Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive207

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

Noticeboard archives


May Grundle2600 suggest changes to articles covered by his topic ban at his talk page?[edit]

Unresolved: While the proximal situation is resolved per the editors' commitment not to create further such threads, I remain curious about the question in general, though perhaps this is best reserved for WT:BAN. –xenotalk 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC), User agrees not to. Jehochman Brrr 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow! There's a template for everything! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to a thread at User:Grundle2600's talk page (User talk:Grundle2600#Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? / permlink), I would like to solicit opinions as to whether such threads are appropriate (see also a previous thread, "I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?").

While they don't appear to violate the letter of the topic ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600: continued problems and User:Grundle2600/Community sanction) they surely seem to violate the spirit. However, I am not a regular in terms of handing down or enforcing community sanctions, so additional input would be appreciated. –xenotalk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, in that the wording of WP:PROXYING there appears to provide a clear exception to the assume good faith guideline. So the banned user suggests an edit, someone does so and is challenged on it, the burden of proof will be on that 2nd editor to prove that they acted in good faith; there would be no assumption first. IMO Grundle, you're going to put other editors into jeopardy by acting on your suggestions, esp if they are not exactly in good standing (cough) to begin with. Advice? Stick to the areas outside of your topic ban, 100%. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Tarc, I agree with you, because I do not want to put other editors in jeopardy. Thanks for commenting. I will stop making such suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be "unresolved". Grundle should be able to propose things on his talk page. That's an ideal place for discussion. It doesn't interfere with article work in any way and no one is compelled to read or respond to his suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unresolved per your request to gather more opinions. –xenotalk 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose we create a separate talk page to discuss whether or not this issue has been resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As someone who "proxied" an edit for Grundle, I think it depends is an important answer to the initial question. For example, Grundle posted a source which he claimed refuted something in an article, and wanted the article changed. Actually, the source he provided supported what was in the article, so I was able to use his source to provide additional support for the statement he wanted taken out. If Grundle is providing sources which other editors can read and judge critically and decide one way or another, independent of Grundle's wishes, how to incorporate that information that should be fine. If Grundle simply posts his desired changes to his talk pages, and other editors are simply enacting his wishes uncritically, that is a very different thing. Its all about the notion that Grundle's proposed changes should be filtered through more trusted editors. As long as that filtering goes on, I see no reason to disallow changes based on Grundle's suggestions. If there is evidence that edits are being made without such filtering, and are happening automatically without any critical analysis of Grundle's proposals, then that would be a problem. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Jayron, I think that's an excellent example of why this shouldn't be that much of a concern. He's just tossing those things out and it's up to other editors to take it or leave it, and do whatever they want with it. Pardon the crude metaphor, but if people are able to use manure to grow a garden then what's the harm? -- Atama 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
He can post ideas all day long and no one is compelled to act on them. And he might come up with something useful and neutral, i.e. worthy of inclusion. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of a topic ban is to separate a user from an area where they are causing problems. This has two main purposes as far as I can tell: to bring calm to the articles, and to help the user to drop an obsessive interest on a given topic. Allowing the user to make suggestions on their talk page violates both parts of this. It obviously doesn't help the user to move on, and it also brings the user and their (usually) problematic content agenda right back to the articles from which they were topic banned, with a fair likelihood that the locus of disputwe will simply be moved to the user's talk page instead. Allowing people to walk round topic bans by making comments on their talk page seems to me to break the spirit of the topic ban pretty comprehensively. Inability to let go and move on is also not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone does want to start a discussion at WT:BAN, this recent WP:VPP discussion (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_70#Banned_users) might be of interest. Rd232 talk 11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as the suggestions remain constructive, I fail to see how the project is damaged. Anyone choosing to act on a suggestion bears the burden of those edits. Grundle is being transparent and, it seems to me, acting within his topic ban. It seems to me if anyone is unhappy with the particular POV that Grundle posts on his user page, then perhaps they should just ignore it. Ronnotel (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. This is an open invitation to people to evade a topic ban, solicit editors to proxy on their behalf, solicit only those editors who are sympathetic to their POV, and in sundry other ways is antithetical to the idea of banning. If someone is topic banned it's because we don't want them getting involved in that topic. It only happens when there have been significant problems. Do we really want to actively encourage people to grandstand on their talk pages in the hope that someone will come along and take up the cudgels on their behalf? I think it's a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The archived VPP proposal was designed exactly to avoid solicitation, and instead to get neutral editors to review suggestions. The motivation for bothering is partly that topic/banned editors can easily email sympathetic editors - and if there's no onwiki outlet for their thoughts, that's more likely to happen. Which is bad for transparency, amongst other things. Rd232 talk 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That's the "give clean needles to addicts cause they're just gonna shoot up anyways" approach, which I do not particularly agree with. As noted above, topic bans are handed down because a editor has demonstrated to the community a complete inability to function within that area. Being involved in a topic means a great deal more than simply hitting "submit" on an article, so topic bans should remove someone from the arena completely; no grandstands, no sidelines...not even the nosebleed seats. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how appropriate that metaphor is, but funnily enough, I do agree with Harm reduction. Rd232 talk 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, this is why there is a distinction between 'page' and 'topic' bans, and why both have been used to deal with disruptive editing. As the names imply, the former applies to specific pages (or groups of pages), while the latter applies to specific topics. If the community finds that an individual's editing at a particular page is harmful, the damage may be contained by a page ban. (Perhaps an editor frequently files frivolous or vexatious 3RR reports; a page ban from WP:AN/3RR may be in order.) On the other hand, if the community feels that the approach of an editor to a particular topic area is problematic then it may issue a suitable topic ban. We have both tools in our toolbox, to be applied to different situations as deemed necessary.
Encouraging an editor to evade his topic ban through userspace posts and the like often doesn't solve the problem. (It may defuse the 'lone wacko' problem by moving ranting away from useful talk pages, but that isn't generally the trouble where a topic ban placed.) Typically, the topic banned editor is surrounded by a constellation of (typically fringe or minority) supporters, plus a coterie of self-appointed Defenders of the Downtrodden (who are usually much worse wikilawyers than they realize, and who often very effectively entrench the community's support for a ban). Instead of the directly disruptive editing taking place on the article or it's talk page, the disruption becomes a travelling circus that spreads across an assortment of user talk pages and administrative noticeboards. The topic-banned editor figures he has little more to lose, and his entourage is filled with stubborn, self-righteous indignance. It's not a good thing.
A topic ban is a topic ban. If we meant page ban, we would have said page ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping my promise to no longer make such recommendations on my talk page.

That being said, simply because I am curious, I would like to point out that there has not been any official answer to my request of a clarification of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users, which says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

