Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive206

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Speedy deletion of hoax pages during AfD[edit]

There are two pages at AfD which are blatant hoaxes. They are

Both were created by a sockpuppet of the much-banned The One & Only Fools and Horses.

I have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before, but is it normal practice to nominate hoaxes, copyvios etc for speedy deletion while an AfD is in progress?   pablohablo. 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between hoax and copyvio speedies and other kinds of speedies? Or are you asking if any speedy deletion during AfD should be allowable at all? (I'm confused because you said you "have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before".) -- Atama 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that these are different from other kinds of speedy deletion. At AfD, hoaxes, copyright violations, 'attack' pages tend to be more speedily dealt with; due, I suppose, to the potential harm they could cause to either the project or the subject of the page. Here's an example of a hoax at AfD. What I wanted to know was - if it becomes apparent that an article at AfD is a speedy candidate, should it be nominated for speedy deletion?   pablohablo. 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. My understanding is that there is no policy that governs this. There's nothing written at WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:DP, or at any related policy that states whether or not speedy deletions occurring during AfDs are allowed. The closest I can find is in the speedy deletion policy, where it states, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."
That suggests to me that speedy deletions should be allowed if an article has had a large number of delete !votes, meets one of the specific criteria, and nobody opposes deletion (I would consider a "keep" !vote to be equivalent to an editor removing a CSD tag). They should also be allowed for copyright violations discovered during the course of the AfD. Hoaxes and attack pages, while potentially harmful, shouldn't be given the same treatment as copyright violations because a copyright violation is a pretty cut-and-pastedry issue; either someone copied the text or didn't. Whether or not something actually is a hoax or an attack page is usually a subjective determination that can be determined in the course of the AfD itself.
This is my personal opinion based on the analysis of what is written in the CSD policy, and what I feel the "spirit" of the policy is. It would be nice if our existing policies directly addressed this issue. -- Atama 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion should be considered during AfD depending on the sort of speedy deletion requested. G7 or G12 are no brainers: just nuke it, assuming the trigger criteria are genuinely met. Others should stand if uncontested (G10), but never be used if there's a good-faith dissenting vote. I do G3 for obvious hoaxes if someone has asserted it's a hoax, it seems like a hoax, I can't verify it, and no one else defends against the allegation. In short, CSD-during-AfD is an art, rather than a science. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to stop an article being speedied during a discussion - generally this is because new information comes to light - eg a copyvio is discovered. Obviously this its a no-brainer, I'd personsally say deleting something as a hoax during an afd is fine. If someone doesn't like the outcome there is always DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I would generally tend to agree with Spartaz. If the AfD discussion has made it evidently clear that a subject is a speedy candidate, and no one is objecting, then I'd generally tend to speedy it—no use wasting time on finding out the obvious. If the issue is less clear cut, or someone has objected (for example, there's a comment such as "I think I've found a source that confirms this and am working on it"), I'd be much more inclined to let it run its course. But there isn't, and shouldn't be, any hard and fast rule against nominating an article at AfD for speedy deletion if it is speedyable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all.   pablohablo. 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree a little with Seraphimblade -- but it may be just a slight difference in emphasis. Unless it is proven to be a hoax during the Afd--which certainly do happen , I would regard the 7 full days of discussion necessary more for this than other deletion reasons, because for the minority of ones that turn out to not be hoaxes, it often takes a while for someone to come around who recognizes it. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Obvious hoax really depends on who considers it obvious. If it's outside of my subject areas (which is 99.9% of the time), obvious must be proven reasonably well. tedder (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The guiding maxim should be (with the exception of offensive BLPs) "if in doubt, don't delete". Granted, on some occasions factors (such as creation by a known vandal) will mean there is really no room for doubt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's a proven hoax, tag and zap. If it meets the criteria of "blatant" hoax but someone sent it to AFD out of timidity and during discussion everyone says "why didn't you speedy this" or equivalent, tag and zap. Otherwise, let the AFD run the full week or until it gets WP:SNOWed under. By the way, it doesn't hurt to have one editor, admin or not, tag it for speedy when it's proven a hoax or when the consensus is that it should've been speedied in the first place, and have a different admin do the actual deletion. Unlike attack pages and copyright violations, there's no time pressure with most hoaxes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Malfunction on Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Could somebody take a look at this article. A user is reporting that the edit history is not displaying anything since 16th December. It is displaying fine for me. See Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Malfunction of this Article on Wikipeida Processor. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks up-to-the-minute to me also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a cache issue on that person's local machine, not a problem with the article. Chick Bowen 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like I had a similar issue sometime this month. I just assumed I was hitting a database with a stale copy. The problem went away on its own within a reasonable period of time. This was just one of several minor mini-glitches in the past month or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed File Warning Templates[edit]

Hi all. I noticed that we don't have a standard set of warning templates for users who repeatedly upload images without copyright status, fair use rationale, sources, ect. I've drafted several warning templates in hopes we will be able to use these to warn repeat offenders instead having to type out a block warning each time. Since these are still in draft form, it would be greatly appreciated if willing users could help to improve the drafts below. Thanks! -FASTILY (TALK) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've recently added notes to {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} showing that both templates are required for copyrighted images. This should prevent some instances of images being uploaded but missing one or the other template (made this mistake myself recently). Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Fastily, your templates look great to me. Nice work! — Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

getting consensus on blocking a disruptive user[edit]

AFAICT, there's no place to deal with long-term users that need discussion before blocking or banning. After a user has been warned many times and blocked a few times, what's the options? WP:RFC/U (aside from its issues) is best geared for users who are productive. As an administrator who is somewhat involved, where should I turn for an admin consensus of disruption? (ANI hasn't been too useful) tedder (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From a non-admin but ANI-contributor view, I raise an eyebrow whenever this happens, which is often. From WP:UNINVOLVED-- In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. Problem solved! Things done with discretion from outside parties at the existing incident boards! ...But not. It's sadly obvious this happens less than 0% of the time. Alternatives given there are an RfC/A or RFAR but I'd assume this was meant to be rare. Even the existence of such place for discussion would be a confession of "above the law" status... I'd have to agree with that, and my opinion of sysop work in the Encyclopedia are incredibly high versus most users. ArbCom? It's unlikely it was ever thought that day-to-day civility disputes that involved familiar usernames would stalemate constantly and get a shotgun wedding to them over one half-controversial block. Same of long-time friendships between users causing a "no consensus". cont.
Why not work it the same way as with any other users? No one ever demands mass consensus for what are "obvious" infractions where a block is common, so why a desperate fight over any length of any sanctions whatsoever for an admin? Admins are normal users at their core that can do silly things or act the fool like anyone else, after all. What's stopping actions done at low levels? Blocks on 3RR, civility and disruptive editing that are short and precisely-defined if done to a "normal" user should not differ at all for some persons or admins... but do. Some things I've seen let slide are really ridiculous... it happens a lot. Users see what those people can get away without sanction, act the same way, get blocked and are rightfully upset about the double standard. ...This is just op-ed; I don't understand why normal methods aren't used, and I'm in no position to offer possible solutions. daTheisen(talk) 10:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think ANI is the only real forum for that situation. Admin or not, the best tools here are clarity and good diffs. Succinctness helps, too, but is usually beyond me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator identification questions[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrator accountability has recently been marked as {{rejected}}. I've posted a number of questions on the talk page (here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator accountability#Questions for the future) to consider. If anyone can provide insight into some of these questions or can contact someone who can, that would be very much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Experienced users and admin help needed[edit]

I've been trying to deal with an enforcement request concerning conduct on Mass killings under communist regimes (an article I am unconvinced can exist safely) and I do not believe it is properly within the auspices of arbitration enforcement. I do think the article and the dispute needs a lot of volunteer eyes, so I am asking for the help of those with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene. Expect some infighting to follow below.--Tznkai (talk)

