Bal has had its AfD template removed by IP editors (one presumes the creator/subject logged out...) three times since I nominated it for deletion three hours ago. I'm not sure if WP:INVOLVED would come into play if I semiprotected it (since it is, technically, vandalism), but to be safe (and I need sleep) can somebody else please semi it. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Protected, warnings issued, added to watchlist. On a side note, I don't think anyone would say you protecting the article (and/or issuing blocks to removers as appropriate) to prevent further removal would constitute a breach of INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 11:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if someone could take a look at the images he's uploaded - Special:Contributions/Jaimin_bal - images are my Achilles heel. GiantSnowman 11:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but those images are improperly licensed and need action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of NFCC enforcement task

I plan to start a large scale manually performed NFCC enforcement editing task soon. This message is being left here as an announcement of this task to the administrators watching this page. For details regarding the task, please see User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

When you say you are doing this "manually", what precisely do you mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By manually I mean that all my edits performed during this task are not script assisted. That is, for each step of the task, I will go to the page and manually tag the files and articles and also do the CSD tagging after 7 days manually. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG and Pending Changes

Hey all, sorry in advance if there's a more appropriate venue for this; I've never had to report something of this nature before. While reviewing pending changes via Special:PendingChanges, twice I have come across revisions that have been reverted by ClueBot NG (as obvious vandalism), but which still show up as needing review. In order to remove them from Special:PendingChanges, I've had to unaccept the old revision and accept the one by CBNG, which ultimately gives the appearance that the vandal (in both cases an IP user) was able to successfully edit the page but was immediately reverted by CBNG. The first time this happened, I figured it was probably a fluke of some kind and just ignored it, but now I'm wondering if it merits investigation. Sorry I can't give more specific details, but looking at the revision history of Benedict Arnold might help if you need more information, and I can try to answer any questions you might have. Sadly, I don't even recall where this first occurred (it was within the past few days), and I don't know where (if anywhere) there is a record of changes I've reviewed. Hope this gets resolved, as it's quite tedious to fix. Thanks. —Rutebega (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had problems in the past when using native rollback where it doesn't accept my rollback, both are pending, and I have to accept both. It makes it look in the history like the edit went through and was accepted, but since there's a RB right after it, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure if there's any way to fix this. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I share Gwickwire's thoughts: the rollback shows that it wasn't acceptable, so it doesn't particularly matter that the revision got accepted. There's no reason to object, except of course the extra work that you shouldn't have to do. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Linode's 2A01:7E00:0:0:0:0:0:0/64

ip CIDR 2A01:7E00:0:0:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked becouse of open proxy, my ip is 2A01:7E00::F03C:91FF:FE96:53E1 could I at least get ipblock-exempt flag? Majid27 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)