That bolded part means that topic banned editors are indeed allowed to make suggested changes on their own talk page. I am sticking to my promise to avoid making such suggestions. But I am still curious to hear a clarification of the bolded part from an administrator.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the purpose of that language isn't to specifically allow for what you want to do (make suggested changes) but to inhibit Wikilawyering. I can imagine a situation where an editor wants to make a change to an article, on his own initiative and for a good reason, but isn't allowed to because a banned user just happens to support that same change. Also note that the language only applies to what a non-banned editor does, not what a banned editor does. In other words, it allows someone to add material to an article that falls under your topic ban, but it doesn't allow you to make the request in the first place. -- Atama 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is this marked resolved again? There appears to be an active discussion with several editors noting that allowing Grundle to make proposals on his talk page is appropriate.
Secondly, the numerous personal attacks and smears in this thread are unfortunate and ironic. It does show that there are many problems here that have nothing at all to do with Grundle, and this kind of abusive and uncivil behavior towards a fellow editor working in good faith is not acceptable.
I haven't seen any policy argument for disallowing an editor from making suggestions on their talk page. And in fact it's a very good way for an editor who has had difficulty to get feedback without interfering with article editing (the purpose of the ban) and it is completely transparent unlike the e-mail campaigns and cabalism that go on here.
Many of those speaking out in opposition to Grundle being allowed to make suggestions on his talk page are editors who disagree strongly with his perspectives. Going after editors because we disagree with them is abhorrent, and no one has provided a good argument for how the project will be disrupted by allowing someone to discuss content and sourcing issues on their talk page. That is exactly what talk pages are for and it is a great way for an editor to get input and feedback on their content building ideas. It should be noted that Grundle has been a good sport about enduring stalking and harassment by a large number of POV pushing stalkers hanging about on his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The above is precisely why this user is the subject of an active RfC; butting in to toss around accusations of bad faith, insinuations of cabal activity and the like. No one here is "going after editors because we disagree with them", and this boilerplate ChildofMidnight attack like is getting rather pathetic, quite frankly.
As for the matter at hand, IMO I don't think WP:PROXYING had topic bans in mind when it was written, as it seems to be more focused on editors who have completely lost access to the Wikipedia, and not just a narrow portion of it. A user who is barred from a topic should be barred completely, with no wiki-lawyering around the edges. If the section on proxy editing needs to be adjusted to reflect topic bans, than that is the direction to go here. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
A choice comment from the RfC, made by Grundle: "I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it." An absolute classic. Of course there is no conceivable good faith reason why the terrible people should not be censoring Wikipedia to remove relevant and well-sourced material, because having decided that the material is relevant and well-sourced any removal is naturally motivated solely by a desire to censor the content. Oh, sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record as it were, and as some well know, this "other people kept erasing it" complaint has been going on for 7 or 8 months now and is at the core of the problems with Grundle's editing, but in a slightly different way than JzG suggests above (though the cry of "censors!" is also obviously incredibly problematic). It entails one of the more stunningly inaccurate (and stubborn) readings of NPOV I've ever seen, and despite repeated efforts (as in dozens of times) by multiple editors to explain the problem to Grundle he persists in arguing along these lines. This goes back to at least May ("An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote"...!!!!!....those are my exclamation points, I needed them!) and has come up repeatedly since then (e.g., "Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff"). As the comment in the RfC suggests, I do not think this attitude of Grundle's has changed at all, and it obviously is pretty much the exact opposite of what writing in an NPOV fashion is about (and forget about the brevity problems if "everyone gets to add what they want").
Given that Grundle has been misreading our most fundamental policy for well over half a year and that any attempts at explaining it seem to bounce right off, it's rather amazing that Grundle is still around. I think we're beyond last chances at this point, but unfortunately most people don't know the sheer amount of time and effort that folks (including me, but a lot of others too) have put in trying to get Grundle on the straight and narrow, all to no avail. Nothing is going to come of this particular incident, but we'll be back here again, and I for one am quite sick of trying to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You make a compelling point, and this is precisely why the topic ban should not be wikilawyered. I suspect that Grundle has become adept at manipulating people's good faith, and this thread is just another example of how easy that can be. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Dramaout starts in two weeks[edit]

Just a quick reminder, the 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout begins in exactly two weeks from now. Any admins who want to participate just sign up at the page and keep an eye on the date. Hopefully we can make this event even more successful than the first one. :) -- œ 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Bah, humbug. I vote we block Giano on day 1 just because. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You do the block, then I'll contact Viridae via IRC to do the unblock, and then crosspost requests for review to WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. Jehochman Brrr 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Bishzilla do the unblocks for Giano? I know Viridae handles unblock requests via WR, I didn't know he was working for Giano as well now. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I know, we should have a rouge admin strike over demarcation. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do we need a dramaout? Am I the only Wikipedian who has a life? (Although I'd like a job too. I can contribute more content when I'm employed.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I for one have my popcorn ready. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate popcorn. REDVERS 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's MFD the stupid thing the moment it goes live. Nobody who supports it would dare to speak up. ;) Durova394 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Except the drama lovers who will rush to protect it and create huge ANI debates over it... unless, of course, I block them all with talkpage privileges disallowed! Sorted!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The irritating thing about about this program is its presumption that everything outside of article space is wasted time. People can focus on content without preening about it and without putting down their peers who resolve vandalism, etc. It's more than a little hypocritical. Durova394 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I only do it to be trendy, cause all my t-shirts went out of style, and I haven't got much left... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Heehee. :) Durova394 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The work you do[edit]

While this would most likely target administrators in general, this is a message to all Wikipedia editors in general.

I do not edit Wikipedia but I felt that it was about time that somebody reinforced the appreciation literally millions of people around the world owe all of you for your hard work here. I know that many are drawn away from Wikipedia because of those who add false information onto Wikipedia, vandalize pages, or otherwise do things to this website against morals and the media has come down hard on Wikipedia more than once for many reasons over the years such example as the recent claim of someone dying in Hawaii and there are several reasons why Wikipedia is often subject to critism and sometimes even controversy.

I just wanted to let you all know that no matter what the media wishes to say about Wikipedia, there is a reason the website is one of the top six most visited places on the world wide web - it is essentially a free encyclopedia for people, made by people. You all work for a good cause and many of us who use Wikipedia regularly for research and other things, never really take the time to extend our appreciation for the hard work you all put in. I am aware that plenty of you dedicate several hours of your time each day to help this well-intended project that many of us have so long taken for granted.

Basically, I just wanted to personally express me appreciation for Wikipedia, and remind you all that work so hard that there are people out there who will support Wikipedia until the very end and are always grateful for all that you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp Light (talkcontribs) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Jayron32 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, in fact thank you for making me smile, not often a post on here does that--Jac16888Talk 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What "...very end"? What do you know? WHY WERE WE NOT TOLD!!! - Heh, heh! Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It's not often something friendly and nice is posted here. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

School blocks[edit]

With regards to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Over 50 warnings and still no block..., why are we so soft on shared IP addresses such as schools, universities and companies that repeatedly and frequently contribute vandalism? We get an awful lot of vandalism from these IPs. The guidance at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses is vague on the issue. Are there any rules of thumb of when to impose {{anonblock}} or {{schoolblock}}, and if so do they need tightening up? Fences&Windows 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually use a scale when blocking IPs regardless of their ownership: 31 hours, 1 or 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year. Some steps may be skipped on my discretion. As to why we don't just out-and-out block them: perhaps we are hoping that a constructive contributor may be born during the times they are unblocked. –xenotalk 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, escalate with each step and use a finer trigger for each block. If an IP with a long block log has just come off a 6 month block and all the new edits are vandalism, I'd have no hesitation in blocking for one year. The guidance is vague to allow admins to use their common sense. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be any more guidance, and "overblocking" is universally more destructive than "underblocking". If a disruptive user or probematic IP goes unblocked after a vandalism or two, then someone will get them eventually. However, if an IP which could be the source of good edits is blocked unneccessarily, we lose potentially good editors. In every case, if there is any doubt, admins should always err on the side of "not blocking". --Jayron32 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
As a student, I feel that having school blocks (for vandal IP) would more helpful than not. Most kids either A)Play computer games, B)Use social networking, C)Research, or D)Vandalize wikipedia in school (pre-college that is) rather than contributing. As wikipedia is frowned upon by many academic teachers, I feel the potential benefits are insignificant, especially when a IP is known for persistent vandalism. Heck, in my AP class yesterday while we were supposed to be looking up the Belgian massacre in the Library I know for a fact that 3 classmates vandalized wikipedia and none in my AP class added/fixed anything. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Leavitt[edit]

Resolved: Indeed, the article's talkpage is the proper place to proceed.--Tone 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article about Jim Leavitt is currently edit protected. However, when the protection went into place, a poorly worded sentence regarding a very recent incident was locked into the article. Since it is sure to be a high traffic article, I hope we can edit the sentence to make sense and reflect the current situation. I have a proposed wording change on the Talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT / WP:DOLT[edit]

A discussion on my talk page has led me to make this change to WP:NLT as a reminder and in the hope of avoiding a recurrent problem; also this change to {{uw-legal}}. I think having NLT and DOLT separate is obscuring a problem and maybe we should consider merging them. Or maybe we can just fix it in text, whatever. Anyway, I encourage discussion but probably only in one place, wherever folks think that should be. I'm in an especially mellow mood having just watched again the Christmas special of Father Ted, which is a work of comic genius. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording of {{uw-legal}} is off. It goes

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.