  • (Rhetorical comment) "with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene" (beautifully said) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This was already the subject of an ANI report prior to the AE report Tznkai mentions. This is a legitimate content dispute, no one is being disruptive, formal mediation would be the appropriate venue to handle this, not admin intervention. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Formal mediation requires the assent of all parties. If ya'll could manage that, you wouldn't be at AN, AE, or ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not the case, no one has attempted formal mediation, so it can't be said that assent was impossible to obtain. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Then please, attempt it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article has a number of legitimate content disputes. These have been proceeding relatively normally given the article, and are currently uncovering new textual sources and broadening the understanding of existing textual sources. The original ANI, and Request for Enforcement were about a very limited set of behaviour by one user: User:Termer who has a habit of repeatedly mischaracterising, misquoting, and selectively quoting important secondary works and other users to the point that his actions disrupt the article. For example, while the Request for Enforcement was ongoing, Termer was busy requesting that a user to supply extensive quotations, and when these were made, attacked the user on a [Too Long; Didn't Read basis]. The effect of Termer's engagement in this thread was to derail it from an evidenced discussion of the credibility of a particular academic source, and redirect it into the discussion yet again of Termer's conduct and random quotation of policy (this time, primary). We rely on Termer to quote and characterise accurately in an article that is fundamentally reliant on an accurate literature review of academic sources, and he has not done so. We rely on Termer to participate in the article without mischaracterising and misquoting the immediate previous statements of other editors. Termer is incapable of doing this, and the result is disruption. Other editors with similar opinions to Termer within the content debate are perfectly capable of civil, appropriate discussion, and in my mind the content discussion will eventually resolve itself on the article talk page (the primary content disputes resolution method) through reference to highest quality reliable sources if the climate of discussion is not damaged by disruptive conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Fifelfoo's characterisation of Termer. Unlike Termer, Fifelfoo has actually been recently reported to AN3 for edit warring the article in question. This is real disruption, not questioning Fifelfoo's interpretation of the sources on talk. Fifelfoo has pursued Termer on ANI, then AE, and now apparently here. This WP:wikiviolence must end. --Martin (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Also forum shopping etc. on what is a content issue best suited for informal mediation (which takes a fraction of the time that formal mediation usually entails). A completely outside editor willing to concisely state what the issues appear to be, and working with them on a one-by-one basis, can make things work (see Talk:Judaism for what I consider an example of separating the issues). Collect (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:wikiviolence is not an appropriate accusation in this case. There's no doubt that Termer's behviour is dispruptive. However, I think he is also a bit of a lightning-rod for more general issues. Mediation may help, but since the basic question is really "should this article exist or not", I say: good luck to the mediator. I suspect the article in question is just one for "evidence why Wikipedia is not always so great". "Hope no-one ever looks at it" might be the best that can be achieved. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I definitely have disrupted the editors who after the third failed Afd [1][2][3] keep arguing on the talk page that the article should be still deleted, and meanwhile keep massively blanking sourced material [4]from the article instead of adding any alternative viewpoints to it. Just that anybody who has accused me, please make a difference between disrupting Wikipedia and disrupting the disruptive editing by attempting to engage in a discussion about the changes in the article instead of going along with the edit war. Other than that, I haven't taken this witch hunt on me personally that has already made it to a third notice board, it just tells me that whoever has chosen to use me for a "lightning-rod" (according to FormerIP) just don't have any reasonable arguments about how the article could be improved. And the bottom line the way I see it, as it is now, the article is pretty much unreadable due to massive blankings and a long lasting edit warring.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sigh.... It never stops, does it? What we have here are two sides with opposing viewpoints on what the page should contain, and both sides legitimately believe their version is correct. As such, it is natural for each side to believe that their side is the one that is policy abiding and that the other side is biased or against policy. And since each side is deeply rooted in their editorial stance and believe that their opponents are the policy-violating ones, it is natural that they will accuse the other side of edit warring, disruption, vandalism, etc etc. And since that other side being accused believes that they are in fact the ones who are right, they in turn accuse that other side who is accusing them of battleground-ing, harassment, personal attacks, witchhunts, etc. And this goes back and forth ad infinitum.

Termer, you have indeed harassed your content opponents with vexatious complaints. You opened up 2 AN/I threads, a frivolous RFC/N thread and a baseless sockpuppet investigation all against a certain editor. It may well be that Fifelfoo is harassing you, I don't know. However you need to realize that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing your opponents of. Triplestop x3 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct Triplestop on one thing that I have overreacted on Wikipedia once after I was insulted with name calling. But I've learned my lesson and don't see such insulting remarks as anything that should be my problem really.--Termer (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I would point out again, this time to Triplestop, that what was advocated for "Communist genocide" is simply to relate what reputable sources state regarding the subject. Instead, the "topic" was assaulted on the basis of requiring some formal "definition", etc., etc. This is not about opposing viewpoints, this is about editors waging every Wiki-lawyering point they can to censor content. There's no conflict in "beliefs" here—that is, however, what the content censors would like you to believe.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite understand - are you saying that the inclusion of all genocide by totalitarian regimes (a stable feature of such regimes of whatever political hue) has been censored by those fools who want to portray Communists as being uniquely evil unlike the cuddly fluffy right-wing totalitarians? Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You need to realize that this is not a one-sided issue like you believe it is. There are valid arguments that one could argue for not including certain things (synth, pov, or, undue, indiscriminate, etc) yet you believe that what you are advocating is the only right way, hence your accusations of censorship. My comment above applies to everyone. Triplestop x3 00:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
To JzG, I was stating that there was a reputable non-controversial manner in which to deal with a topic and it was ignored in favor of arguments stating sources did not exist, no definition, et al. regarding communist genocide.
   To Triplestop, I am not advocating my personal right way, I am advocating the proper manner in which to construct an encyclopedia article regardless of the subject. It is when editors begin to create their own definitions that the issues start. The "definition" of a subject is the compendium of what reputable sources state about it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears that most of the article is compilation or overview of other articles. Little of the content prior to the "Causes" section ties together the different regimes' genocides. It might be better refactored into a WP:List-class article, content in the specific articles, and a succinct new article discussing the common characteristics of such events. Such a new article might be better if it included all stripes of regime, not just communist. If they come after your family, you don't care much about their motivations. LeadSongDog come howl 19:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that nobody can ever bring themselves to create an article on foo under totalitarian regimes, but always feels the need instead to make out that it's only the Left who do this? And that's before you get into the crap about how the Nazis were obviously socialists like Obama because they used the word socialist in their party title. It would be really nice to see an occasional political article that wasn't surrounded by the ground-down nubs of a thousand axes.
I wish I could exist in that world too. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
We checked. List class articles follow the same rules on there actually being an object of study. The presence or absence of an object of study (the Synthesis argument) is a major debated point. So listification won't solve the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack[edit]

Róbert Gida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - a "brand new user" whose first act on Wikipedia is to tell us we need to add to the biography of Barack Obama that Obama is personally responsible for the fact that more banks failed under his administration than under that of Shrub. Clearly a disruptive WP:SPA but also almost certainly a sockpuppet. Does anyone recognise the style sufficiently to help identify the sockmaster? Incidentally, Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also needs reining in, he's pursuing a neocon agenda on Talk:Barack Obama and seems unable to understand that being a liberal is not actually evil as such, so there's no need to use {{evil satanic communist}} on the article... Guy (Help!) 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Róbert Gida; RBI per WP:DUCK, and perhaps adding a request to a friendly CU? As for Jzyehoshua, being a self declared liberal I doubt my input would be regarded well (although I suspect that anyone requesting a reigning in of neocon comment will automatically find themselves categorised as a liberal - it is a mindset appealing for those who find thinking hard work.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that by comparison with Jzyehoshua Ronald Reagan was a liberal. That's not such an issue as his apparent inability to see the difference between the New York Times reporting the National Right to Life Committee as saying that Obama "supports infanticide", and the New York Times saying that he supports infanticide. He seems to think that the reporting of this particularly extreme view in some way validates the POV or makes it fact. That is a serious problem, and given his very limited contribution to the project it's hard to see him learning better. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better approach would be to direct their attention to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation#How to avoid being subject to remedies, and particularly bullet point 4? The discussion has been had, the consensus is that the reported interpretations of a few fringe organisations and individuals regarding Obama's views on abortion is not sufficiently notable within the context an biographical article - per the stringent application of WP:BLP - to be included and that further insistence on discussing the matter (let alone editing it into the article) leaves them liable to sanction under the probation. The sweetener would be a promise to discuss the issue again should it become a topic raised within mainstream opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed admin commandment: Thou shalt not block ... for being mocked[edit]