This actually says, amazingly, and I've read it three times now, that considering legal or other "off-wiki" action against other editors or against Wikipedia itself is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility.
Seen in the light of Wikipedia editors' recurring BLP violations, and the specific scenario described in WP:DOLT, we are essentially telling people, "our editors can write defamatory nonsense about you, ruining your life, but you are not allowed to consider any action whatsoever against us".
We need to make clear what we mean: We don't allow people to use our talk pages to make threats against other editors or Wikipedia, and we don't allow them to edit Wikipedia while contemplating or being engaged in legal action. But we should not be so presumptuous as to prohibit people from thinking about legal action against ourselves, and in those cases where complainants are genuinely wronged, we should extend a hand to them rather than telling them, in essence, that "complaining is forbidden". --JN466 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Edited: [1] --JN466 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

More checkusers needed?[edit]

Is it just my impression or does it a bit long for checkusering to be performed? The queues aren't that long (a dozen requests or so). Is it just a vacation thing? Pcap ping 01:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably part of it. I haven't done any checks since before Christmas due to vacation, myself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Block not expiring when it should - urgent[edit]


I recently blocked BilCat (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. While I initially set the block to 12 hours, I reduced it to 3 hours shortly afterwards on the grounds that Bill is an editor in good standing. While the block should now have expired, Bill is finding that he is still blocked and receives a message stating that he's been autoblocked. When I try to manually lift the block I get a message saying that the block has expired. Does anyone know what's going wrong here, and if so can they please (urgently) rectify it. Please note that Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), who I also blocked for 12 hours but reduced to 3 for the same edit war may also be affected. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Nick, you need to look through the list of active blocks to find the autoblock. What I do is list the last 500 blocks and then do Ctl-F to search the list for the name of the blocked user. You can then lift the autoblock as all should be well..... Which si exactly what I did. The block log is at Special:BlockList but I always follow the link from the header in the users block log. Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Autoblocks for the underlying ip are for a maximum of 24 hours, so any sanction reduction to less than that period needs to effect the autoblock. The easiest way would be to perform an unblock of the account, which brings up the "remove autoblock" option, unblock the ip also, and then reblock the account for the new tariff which creates a fresh autoblock. As long as there are explanations given in the summary then the block log makes clear all the reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration probation?[edit]

Hi. I'm not an admin, but a few days ago I was aware of an ArbCom case regarding climate change and article probation. I was going to comment on it, but I can no longer find the two cases in the requests. Have the cases closed? Could anybody provide me with a background on how this conflict started, or some links to Wikipedia pages that would help? Either here or on my talkpage would be fine, but I would like as concise a summary as possible. The issue is that I think global warming is currently accelerating, but I would need to work on this more before the information could be included into more articles, as I am trying to provide the "bigger picture" to the current state of this issue. Please direct me to the appropriate discussions. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See here and here where MBIsanz closed both applications as rejected at around 2300 on January 5th. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change where a discussion was recently held resulting in community sanctions being levelled on articles related to climate change. --TS 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

International vandal[edit]

Hi. I'm a single IP user, but I need to report this: A brazilian user IP, who is vandalizing Lula, o filho do Brasil was banned 3 months in Portuguese Wikipedia by multiple registrations/accounts and vandalism (his accounts are banned forever). He uses sock puppets here and there, and he is vandalizing lots of pages there. He is like "radical communist", only edits political pages. He must be banned here too. Please, punish him and his multiple accounts and IPs. (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for Template:Unblock reviewed[edit]

As per what was said here, I used the {{edit protected}} template on the unblock request talk page, but it was declined. Can we please keep this section from archiving so we can actually get consensus on the matter?— dαlus Contribs

As I commented intimated at the archived thread, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a solution to a problem that occurs very rarely). The template gives admins an idiot-proof code segment to copy and paste, so they won't get the parameter wrong. Those that do should be trouted =) –xenotalk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't say that in the archived thread. What you said was that it shouldn't such a big deal to bring to this noticeboard, and that I should just request it through {{editprotected}}. You also asked for an instance when it happened, which I provided. What precisely you said can be seen below:

It seems just to be adding some alternate names for the parameter? No big deal - should've just been proposed thru the {{edit protected}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xenotalk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

dαlus Contribs 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes you need to read between the lines =) –xenotalk 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be easier to alter the coding to allow for errors, rather than alter the coding to make the user aware of their errors. Further, it is beneficial to the blockee to know why they are blocked, and there won't always be someone around to spot a misuse of the template.— dαlus Contribs 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't wish this to be archived until others comment on the issue.— dαlus Contribs 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this, but I do thank you for the suggestion Daedalus. It's never really bothered me. I'd say post another section on the talk page just suggesting the code change. Maybe you'll get more comments from people who actually pay particular attention to templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing through a protection template[edit]

Resolved: Self-revert, headed to talk page --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Administrators have any right to edit through a protection template as User:Blueboy96 has done here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was all right ... in fact, I was just getting ready to go back to add a source I missed. Besides, if the information is reliably sourced, what's the problem? Blueboy96 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You have no right to do that and as an administrator you should realize that. What special right do you think you can ignore the discussion that other people have contributed and wasted their time typing when you come along and don't bother even commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You should revert your addition and go to the talkpage like everybody else and outline your desired addition and add the edit request template and see what other involved editors have to say about it, your rising above process like that takes away all reason for anyone to bother. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
During this discussion User Blue Boy went back to the article ignoring my comments and made another edit through the protection template. Is this correct or is it a joke? Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Blueboy96, admins aren't supereditors; the sysop bit doesn't give you any more editorial rights than mere mortals. If you're making uncontroversial changes, it should be easy to gain consensus on the talk page. If you're making controversial changes, you have no business doing that on a protected article. I'm pretty confident this is written on a policy page somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Found it: WP:PREFER. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As far as I was aware, if an article is fully protected, admins shouldn't be making content edits through protection. Edits should be limited to obvious and trivial fixes and fulfilling talk page requests that appear to have consensus. --OnoremDil 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought that it was noncontroversial to merely expand that he was fired ... just rolled back and heading to the talk page. Blueboy96 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Already resolved...and I'm fine if this is the last comment since drama sucks...but I think another question worth asking is why was editing through full protection even an option? I asked the protecting admin, who appears to be offline now...but don't see in the history what brought the protection on. Am I missing something in oversighted or deleted revisions or something? --OnoremDil 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's more the case that the software only has three settings: everyone edit, autoconfirmed edit, or admins edit. That's how it was designed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps and Admin "Talk Page"[edit]

Resolved: No admin tools required. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the maps on Wikipedia are useless, because the location they are showing, shows no other reference points, so they are meaningless for determining where the location is, it might as well just be an isolated point or dot with nothing else around it, which is what these maps are. They may look nice, but most people want a map to find out where something is, in relation to something else, like where they might be located, and where the map location is in relation to where they are located. For example the map of Coto De Caza, has no reference points at all. To find out where it is, you'd have to cross reference it with a second map, and if you have to do that, why would you even waste time with the wikipedia map?
Then the author says, if you want to make a comment, go to his "talk page". Except the words "talk page" aren't a link, and you can't find the "talk page" unless you want to spend an hour looking for the needle in the haystack. I know this because I looked for it and couldn't find it and didn't have 15 minutes to spend, trying to find the link to "make a comment" on this useless "map". Its not a map, its just a picture.

Thank you, Barbara Mau —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the map is User:Shereth; once you are at his user page (where it says, "You may pester him with questions or requests for assistance on his talk page", which I assume is what you refer to), just click on the 'talk' tab at the top of the page to access his talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Except it says 'discussion', not talk, and I guess people sometimes can't make the connection. --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The tab of Shereth's talk page? It is labelled 'talk' when I look at it (all talk page tabs are labelled 'talk' for me). Perhaps it is a quirk in the software somewhere? But thanks for pointing that out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
For me as an anon all talk page tabs (whether articles' or users') are all labelled clearly "discussion", not "talk". Maybe you're using a particular skin or a particular localization? (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe it's a side-effect of Friendly. It changes discussion to talk.— dαlus Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


How do I turn my userpage on? Where are the selections so that I can choose one? MoodFreak (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to User:MoodFreak and add whatever you want to be displayed on your user-page into the edit box. Any subsequent questions of this nature are better directed to our help desk, please open a section there if you need any further help. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

Can one or several administrators please deal with this? There is a ridiculously large backlog that has been there for about the past week. Thank you! Insoraktalk 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)[edit]

Resolved: Resolved...ish. I could do with an extra pair of eyes to make sure I did it right...thanks! GJC 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin take action on this please? This MFD has been open since December 21st, 2009. It appears to be a no consensus keep to me, but I would feel more comfortable if an admin had a look. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it, but with a different result than you came up with. The article has now been deleted. However....would one of you "big kid" admins please un-screw my formatting and make sure I've done all the necessaries? This is my first admin closure of an XfD (yeah, I know) and I'm apparently crap with hatnotes and the like. I'm going over the instructions on closing one, but....Look, I'm just a little insecure about these things, hm? :) (Seriously, though--someone double-check me, please. This really is my first closure.) GJC 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that's why I asked for an admin to have a look as I am not good yet with determining consensus. :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think I approached the situation with a little MORE caution simply because I started from your conclusion--the "delete" votes seemed to have a bit more policy behind them, and one of the main "KEEP"s was the user himself. But it was good to consider that someone else had read consensus differently--I think you did fine, actually. GJC 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine, good close. Just for future reference, my only advice would be not to bother saying "always open for deletion review"--every deletion is technically open to DRV, but the system works best when it's rare, so the default assumption should be that an XFD close is final. Just some friendly advice, though--carry on closing. Chick Bowen 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, another editor came along and fixed it. :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?[edit]

Does anyone know if (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is really a bot and if so whose? It's been blocked twice today. I've asked Cobi as it may well be his. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: nothing to see here, legitimate image taggings. Fut.Perf. 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin should check the latest edits of this user, who is on tagging spree on all the articles, I edit, and all the artices he think belong to my caste! Amusing for me, but surely not for wikipedia. Kindly have a look. Ikon No-Blast 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean his image taggings, those that I've checked seem all soundly argued and legitimate. Sorry, nothing we can do to avoid this kind of legitimate scrutiny; those images need cleanup. (However, I have advised him to avoid multiple automated notifications to uploaders, as per a recent discussion we had elsewhere showing that this may have a somewhat aggravating effect.) Fut.Perf. 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth[edit]

Resolved: Incorrect venue. ╟─TreasuryTagquaestor─╢ 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed in the past few months that every time you click on a coordinate, you get the nearest street address? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to require intervention from users with the sysop user-right: it belongs at WP:VPT, I think. ╟─TreasuryTagquaestor─╢ 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't even know that that existed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem; it's quite an interesting page, I keep it on my watchlist :) ╟─TreasuryTagAfrica, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf block review[edit]

Taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Damiens.rfc block review. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating userpages for other editors[edit]

What are the guidelines for editors creating user pages for other editors, eg User:Scienceofficer which was just created. Sure, we create talk pages to welcome new users, but I always though of user pages as pages to be created only by the user. I'm probably wrong but couldn't find any guidance. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is the WP:UP#OWN section of WP:UP: "In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your user page, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Personally I think that WP:UP#OWN makes it clear that creating user pages for other users is not advisable, unless done so with their permission or to add a sock tag or similar. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion also. I'll ask the editor, who I am sure is acting in good faith, to stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I typically delete this per G6 or G2 whichever seems more appropriate.  Done in the present case. –xenotalk 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think creating user pages for new users is a bad idea all around, the red user page is one of the markers that recentChanges patrollers look for for changes that need a closer look. Since the user's response to Dougweller made it seem like they were planning to continue doing this, I left them a further request to please stop. –xenotalk 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is only appropriate if the editor as requested help from another editor to create their userpage. That's a totally different matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've suggested we've tightened up our guidance at Wikipedia talk:User page, the more comments on that the better please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat rights: adding desysop[edit]

Per the discussion at WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Your collective input is desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactored the header to make it more clear what this RfC is about (pretty impossible to tell from the current description posted here). Nathan T 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review request - User:Neutralhomer[edit]

User:Neutralhomer was indef blocked by User:Jehochman for "Disruptive editing: Wikihounding". Jehochman asked that admins considering unblocking speak to them first or obtain "a consensus based upon a substantial discussion (e.g. 24 or 48 hours) at WP:AN". Neutralhomer requested unblocking, but this request was denied by Blueboy96.

Although Jehochman stated that they had been "giving one last chance" to Neutralhomer before blocking them, Jehochman subsequently unblocked Neutralhomer. I have requested that Jehochman discuss their decision on AN just as they had requested of other admins, but they do not appear to wish to discuss the issue.