Note: A little humor is healthy, but over-extending a joke and edit-warring over it is disruptive. Lets all stop now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
{{resolved|Nonsensical time wasting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)}}
  • There is not consensus for that, Santa says. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed admin commandment: Thou shalt not block ... for being mocked

"God is not mocked," but thou aren't Her. (smiling seriously)

Perhaps I should add preamble-atory commentary here about the contemptuously-collapsed L'affaire Fatman — which illuminated the clear dichotomy of administrator perspectives: humour vs disruption. Nah, that covers it. lol -- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


  1. (as initiator) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Hell, yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. If you can't take some mockery, enough of the moppery. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. The 11th commandment. (X! · talk)  · @813  ·  18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. This should be similar to not blocking editors or using admin action in disputes for an article to which one has been a significant contributor. Judgment is altered when an admin is called names, or that judgment is called into question, however crudely, by another editor. Blocking for mocking is punishment, not protection. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Moni puts it well. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


  1. Already covered in the "don't block someone with whom you are having a dispute", so this would just be WP:CREEP. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    (Ah, yes, important point.) What if an uninvolved administrator arrives on the scene and attempts (badly) to mediate ... and then is mocked for it? The uninvolved administrator was not in a dispute with the mocker, but is now the subject of mockery. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Then I would oppose based on WP:CREEP as that situation is already covered under WP:CIVIL. We simply do not need yet another rule when everything about this is covered under existing ones. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I see this as a clarification, not a new rule, and repeated complaints at AN/I and elsewhere show we do need it. This is not a good occasion to rehash them, so I do not link. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. I beg to differ. WP:CIVIL is a possible constraint (see first bullet under Discussion) on the mocker, not the blocker. It would seem (to me). :-) Proofreader77 (talk)
    Maybe it's just the way I read it, but I can see WP:CIVIL being applied both ways. It would be uncivil to block someone for simply mocking you. Me, I would just ignore it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    A wise interpretation. How rare and beautiful. (no joke) But wisdom is not a requirement for the bit. :-)

    Ah, did you read the Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. Civility policy is highly contentious. lol (See paraphrase of my comment in Signpost/2009-12-07 "Proofreader77 points to a potential reason the Civility policy has been slow to change: objections might be regarded as uncivil."

    ORIGINAL: "(In keeping with my paralogic comment at the WP:Civility/Poll ...) There is nothing insightful/useful that I could say about civility policy that someone would not find reason to save the dif for use as proof that Proofreader77 should be blocked indefinitely or sitebanned. (Although perhaps that covers it concisely, while smoothly skirting the danger. Perhaps. :-)"

    So, yes, 日本穣 (Nihonjoe) has poked the pointy end of the mop at the right place—however the "wisdom" of the interpreter cannot be assured ... hence my (light/"paralogic") comment for the Civility poll suggesting tax-code-version of civility policy. Wisdom not required to interpret one of those.
    -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


  • Can WP:CIVILITY be adjusted to compliance with this "commandment?" Proofreader77 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Your subject heading makes no grammatical sense. The implied object of "block" is the person who has been doing the mocking, thus it should be "Thou shalt not block for mocking" or "Thou shalt not block after being mocked," if you want to revert to the subject of the sentence as also the subject of the final clause. Note that abusing grammar and syntax for the sake of a rhyme is a blockable offense (or at any rate it should be). Chick Bowen 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    (I respectfully request time to ponder a reply worthy of this most excellent criticism. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If this were an actual attempt to amend or extend existing guidelines, I would have serious objections to the proposal as presented. However, I assume that this thread is intended to be a light-hearted commentary on the recent events surrounding TFMWNCB, and therefore I won't be a Scrooge and interrupt the good-spirited fun. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Hear hear. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
How long and how vigorously?

Perhaps this is the handle of the mop? (Good coppery vs bad "moppery"? (le rime ala DuncanHill ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. More unnecessary drama and joking. All I did was point out the fact that TFMWNCB was being an asshole, called him out on it, but then the cartoon cavalry came in to produce no useful discussion, as I see this will result in soon enough. We should let dead conversations stay dead, because nothing came about from all of that, and nothing will come about out of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not unnecessary. Were The Fat Man or one of his less sober IRC admin friends so inclined, you would be blocked for calling him an asshole in this line of logic. I have seen too much admin action used to silence dissent under the guise of civility. Admins acting like hall monitors and classroom snitches. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
He thrives on being referred to as such. I doubt anyone other than you will bother saying anything about it (with any serious intent). This proposal is just another time sink that has no purpose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
[pre-mockery advisory] Requesting checkuser. Ryulong's too perfect a foil for this topic not to be a sockpuppet of Proofreader77. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't be an idiot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Now you're mocking him! :o ;) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(note: Proofreader77 laughed for 93.2 seconds after reading the above) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I object to the insinuation by Proofreader that Ryulong is Proofreader's sock. I think we've been over this before. ;-)Oberonfitch (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Overruled. (Oberonfitch has recently been accused of being a sock of Proofreader77 at ANI. What happens in ANI stays in ANI. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (always wanted to try these templates :-). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy for Scroogish incivility (above)[edit]

Regarding this comment above. Clearly in breach of WP:Civility, I propose the following:

  1. Summon a steward. (Perhaps Mike.lifeguard) to ...
  2. Remove Ryūlóng's sysop bit for 10 seconds. [N/A]
  3. Give Ryūlóng's removed bit [old admin bit from bit bucket] to Proofreader77 for 10 seconds.
  4. Proofreader77 will then block Ryūlóng for 10 seconds for the above breach of WP:Civility
  5. Remove sysop bit from Proofreader77 and restore bit to Ryūlóng
  6. Install cool pirate flag of ex-admin on Proofreader77's userpage.

This would appear to be a "wise" solution (to me) lol Proofreader77 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been desysopped since May. You should know that because you link to diffs where it is said and I called TFMWNCB a m:dick for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Modify 2-3 for updated information. (I didn't get the memo.) Skip desysop step (give Proofreader77 bit from bit bucket). I know of no diffs but the ones in this topic. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight[edit]

The above user conduct request for comment is now live and open for community comment. I sincerely hope we can have a civil and productive discussion regarding the issues described there. While acknowledging that User:ChildofMidnight makes excellent content contributions to Wikipedia, the RfC argues that there have been some serious problems with this editor's behavior, particularly with respect to issues of civility, general style of discussion with fellow contributors, and a "battleground" mentality.

If there are any problems with the formatting or set up of the RfC (I'm new to this) please let me know. Also I'm only posting this note here per the RfC instructions, but if it should be mentioned elsewhere please let me know that as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The instructions were a tad bit outdated with respect to announcing here (as we didn't have the list of RfC/Us transcluded to the top of this page at the time). Making a note here that the RfC instructions have been updated since this posting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term abuse[edit]

Documented here. 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam S. White (talkcontribs)

Could someone please ban this guy and his sock ASAP. Things are getting real creepy real fast. - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Spotfixer's actions are intended to get my IP blocked: look at how she decloaked on the ChildofMidnight RfC. So, don't worry, a block is forthcoming. In any case, it doesn't matter how big an asshole she was; what she said about you is true. As usual, you attack others to deflect attention from yourself. - Carrie (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant links:

Cheers, Durova386 04:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ;)