Neutralhomer has been indef blocked three times and has a long history of blocks and admonishments for harassment, sockpuppetry, and other violations of policy, with similar blocks as User:Orangemonster2k1. As the most recent target of Neutralhomer's harassment, I do not think it is appropriate to accept the promises of a user who has already failed to live up to similar promises. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am free to refactor my own blocks without asking permission. This thread is useless conflict-making. As an unblock condition, Neutralhomer has agreed to stop commenting on Delicious carbuncle. Sadly, DC has refused my request to let Neutralhomer go in peace. Jehochman Brrr 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My concern is not for myself, nor is my motivation some kind of "revenge" on Neutralhomer. There is a very clear pattern here. It is only reasonable to expect that we will see it played out again and again unless Neutralhomer either retires or is blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Admins are typically permitted to revert their own actions on their own remit... Has there been problematic behaviour since the unblock? –xenotalk 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I often disagree with JeHochman, and I have nothing to civil to say about Bluboys admin practices (which are ridiculous, note i'm still not sorry BLueboy). I do however agree with the lifted block. Perhaps DC should drop the WP:STICK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, I'm not questioning the ability of admins to undo their own blocks, just the wisdom of this particular unblocking. Given that Jehochman asked for other admins to seek consensus for unblocking and that another admin declined to unblock, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a discussion of this decision. There is no need to look for problematic behaviour following the most recent unblock, since Neutralhomer's block log indicates that this is not the first time they have agreed to abide by such conditions. Just look over the blocklog and the history of complaints at AN and ANI. I am aware that some admins feel protective of Neutralhomer, but even their staunchest advocates must admit that it is only a matter of time until they are blocked again. And then likely unblocked in short order because "they promise not to do it again". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate to say this, Delicious carbuncle, but sometimes you just have to put the stick down and let it go, for now at least. HJMitchell You rang? 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Per Delicious Carbuncle's request below to comment on the unblock request, I see absolutely no problem with Jehochman's unblock. He undid his own block, based on terms he set. I see no problem with that at all. An admin can't wheel-war with himself! --Jayron32 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban request: User: Delicious carbuncle[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Result: Consensus to enact Gladys' topic ban of Delicious carbuncle.  Skomorokh  14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • DC, I am going to echo what others have said here, albeit a bit more emphatically. NeutralHomer has been placed on strict orders to stay away from you, under penalty of blocking. I have ZERO dogs in this hunt--I feel "protective" of neither Homer nor you, nor for that matter PCHS-NJROTC, around whom the original conflict centered--and thus I am an "uninvolved" admin. With that being the case, I am hereby proposing that in the matter of those two editors, you be placed on the same terms imposed upon NeutralHomer. To wit:
User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around. As in NH's conditions, if they engage you or show up at an article you are editing, you may respond to them, calmly and appropriately.
And please, don't worry: if NeutralHomer antagonizes the community or violates its norms, the rest of the community can deal with it when the time comes. You no longer need to trouble yourself about this editor at all. It did not have to come to this, but you've shown a nearly-complete lack of self-restraint in discussing these two users, despite pleas from numerous members of the community. It's got to stop, and I encourage the rest of the community to support this proposal in order to bring about that end. GJC 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: As proposer. GJC 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, with a understanding that this isn't a free license for the other editors to bait him into breaking a sanction. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, its growing weary. A mutual interaction ban for all of these parties would be best, with, of course, HIAB's caveat. --Jayron32 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to make a similar comment, in that concerns relating to other editors less than optimal conduct is too often conflated by Dc into time sapping postings when the results are not what they desire. I didn't because I felt I have previously been involved in the PCHS-NJROTC matter. However, since an uninvolved admin has commented I would like to make clear my belief that issues that might have been resolved by some judicious sysopping have been rendered into drama fests by Delicious carbuncle, in pursuit of his pound of flesh and more. Time to place a lid on it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "In pursuit of his pound of flesh and more"? Far from trying to impose my will on the outcome, I have brought the issues to the appropriate forum, supported my allegations with evidence and diffs, avoided making personal attacks, tried not to respond to the personal attacks and accusations coming my way, and made clear that I was willing to accept whatever outcome the community felt was appropriate. I am not seeking revenge here, just asking for a calm reevaluation of an admin's decision in a single case. My issue in the PCHS-NJROTC matter (and apparently I'm about to experience it again here) is actually the failure of most participants to actually deal with what is presented and instead allow things to develop into something that is annoying to all involved. If you don't think there was anything wrong with the unblocking of Neutralhomer, just say so. No drama required. I find it a bit troublesome that admins are so willing to hand me a topic ban yet so unwilling to review the unblocking of someone who has been blocked several times for harassment including my own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Your last sentence negates your previous points entirely. The reason why you want the unblock reviewed is because you don't like it; you cannot point to any policy or guideline. You have very recently acted in exactly the same manner with regard to another editor whose sanctions you did not agree with. You want Neutral Homer and PCHS blocked, possibly banned, for an extended period; the community wishes for the disruption to stop. Sanctions have been enacted upon the other editors to this end, and now we are discussing including you for that purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course I have my opinions about what would be appropriate for each editor, but I have not attempted to force my view on anyone. I believe that PCHS-NJROTC should have been very clearly told that it is neither appropriate nor correct for an editor to unilaterally ban another editor (especially after specifically agreeing not to do so). I don't think a block would have accomplished anything. I also believe that PCHS-NJROTC is obviously lacking the judgment and maturity required for WP:AR and related activities, so a topic ban would be appropriate. I accepted the proposed voluntary topic ban (which apparently doesn't include WP:AR and has no specific terms that can be enforced). I believe that Neutralhomer has violated the community's trust too often and should have remained indef blocked. Again, asking for a review of their unblocking is not forcing my opinion on anyone. I am unlikely to change my opinions, so perhaps this should be a ban discussion, not a topic ban discussion. I am getting tired of having to defend myself against these distortions, so if someone wants to close this up, I'm not protesting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
DC: "I have brought the issues to the appropriate forum, supported my allegations with evidence and diffs, avoided making personal attacks, tried not to respond to the personal attacks and accusations coming my way, and made clear that I was willing to accept whatever outcome the community felt was appropriate."
Yes. You have brought them, and brought them, and brought them, and brought them. You have "supported" your allegations over, and over, and over, making clear only that any actions short of the ones you sought would result in yet another resurrection of the same issue, as soon as the current iteration was archived. And if, as you say, you "avoided making personal attacks", eventually your insistence on bringing this dispute became IN ITSELF a personal attack. And incidentally: I do not think there was anything wrong with the unblocking. I also don't think it was even remotely wise for you to have opened this thread. The fact that he was sanctioned in the first place, for most people, would have been enough to ameliorate the anger at his original actions; bringing this here smacks of vengefulness, not "dispute resolution". GJC 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Gladys j cortez seems to be conflating three distinct incidents into one event, which fosters the impression that I am the problem here (which is unnecessary, since I have annoyed enough people that the ban will be enacted regardless). I opened a topic on ANI about PCHS-NJROTC's unilateral declaration that a user was banned (and I dug it out of the archive because it was never addressed). I attempted to open a new thread asking for a topic ban on future vandalism-related issues for PCHS-NJROTC. And I opened this thread about Neutralhomer, which, again, is unrelated to PCHS-NJROTC. The circumstances surrounding each issue are very clear, should anyone take the time to actually read the evidence I presented. You may not agree that anything need be done about them, but I would hope that you see the cause for concern. I know that I am not alone in my opinion, but the point is moot since no one seems willing to act in the face of the obvious dissent.
Perhaps part of the problem here is the assumption that I am angry. I am not angry. I am frustrated with the way issues are being dealt with here, but my frustration is not directed at Neutralhomer or PCHS-NJROTC. That comment only adds to that frustration because it makes some invalid assumptions, not just about my state of mind, but also about my motivation. I am neither seeking revenge nor attempting to ameliorate a dispute, I am attempting to prevent more of the same abusive behaviour that Neutralhomer has demonstrated in the past and is highly likely to do again in the future. Is the Wikipedia community so dysfunctional that it cannot recognize the pattern?
At no time in this have I asked for anything but a considered discussion of the issues at hand, and I have been very clear that I will stand by whatever outcome the community decides. "Drop the stick" is not a considered response to a new thread. Why are people surprised that I am dissatisfied with the outcome when the outcome seems to be "I'm not reading what you wrote because you're only trying to cause drama". I doubt LessHeard VanU means it in the same way, but I agree that a little sysop action early on would have prevented a lot of what followed in the PCHS-NJROTC issues.
Clearly my actions have annoyed a lot of people and I apologise for that. Bring on the topic ban! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason these issues have been conflated--and I highly doubt that I'm the only one that's done so--is that they all arose around the same initial issue. Oddly enough, when you raised the first notice re: PCHS-NJROTC's actions, I was in agreement with you. I had dealt with what I felt to be his overzealous vandal patrolling and entirely over-the-top sleuthing efforts in regard to the Mmbabies vandal, and I agree with the sentiment that the talkpage connected with that issue is fairly horrifying. I also felt that the user's reactions were way, way out of line, and agreed that it seemed like there was a bit of strategy behind that reaction (namely, to deflect attention from the real issue). However, something went wrong, and here's how I see what happened....When Shell seemed to endorse PCHS's actions, you got pulled into a back-and-forth with PCHS which ended up biting YOU in the backside. One of the very useful senses that one develops by watching AN/ANI for a while is the sense of when another user is shooting him/herself in the foot, which (IMHO) PCHS was very well on his way to doing at that point. Unfortunately--and please understand, I completely see how this happened and I honestly can't say I might not have gotten caught up the same way--you made the classic mistake by the person who actually cares about what they're trying to fix--you allowed yourself to get involved in the back-and-forth-ing and unwittingly drew negative attention to yourself. Had you stuck solely to the message, namely "I feel that this user has developed a needless focus on one brand of vandalism and in trying to ferret it out, has violated many core WP policies"--had you done that instead, between your calm insistence and PCHS's increasingly emotional defenses, I believe you might have accomplished what you were looking to do originally.
When that didn't happen, though--when people started focusing on your responses to PCHS--it seems as though it stopped being about "this person is damaging Wikipedia in these ways..." and ore about "this person is damaging Wikipedia and pissing me off, and furthermore nobody is listening and that's pissing me off even MORE..." and it seemed to become more about WINNING than about solving the original problem. And at that point the whole thread just started spinning out of control. I've said this to a few users, and I'll say it here as well because I think it's applicable in this case: When you call attention to a problem, and you don't get the reaction or outcome you're looking for, and as a result you get more and more insistent about the magnitude and urgency of the problem, you quickly stop being seen as part of the solution, and begin to be seen as an entirely NEW and SEPARATE problem. I think this is what happened to you here, just about the time the first thread was archived back around Christmas. There were still a couple of places you could have stopped the speeding train--by leaving each thread alone once it was archived, or by disengaging from people who posted on your talk page against your wishes, or by disengaging on any of the several instances when you were requested to do so...but unfortunately those were not the actions you chose to take. The comments you made before in regards to your motives--that you were neither vengeful nor angry or even that the PCHS issue was unrelated to the NeutralHomer request--all of them may very well be true, and I'm willing to accept those assertions--but all of those statements in my original posts represent, I believe, a reasonably fair picture of how these actions have been interpreted by the community. Opening the thread about NeutralHomer, while ostensibly unrelated, does in fact have its genesis in the PCHS issue--because what was NH posting on your talkpage about in the first place? The PCHS issue. And especially after NH had promised as a condition of his unblock to stay away from you--here was another place where the train could have been stopped. Had you waited for an example of NH violating the ban on interaction, an example which you seemed to believe would happen regardless--had you waited til then, you would have found yourself fully on the side of right again. By opening it when you did, though, you brought focus back to yourself once again, and as Jehochman said, it looked as though you were the one who wasn't going to let it go.
I realize that this is WAY past TL;DR stage, but if you internalize some of what I've said here, I think it will do wonders in smoothing your Wiki path. Please, before you bring or re-instate any issue in the future, please take a moment to consider how the community as a whole might view the thing you're doing. Will they see it as you MEAN it--as an honest attempt to solve a problem--or will they see disruption due to your timing, your tone, your phrasing, your manner? Far from "angry power-hungry admin", I'd actually just like to get everyone off your back too--and a ban on further interaction seemed like one way to both end the trainwreck in progress, and to get your attention long enough to pass along information about how, in my completely independent view, you ended up in the soup. Truce? GJC 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, GJC, for taking the time to write that. It helps me to understand why people are so exercised about my recent posts. Let me clarify two points. First, I have some faith that Neutralhomer will be able to stay away from interacting with me if they are under the threat of yet another block, so that does not figure into my belief that their block should not have been lifted. Second, Neutralhomer's animus toward me predates anything to do with PCHS-NJROTC. Neutralhomer had an earlier, unrelated episode of repeatedly posting on my talkpage despite being asked not to (and with me simply deleting the posts unread). Again, this isn't about me, it is about preventing this from happening to someone else in the future. Let me say "I told you so" now, since this topic ban will prevent me saying it when it happens.
Not surprisingly, your analysis of the situation is disheartening. You seem to be admitting that there are genuine issues here, but that you are willing to ignore them because I appear to you to be trying to "win" and you don't want to give me the satisfaction. Another admin said basically the same thing, except saying that I appeared to be "bullying" PCHS-NJROTC, so they would not act on my concerns lest they appear to be supporting bullying. Great. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?
The topic ban is inevitable and I accept it. It is unnecessary if the aim is to prevent me from interacting with PCHS-NJROTC or Neutralhomer, but it will prevent me from continuing to discuss the issues addressed here, which seems to be fine with everyone. I will consider the topic ban enacted as of right now, so I will be unable to respond further here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have already clearly declared that I have no desire or intention of interacting with Neutralhomer, so this is unnecessary. The issues with Neutralhomer predate my invovement with Wikipedia, let alone any interaction with them. This is unrelated to PCHS-NJROTC in any way. It's pretty clear that the community doesn't appreciate my persistence, but to sweep this under the rug and contend that I am the cause of the problems instead of the reporter of the problems is not going to resolve the situation. If people are actually so concerned about "drama", why not simply deal with the unblock review in good faith, rather than starting topic ban discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is necessary to stop you writing about these editors, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I think I would have figured that out on my own. Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here, I actually have no trouble restraining myself from discussing these editors. I thought that the community might appreciate my bringing these issues forward, but apparently I have seriously misjudged what the community values and strained everyone's patience at the same time. I dropped any mention of PCHS-NJROTC after the earlier AN thread was "resolved" with the help of Jehochman, only to find that PCHS-NJROTC was being wrongly associated with this request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Been here too many times under this subject. Wknight94 talk 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support minimise disruption. ViridaeTalk 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support so the drama can end and this poor horse can finally have a peaceful rest. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It's necessary in some cases to stop editors interacting with each other when it is clear that they can't get on with each other. DC, would you prefer this, or an indef block, because that is where this is headed if you refuse to let the dead horse be buried. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Suppport: DC cannot seem to disengage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • MAke it so. Bilateral interaction bans are the obvious solution here. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's enough of a pile on to close this thread. Could another administrator please do that. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 13:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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