Durova, if this were solely my concern, you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't. If you look at Schrandit's talk paged, you will find that the following people complained about his tag-and-delete tactics: User:, User:Thesoxlost, User:Spotfixer, User:Dr.enh, User:Benjiboi, User:Otto4711, User:Exploding Boy, User:Tony877, User:Hiroe, User:Scarykitty, User:Badmachine, User:Reinoutr, and User:Awickert. This is a real problem that must be evaluated on its own terms, not some stupid feud. I know you're probably just trying to help, but all you're doing is protecting Schrandit by helping him focus attention away from his many, many bad edits. With all due respect, you're being played. - Caroline 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Have manually readded the autosignature.[5] Note also.[6] Please do not revert this manual post. Cheers. Durova386 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser completed, admin needed to implement[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sam_S._White Multiple holiday socks in the Christmas drawer. One hung itself on a nail at the Child of Midnight RfC. Seeking admin to pick up the presents left behind (in plain English, please blank the drama-stirring posts per WP:BAN). Ho ho ho and troll the ancient yuletide carol. Cheers, Durova386 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I just did this, before seeing your note. Their ban status may be a little fuzzy, but I think it is very much the right and fair thing to remove their comments. Jehochman Make my day 05:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. :) Durova386 06:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above. A summary of the decision may be found at the Arbitration Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Generally, is what is them acceptable upper limit for users caught in a rangeblock? I calculated a block and it came back with ~32000 IP's blocked. That seems high to me, but I'm not sure what the norms are. TNXMan 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. The largest allowed by the software is a /16, but with a little elbow grease, one can often pare that down quite a bit. It also depends on the collateral damage, which is why if your are planning a large rangeblock, it pays to make a Quick request at WP:SPI to see if it is advisable. What in particular are you considering? -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
These IPs in particular (,,,,, and The details are on my talk page (bottom section) and involve a banned user evading his/her block. TNXMan 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That is part of a pretty dynamic /15 block, let alone a /16 block. You could cover all of the above with an /18, a /22, a /23, and a /24 for 18,176 instead of 65,536 IPs of a /16, but I'd have to see how busy the ranges are. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Check the actual range first using ARIN or the appropriate WHOIS authority. The blocked range should be no bigger than what the authority reports, unless you are deliberately blocking multiple ajacent ranges as a shortcut to blocking each one separately. That's an upper limit. In practice the range is smaller or reduced to a single IP. If the block range reports /16 and you can't shrink it, you may be stuck with the choice of blocking a single IP or not blocking anything, due to collateral damage. A few weeks ago there was a case where someone blocked a /16 when ARIN reported the block-size was /21, and innocent people were unnecessarily caught in the block. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
ARIN reported size is a /15, IIRC, thus the issue :) -- Avi (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It doesn't seem like I have a lot of options. The user has jumped to a new range entirely (again, see my talk page), so a rangeblock may not even be a good option now. If anyone has any suggestions though, please drop me a line. Cheers! TNXMan 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
With very dynamic IPs such as that, there is not much we can do, but play whack-a-mole and block the individual IPs for a few hours. :( -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Or semi-protect the requisite pages for 24/48 hours, and see if it lets them lose interest. SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've ended up doing for the past hour or so (and have semi-protected the page in question indefinitely). It appears to have died down, so maybe I'm in the clear. Thanks to both of you for the advice. TNXMan 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation[edit]

Resolved: User blocked per WP:DUCK at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Momo san Gespräch 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vianello (Talk) engaged in a serious 3RR violation, and I don't know how to report it, as there seems to be no mechanism. It was done at —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambadatpickingnames (talkcontribs) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the 3RR board.. but let me take a look at the situation here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked per WP:DUCK at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, so it's pretty much resolved now. Momo san Gespräch 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

the curse of AFD relisting[edit]

I've seeing quite a few AFDs that have been relisted three times. At what point should they just be closed as no consensus rather than relisting? I mean .. really? A month+ AFD? tedder (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if an AfD attracts no notice, it should be procedurally relisted once. I would procedurally relist an AfD that has attracted notice but in which no clear consensus has emerged once. I'd stop with once, unless there was ongoing, productive conversation, in which case I'd think relisting again could be appropriate. It's hard to imagine AfD sustaining ongoing, productive conversation for a full month, much less more than. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought - if an AfD is relisted and still has no !votes, shouldn't that be akin to an expired prod... and deleted? Not that I've done this, just thinking. Tan | 39 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Rarely does a relisting produce much more than maybe 1 or 2 additional comments (if you're lucky). It is more likely to produce nothing at all. The problem with a lot of AfDs is simply lack of awareness. Even though anyone can freely browse through the list of open AfDs, very rarely do the people whose input is most urgently needed become aware that a relevant AfD is going on. The articles that are most likely to get an AfD with little participation tend to be obscure topics with few people outside of the article's creator having it on their watchlist--even though other editors interested in the main subject area may have relevant input. Yes, we have deletion sorting, article alert services and other ways of notifying people but for some reason we still seem to have a vacuum on participation. I don't know if there is an easy solution for how to increase more awareness and participation but relisting itself doesn't produce much results because it isn't trying to tackle the root cause of low participation. Some how, we need to address that issue instead of continually relisting an AfD. AgneCheese/Wine 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Agne, there's a category for relisted AFDs. Perhaps that's one way to draw attention. I do agree, I'm not sure there are any advantages to relisting multiple times due to inactivity. Not sure what to do about it. tedder (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps more broadly advertizing the category (maybe Village Pump?) could offer some benefit. Maybe occasionally a bot could put a notice listing the number of active AfD and request "urgent" attention to the relisted AfDs kinda like how a bot puts a notice on the admin board when WP:DYK is overdue. It is a thought. AgneCheese/Wine 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tan, a !voteless AFD should be treated just like a prod, if no one cares to say it should be kept in a week, how is it any different. relisting it just prolongs the inevitable--Jac16888Talk 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Depends. If the article was previously prodded and contested prior to AfD then it really shouldn't be treated as a prod and just deleted without discussion. If the article wasn't prod and has run due course without any comments then it probably is an uncontroversial deletion. AgneCheese/Wine 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it depends on specific circumstances. I recently restored CyanogenMod, which had been deleted twice before following AfD's. I figured it would end up in AfD again, and did soon after I restored it. This time through, the article survived because notability had in fact changed. The third AfD helped sort this out. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Just piling on in support of not relisting repeatedly and deleting an article if nobody has bothered to defend it. I think the low participation at AFD lately is a side effect of how contentious AFD has been in the past, although it doesn't seem as bad right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    Also agree with Tan, Beeble, etc. Wizardman 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hiberniantears, note the discussion is (was?) about relisting the same afd more than once, not creating a new AFD. tedder (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A careful application of WP:BEFORE, especially the options for merging and relisting, can be a good approach to many of these articles. I would not say that "nobody has bothered" to defend an article unless I knew for certain that everyone previously involved in the article had been notified who was still active, & the workgroup had been notified effectively. And, if it is still undefended, if I were handling it like a prod, I would investigate myself before deleting, as I do with expired prods that are not totally obvious. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just found that WP:RELIST says, in bold, "no debate may be relisted more than twice". tedder (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • My personal opinion is that relisting should be done with common sense, on a case by case basis. Either an AFD gets closed as no consensus or gets relisted. I don't think it hurts to relist when you need those 1 or 2 extra !votes. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of treating uncontested but low-discussion AFDs as expired PRODs after 14 days, but for anything else, the decision to close or re-list needs to be at admin's discretion. However, I don't think something that is 2 "delete" and 1 "keep" should be closed as "delete." We've had conversations along these lines at WT:AFD in the past few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would think it should depend on the circumstances. If an AfD for a local television show has one "delete" !vote that points out that there is absolutely zero coverage in independent sources, a second "delete" that points out that the show was canceled after 2 episodes, and a third !vote to "keep" the article because they saw it as a child and liked it, I'd think that the result should close as "delete". -- Atama 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles listed for deletion (why deletion and not discussion?) should IMHO be publicised at the relevant Wikiprojects. Possibly this needs discussion by the community though. Maybe it could be made incumbent on nominators to publicise the fact that they have nominated an article for deletion at the relevant Wikiproject if that Wikiproject is not subscribed to Article Alerts via the bot. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is fine if there is an existing wikiproject tag on the talk page or the person taking it to AFD can easily figure out the appropriate wikiproject. This isn't always obvious.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. I had a couple suggestions that might result in more AfD attention, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#add_categories_from_articles_to_AfDs and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Enable_single-click_watching_of_all_pages_within_a_category. I'd also had the odd idea more with respect to the problem of biased samples but which could work for this, that "It could be interesting if there could be some random assigning of editors to articles and AfDs, if that would have an effect. There are no doubt ones I don't take the initiative on out of lack of interest or particular expertise that I conceivably could participate in, TV shows I don't watch or religions I've never read about that I could quickly read up on (essentially this is true of some of the ones I edit already), although some things like the finer points of astrophysics I'd probably be lost. But people might resent the imposition, even if it were optional." Another way of implementing that would be that people could subscribe to random assignments, like WikiProject newsletters and other things bot-posted to user talk pages, or in the left-hand bar with the Navigation, Interaction, and Toolbox there could be a "Random task" one could click, operating like "Random article," which could be subdivided into "Random relisted AfD," etc. Incidentally, I tried a few searches to get an idea of how often it happens that an AfD is relisted three times, but the number of times that has happened and it was commented upon (at least with these wordings) hasn't been especially high: "third relisting" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "third relist" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted three" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted 3" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The total number that mention relist* prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is 20,414, but sometimes that word is used to refer to subsequent AfDs on the same article or may be used in other contexts as well. Шизомби (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Random task"!
A SuggestBot-like bot could put AfD suggestions on the talk pages of editors who sign up based on their article editing and/or prior participation at AfD (but I don't know how to program bots). Fences&Windows 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In general, if a discussion is up for a second relisting, only in extremely rare circumstances should it not be closed as "no consensus". Whether by even split or apathy, if no consensus is forming, then close it as such. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Atama, in her/his post above is on the right track: if there are only a couple of comments in response to a nomination, but they set forth persuasive arguments to keep/delete, then the closing Admin should not worry overmuch about the light participation. (Just to comment on Atama's example, while I wouldn't give much weight to a low profile in a Google search about a tv series, I would be interested whether any notable show biz persons were involved. But then, if I were the closing Admin & this point was important to me, I would investigate it before closing.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close de-adminship process proposal[edit]