We need a redirect from Woooo! (protected) to Woooo! (How I Met Your Mother episode). -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

and WP:RFPP is thataway, for future protection needs (or {{editprotected}} on the talk page). Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You might enjoy...[edit]

a quote I came across as a usenet sig:

the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.

— Oliver Wendell Holmes

For fools substitute your Wikipedia POV-pushers of choice. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
An aside: apparently, and incredibly, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on communicating vessels. There are reasonably good articles on German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias (and several more, if you follow the interwiki links), with very pretty pictures (and a rather nice counterexample picture on the Dutch wiki). The Italian Wikipedia has even an article on Stevin's Law, which apparently nobody on English wikipedia has ever heard about. And then they say that Wikipedia is full, and all basic topics are actually covered -- eh? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up: the Italian Wikipedia even has an article on the Hydrostatic Paradox! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
See this link for the original context of the quotation. Chick Bowen 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Or this. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
But of course Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself linked to the Illuminati, is widely known in popular culture. Coincidence? Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy, Tom, keep it dark, they're not supposed to know. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
En Wiki now has an article on communicating vessels. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Hydrostaticcruft. Also: fails WP:N, as it contains no references to The Simpsons, Pokemon, or Family Guy. GJC 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

juice plus[edit]

Resolved: Very stale! ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is quite old but was on the ANI talk page. Feel free to archive straight away... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

urgent need for admin help at juice plus talk page

editor rhode island red has accussed a BLP Dr isadore rosenfeld of misrepresenting his relationship with NSA the makers of Juice Plus, he is trying to make a case that as a paid keynote speaker once at a convention, speaking on the subject of the dangers of patients getting medical info and advice on the internet, not about the product Juice Plus that he is lying when saying on air at foxnews twice that he has no financial relationship w/ juice plus. RIR is trying to infer a coi despite the very well respected dr saying differently. I think there is great danger in allowing a rouge editor to defame some w. a blp, aka the office space suit currently underway. His reason for doing this is to attempt to control content allowed in the article so that nothing remotely "pro" juice plus make its way in the article that he has controled for 5 years keeping it very biased and negative against the product despite many sources that disagree with his opinions and slant on the science. he wont allow any view point but con to stay in the article. His overzzealous obession with this article and anyone who disagrees with him recently had him thinking it was within his rights to post an editors name, spouses name, fax nummber, home number and home address on wiki, thus admin allison had to blank it, yet HE got no admonishment or even a hand slap. he is seriously bordering on cyber stalking of JuliaHavey and should be stopped from that, as well has being allowed to bias/negative an article against wikifoundation principles. (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to put this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I've marked it "resolved" and "stale" – it's a bit too late for anyone to do anything now! ╟─TreasuryTagduumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This has been already dealt with over OTRS, so it's okay to mark resolved - Alison 09:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721 Topic Ban[edit]

I request my topic ban be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please consider:

  • None of the points I made in my defense were addressed by the admins, including the fact that I self-reverted the edit in question prior to being reported in violation of 1RR
  • My edits have been constructive and I think a fair reading of them would show that they have improved the article and moved it closer to WP:NPOV
  • This cozy exchange on the the 2Over0's talk page (and a similar one on BizMo's) is problematic:

Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above gives the appearance of administrative meat-puppetry. We have an involved former admin, recruiting intervention from two sympathetic admins (and in fact the admins who administered the ban) requesting they do what he ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley] is no longer able to. This is unethical and unfair.

  • This accusation in the comments sections by WMC is untrue
WMC (again) I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. After* this report he has continued reverting [69].
The edit in question was not a revert. We had reached consensus that contentious labels should be avoided. My edit simply removed one that we'd missed when we went through the article to eliminate them.
  • I volunteer to take a 1 week break from editing if my request is granted.

Thank you JPatterson (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Looking over your contributions history, and the discussion at the Requests for Enforcement page, it does not appear you were sanctioned for a single edit as you appear to claim above. I see discussion of a history of tendentious editing at the article in question, and your request for review therefore does not seem to substantively address the concerns noted. I am neither-here-nor-there regarding any sanctions over this issue per se, but if we are going to discuss your sanctions, don't you think you need to address the issues you were sanctioned over and not merely over the last edit you happened to make before you were sanctioned? --Jayron32 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The request for enforcement was for violation of the 1RR rule. If I was banned for another reason, a new action should have been opened so I could have an opportunity to respond to those charges. The tendentious editing comment refered to other editors, not me. My only edit of this section was an attempt at compromise. (The other revert was in a different section). I didn't even think it was a revert because I didn't undo, I tried to synthesize the two competing versions (by other editors).I have edited on both sides of this issue. My primary focus has been in trying to get other editors to agree that we should be chronicling and not judging the controversy. (e.g. here JPatterson (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC with below) Actually, I don't see where exactly it says violation of the 1RR rule was the only issue being discussed. In the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section there seems to be problems with regards to tendentious editing at the intro to the article in general and not just a single revert by yourself, which serves as the locus of the dispute. Two admins, BozMo and 2/0 both agreed that there was a general problem as uninvolved admins and enacted the sanctions. Besides William M. Connoly's request to BozMo and 2/0, what evidence do you have that those two were materially involved in the article in question? Do you have diffs that show they have involvement in the dispute, or have expressed an opinion about which side they are favoring? That someone involved asks another admin to review a situation does not automatically make the second admin involved. I'd like to see more evidence of involvement by BosMo and 2/0, especially as defined by WP:INVOLVED, before I can decide heads or tails of this. I am not dismissing your claim, I just want to see evidence why these two were inappropriate in enacting such sanctions... --Jayron32 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The notice that was posted on my talk page say it was for violating 1RR. The sanction page says it was violating the terms of "Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation", which near as I can tell is the same thing. probation = 1RR. I am an inexperienced WP user and do not have the skills to provide the evidence you ask for. I question the propriety of an involved, and highly controversial ex-admin recruiting other admins to act (what do you think he meant be "this means you"?) on his behalf. JPatterson (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Jpat34721, but I started looking into Jpat34721 (talk · contribs)'s contributions about twelve hours ago (not continuously, obviously), as some of their edits had struck me as problematic in light of the recently-imposed community sanctions. Jayron32 is absolutely correct regarding my reasoning as closing administrator. I also stress that this is a ban from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident only - your contributions to other climate change articles and other areas of the encyclopedia continue to be welcome. A quick glance at my talkpage and recent contributions indicate that I have been heavily involved in trying to restore a more normal editing environment in this topic area. There were several open requests, and I had not commented there for four days, which I assume is why WMC requested that I take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a hotly contested article. Tempers have flared. If you'll read my talk entries you will find that (for the most part) I have tried hard to keep a cool head and keep the discussions moving towards consensus. Note too that this ban was instigated by one strongly partisan editor who made three requests for bans in one day, all against editors he perceived to be hostile to the changes he desires. Not one specific problematic edit of mine has been raised, either here or on the request for action page. Just nebulous charges by Connelley of misbehaving prior to his recruitment effort. JPatterson (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, what evidence do you have that BozMo and 2/0 were involved admins in the dispute before they enacted the sanctions. Being asked by an involved editor to review a situation does not make them automatically involved. Do you have any evidence that WMC specifically sought them out for a specific result, rather than the WP:AGF idea that he sought them out because he believed they would make a neutral, dispassionate review of the situation and act accordingly. What evidence is there that these admins misacted besides the request from WMC to review the situation? --Jayron32 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
See my comments above. Don't you think, given the controversy surrounding this editor, that the process would be better served if he would let it run it's natural course. He didn't insitute the request for action, why is he getting involved at all?JPatterson (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You state above that you are inexperienced? Come now... You've been editing since January 2007, long enough to learn how to read the history tab on an article. Are they active editors at the article? Have they expressed an opinion as to which side of the debate they fall on? I am entirely unfamiliar with the dispute myself, I just want to know what makes the conclusions of BozMo and 2/0 invalid? --Jayron32 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've edit three articles with a three year break in between. I am not an experienced editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps I am misusing the term involved. I don't know how to tell if someone has edited in the entire global warming space or if there is a pattern of cahoots here. It just seems unfair when someone who is clearly involved recruits in this manner. One doubts he went looking for a neutral ear.JPatterson (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't judged the bredth of your editing, I just checked when your account had been registred. Regardless, it looks like we're just going around in circles here. I'm going to disengage at this point. I really have no idea about the merits of your complaint about the way that the sanctions that were enacted. Perhaps another admin who cares more about the climate change articles could review and decide if these sanctions were enacted appropriately. The catch-22 here is that truly uninvolved admins lack the background to make a full assessment of the dispute, and any admin who knows enough about the dispute to make a judgement is likely too involved to do so. Sorry I could not have been more help here, but this is clearly going nowhere from my end, so good luck and lets see what other admins have to say on this. --Jayron32 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your timeJPatterson (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

JP needs to slow down. He is waaay out of line in breaking the Climate Change probabtion, and it is far more than just 1RR - that is just the most blatant violation. JP is familiar enough with wiki to wikilawyer, though not very well, but unfamiliar enough not to clearly understand what a revert is (maybe. I'm sure you can see the obvious problem with The edit in question was not a revert... My edit simply removed one...). He isn't blocked, just banned from a couple of articles. If he edits productively elsewhere and drops the lawyering, I'll be happy to support a review of his ban in a week.