A 'Community De-Adminship' process proposal has been under consideration and development for some time.

A motion has been raised to declare the proposal discussion closed and retire the proposal. A vote on the motion is underway on the proposal's discussion page. Participation is welcomed, encouraged, and requested at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Motion to close. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion of the proposal on its talk page.
  • Will you support the gentleman's motion to call the previous question? Or shall we table it, taking up new business, not excluding business old business previously tabled? Protonk (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we going to kill off all attempts to have a deadminship process, despite opposition the status quo at the RfC? Fences&Windows 23:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Can we please confine discussion of the proposal to the linked discussion page? I made a good-faith, thorough effort to post as neutral a notice as I possibly could (and I got mocked for it, too). Please save your arguments for the appropriate venue; we don't want to duplicate the discussion in two different locations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion today showing up on C:SD[edit]

Can someone check why Wikipedia:Deletion today is showing up at C:SD and fix it? It first showed up on there when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia was tagged G6 (someone repurposed an old AfD and transcluded, and that was tagged G6). I just reverted to the closed AfD, and removed it from the day's logs; given that this was the only edit by the AfDer and the fact that the article wasn't even tagged, I figured nothing more was required. However, while the other transclusions fell off C:SD, the Deletion today page doesn't seem to get off and I can't find any reason for it to stay on there. Maybe I'm missing something or did something wrong? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you redirect this?[edit]

This page is protected



Hyperstar 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Philip1992

We don't usually do cross-namespace redirects (as with this one, from an article named "This page is protected" to a Wikipedia page). The only link to that title is this page and related admin pages, so it's unlikely that the lack of a redirect is causing confusion. Ironically, This page is protected does not actually appear to be protected, which seems bizarre. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It also does not appear to exist, which would explain why it is not protected.—Finell 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ceci n'est pas une page protégée. Deor (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it doesn't exist, then we should rename it to This page does not exist :-) SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New guideline/goal for 2010[edit]

Moved to WP:VPR. ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 16:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67[edit]

Copied here from User talk:MBisanz On December 15, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name.[8] Since you were the admin who actioned that request I thought I'd address this to you.

Bowei Huang has been on a crusade to automate everything which, while commendable, has caused several problems because his method of doing so has caused numerous errors requiring multiple reversions in multiple articles. He first came to my notice when he attempted to automate the approximate population of Australia which resulted in, at the time, an easily confirmable error.[9] After I reverted that mess, he made other changes on different occasions, all of which were subsequently reverted.[10][11] After seeing several warnings on his talk page I was a little suspicious after his name change request. Despite his request for an obscure username, User:A1DF67 hasn't made a single edit.[12] Instead, he has continued editing under User:Bowei Huang.[13] making mistakes and not correcting them and conducting testing in articles, rather than a sandbox.[14][15][16]

Getting to the main reason for my post, what we now have is a user who has requested and been given a name change. The new name hasn't been used but now holds all of his past edit history and more importantly, numerous warnings, while the old username has been cleaned of warnings and has effectively been given a fresh start. There is no indication by either username that it is an alternative account of the other. I don't think I need to connect the dots. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue I am copying to WP:AN. MBisanz talk 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've notified Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) of this discussion. On the face of it, the choice is simple - which username does this editor wish to use? The other one needs to be blocked indef. Can a name change be undone? The block logs for both accounts appear to be clear, so there's no block history to note. Maybe a 1 second block to permanently note the connection, but that would sort of defeat the original purpose for the change - of course, so does the editing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it is directly relevant, but Bowei Huang is also, ahem, well-known at the refernce desk. See for example this thread discussing what is the best way to deal with the user (there have been many such discussions over the past 2 years : [17]). Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Brickfield (talk · contribs) is probably a sock account of the user. (Should we shift this thread to ANI?) Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk: is either yet another sock or someone curiously intent on blanking A1DF67's talk page. Bielle (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've inquired at Changing User Names for additional guidance. I'd like to hear from the editor before taking any action, if possible. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy is a difficult case. While he makes lots of editing errors and causes a ton of problems - and can also annoy the heck out of people with his borderline trollish behavior - there is absolutely no evidence that any of it is in done in bad faith. To the contrary in fact - he seems to be extremely well-meaning. However, he's really unresponsive to requests to change his ways - or requests of any kind really. He deletes complaints about him from his talk page without responding to them - but that's not contrary to our guidelines either. The result is someone who can be exceedingly annoying and quite disruptive without actually falling afoul of our rules. This name-change thing is typical of this user's modus-operandii. Reluctantly - although my heart says "Get this guy out of my face - indef. block the sucker" - my head says that we must once again, WP:AGF and continue to gently nudge this fellow into more 'normal' editing patterns. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Having read the related thread at WT:RD, I have to ask this, Steve: has anyone followed your advice & pointed out to him that his behavior is problematic -- either gently or any other way? If so, & he has responded constructively (by which I would include his wont of deleting the message but, more importantly, changing his behavior), then we should try to work with him. If any attempt to engage him has failed then, I regret to say, he deserves an indef block until he stops being exceedingly annoying & quite disruptive -- we (& the Reference Desk) have better things to do than to handle someone who won't cooperate with us. WP:IAR works that way: we can forget about proper procedure & just boot him out the door. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-PUMP question[edit]

Before I post this on the technical pump, would it benefit the project if there was a way to block an editor from everywhere except dispute-resolution pages and his own talk page? The intent is to allow those who are blocked pending the outcome of a dispute-resolution process the ability to participate in that process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  • We've done this in the past by transclusion. How often would it be used? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Peppylemew reverting and refusing to post to talk[edit]

Please help As you can see, Peppylemew (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is an account only used to edit a handful of articles on Eels (band) and generally to revert changes. Some of these are helpful (e.g. this application of WP:EL), but most of these edits are removing germane and sourced information from articles. I have posted several times to the user's talk page and he has refused to post on any user talk or article talk pages to discuss exactly what he wants changed or why. I'm at the end of my rope and have warned the user that if this constant reversion without any rationale continues, I would seek someone's intervention, so I am doing as much now. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again[edit]

Please help (again) See these two edits: 1 and 2 after being admonished twice thrice on his talk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

reported Peppylemew at WP:AN3. Koavf, next time you have to post an edit warring report at WP:AN3, or a page protection request at WP:RFPP. You will get a much quicker response. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Thanks everyone for yet another successful year on Wikipedia. We've met new issues, but as ever, we find some way to resolve them and move forward. Our articles have continued to improve, and in spite of seemingly continuous criticism, we're slowly but surely becoming a more reliable and credible resource.

With that, I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year, or otherwise just a pleasant few days. Cheers! –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandal account[edit]

Please take a look This new user with a somewhat controversial name—Big Brother Maroc (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)—just appeared setting off the repeating characters tag four times on Aminatou Haidar, itself an article with recent edit wars and POV disputes. Someone may want to investigate this. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is to warn starting from level 1 to level 4, and then report to WP:AIV. Twinkle makes this process much easier ;). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting move of today's featured article[edit]

The name "French Texas" was apparently made up, as it doesn't seem to appear in any sources. The article should be moved to Fort Saint Louis (Texas). There's some discussion on the talk page with no opposition. I would have done it myself but the page is move protected... --NE2 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the {{Texas History}} template's terminology, it would seem preferable to leave it where it is, notwithstanding that it may be strictly incorrect. --AlisonW (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I recommend waiting until it falls off the main page, then opening a discussion on Talk:French Texas and/or WT:WikiProject Texas. A move while it is on the main page would be highly visible and wouldn't be worth the disruption. Also, WP:NODEADLINE applies here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What disturbs me is how this problem was overlooked in the FA review process. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't. See Amerique's comment and the discussion underneath it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French Texas. As the discussion indicates, there is no obvious ideal solution, and so the current less-than-ideal solution was adopted, even though other suggestions were also in the air. In order for the FA process to be halted, though, someone would actually have to have opposed over the title, which no one seemed inclined to do (probably because titles are so rarely a serious issue at FA). Chick Bowen 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on a WP:SPI case[edit]

User:Mljet, the latest (very obvious) sock of User:Ragusino is wreaking havoc and editing all over the place (as quickly as he can before he gets blocked again, I assume). In case there's any doubt, there is no question whatsoever as to his identity, he fully fits the standard "Ragusino template" (same articles, same POV, same edit-warring, and yeah - he hates me with a passion :). The user also keeps copy-pasting some HUGE nonsense conversation he and his banned buddies had on some forum, so there's really no room for doubt. I filed a WP:SPI report [18], but it isn't getting any attention, probably because of that MASSIVE illegible forum stuff he keeps copy-pasting everywhere... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked per WP:DUCK, but perhaps you should continue with the SPI in case there are other sock maturing in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly possible. The SPI is there, awaiting attention. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed siteban for Logicus (talk · contribs) [edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this discussion, as somebody has to ultimately - it's been open for 7 days (longer than a typical AfD and similar to an RfA) and this is AN, a high-volume noticeboard with usually a quick turnover. There is a clear consensus in favour of a siteban. Editors supporting as well as the RfC have identified major conduct issues extending over a long period of time. Alternative proposals did not attract significant enthusiasm. If the editor objects, he can still edit his own talk page and there is always the option of taking it to ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus has been editing disruptively at various articles since 2006 (original research, refusal to accept consensus, tendentious editing). Basically he has unorthodox ideas about the history of science and insists upon interpreting primary sources. Similar problems recur wherever he edits. He refuses to engage in dispute resolution; he just ignores it or raises nonexistent procedural objections.

Ample diffs of disruptive editing are available at the second conduct RfC, which is unanimously supported by all involved and uninvolved editors other than Logicus himself. A review of the dispute resolution attempts and User talk:Logicus demonstrates that the problem is much worse than usual for a short block log: when warned for NPA, edit warring, etc. he just switches tactics. His posts are classic Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense, so since he rebuffs all attempts at engagement am proposing a siteban. Durova386 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal: By way of an executive summary of this troublesome and troublemaking business for those with no prior knowledge of it, the very simple problem at the root of this dispute with Logicus can be put very briefly in the following simple nutshell. In what is now 3 RfCs, user Steve McCluskey and some others have alleged Logicus has inserted OR claims into articles, and even into a wide range of articles. But they have never identified nor even less proven any claim(s) Logicus has inserted into any article to be OR, and thus never provided any 'Evidence of the disputed behaviour'. And Logicus disputes their allegation as wholly false. But he has always shown willing to be persuaded otherwise and repeatedly invited his critics to identify where and why they think he has committed any OR claims in articles in order to enable evaluating the validity of their otherwise empty abstract claim and so to possibly resolve the dispute. But they have all failed to do so and refused to engage in any valid dispute resolution of their disputed claim. All other breach of policy allegations raised against Logicus seem consequential upon the primary OR allegation being valid and proven to be so, along with unfounded interpretations of Verifiability, Consensus and OR policy statements.
Contrary to the false impression and misrepresentations conveyed by Durova and McCluskey, the demonstrable fact is that Logicus has been a highly productive and improving editor, the great majority of whose many edits or consequential revisions of claims have been consensually sustained without challenge or controversy. Only a small minority of his edits have been contested without resolution by editors unable to accept Logicus's eliminations and corrections of claims in articles that he has validly demonstrated to be OR. McCluskey who is the troublemaker here is such an editor.
For those interested in a detailed demolition of the many false claims made in Durova's proposal here, Logicus is preparing a critique to be submitted shortly. But will contributors please show forbearance for the fact that Logicus is currently overwhelmed in trying to respond fully to the many injustly hostile claims made against him in this season of goodwill. Thank you ! --Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
--Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I strongly encourage others to hold off on any final action, but in exchange I expect Logicus to refrain from making any edits to article or article talk pages save pure vandalism or copyvio reversion until this is settled, assuming that doesn't take more than a few days after he posts his critique for the issues to be resolved, excluding holidays. I also expect Logicus's critique to be well-documented and convincing. Anything less may do him more harm than good in the long run. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Question I assume I would be correct in believing this ban is to be under an "indefinite" tariff. Under the circumstances, is indefinite understood to be "until they provide an undertaking to address the various issues" or "until consensus for an unblock arises"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Standard offer. If they choose to appeal it would consider after 3-6 months depending upon activity at other WMF projects. Of course Logicus would need to acknowledge that a problem exists and pledge to remedy it. Durova386 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Support I would have anyway, but hopefully Durova's clarification will allow other reviewers to come to a better informed decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, although with some reluctance. This editor appears to be bright, well read, and articulate. If Logicus used these faculties to help build this encyclopedia, in accordance with this community's policies and guidelines, he could be a valuable contributor. Instead, Logicus's main activity on Wikipedia is to self-publish his own opinions, re-interpretations of primary sources, and critiques of respected, reliable secondary sources. Logicus demonstrates no interest in collaboration with (as opposed to arguing at) other editors or respect for consensus. Many other editors have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage Logicus about these problems on his talk page, on talk pages of articles that he edits, and in a current RFC/U. Indeed, Logicus has chosen not to submit a statement at the RFC/U; instead, he wikilawyers on the RFC/U's talk page, arguing about alleged procedural objections that are without substance. Since Logicus's objectives are not compatible with Wikipedia's objectives, his participation here is largely disruptive and his manner is tendentious. Unless this user commits to substantial changes in his behavior, and carries out a commitment by in fact conforming his behavior to community norms, it is time to end this user's disruptive participation.—Finell 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    Question — should this be moved to WP:ANI? I had the impression that it was more suited for matters such as this than this page is. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    There have been recent problems with siteban proposals that were closed too quickly; one early closure indirectly caused a very contentious proposed arbitration case that is currently under discussion. So for a better heat to light ratio the slower of the two boards is preferable. Durova386 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I understand the general reluctance to impose a long-term siteban on any user, but Logicus has been engaged in disruption for a long time, and following the first last Conduct RfC, in which he declined to participate, he suspended and then resumed his disruption. He stopped editing with the posting of the RfC in early February, 2007, resumed active editing in June 2007, and by August was involved in a new dispute over Original Research at Bayesian probability. Adding to this the continuance of many other controversial edits over an extended period, the long-term tenacity of his disruption suggests that a long-term solution is called for. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I have watched his behaviour at Tycho Brahe and the result was not pretty. The damage he incurs on the encyclopedia is twofold, one is the obvious one introducing his own OR into articles, the other, which is probably worse, is that he wears down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Logicus does appear to be very well-read, but he also appears to have an enormous blind-spot when it comes to critically evaluating evidence and arguments relating to points of view he feels strongly about. He also seems to have an inordinately exaggerated opinion of his own competence in matters of mathematics, physics and logic. In the discussion where I first encountered him, he committed at least three outright blunders in these areas—all delivered with the air of certainty one might expect from an expert. Subsequent experience has shown that this was not an isolated occurrence. Apart from those observations, Finell's remarks above seem to me to be a succinct and accurate summary of the problems with Logicus's activities on Wikipedia. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments below. Durova does not readily give up on people. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Logicus can head this off by constructively engaging in the RFC or working in good faith with an admin or mentor to avoid future problems, but shows no interest or inclination to so do. Lacking a good faith effort to understand what they are doing wrong and change it, I see no alternative right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen a bit of Logicus around and have seen very little good. As someone else mentions here, he doesn't communicate, but rather pontificates. As this is a collaborative work, communication is absolutely necessary for any meaningful cooperation and work to be done together. I don't see this behavior changing anytime soon. He's pretty much backed us into a corner after multiple attempts to help him see the light. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I encountered Logicus at Charles Darwin. I'm still not sure what the actual problem was, but it involved a desire to change the article as well as the use of a serious quantity of text which can be seen in the talk archives: 6, 7, 8, 9. Some editors are simply disruptive and it is relatively easy to bid them farewell, but other editors (like Logicus) are more of a problem because we can see that there is talent and potential, yet they can impose an incredible drain on resources due to the need to handle their repetitive arguments. Reluctantly, I agree that Logicus shows no sign of following the collaborative style or the no original research requirements here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, though willing to see something on the lines of the alternative proposals allowing an appeal in 3 to 6 months subject to a new willingness to collaborate, express himself concisely and avoid original research. Johnuniq covers the issues well. As Logicus is currently disuputing any accusation of original research, this case shows Logicus arguing tendentiously and at length that a clear point about Darwin demonstrated by modern sources and by a relevant primary source should be overturned by Logicus's idiosyncratic interpretation of a foreword from 1950, followed when challenged by Logicus producing his own misleading interpretation of the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on evolution, and even arguing that Darwin was convinced of the opposite of what Darwin had written. When the discussion was archived, Logicus copied a large part of the discussion to a new section and resumed tendentious arguments, again being advised by other editors that this was unacceptable original research.[19] Dealing with such long-winded and repetitive distractions diverts attention and effort from the improvement of articles. . . dave souza, talk 16:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I haven't had any interactions with Logicus, but having looked at the contribution history and the diffs. linked in the RFC and above, I don't see any viable alternative to an indefinite ban - in fact I am surprised that the disruption was allowed to continue over two years, without any sign of change. At this point the onus is on Logicus to show that they can edit collaboratively and within wikipedia's core content policies; if Logicus can establish this in a few months, they'll be most welcome to resume editing (perhaps with some conditions), but any timed ban, which allows them to return automatically, will be ill-considered. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is too long a time to allow disruption to continue. I understand that the editor is bright and could in theory be a boon to the project, but the lack of cooperation shows that there's little hope of that ever occurring. -- Atama 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, with no mentorships For me, his comments at Talk:Celestial_spheres#RfC:_Original_research.3F are more nothing than enough to see that a) he is not interested in adapting to wikipedia, b) he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong at all c) he is in possesion of the WP:TRUTH about wikipedia how should work d) any attempt to get him to change this attitude will be rebuffed or gamed e) he'll just go back to the previous behaviour. Any mentorship would be fruitless and it would only burn the mentor. P.D.: Looking at his draft reply from yesterday there is no way in hell that giving him two weeks of time is going to get an acceptable reply, he just kept blaming everyone else. Any delay to give him more time is going to accomplish nothing. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
As a clear example, see how Logicus was given a painfully detailed explanation of why translations of primary sources are still primary sources, including several scholar sources, but he still refuses to get the point[20] (search for "translations" to find the relevant paragraph). This user is just trying to impose his own unacceptable interpretations of how wikipedia should be edited. I don't see how his stay could possibly benefit wikipedia, he's only fighting other editors that try to uphold basic wikipedia policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Logicus, it's clear from pursuing this thread, the RfC's, and your contributions that you're an incredibly intelligent fellow. So are the other people you're dealing with in these disputes. However, you have been given the opportunity at every turn to productively engage with the community, to use your intelligence to help build this encyclopedia. The hand of cooperation has been extended to you, and you dig your heels in deeper and harder- that you decided your draft response should be called "Demolishing Durova" [21] is prima facie evidence you do not want to cooperate. You are the one that could have avoided this measure even being considered. You could have stopped it, even at this late date. I firmly believe you know what behaviour is desired, and have chosen not to take the advice you have been given to heart, and that you would similarly ignore a mentorship if offered, leaving little option other than a site-ban for now, that you can appeal some months into the new year. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposals[edit]

Proposal one[edit]

  • Proposed alternative: General topic ban from science, pseudoscience, and related articles, sections of articles, and even sentences within articles that touch on science and pseudoscience, along with a 1-revert-restriction project-wide and a mandatory mentor during the first few months after being allowed to edit science articles again. Personal bias alert: I'm against site-bans except for those who are either deliberately working against the project or those for whom all lesser sanctions, e.g. editing restrictions, mandatory mentorship, 0-RR parole, etc. have been tried and failed. This is not the case here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose alternative per this discussion. Durova386 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    Do you believe his intent is to disrupt the project, that it's not his intent to be disruptive but his actions have that effect and he doesn't seem to want to change, that he wants to change but doesn't seem capable of change without help, that he wants to change but he doesn't seem capable of change even with help, or some mix of he above, or something else altogether? Your edit above suggests he may not be aware of/willing to admit there is a problem. This is unfortunate. His attitude, his self-awareness, and his ability to change even if he wants to, with or without help, are important factors when crafting a solution to the problem. The better the attitude and more willing and able he is to change, the less the need for a site ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts on that are expressed in the outside opinion at RfC, with followup at its talk page. Durova386 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Do you see the proposed topic ban as extending to Talk pages, where much of the Disruptive Editing has taken place? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would need to study the edits on the talk page more carefully. In general, if an editor is doing things like changing other people's comments enough to be disruptive, then yes, ban him from those talk pages. If he's using the talk pages to discuss things other than the articles, then probably. If the editor is just repeatedly making the same point over and over again about how to improve (according to his own definition of the word) the articles, I'm more inclined to give leeway - most of us are mature enough to just ignore article-improvement suggestions that have already been discussed and rejected, or politely say "rejected per last week's discussion" and let it go. I haven't checked his edits enough to determine the nature of the disruption on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OpposeThanks for the reply. The disruption, which you described as "just repeatedly making the same point over and over again" has the effect, as Saddhiyama put it, of "wear[ing] down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust." Since this takes place primarily on Talk pages, this proposal won't cut it without a clear inclusion of this crucial aspect of the problem. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose alternative. This editor's disruptive behavior is not topic-specific; it is rather the nature of his approach to Wikipedia. He doesn't "get" what this project is about and, more importantly, clearly does not want to get it. I was unaware until now that he caused similar disruption at Bayesian probability, which is outside the top ban that this alternative proposes (it is in the fields of statistics and mathematics). While Logicus has on a few occasions deleted talk page content—he repeatedly deleted an RfC tag at Talk:Celestial spheres#RfC: Original research? and deleted a tabulation of the results of that RfC, both based on specious misinterpretations of policy—his main talk page disruption is extraordinarily lengthy harangues, with lots of boldface shouting, condescension to everyone else (he imperiously refers to himself in the third person), which interferes with normal discussion among the article's editors. Indeed, although that RfC was unanimous that his proposed (actually, inserted and later deleted by consensus) contribution was original research, he argued on and on against the closer, who reached the only possible result. His behavior at talk pages is similar to that which led to broad topic bans (including all talk pages) and probation of two editors in the recent Speed of light arbitration decision.—Finell 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If he truly does not want to get it, then this is sad. I hope that whatever the outcome, if he demonstrates that he wants to "get it" and work constructively with a mentor until he does, he will be allowed back in with no more restrictions than necessary. I would recommend his first few weeks be "no article, no article talk, without mentor approval" and see how it goes from there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2[edit]

  • Proposed alternative 2: Ask Logicus what self-imposed-but-community-enforced restrictions, if any, would help him become a better editor. He probably knows himself well enough to answer this question, if he thinks about it and is willing to accept that we, the community, are willing to help him help us build a better encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
He was asked at the current RFC/U, but declined to answer. Have you actually looked at this editor's conduct, or at the 3 RFCs cited above as the basis for this proposed community sanction?—Finell 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at it but did not study it. I missed that he had declined to answer. Assuming he did not answer the question privately, i.e. he is ignoring it, and assuming he didn't just miss the question as I missed your question earlier (btw thx), this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Logicus comments: I also missed where I was asked this at the current RfC. Where is it please ? Could Finell please produce it here ? As a life long supporter of the Co-operative movement also interested in Wikipedia becoming a democratic co-operative, I am perfectly willing to have community help to become a better editor. But the current difficulty I have with the as yet unfounded allegations of my inserting OR claims into many articles is that until somebody shows me where I have done so and howso, how can I possibly even begin to understand what it is I have done wrong and must improve on ? I showed my willingness to revise challenged material in the last RfC in response to Wilson’s unique allegations that some identifiable specific claims in it committed OS. I don’t understand what else I can possibly do. I find this whole business utterly bewildering, and nobody else I know can make any rational sense of it either. If I may charitably say so, I think you all need to seriously reflect upon the utterly appalling impression of Wikipedia it creates.--Logicus (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(interjected 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) Logicus: You were asked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Desired outcome, which I quote:

That Logicus will:

  • Defer to consensus.
  • Accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policy on Original Research
  • Supply secondary sources for interpretive material.
  • If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
  • Cease using Article Talk Pages to debate the subject matter of articles.
And, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Response was put there to give you a place to respond. You chose not to respond. If you had agreed to these conditions, which require no more than compliance with the policies that already apply to all Wikipedians, the RFC/U would have ended, and this siteban proposal would never have come about. Instead, you just argue, argue, argue, and argue, which, not surprisingly, is just what you did on several talk pages, which is what led to the RFC/U, which in turn led to this siteban proposal.—Finell 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Logicus does not communicate; he pontificates. I think Durova has clarified that a site ban is now the only avenue of communication that remains - if he wants to overturn the decision he needs to communicate in an appropriate manner (that is, in good faith and to a determined purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I suggest an initial 3 month block with parole on return, appeal allowed via ArbCom. It's acceptable not to take part in an RfC but it's unacceptable to ignore well-founded criticism from people genuinely trying to help, which is what has happened here. The problem behaviour is also of a particularly troublesome kind, involving original research stated in ways which seem calculated to appear as if it is compliant with policy when it clearly isn't. Other steps having been tried, we have only a very few options left, and I fail to see how this would result in anything other than a ban if taken to arbitration at this stage. So let's short-cut the drama, give the user a time-out, but make it short enough that if he is prepared to reform, he can. If on return the problem behaviour resumes then we know what to do. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, the original proposal is for an indefinite block with an option to appeal in 3 to 6 months. He would need to build up a good history on a sister WMF project in order to get a review at 3 months. But the review wouldn't be hard to pass if he requests it. Durova386 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee does not hand out indefinite bans. Should we? There is also a risk of sending someone on an anti-Wikipedia mission into sister projects (we have enough of that already). Guy (Help!) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"Community bans," bans where no admin is willing to un-block, are de facto indefinite. The arbitration committee has also handed down bans with language like "should the editor return, it will be under these conditions" which amounts to an indefinate ban, where the banned party gets to choose when or if he is willing to abide by the conditions of return. In general I see nothing wrong with an "indefinate" ban if there is a clear, reasonable path to lifting the ban. As a matter of routine, anyone who has not edited in a year who is under any indefinate ban should be allowed a {{second chance}} unless that was explicitly proscribed by whoever imposed the ban or it would conflict with post-return restrictions imposed at the time of the ban. Also, as a matter of routine, any indef ban can be appealed to the then-sitting ARBCOM at any time, but I would expect them to reject any appeal if the original ban was fair in process and outcome, and the conditions that led to it have not changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
An "anti-Wikipedia campaign" at a sister project wouldn't hasten anyone's return here. :) As someone who's sysopped on three of those smaller projects, please accept assurances that editors who run into trouble here in the big city often fare better at the small towns where the pace is slower and everyone knows each other. Durova386 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to close[edit]

  • It's been about 48 hours since this discussion started, so time has been given for everyone to respond from different timezones. It also is unambiguously going in one direction. I'm thinking of closing this in a little under 24 hours...unless there is some material objection? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    If you mean closing "Proposal 2" that sounds good. If you mean the whole discussion, see "Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal" and my reply above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I feel that since this problem has gone on for several years, we can afford to give it a little more time to resolve it properly. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Having just read Logicus's latest draft response on his talk page, I would emphasize the word "little" in the above. This draft shows no sign of engagement in dispute resolution (except in the OED's sense 8 of engagement: "The state of being engaged in fight; a battle, conflict, encounter.") --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This should be allowed to run its normal course, and should not be closed prematurely. The subject of this proposed siteban has asked for more time to submit a more complete response, and it is only fair to allow him to do so. Because of the holidays, many editors are less available than normal, and Logicus himself mentioned (on the RfC/U talk page, if I recall correctly) that his was the case with him. Given the seriousness of the sanction being considered here, Logicus should be given whatever time he needs. So far as I am aware, he is not engaging in any current disruption; should he do so, that can be dealt with quickly, even while the siteban proposal is still pending. Further, Durova explained above that she brought this matter here, rather than AN/I, because she did not want a quick close, as has happened in some recent cases at AN/I.—Finell 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There's some risk of him gaming the process with delays in order to prevent a sanction from happening at all. He's aware that the clock is ticking, and was advised in advance that a siteban proposal was coming. A failure to complete a draft response within a reasonable time frame is not reason to prevent action on a clear consensus, especially when the draft shows no sign of engagement in positive directions. See the bottom two threads on his user talk page. Durova386 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean an endless amount of time, but rather a reasonable one in the circumstances. We can say when enough is enough, should it come to that. I also agree that Logicus shows no sign of recognizing or addressing the problems with his behavior, which itself is a big part of the problem. I've been as critical of his behavior as anyone. Still, we should allow him some reasonable additional time so that he cannot say with any justification that he was denied a sufficient opportunity to be heard.—Finell 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Finell ought to familiarise himself with how things work here before foolishly pretending this discussion has not run its normal course. If he or the banned user wants to appeal to ArbCom when this is closed, that's perfectly acceptable (in fact, I welcome it with open arms) and they can make their case for why it should be reconsidered. However, the call to unduely extend this discussion stems from straightforward disruptive conduct. Gaming of process is unacceptable; persistent wikilawyering to further other disputes is even more so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Logicus to all:Thanks to those few with a few relatively kind words here. This is just to let you know I have no internet access from this afternoon until next week. Meanwhile you may possibly enjoy the following Xmas carol that is one of the many co-operative products of the author of Logicus, namely NoisyNite1 @ .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicus (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2009
Given what he has posted on his talk page, I'm not at all sure what additional time would do. His comment above doesn't suggest that he intends to move from his current position which is to deny that he's done anything he shouldn't do and to deny the validity of any RfCs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My take is that with Logicus's limited computer access over Christmas, Boxing Day, and the holiday weekend, a reasonable time to wrap this up would be the beginning of next week, i.e., before the end of the year. This would provide enough time for him to finish his response, but a clear limit to discourage any gaming of the system. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
As long as Logicus is not editing elsewhere, then flexibility as regards timelimits should be easy. Once they respond (and editing elsewhere would be considered as such) then the matter can be progressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a good example of the sickness at the heart of wikipedia. Twenty or so people get together and agree (almost in secret) that another editor should be banned—or indefinitely blocked, makes no practical difference. What should happen is that all those so keen on bans are banned themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that you have not previously seen the RfC and the discussion here previously does not mean it is being held "in secret" - and the editor concerned has had plenty of notice (and their disdain to engage also does not mean the ban is being imposed without consultation). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Further this - the RFC was listed on ANI and AN page headers since it was filed ten days ago, and the site ban discussion/proposal has been on AN for three days plus. These are noticeboards for a reason - they're the location of record for such discussions. Both time periods are longer than usually held to be required or standard for RFCs and ban discussions; Logicus has been given plenty of time to respond, as has everyone else.
Regarding the "twenty or so people get together..." - The right of the community, via consensus, to issue sanctions and bans has been established for many years now, Malleus. This is the standard place that they happen (either ANI or AN). Nobody is "keen" on a ban - people have been working with Logicus for months now trying to get h