But he does need to stop the lawyering. I contacted 2/0 in an entirely neutral manner that didn't even mention JP by name [2]. Describing it as "This cozy exchange", or as "meat-puppetry" is entirely inappropriate.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If as you imply, any change counts as a revert then I'm guilty as charged. But then so are a large number of active editors on that page. Yet the only ones who seem to get sanctioned are those not actively pushing the tempest in a teapot meme. If article probation supersedes WP:Bold and WP:BRD, it should say so somewhere. If any change, no matter how small and no matter if consensus has been reached is a revert, it should say that somewhere as well. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's hard to recognise that Jpat's description of events above is supposed to describe the same process I was watching. He's lucky only to be banned for such a short period, if it were up to me that would be an indefinite ban from all climate change topics. We just don't need mission posters in this area right now. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Note: JPatterson has initiated a discussion regarding William M. Connolley on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard under the heading William M. Connolley re Climategate article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721 appears to be forum shopping. I'll ask him to knock it off. --TS 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for this.
  • Briefly: the last thing climate articles need right now is people with an axe to grind. Jpat34721 is doing a fairly good job of portraying himself as someone with an axe to grind. Therefore I think the topic ban is reasonable. MastCell Talk 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I should note that it's not actually a topic ban; he is merely banned from a single article and its talk page. In the light of the ongoing problems with this editor, should this now be extended to a general topic ban from climate articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As a rather tired and involved editor I've not been paying too much attention to Jpat34721|JPatterson edit warring, and have no complaint about sanctions being imposed. Jpat needs to accept that 1R is a maximum, not an entitlement. However, I would note that Jpat34721|JPatterson has made a number of helpful contributions to the talk page, and on that basis a review of the sanction in a week's time would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't followed this too closely but I do think the topic ban, though within the reasonable discretion of the community to enact and of an administrator to judge as having consensus, was perhaps a little harsh and hasty. The new article probation is being enforced rather more sternly than the Obama article probation on which it is based. We'll see where that goes. As a process matter, I think that appeals should be made directly on the enforcement page rather than choosing a general-purpose administrator meta-page. If we need more eyes on it, a courtesy notice here, at AN/I, and/or the general sanctions page would be helpful, but not forking the discussion to multiple pages. Even more ambitious, if there is a volunteer clerk in the house it might make sense to develop a system for logging active and closed requests, actions, and appeals. Kind of a miniature, tiny, community-organized version of Arbcom's RfE pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I must say I am surprised by the axe grinding allegations. I dare say I am one of the few editors of that page who can point to edits I've made on both sides of the argument. Again, no one in this entire process has posted a single diff to back up the allegations of one-sided editing. I have argued for balance and have tried numerous approaches to reach consensus. Perhaps I have run afoul of a rule I do not fully understand. I am still trying to figure out when "a change" becomes "a revert" (assuming you don't "undo"). Fine, fools rush in and ignorance is no excuse (although it would be nice if the rules were posted somewhere). But as to the content of the changes themselves, please point to one that shows this egregious axe grinding. For the record, my position re AGW is that I don't know. The uncertainties are too high to have confidence in either position. With respect to this controversy, I don't think it says anything about the science one way or another but does raise legitimate concerns about the process. What I do know is that when I pointed my highschooler to this article after a brief conversation on "Climategate", I was embarrassed at what he found. It is a topic I'm familiar with and I decided to try and help to nudge the article towards NPOV. Since the article as I found it was blatantly in the "tempest in a teapot" camp, moving it toward balance meant run ins with highly partisan editors on the side of the status quo, including some who have commented here. But I think any fair reading of my edits and my talk page participation would lead any impartial observer to conclude that my contribution has been constructive and have in fact improved the articleJPatterson (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning[edit]

Hope this si the right forum..

It became clear while pleading my case above for a review of my ban, that I had a fundamental flaw in my understanding of what constitutes a revert. With the help of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here I've sorted out the source of my confusion. It appears to me that WP:Revert and WP:3RR are in conflict as to what constitutes a revision, (a smaller change qualifies under 3RR than is implied by WP:Revert). The problem is that currently there is no path that leads an editor of an article under probation to the 3RR definition. The warning one sees when one starts to edit an article on probation speaks only of WP:1RR, which ironically enough, provides no definition of a revert and among other things advises users to "See WP:Bold,revert,discuss cycle", which as I come to find out, is bad advice in this context. When issues arose, I used WP:Revert which I found on my own by poking around and later WP:1RR which led me further astray.

I would suggest:

  • The warning template on the article edit page have a link to the operative definition of a revert
  • the definitions given in WP:3RR and WP:Revert be the same
  • WP:1RR contain a link to the above definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talkcontribs) 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The warning be expanded to include 3RR
  • That we clarify the policy w.r.t Probation, WP:Bold, and WP:BRD

This might help to avoid contention in the future. JPatterson (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Does this constitute an attack? Or should we continue to monitor until contributions eventually lead to AIV or AN/I as I suspect they will. Disruption is surely impending in the name of The Truth. SGGH ping! 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please inform the user of this thread. Tan | 39 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. SGGH ping! 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion at MfD. ╟─TreasuryTagCANUKUS─╢ 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Has anyone blocked the rather obvious sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, though I did air initial sock suspicions when I removed it from UAA. Looking at Talk:Nazism might reveal some meatpuppetry. SGGH ping! 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Animated gif bug?[edit]

Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Animated_gif_bug?.  Skomorokh  17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

George Reeves Person/BoxingWear again[edit]

The user described here is now continuing his disruptive editing as ChessMasta and IP, see the discussion here. -- (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are anonymous IPs talking on Talk:Bartłomiej Macieja about checkuser results on ChessMasta? Was there even a request for a checkuser? And I see no notification to the accused ChessMasta concerning either checkuser or this AN. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no talk about checkuser results, but only statements on the obviously identical disruptive behaviour. -- (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have informed the user about this notice. -- (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and a very friendly notice it was [3]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Everyone has right to delete vandalism on its talk page, especially when they are personal attacks made on purpose seeking revenge, creating provocative atmosphere, making false statements,he is telling me i will be banned, SEEWOLF is the one who ought to be banned from all wikis as he caused all these problems. The bottom line is, Macieja 6-2 match is proven right, as I was right in my edits, if I get banned, so what, I can easily create other account, it does not bother me at all being banned but what for, for doing what is right?

You can see that Seewolf is user 84, he ALWAYS LOGS ON UNDER DIFFERENT GERMAN IP, he is user from Germany, unfortunately an administrator there, never leaves his real name. Here's what he said on Macieja: "The game is not notable enough among thousands of games played by Macieja. -- (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)" The game is not notable enough among thousands of games played by Macieja. -- (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)" Clearly, this states this individual's english skills are pathetic, more info is available on Macieja's talk page. Because of him that page is indefinitely blocked.

I could have logged on under any IP I chose to, but I did not, when things became bad, seewolf logged on using his many german IP's. Its sad he is administrator there, I have to repeat this few times, because such people are not productive, only cause friction!
Here's what seewolf did on wilhelm steinitz page: he reverted everything, all the info was correct, but where is his prove it's nonsense? He did not even leave any note. He is angry his Macieja edit did not stand ground, so now he is looking for revenge. Administrator Regents Park approved my edit, except moved link to footnote format, i approved it,this is what seewolf did not like. Im requesting administrators to ignore this individual, not to allow him to bother me, he ought not to progress on wikipedia, as he made similar mistakes in the past, such actions do not contribute to wikipedia's growth, here are his other reverts, again never stating why he reverted good edits,
this clearly shows he is after me, im not going to revert those articles, im happy with macieja decision, that's what it was all about, now he wants to get into more edit wars, if he wants incorrect articles, fine, if you allow him to do so, great, let him write, revert anything!
Here on his talk page: is evidence he reverted things "fake" for many years: also first paragraph is in german, proving my additional statements!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talkcontribs) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New sockpuppet investigations clerks needed[edit]

Hi folks. We have a need for some new clerks at WP:SPI, the sockpuppet investigations process. At SPI, clerks help the checkusers maintain the page by keeping cases organized, archiving them, tagging confirmed socks, endorsing checkuser requests and occasionally declining them. All final decisions, of course, rest with the checkusers. Both administrators and non-administrators can be trainees and full clerks. For example, Nathan, one of the clerks who has been there the longest, is not an administrator.

A few things to keep in mind if you think you might like to help us keep the sock menace down: (a) we generally don't take trainees with a recent block log or history of disruptive editing, (b) we would prefer trainees who can be regularly active and (c) we often use the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi on Freenode, which can be accessed using one of these tools or links, for coordination purposes. Please e-mail myself, Nathan, MuZemike or PeterSymonds if you're interested.

On behalf of the SPI clerk team, NW (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably would help out, but I have no understanding of IRC and my last experiment ended pretty appallingly... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. I woudn't mind helping, but I have no interest in using IRC. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
IRC isn't really a requirement for clerks or patrolling admins (which are separate - patrolling the cases requires confident judgment wrt sockpuppets, but not clerk training), but it makes the training process much easier. Particularly for administrators interested in patrolling (which we also need very much), we can make other arrangements if IRC isn't an option. Nathan T 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

McCready topic ban[edit]

Resolved: No consensus to alter the indef topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Unresolved: Per McCready's own request for a vote, which has been started below. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [4]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [5] and here [6]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [7] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [8] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [9]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [10]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [11] and Virtual Steve [12] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [13]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The relevant discussion should be at [14] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [15]. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).
This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[16], including with an IP[17][18] (see checkuser results).
I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[19]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.
sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[20] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[32], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)
Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary[edit]

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again[edit]

The bot for this page archived [33] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [34]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [35] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarif