Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive209

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Administrator user page message[edit]

This is now at RFAR and there was no consensus to sanction the admin Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone who knows this administrator, please look into this.

(Note: The above edit took place after [removed link/topic deleted] an exchange on Talk:Jimbo Wales] took an unexpected turn/tone.)

Someone who knows this administrator's history can perhaps interpret the situation appropriately as to response.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could apologize? Just a thought. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
We can examine the rhetorical dynamics of the exchange later — the concern now is the interpretation of the reaction, and whether any steps should be taken regarding any implications. Proofreader77 (interact) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There are no steps to take, in my opinion. The user is pissed off, and according to their talk page they'll likely be back after some time and some sleep. Equazcion (talk) 03:38, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, better safe than sorry. Let sleeping dogs lie. Outback the koala (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Equazcion You are looking at a message from 2 days ago on the talk page. (Not the responses today). Proofreader77 (interact) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you think it's unexpected after your comment here [1]. Your comments were pretty unhelpful. He has plenty of latitude on his own talk page so I wouldn't worry about his edits. RxS (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You're right. Still, I'd venture to guess the user is still simply pissed off. Nothing needs to be done as it's pretty clear he's still alive. Let's wait and see if he comes around. In the meantime, to facilitate that, it might be nice if you'd apologize, regardless of whether you feel you should need to. Rod seems to have been through some bad crap and your comments seem to have pushed him a bit hard. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Mischaracterization, Equazcion, frequently rises to the level of standard operating procedure in this realm (and in our public culture in general) ... and if I called bullshit on all of it, my time would be completely consumed with repetition of that one word.... yada yada yada

Now, as for the situation at hand, if editors who know this administrator's history and general patterns of behavior believe the situation requires no special action, then let this topic be closed, perhaps hat/hab collapsed.
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader, your philosophies aside, it would nevertheless be nice if you apologized to Rod. He seems pretty hurt by what you said, and again, he seems to have already been through some bad stuff. If only to keep him from perhaps doing something foolish, you could take it upon yourself to make a gesture that you don't rightly feel you should justifiably need to make. Equazcion (talk) 04:10, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, your initial comment to Rod was a completely gratuitous jab apparently made to give you a chuckle, which is keeping with almost every comment of yours I've ever seen on en.wikipedia. Then, after his obviously distressed reply, for you to go and say this is just gross. Treating fellow contributors with a modicum of respect is pretty essential to this project, and you were several light years away from doing that (starting this thread only compounded your original thoughtlessness). Personally I don't think people with you attitude belong here, and I'm disgusted enough by your actions to support banning you outright, particularly seeing as this is just one case and there seem to be a number of earlier troubling incidents. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

New users are regularly in the receiving end of such comments, and nobody cares when they say they will leave wikipedia. Sole Soul (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(12 hours later) the admin reverted their message

Now that the message has been clarified as a virtual message rather than a real emergency, an analysis of the situation can proceed if one is desired. (An administrator replacing their their user page with "{{Deceased}}" for 12 hours in response to an interaction is a serious matter.) Note: I have prepared a first draft of diffs and analysis in a sandbox, should it appear they will be useful. Proofreader77 (interact) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77, what do you suggest be done to Rod? Can you be more clear? Sole Soul (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I bet you were made fun of alot in high school. I know because I used to talk like this too, before I decided to join the rest of humanity. There isn't much to analyze, and yes I took a look over your sandbox notes. Regardless of the administrator's overall editing history (which you could take up at RFC/U or ArbCom if you really feel he should be de-opped), you were acting like a dick (which as Bigtimepeace points out is not out-of-the-ordinary for you). No amount of clinical analysis of the past is going to change that. Equazcion (talk) 19:54, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sole Soul
I brought the message here initially because I did not have sufficient knowledge of the administrator's history to interpret that action (was it an emergency?).

I believe the most popular issue is now, not what to do about Rod's message ... but what to do with Proofreader77. :-) With respect to this situation, we can address both at once — but as for previous matters, I suggest all interested in expressing outrage regarding Proofreader77 wait for the RfAR regarding "Three bad blocks."
--Proofreader77 (interact) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

En attendant Godot ? Mathsci (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for trolling. Fut.Perf. 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Proofreader, this thread should have been closed before Bigtimepeace decided to bring his grudge here. Just ignore them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
DuncanHill I assure you I have no "grudge" against Proofreader77 whatsoever. The only interaction I ever had with that editor previously was a lighthearted one (see for example the top of my talk page). Nonetheless I'm quite bothered by their interaction with Rodhullandemu, and there are clearly past examples of similar problematic behavior, hence several blocks. Surely you realize it's possible for one editor to have a problem with another's behavior without there being some sort of "grudge" involved, and I have no idea where you are getting that from. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Proofreader's comments were pretty innocuous, and certainly didn't deserve the over the top response from Rod. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In your opinion. I'd gladly swap lives with you, but I'm not sure you'd have the fortitude to resist the slings and arrows... etc. Rodhullandemu 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There isn't really any objective way to look at it. Comments are as innocuous as anyone feels they are. They clearly bothered Rod significantly though, and once that was clear, they shouldn't have been repeated, so long as they were part of an exchange that had no bearing on any Wikipedia process. That's part of what being a dick is all about -- doing things you know are bothering people, in the pursuit of nothing else in particular. Equazcion (talk) 20:23, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Appearing to threaten suicide over a jibe about Monty Python is pretty dickish in my book. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There's only one editor acting like a dick here and it's Proofreader. I cannot believe anyone is spending a split second defending him. RxS (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I fully agree with Bigtimepeace's analysis above. Fut.Perf. 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If you've ever been sufficiently upset to make that kind of statement, you'd know that Rod's and Proofreader's respective intents were very different. One was making statements he knew were pissing someone off, while the other was reacting to those taunts by being frustrated and irrational. There's only one clear dick in that scenario, IMO. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill your tone-deafness here is pretty mind-boggling. Rod obviously had some serious real-life difficulties of late (did you maybe miss that?), pointed that out after Proofreader made a snarky and utterly gratuitous comment about him, and then Proofreader continued the snark, before starting a thread here about the whole matter. Like RxS I can't see how on earth anyone can defend that. It's not an official rule around here as far as I know, but one would think that it's common sense to treat each another like human beings. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We usually block editors who make suicide threats, and quote "Wikipedia is not therapy" at those who use their real-world troubles to excuse outbursts on Wikipedia. Plenty of editors have very grave real-world matters affecting them but manage not to bring them onto Wikipedia. My advice to Proofreader is that the next time he sees an admin threaten suicide he keeps quiet and lets them get on with it, instead of coming here to ask if anyone can help. This thread should have been closed as soon as we saw that Rod was alive and editing normally again, it is a shame that Bigtimepeace chose to re-ignite it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
As for the outburst policy, I don't really see an outburst, just a tag in userspace, which isn't something I'd call disruptive. And, threads often begin about one thing and become about something else, ie. WP:PLAXICO. Proofreader did the right thing coming here, but that doesn't excuse his prior behavior, which partially led to him even having anything to report. If you stab a guy in the leg and then call the cops when he threatens to jump off a building, you still get charged. Equazcion (talk) 20:53, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out for the record that, after some disruptive postings to this thread which were reverted, Proofreader77 was blocked for 48 hours by Future Perfect at Sunrise. This led to further posts by Proofreader77 on their talk page, and now User:Gwen Gale has blocked indefinitely. If this block needs any discussion I suppose this is as good a place as any to do it. Personally I support the block given Proofreader77's history and this latest incident. If there was an indication that the editor understood why their behavior was problematic I'd probably feel differently, but so far there's no evidence of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is occuring currently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Proofreader77_Indef_Block_consensus_review. Probably best to keep the feedback over the indef in one place. --Taelus (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My broadband went down last night (presumably under the weight of Valentine messages) so I never got to add - why on earth does anyone think "go away, I'm dead!" was a suicide threat in the first place. Given the editor in question. Or perhaps its just not appreciating English (very)black humour? As for Proofreader77, I'll add my comments in the other place, but I won't miss him if he's gone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Members Church of God International[edit]

I would highly appreciate monitoring the neutrality of this article as well as the article of its rival organization: Iglesia Ni Kristo. As a background, the Philippines is overwhelmingly Catholic. These two are independent Christian Denominations. Note that both being 'Christian ' is in Dispute. Both are accused of being 'cults'. What ever the wiki guidelines are, my definition of a cult is an alleged 'religious or 'spiritual organization that engages in physical or psychological harrassment to control, done to an individual or society, or engages in financial scams or condones sex with minors or violence. These two don't. I 've currently blocked the article but will be unblocking in a week or two.Thank you in advance.--Jondel (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't look like a full page protection was necessary. Not even convinced semi-protection would have been needed, and it seems like you are involved? I don't know the full background, so forgive me, but this seems like a questionable admin action.-Andrew c [talk] 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I will at least put it to as minimum protection as possible. I'm very sure though that a paragraph stating it being a cult will be inserted as [ soon as the protections is removed]possible. My only involvement is trying to maintain neutrality. --Jondel (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Protected from unregistered and new users for 1 month. I think this is appropriate.--Jondel (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD[edit]

We have a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD. I am unable to close most of them due to COI. I would be happy to help with any cleanup issues after closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC needs more input[edit]

I started a Request for Comments a week ago, but so far only six people have participated in it, although the result would have an impact on thousands of articles, either by removing a template from many, or by allowing the addition of it to many others. More input from experienced editors (admins and non admns) can perhaps get the discussion rolling again and help us develop a consensus one way or the other. The RfC is Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My alternative account[edit]

Just a short announcement to say that I have created an alternative account at User:Mjroots2 for use at public terminals and when I may be away from my own computer and not in need of the use of Admin tools. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Major backlog at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion[edit]

Backlog at WP:SFD is pretty big (going back to December 11). Can someone please help close the discussions? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Question About Starting An Article[edit]

What would the chance of deletion be for starting an article about 2010 New England town meetings, there seems to be some precedent for municipal elections, but in New Hampshire, and I assume other New England states, the town meeting doubles as a municipal election and a congress of the town's legislative body (local boards are legally only considered administrative caretakers for the direct democracy of the voters). Doc Quintana (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask the Help Desk or VP. Some admins hate it when this board is not used for issues like asking administrators to block others. See your talk page for advice. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Update Template:Table cell templates?[edit]

The common code of Template:Table cell templates was updated about a month ago (mostly to center cell text), and all of the unprotected cell templates were likewise changed for consistency. But the templates: {{yes}}, {{yes2}}, {{no}}, {{no2}} and {{rh}} all have permanent protection and cannot be changed by non-administrators. Could someone please update those templates, or in some way make all the table cells consistent? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith (towards Peter Damian)[edit]

I'd like to see the community extend some good faith to Peter Damian. I know he's done some socking since his ban, but all of it has been constructive and related to article work (even if some of it's been pointy). I don't see anything to be gained by punitive punishments or expectations of complete submission. As long as an editor is willing to contribute constructively, it seems to me that leniency and extensions of good faith are the best way to garner less animus and more good will. If someone is willing to abide by our rules upon their return, I don't see any reason to keep them in exile. If they make trouble it's easy enough to show them back out the door. Let's be magnanimous for once. Any takers? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, support, give him a break. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
He was banned for violating an arbitration ruling... So is he going to abide by it on his return? –xenotalk 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
People often respond well to a little good will and trust. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
He was given a fair amount of both, and still refused to abide by his restrictions. Allowing him back is (yet again) saying "This is your really really final chance, for realsies, we mean it this time." Enough is enough. → ROUX  21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone got a link to those restrictions he broke? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
[2] - next time, look at the block log. → ROUX  22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is much better off without him. Looie496 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As he was banned by community discussion at ANI, I think that is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Given that he socked as recently as yesterday I wouldn't expect that to go very well. The argument that he had no choice and had to sock is contradicted by the many users who have been blocked or banned and were allowed back because they managed to demonstrate that they had the self control to refrain from socking for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As recently as today: John Watkins LLD (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion: Peter Damian). Jarkeld (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to be helping himself much, a six month block with good behavior is pretty much good enough to get most people back editing, he appears to have socked his way out of that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The truth is he can edit as he pleases as long as he stays anonymous. It's a defacto reality of whispered truth that editors can return as long as they do so quitely and remain anonymous. If they identify themselves they have to blocked. It's Wikipedia's version of Kabuki theater.
If it's a sock of his, which seems likely, it seemed to be working constructively on article improvements. Differentiating between clean socks and dirty ones would be useful. Like so many acronyms we often throw around terminology without distinction or meaning.
I think it's unfortunate that we push talented academics into the shadows because they got frustrated and into trouble. The whole Assume Good Faith protocol seems hollow to me when we so consistently fail to extend it, even when it costs us nothing. It is almost effortless to reblock if problems reemerge, so it makes us out to be petty and vindictive in cases like this that we demand punishing terms, ritualistic humiliations, and exile before allowing a return. I'd much rather be part of a forgiving and welcoming community that leads by example. I don't think we should be a church in attempting to recruit supplicants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Good faith was extended, many times... Tan | 39 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So what's one more time? I think it's been a while since the last go round. And think of the gloating you can enjoy pointing out my mistake if I'm proved wrong. And if by chance Damian should return as a productive contributor, think of the new chapter of light and redemption we can open. A new dawn. A Wikipedia Renaissance of Enlightenment and reasoned consideration for our fellow hominids in which good faith and olive branches are extended and good favor bestowed upon us in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Not much of a gloater, but I am confused - you said, "the whole Assume Good Faith protocol seems hollow when we so consistently fail to extend it", meaning that Peter Damian is getting the shaft because we fail to AGF. But now we need to do it over and over? Where is the line? Is there one? Tan | 39 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the virulently offensive types of users, I would think we should always be willing to at least listen, sure. But is there a request for an unblock by Damian himself? I'd rather see something in his own words rather than some sort of request-by-proxy appeal. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've lowered his block to allow him to send email. At this point that's as far as I'm willing to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I was waiting a response to Tarc's question before allowing talk page access: are his words so ungood we can't risk them being posted to his talk page? (If he is really seeking to be unblocked; if this is just an out-of-the blue suggestion by CoM then I suppose it can remain blocked) –xenotalk 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with PD is that he is so clever -- he is perfectly capable of doing a long series of perfectly good edits just for the sake of setting up a drama, and when the drama plays out it goes on for ages and sucks in dozens of editors. Even Jimbo has been sucked repeatedly into PD's dramas. We've been through it often enough. If he were the usual bonehead the cost of giving him another chance would be limited, but he isn't. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ecxinfinity) I agree he is clever which is why it would be good to have him back contributing to articles. The service in exile meme seems a strange tradition and an arbitrary tribal ritual to me. Let's show some respect to the man and see if we can't get some in return. I've restored illuminationism (from being a redirect), and if that's the type of contribution he's interested in making, I think it would be good to have him back among us. If the test run fails and there is disruption, it won't be hard or costly to shut down the experiment. I disagree with the idea that it will be enormously drama filled to end it if it spins out of control. It's a one button operation and I'm more than willing to receive my share of I told you so's if I'm suffering from delusions of grandeur. But it seems wimpy that there are none among us willing to give good faith a try when it's such a commonly preached refrain. And I don't think it's really been tried before, not since the previous episodes which as I recall were quite a few months ago? I don't recall him being allowed to return to open editing as a respected member of the community any time in the recent pass. The first step would simply be to initiate a discussion: Hey there young man, how are things going? Are you interested in editing here? We've had some problems in the past, if you returned would it be fore the right reasons? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we've essentially done this before, right? So if this doesn't work, what will stop you (or another editor) from saying we should do it again? No one cares about telling you "I told you so"; hopefully we're all out of sixth grade. We (read: I) care about wasting yet more time on a proven incorrigible editor. Tan | 39 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess nothing. Nothing will ever stop good faith editors from suggesting that someone with a history of very solid article contributions, but other issues that got them banned, be extended some respect and good faith in the form of an opportunity to at least discuss a return to community membership. What is there to lose? I'm not going to be writing any aritcles on Medieval philosophy, but I think it's a subject that's worth including if we can find someone who's willing to work on that subject. They may have some good ideas about other aspects of Wikipedia that can be improved on as well. Who knows? The stongest argument against trying to be gracious and welcoming is Looie496's well articulated position that we'll just get burned again. If we follow through, he may be right. But I still think it's worth the endeavor of trying. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I could see working is an unblock, with a restriction in place to only allow Peter Damian to edit article or talk pages. His previous misdemeanors stemmed from Wikipedia/User talk space contributions and I think he could edit constructively in article space. Anyway - that's just my opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense at first glance to me; what do you think of that, CoM? Tan | 39 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless that is a programmatic restriction (as in he is technically incapable of editing anything other than mainspace and article talk), we all know he will simply not abide by it. Why are we doing this? It's a waste of time. → ROUX  01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I told myself I wouldn't get into the "one final chance" argument, but I actually think this would work. If he edits another namespace - well, he gets a swift block without further discussion. His terms would be that he's only allowed to edit article and article talk pages - if he breaks them, it would be obvious so no drama would be caused by a swift reblock. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You have far more faith than I, Gunga Din. It is a virtual certainty--one I would wager on, and I am not a gambling man--that wehn (not if) PD breaks the restriction and is blocked, someone will stir drama on ANI saying "Oh it was just a minor infraction." We all know he will push the envelope specifically to make that happen; an innocuous projectspace edit here, a template edit there. It will be the death of a restriction by a thousand cuts, and once he has inured people to his minor infractions, he'll go right back to the usual drama-mongering. As has been pointed out above, PD plays the long game and thinks nothing of taking time to start his shenanigans.
While I understand where you're coming from, you are unusually misguided in this case. (And yes, I am unavoidably reminded of my own support of Betacommand in his "no really, this is final for real" days before someone put a serious leash on him.) Which, yes, one could argue is precedent for this sort of last chance. Unfortunately, the situations are different. Betacommand took a "my way or the highway, and damn the torpedoes" approach; Peter Damian is explicitly out to disrupt things around here. As such, he requires different handling. More to the point, given all the disruption, I do not feel--even if Satan skates to work and he abides by his restrictions--that he can be trusted in articlespace. → ROUX  02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds okay to me. Can someone reach out to him or unlock his talk page so we can see what he has to say? Maybe he's not interested. Who knows. But I wanted to read about immediacy (philosophy) and it's a redlink :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I have no horse in this race, so I initiated a topic over there to see if the party in question is interested. Only a slight bit of Tarc Snark(tm) was used in the process. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you're aware of the history, but I think one of the problems in the past was his making edits here to promote discussion and controversy there. So putting it up for discussion in that forum doesn't seem desirable to me as far as encouraging good faith on Wikipedia involvement that is free from ulterior motives. But never mind. What's done is done.
I've expressed my opinions as far as blocks go, and they apply to this situation as well as others. Maybe I'm just being dim. Cheers all. Thanks for listening and I'll try to leave it up to others going forward so I don't become overly involved are start to sound too much like a skipping record. For what it's worth Peter and I were in disagreement as far as our previous onwiki editing interactions go. But he's clearly capable of contributing good content. Whether he's interested in doing that or prefer to try and shake things up going forward I have no idea. I haven't had an opportunity to ask him, and I try to do as little e-mailing as possible about on-wiki stuff, apart from occasional chit-chat, for transparency sake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I support unblocking him. He has always made excellent contributions—he just got into some feud way back when. The encyclopedia should come first. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent PD socks I am aware of:

So at least three different accounts at the same time, and probably a whole host of sleepers and active socks besides (perhaps someone should run a checkuser to get as many of those as possible, so that we get a complete view of his recent editing here, and not just the image he wants to show us?). He could have quietly edited for six months with one account, showing that he was perfectly capable of being a long-term contributor without running into trouble. Instead, he chose to avoid his ban by mass-socking. Keep banned, and let him use the ArbCom unban requests if he wants to be unbanned. Fram (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot one: User:Editor with a background in philosophy, edited 21 January 2010 - 27 January 2010. Fram (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there any problematic activity from these accounts, or were they blocked for ban-evasion only? Tarc (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Tarc, please don't even think about suggesting ban evasion isn't a good reason the block the accounts - I support an unblock, but please don't go down that route. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeesh, calm down...of course I think it is a good reason. What I was getting at is if the same behavior that led to the main account's block has been seen again in the socks. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A general observation: the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. → ROUX  17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's really not, look it up. Tan | 39 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Your smartassery has trumped mine. I doff my cap to you, sir. → ROUX  17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's a good idea making a comment like that when you've just come off a block for incivility? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it's a good idea to fail to see the intent of the comment? It was a compliment. AGF, FFS. → ROUX  18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Roux and I's current spat aside, Ryan, we generally see eye-to-eye. I took no offense at his comment; on the contrary, it was well-played. Tan | 39 18:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would like to see Peter unblocked. He does good work, and the current situation is that it's being deleted because he's banned. There's a philosophy article he wrote recently, Illuminationism, which was deleted by Fram, who also redirected the title to a different topic. I asked Fram to consider undeleting, but she said I'd have to take responsibility for the contents. [3] That's an awkward thing to ask, because the sources aren't online so it would involve quite a lot of work to check them, though I see it has now been reproduced by Child of Midnight. [4] I'd support an unblock for him to work only on articles and article talk, plus no interaction with editors he's had problems with in the past. If things work out—after, say, a year of editing with no problems—he can ask to be allowed to post in other areas too. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • And how can we have any confidence at all that he would abide by those restrictions? He is banned and restricted from socking, yet he's doing that. He was banned for failing to abide by restrictions. How many times must he be caught with his hand in the cookie jar before we grow a collective brain and move the cookie jar out of reach? → ROUX  18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with ChildofMidnight, Slimvirgin et al that it would be a good idea to unblock Peter Damian: when sets his mind to it, he can be an excellent editor. Just my two centimes worth :) Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not redirect it to a different topic, I reverted it back to the situation it was before PD came in: someone else had created the redirect to that topic, not me. As for the "awkward thing to ask", namely that you take responsability for the edits, this is not awkward at all, but comes straight from our WP:BAN policy page: "Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." It is in general useful, when discussing things like unbanning a prolific sockpuppeteer, to actually check the relevant policies, instead of making unwarranted sweeps at another editor. Fram (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Reinserting thread archived by MiszaBot. Soap 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ease of editing break[edit]

I had not realised Peter Damian had been rebanned. I think he should be unblocked and personally do not think it necessary to impose any restrictions on his editing. If his contributions are disruptive, that can be addressed then by neutral parties. The more I reflect on his contribution to the project, the more I think he was treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. If he's still interested in contributing, I think we should welcome him. WJBscribe (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've no reason to trust a Sock Master. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people have said they'd like to see Peter Damian unblocked. So would many of us, myself included. The problem in the larger picture is that we ask people to refrain from socking. How can we expect banned users to take that message seriously if socking can prompt a discussion that ends their ban the next day? Peter has plenty of talents that he's welcome to put to use right now at other WMF sites. If he does so for three months without socking here, I'll initiate an unban discussion for him myself (see WP:SO for details). That's a fair offer. Durova409 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Durvova, this did not happen to Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who had multiple socks, so why should Peter Damian be subjected to this kind of probation? That seems quite arbitrary. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Slightly more than one year ago Peter Damian was granted an unban on the heels of a socking episode; the result did not turn out well. Wikipedia:Standard offer usually works; am not aware of that Mutawandi example and would have made the same offer there. Durova409 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that I see it rather differently. I am not very concerned by people evading bans to produce good quality content. If someone shows that they have evaded a ban and that their contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think this is in itself a good reason to consider unbanning them. It rather suggests that either (a) there was something wrong with the ban in the first place or (b) that the user has changed. I concede that this approach incentivises evading bans but, provided the contributions to the project made are good, it doesn't seem so bad... WJBscribe (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Call it a difference of wikiphilosophy, then. This website does not have a good track record at dealing with editors who contribute worthwhile content in article space while being disruptive elsewhere. The question is whether an individual willing to abide by the same standards the rest of us observe. Does content work amount to an exemption from behavioral policies? We've allowed case-by-case discussions on that point to consume inordinate amounts of volunteer energy. Refraining from socking is a minimal demonstration of respect for policy. Those who wait for several months are more likely to make a successful return. Durova409 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone in contact with Damian? It seems like it would be helpful to hear from the man himself as to whether he'd like to return and, if he does, what his editing interests would be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I've just gotten an email from Peter asking for talk page access. Seeing as consensus is not close to unanimous one way or another, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to let him speak directly via his talk page while this discussion is ongoing, any relevant comments should be copied over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I've only just caught this thread, but would support Peter being unblocked. His overall content contributions outweigh other issues. --Snowded TALK 08:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another 8 accounts have already been found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian, and it seems very probable that more are to come. Note that some of these were created long before the current ban, indicating that he was a sockpuppeteer back then as well. Note also that User:I love SUV's was blocked late December 2009 for 48 hours for ‎ Personal attacks or harassment. Another sock, User:Think of the children, was blocked for five days for disruption. So that makes that of the currently known socks, at least two have been independently blocked without any relation to being a PD sock, one for personal attacks and one for disruption. Unbanning such a user is really beyond the pale. Fram (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his socks tried twice to whitewash the Think of the children fallacious argument[5][6], and then used that same argument on Jimbo. That was 10 days ago.
I once argued for PD's unbanning, and shortly after unbanning he decided to retake his long-time argument with FT2, and got re-blocked for it. PD needs to show that he is really interested in improving the encyclopedia, and that he won't go out of his way in trying to destroy his perceived enemies inside wikipedia. He contributes good content not for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, but for the sake of getting himself blocked after he reveals his identity. He does this to support his point about good editors being blocked for political reasons. As far as I know he will just do the same thing again: 1) contribute an amount of good content, 2) make a POINTy argument that he knows that will get him blocked, 3) brag in Wikipedia Review about how his point was proven once again. PD has to show that he is willing to break this dynamic and limit himself to article work.
By the way, as far as I know, his pledge to do all in his power to destroy wikipedia is still standing..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is Peter's reply, copied from his talk page:

Thank you for unblocking the talk page. I notice that a number of perfectly innocent accounts have been uncovered, and some content has been deleted. Damnatio memoriae. All I can say is how upset I am about this. I can't believe that the people who did this care anything about building a comprehensive and reliable reference source. Deleting these articles is worse than common vandalism.

The attacks on the WP:AN are just too horrible. I have nothing more to say. The cruelty of human nature is limitless.

  • As you can see, it does not contain a request to be unbanned, so I suppose that means we're done here. He also posted a list of articles that he feels were unfairly targeted for deletion, but I didn't see any reason to re-post that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that we're deleting articles that Peter is creating when there's nothing wrong with them, and in fact they look quite good. These three have apparently now been deleted: The_Pheasantry, Jenny_Kee and Linda_Jackson_(designer). Is it policy that articles created by socks be deleted? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The usual "...created by a banned user..." would seem not to apply in the case where a user in longtime good standing, with extensive good content contribution, is judged to have later gone astray in a non-article related manner. No matter what policy and precedent say here, I think that IAR should override and the articles should be reinstated across the board, unless a particular article has a specifically identifyable problem. I haven't had time to more than briefly scan them, but I haven't found any problems so far. Please stop deleting and put 'em back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The relevant policy, to answer SlimVirgin, is WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. Edits made by banned editors, including articles created, don't need to be deleted, and the policy specifically states that "obviously helpful edits" are an exception. So I agree with GHW, except I don't think we need to IAR because the rules specifically allow for this. -- Atama 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with some of the bio ones and am checking and adding references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I have tried to just be a sort of mediator so far in this because I didn't have any previous involvement with this user, but my patience for his games is now rapidly wearing thin. I have gotten some more emails in which he asks me to restore articles that he created with sock accounts, while at the same time stating that he has no desire to return to editing Wikipedia. Does anyone else see a rather large contradiction inherent in that statement? If he really had no interest he wouldn't be creating sock accounts left and right and asking for all this stuff to be restored. In any event, since he has stated that he does not want to be let back in the unbanning discussion is moot. In the interest of moving forward, I propose that those users already evaluating his recent contribs proceed, but that any future socks be dealt with in the usual manner and have all contribs reverted or deleted on sight in order to discourage further socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've this to offer, which I placed on my own talk-page following a brief but productive interaction with Peter about his linking of the term Latin West. Our discussion was ended by the subsequent abrupt disappearance of his alternative talk-page (or "sock", if that's preferred).

I responded with suggestions for disambiguation or de-linking - if the context of the term wasn't clear, it should at least not confuse the reader. An admin closed the user-page soon after; it had been opened to evade a permanent block. I was surprised to find all this editor's contributions and others' responses on his talk-page erased, as if in damnatio memoriae; I thought we evaluated contributions on their own merits. Haploidavey (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've read here has changed my mind. It's reasonable to delete worthless articles, which these aren't. I think Peter's claim to not want editing rights disingenuous, but not underhand; the guy probably wants to edit, desperately. If there have been problems in the past, I hope he acknowledges them and negotiates a return but that'll only happen if he's allowed a voice. Haploidavey (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It's called gaming the system. PD is banned for good reasons, he is following a route taken by other banned users of socking to create some uncontentious content which can then be exploited to divide the community based on the quality of that content, in an attempt to obscure or distract from the documented fact that the user is banned for good reasons. It's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and we don't need it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Per Guy. There isn't a good answer to this problem, but it is worth remembering that Peter Damien has previously expressed a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach with these: he argued that he would deliberately create articles as a sock of a banned user, and, if the content remained, he claimed a win, arguing that WP permits him to edit in spite of his banning. If the content was removed, and/or if the sock was blocked, he argued that he had won, because it showed that WP is more concerned with punishing editors than building an encyclopedia, and he could take this evidence to donors. It's an odd game, that I could never see as carrying much weight, but it's probably worth keeping in mind in relation to current actions. Alternatively, maybe he does just really want to create articles. - Bilby (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the links. Per Bilby's – an odd game indeed, but admins who oblige with a block when PD blows his cover are playing into it. Anyone here can edit under any number of names. Abusers are reasonably banned, as far as I can see, for what they do on particular pages or a whole series of pages – less reasonably, I believe, for who they are, who they later claim to be, or even their admission of ulterior motive in offering positive contributions. A review of banning and blocking policies might be in order. Haploidavey (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is silly to say that by blocking sockpuppets of banned users we are in some way playing into their hands. It's just a housekeeping job. We don't have the concept of a little bit banned, if someone is banned it's because they are a net drain on the project, and this thread is a perfect example of a drain on the project which costs PD virtually nothing. If he wants to appeal the ban he can do it in the orthodox way by contacting the ban appeal subcommittee. If he is so very confident of his case this should be a straightforward process. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I also fail to see how we are playing into his hands when he is wasting hours of his time, and we could be done with it in only a few minutes. Just make it obvious to him that none of his contributions, no matter if they are good or bad, are welcome here, since he is a banned user who is during his bans creating and using good hand - bad hand accounts to avoid scrutiny of all his edits. I don't understand the people who feel that content is more important than anything else, and believe that they are the sole people playing into his hand and making his socking and siruption worthwhile to him. I'll continue to block his socks and delete his contributions, and ignore him otherwise. Fram (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reblocked the main account without talk page access, since he is not interested in unbanning, but just in soapboxing. He has enough other outlets where he can do this, he blew his chance here when he created problematic socks again. Fram (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As an aside, PD emailed me about this, I am not sure how much of this thread is the result of email and other offsite comments by PD to other people. My advice to him was the same as I said above: we have a ban appeals subcommittee and an arbitration committee, that is the proper route for appealing this ban if he wants to continue editing Wikipedia. Otherwise he should simply find himself another hobby. The regularity with which his socks are discovered argues against his assertion that his editing is uncontroversial and indistinguishable form that of any other editor interested in collecting the sum of human knowledge. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChildOfMidnight and Slim, and especially with WBJScribe: Peter Damian has been treated unfairly and has cause to feel aggrieved. There was indeed something wrong with the ban to begin with. The question is whether this editor has been treated so badly by Wikipedia that he now hates it too much to work in good faith here. Things like that happen, unfortunately. It seems unnecessarily cynical to keep PD blocked for such a reason, though. Can he do a lot of harm? No. Can he do good, by using his editing skills and knowledge? Yes. As for re-locking his talkpage when this discussion is over, I request that you don't do that, Fram. (The page is unprotected at this moment.) Allowing a blocked or banned user to use his talkpage is the normal option. The reason you give for locking it, "Page should only be used to ask for an unblock so this is misuse,"[7] is quite a new rule, as far as I know. If you don't want to see what he says, can't you just not go look? Admins (and, a fortiori, arbitrators) should think twice before throwing their power around. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC).
  • Hey? I inserted the "Ease of editing break" above because the Peter Damian thread was so frigging long. No sooner had I done that than the top half of the thread disappeared. WTF? Somebody find it and put it back, please? That thread was by no means ready for archiving. And as for archiving half of it... Come on, could somebody fix this? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC).
I've just restored the parts that I believe you were speaking of. Soap 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on this ban appear to be rather mixed. I'm not sure in such circumstances that keeping the ban makes sense. Community bans are a product of community consensus. If that consensus no longer exists, I don't see how the ban can outlast it. Requiring PD to "plead his case" seems rather unnecessary. Surely we are capable of just admitting that we may have gotten it wrong (or at least being open to the possibility). I propose that we simply unblock Peter Damian (talk · contribs) and leave the next step up to him. Let him know that he is welcome to resume contributing, if he so wishes. If he chooses to do so (and per Bish, I can see why he might not want to), then lets deal with any problems that arise then. A lot has been made in this thread of the fact that PD is "evading his ban" but little to say that the ban was justified in the place. Without wanting to reopen old wounds, we (including I) could have handled this much better back in 2007/2008. There is no real risk to welcoming PD back as against keeping the status quo. WJBscribe (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree here. A strong consensus was established in the last ban discussion to ban Peter Damian, as people felt he was a net negative drain on the time of the Community. Keeping him banned is the status quo. There is most certainly no consensus to lift the ban, and I would strongly object to doing so based on the above discussion. If Peter Damian wants to be formally welcomed back into the Community, I would certainly want to see some restrictions placed on him to avoid the debacle of last time, probably along the lines of what Ryan mentioned above. NW (Talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
And the first step has to be a formal request, rather than continual ban evasion. Ban evasion is self-fulfilling, since it is itself grounds for banning. I don't know whether I'm in favour of the original ban or not, but we have a process and if he wants to edit Wikipedia he needs to follow it. The assertion that his edits are unproblematic is, to my mind, countered by the obvious fact that he keeps being found out. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
...and that two of his socks were blocked in December and January without the blocker even knowing that the account was a PD sock, but only on the basis of the actual edits. Fram (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Salting request[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to request it, but four iterations of a persistently recreated article title need to be salted - Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gore effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Gore effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This has been the subject of two AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore effect) and three speedy deletions. It was re-created earlier today in an attempt to disruptively make a point but has since been speedied yet again. To avoid yet more disruption, could the titles please be salted? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Not that I mind at all doing it, but in the future we do have a dedicated noticeboard for this at WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I didn't know that RFPP also dealt with salting. Noted for future reference. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
By way of explanation - salting is a form of page protection. Rd232 talk 12:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Salting is page protection; there's no technical difference. It's simply protecting a non-existent page so that it cannot be created. Tan | 39 13:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Thanks for being precise. Rd232 talk 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist[edit]

I'm not seeing much recent progress with white-list requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Ultimately it's an admin only task so, err, on you go, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. MER-C 07:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed a serious problem. We could really use some more administrators active on both lists! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a great way to get trolled mercilessly :-) Guy (Help!) 11:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic/interaction ban of User:Tbsdy lives[edit]

Resolved: No consensus for topic ban. Take it to RFC if necessary. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly no consensus for enact this and anything else is just needless drama. I'm sure you can find RFC/U if the problems continue Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal[edit]

Based on his treatment of User:GiacomoReturned at Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise and this ANI thread, I propose a topic ban be imposed for User:Tbsdy lives for the article Blenheim Palace, and an interaction ban imposed on both users from interaction with, or comments regarding, each other.

Tbsdy has shown an inflammatory attitude towards Giano that has grown into a volatile situation. Against all recommendations both at the aforementioned ANI thread and at the article talk page, Tbsdy insists on continuing to scrutinize Giano's edits. Specifically, Giano has, in response to difficulties at the Blenheim Palace article, announced that he's preparing a userspace draft. Tbsdy announced in response that he'd be scrutinizing that draft once it's placed into mainspace, which further inflamed the situation.

There also seems to be some further history regarding some alleged hounding, harassment, and/or deliberate baiting by Tbsdy of Giano. The myriad of ANI threads posted by Tbsdy regarding Giano have been pointed out, along with some other pages and comments:

Tbsdy was told by several editors that it would be best if he laid off the article for a while, and ceased interaction with Giano. He's nevertheless made it clear that he intends to do the opposite. His subsequent interactions with users at the article talk page, and in multiple frivolous ANI postings, have been tendentious and unyielding. Therefore I think it would be prudent to solidify the aforementioned suggestions into a topic and interaction ban, so as to avoid further unpleasantness.

Giano is probably not entirely innocent in all of this. However, Tbsdy's attitude regarding Giano has escalated to the point that he doesn't seem to be seeking any sort of resolution, as he tends to further inflame the situation at every opportunity. I feel Talk:Blenheim Palace#A compromise offers a somewhat adequate picture of this. I'm coming at this from an entirely uninvolved standpoint, as before my interaction with Tbsdy on Talk:Blenheim Palace, I've had no significant previous interaction with either editor, so far as I can remember.

I propose the following:

All the specifics are of course up for discussion if there is disagreement over appropriate time periods or whatnot. Equazcion (talk) 01:16, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Response from Tbsdy[edit]

I am disturbed by the assumption that I have been either trolling or baiting Giano. Others may make their own opinion, but as this has been raised before I would ask the following:

  • Have I ever been incivil or rude to Giano on the talk page in question?
  • Have I ever displayed trollish or baiting tendencies before - am I such an editor? I don't believe I have been accused of this before, and I don't agree that is what I am doing now.
  • Have I ever made personal comments about Giano or asserted article ownership on the talk page of that article?
  • Was my attempt at a compromise acceptable, and if not why not? I made this attempt in good conscience. I note that compromise is a two way street, I said that I was willing to leave the article alone, but that I would research the topic and when Giano was finished I would be happy to copyedit and provide references to improve the article in an attempt to get it to FA status.

Now given that I was trying to find a compromise, isn't this article ban discussion a little premature?

There are also a number of questions I think we should be asking about other parties that are involved in this ban discussion. Specifically I ask the following:

  • Has Giano been rude or has he ever tried to intimidate myself or other editors on that article? I believe that he has, and there is evidence of baiting and hounding of Labattblueboy who has since disengaged from the article entirely, simply because of feeling under attack by this one editor.
  • There were issues where a bounty board template was repeatedly removed. I filed an ANI case about this as the one reverting refused to discuss the matter (the editor is Unitanode). Unitanode originally filed the initial ban, yet he was in the process of edit warring. Is this proper, and was it proper for him to have asked for an interaction ban as well as an article ban on an article talk page? I have asked this a few times in the previous discussion, this was never answered.
  • Has the nominator of this ban ever communicated via email or any means off the wiki in an attempt to coordinate a ban of me from this article with any other editor?
  • Why did the nominator canvas all those who supported my ban last time, but not Ludwigs2 et al., who did not support the ban?

I will refrain from commenting further on this topic (unless I am asked directly about something) and I bow to the consensus of the community. My only ask is that this discussion be allowed to go for sufficent time that a number of editors can give feedback. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to note that I have a long-winded and extended summary of what I believe has happened to me in the past few days. It was written while I was exhausted, so hopefully it makes a reasonable amount of sense. It can be found here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, implied allegations against the nominator in the form of questions are unhelpful. Please desist from them. If you have any reason to think Equazcion has been conspiring to get you banned by means of off-wiki spamming, it's better to come out and say so. Bishonen | talk.

I suspect this to be the case. User talk:Unitanode#Ping and User talk:Unitanode#Ping again are the reasons. I would like them to confirm or deny this. If they don't want to, fine I suppose. If they want to deny it, then my question is answered. I leave it to their own conscience to tell the truth. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like a good question to me. I wonder what the answer is. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 14:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
My answer is on Chillum's talk page for whoever is interested. Equazcion (talk) 15:25, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
So the answer is yes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Respond to my answer on Chillum's talk page. I'll be glad to either confirm or deny or provide an explanation for whatever your question is there. Equazcion (talk) 15:54, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I find it odd that you are responding to my question on Chillum's page. You brought this thread into being. Why not just respond here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've answered that question on Chillum's talk page as well. Equazcion (talk) 16:04, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • The above accusations of bad-faith are simply more examples of problematic behavior from Tbsdy. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You were one of the ones doing the emailing. There is evidence you don't like me, you called me a "master-baiter", and when you were pinged on it you got very upset. I found the comment amusing, but many others did not. I can only assume you were trying to get me mad and get a reaction out of me. In other words, you did what you have accused me of doing, time and time again - baiting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh stop. You're just trying to muddy the waters some more. As for "doing the emailing", it was little more than, "Do you want to help me redraft the proposal?" "No, but ping me when you've done so." "Okay, will do." That's obviously a paraphrase, but there was nothing nefarious. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • You said I was a "master-baiter". Later on you admitted you meant it as a pun. You were trying to needle me. Are you saying otherwise? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd say it's pretty clear he doesn't like you, Tb :) And yes he was one of the ones doing the emailing. Emailing is allowed around here, Tb. Don't assume bad faith, that the emails must have been a part of the perpetration of some violation. Equazcion (talk) 16:19, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • Now why would that be something to smile about? Emailing is allowed, but not to coordinate a ban discussion. I don't know if you recall, but it's very bad form to make admin decisions on the IRC channel. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • You've been told what the substance of the conversation was. You're choosing to willfully misrepresent (read: lie) about it now. You need to stop doing that right now. It's wildly inappropriate. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Emailing isn't allowed to coordinate a ban discussion? If you point me to that policy I'll concede that it was poor form and apologize. And I'm not an admin. Equazcion (talk) 18:18, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
            • I know you aren't. I see you archiving threads all the time on here and ANI, even when the party who brings the thread says that the issue is not resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • I find this a tad unsatisfying. Tsby might have some issues with Giano, but he's frankly quite right that Giano has ownership issues over his article; the drafting of a userspace draft is unhelpful and uncollaborative in any respect, and I find it disturbing that the solution some propose is "there's plenty of articles, let Giano have this one". That's avoiding the underlying issue in part; what happens when other editors make the mistake of blundering into Giano's articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    Giano decided on the userspace draft only after his {{inuse}} tag was removed (not by Tbsdy), allegedly because it was seen as an assertion of ownership. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    What about this comment? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes please. TBSDY needs to leave Giano alone. TBSDY is either being disigenuous about his actions or he is completely unable to understand correct behavior (I suspect both). Giano is not blameless here, but TBSDY is absolutely the root of this problem; his baiting and antagonizing of Giano is unacceptable. ÷seresin 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, as Tbsdy has shown a propensity to drag disputes with people he dislikes to completely unrelated pages, and to open unactionable ANI threads regarding the same people. Additionally, he has indicated that he will completely ignore the unanimous opinion of those who commented at Talk:Blenheim Palace that he refrain from editing that article, and leave Giano alone. If he won't honor that unanimous request, then it needs to be formalized in this manner. His harassing and baiting of Giano is unacceptable. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • support as a practical way of dealing with it. I expect that 6 months from now both editors will be otherwise engaged DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks as though this issue has gone away of its own accord; no need to stir things up again with a topic ban. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Tbsdy has promised that once Giano enacts his draft in mainspace that he'll "poor (sic) over it with a fine tooth comb". He's also stated that he "watches him ([Giano]) with interest". So although the arguing has died down in the past day, I don't think that's an indication that it's over, and there's a good chance it'll flair up again once Giano enacts the draft. Equazcion (talk) 00:39, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I have already stated that was just poor wording and that I was only saying this because of the high standards of FAC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Those aren't recent diffs, E. I think this proposal just stirs up the drama again. Sorry. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    They're from yesterday. Equazcion (talk) 00:48, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    They're from over 30 hours ago, from before the dispute appears to have ended. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    That's a bit ludicrous. Tbsdy has made it clear he's going to keep hounding Giano, and the only reason he stopped was because NW basically demanded that he do so for 24 hours, with the understanding that this discussion would open after that point. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    I have never said this or even expressed such an opinion. For the record, I have never had nor do I have any intention of trolling, baiting or insulting Giano. I have previously expressed the opinion that I believe him to be corrosive and nasty, it was unwise of me to express these private opinions in a public setting and I have already apologised to him for this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) (to SlimVirgin): I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think this particular day-long break in the fight is an indication that it's over. The dispute seemingly "ended" a little over 24 hours ago only because User:NuclearWarfare requested that everyone take a 24 hour break from it. See the thread on his talk page. Equazcion (talk) 01:00, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    My thinking is that once people have slept on an issue, they often decide not to revisit it—so long as it's left alone by others too. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    It's very encouraging, though, that when NuclearWarfare requested that everyone take a 24 hour break, they did. – ClockworkSoul 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed, as he requested this, that is what I did. I find it interesting that this has been raised again, I am also quite concerned that this was raised on the article talk page with the attitude that it there was a predetermined conclusion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think you did. This is from after the request was made... and after you agreed to it. Plus, the comment made to me (there are two comments in that diff) seemed like a baiting attempt. I said I was willing to wait 24 hours before resuming, to which you said "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, huh?" If you agree to wait, you're not supposed to make a comment that's likely to invite more argument. I don't see how that was constructive at all, and it's that kind of behavior that has me worried for the future of this dispute. Equazcion (talk) 03:04, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    I think resolution is better than control and wonder if control like this will stop the issue being resolved naturally. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Agreed. It seems to me that the past 24 hours at least suggests that both parties are not entirely unreasonable, and therefore probably capable of resolving the issue without administrative action. – ClockworkSoul 01:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I support Equazcion's proposal. It doesn't matter which of the editors is most at fault; WP:HOUND is policy, and tbsdy is bound to follow it. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC).
  • I'll support this with the durations as written. Tbsdy had the option to actually write revised text and show it out for consideration, whichever space it was in. That would have been an actual challenge. Instead they chose to just keep talking about what might happen next weekend, to no great purpose. Send 'em off to separate corners sez I. Franamax (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think something needs sorting here. I've discussed this with tbsdy and know that he was stressed due to being up too long. I'm hopeful that he will voluntarily agree to, ah, change tack. Giano's away for a few days, so the timing here is not best. I may revisit this tomorrow. Jack Merridew 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – While I would have expected better behavior form such experienced and respected editors, every single one of us has, at some time or another, been caught in the moment and taken things too far. As each of us also knows (or should know), administrative solutions like the one proposed tend to have unintended negative consequences; doubly so for bans with such long durations. It seems to me that reasonable persons might be "scare straight" seeing the discussion here, and as such I strongly recommend – for now – a stern community warning, which can also lay the groundwork for swift action if things don't quickly improve. I would hate to see yet more otherwise good, productive editors be driven from the project by either conflicts or their solutions. – ClockworkSoul 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the suggestion that it might die down on its own since people have had time to sleep, and because they responded well to the request to take a 24-hour break: NW's request wasn't heeded initially. NW had to lock his talk page to get the dispute to stop. Also, this problem has been ongoing since at least 5 days ago, so presumably people have been sleeping during that time on occasion, and yet it has continued. Just pointing that out. Equazcion (talk) 01:52, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • Could NW comment on this please? Was this due to any one participant? The comment above implies it was locked due to a particular party - was this the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I locked my talk page because all three participants (Tbsdy, Equazcion, Unitanode) were continuing to engage each other after I requested that they stop. This is the relevant diff. NW (Talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • All due respect, but my only comment following the request was to say I was willing to heed it. Equazcion (talk) 02:50, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
          • Err, you are probably right. I didn't exactly look too hard at what each of you was saying; I had just started to get annoyed that I was getting orange-barred every few minutes after I had explicitly requested that you guys cease your argument. Still, I think that it was a positive sign that the discussion ended after my 15 minute page protection. NW (Talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
            • I'll have to apologise here, I didn't see the warning that you didn't want to discuss the matter any further. I never actually noticed you'd protected the page as I'd stopped responding there (I think I went to sleep, not sure of the exact timing of things, I was pretty tired). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose No real basis for such an action. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose without prejudice pending actual dispute resolution. A couple of days' flurry of talk page threads and (mostly misfiled) admin board complaints are not the type of thing that should result in a sanction unless a substantial prior history of problems is demonstrable. Try WP:RFC, please. Preferably regarding the content, or resort to conduct if that fails. Mediation is another option. Durova409 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry it had to come to this for Tbsdy. But it seems that history keeps repeating itself. Giano somehow acts as a magnet for weird occurences. The cummulative effect of this, the latest series of unfortunate events, is that the venerable Blenheim palace has now morphed into the O.K. Corral of editing decorated not by baroque-style ornaments but by silly pirate cartoons with birds on their shoulders announcing bounties custom-made for Giano as if he were not the Wikipedia editor he is, but Billy Clanton with Wyatt Earp on his trail. Obviously this nonsense has to stop, hopefully by mutual agreement and not by the use of the banhammer. However recent history, if it is any guide, is not very encouraging in that regard. But even the not-so-recent history involving Giano points generally in the same unfortunate direction. Unless cooler heads prevail, a showdown is inevitable followed by the usual drama of bans, retirements etc. I hope it will not be déjà vu all over again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh I am hoping that this settles down.....hopefully this won't be needed. I am undecided about the need for this but the next few days will be enlightening hopefully. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a very small amount of activity to warrant imposing such bans, and in any event, the fireworks seem to have guttered out. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Other methods of disupute resolution have not been exhausted, and I don't see evidence of a long history of problems that would indicate that these recent incidents warrant this level of sanctioning. Hand out a few trouts, suggest nicely that both users retreat to a neutral corner for a few days, and lets see if this doesn't blow over on its own. Seeking proper dispute resolution should be a step in here, and we shouldn't jump to interaction and topic bans at the first sign of trouble. --Jayron32 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, tentatively. I'm a long-time reader, first-time editor, so my opinion may be worth little, however, I once observed this interaction between the admin in question and another contributor which seems eerily reminiscent of this current one. This type of aggressive interaction with editors seems to be the modus operandi of the admin in question. This was followed by a knock-down, drag-out combat with another admin in which the admin in question really became completely unhinged. There seems to be something not quite right here. The admin in question seems to feel a high-degree of ownership over wikipedia, which is great, but is being taken way too far and too often. I voted support but I would be fine to see some alternate arrangement if the admin in question agreed to some type of anger management counseling. Longtimelurkerfirsttimeeditor (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) (stricken sock vote -tarc)
  • support the admin has a history of these sorts of behaviors if you look at his old account. hard to believe he was allowed to regain admin status. typical of wikipedia though. --- 69.211.3.12 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You know, I was an ass for doing that, I can't disagree. It was an incredibly poor display of judgment, and definitely a violation of WP:POINT. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tbsdy isn't the problem here. Jeni (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Any Admin. caught up in this sort of strife is wholly unacceptable to me – regardless of provocation. Leaky Caldron 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't think such drastic action is necessary. Restraint can be exercised without the formality of a ban here. XXX antiuser eh? 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I would rather see them work it out without the need for control . Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: - I have some insight here that's rather recent. Tbsdy's tenacity is both commendable and frustrating (if you're on the other side). However, I don't think sanctions are necessary as they were not necessary in my entanglement with Tbsdy. We were able to take a break and resolve things quite amicably and I have no doubt that similar results could be found here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, -- i.e., support no action, since this has obviously become a poll. I oppose because four proposals were made and polls are therefore misleading if most arguments center on one of them. I see no sign that Tbsdy is unresponsive, requiring community action, but if there is going to be action based on consensus, let it be clear what single action is being supported or opposed. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:DR is thisaway, and WP:RFC is way off thataway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Herein lies the problem with bringing this discussion here. There are people commenting, who clearly haven't bothered to read the Blenheim Palace talkpage, and the surrounding problems that Tbsdy has caused in regard to Giano particularly. I knew this would happen, and that's why I thought the discussion should be limited to those who were participating at the page from which Tbsdy should be banned. Of those people, I can't think of more than 1 or 2 that expressed any support for Tbsdy's methods and antagonism of Giano. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I've read the talk page and a few of the other pages this discussion branched out to. As far as the Blenheim article and Tbsdy's interactions with other editors on its talk page go, there seems to be a fair degree of overreacting and drama going on, but that's not solely from Tbsdy's part. I don't think we need to go through the formality/harshness of a topic ban in order to resolve this matter. Of course, I might be wrong. Cheers, XXX antiuser eh? 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I can actually understand the opposition due to the duration of the problem. Many of those familiar with the situation do support it though, and I think to some degree the opposition is coming from people who aren't entirely privy to it. It's my belief that this situation won't solve itself. Tbsdy has IMO shown a personality type that won't allow it. Nevertheless if this proposal is defeated I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong. Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I have been reading Talk:Blenheim Palace because its on my watchlist, and all this drama (caused by Giano and his ownership issues) has been filling up said watchlist. Jeni (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your "take" on this is unique to you, and doesn't seem to have much support (outside of from Tbsdy) at the BP talkpage. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
She's entitled to her take, unique or not. Please don't hassle the opposers. Equazcion (talk) 00:13, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
How is it "hassl[ing] the opposers" to point out that Jeni's take on the issue is unique amongst people who have actually read the talkpage? That's a bit confusing. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Answering on your talk page. Equazcion (talk) 00:19, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Also, this is a discussion, and this is a sub-section of that discussion, in which Jeni made assertions that weren't representative of most people who have read the talkpage. Pointing that out is in now way untoward. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I distinctly remember NW telling you not to add sections to the next ban thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember that. Where did he say that? Not saying it didn't happen, but I don't see it anywhere. Please point it out. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 01:28, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Go into Firefox, Internet Explorer or whatever browser you are using, and search for the text on the current page for the following:
"On my own initiative, I am archiving this thread. I hope any similar threads will be archived as well. Tbsdy has indicated that he is heading off for the night; hopefully when he comes back online tomorrow, things will be more rational. If a new thread is started tomorrow, could it please be held here, on the Administrators' noticeboard, with no subheadings? Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions"
I'm sure you will be able to find this text. You have shown remarkably poor judgment so far, and I again point out that you are not an admin. Why are you making admin decisions here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing it out. Equazcion (talk) 01:36, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
If you didn't know about that, then I suggest you are not across the full situation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. That said, it seems all of the drama today is being generated by those not of the original dispute. If the two users themselves appear to have disengaged for now, perhaps it would also be beneficial if their watchers do also. Resolute 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
A little site history might be helpful here. When the disruptive editing guideline was drafted in 2006, a primary concern was to develop a model that was flexible enough to enact community sanctions without allowing small groups of editors to silence dissent. Suppose ten Baptists page banned a Catholic from a theology article? Suppose ten Croats banned a Serb from politics? Sanctions discussions take place at the main admin boards because fresh eyes help ensure fairness. Durova412 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point, and agreed. Equazcion (talk) 00:41, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Yes, so now you can see that my original complaint that it was inappropriate to bring the original ban discussion to the talk page of that article was not wrong. When I posted to AN and ANI, I was accused of forum shopping, and the nominator (Unitanode) strongly opposed it being brought to the admin noticeboards as they were "drama pits".
I originally started AN for the express purposes of wide community and admin review of decisions and coordination. It was agreed that this was a very good idea, and the noticeboards are what you see today. That I am being accused of misusing the boards is, frankly, ironic given that I am probably best placed to understand the original basis for the boards. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk
For the record I personally never said you were wrong for wanting it moved here. That seemed a rather reasonable request and I was leaning that way myself. Equazcion (talk) 01:44, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's true. Apologies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is a functionless waste of time based on misrepresentations and shoddy foundations. haven't you guys got lives? yeesh...--Ludwigs2 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be so bold as to give a yes or no to this. Let's just say it's debatable :) Equazcion (talk) 05:34, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was not a one editor issue and treating it as such is neither fair nor appropriate. Does anyone think it really would have come to this if there wasn't ownership issues with Blenheim Palace. This only ever got out of hand because of that reason. Deal with the root issue before treating the symptoms ?--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to close[edit]

It's clear that there is very little support for implementing a ban aside from those who have are directly involved in the dispute, and the thread is now just playing host to the ongoing bickering. What do you say we put this thing out of its misery? – ClockworkSoul 06:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


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

File:BlueWhaleSkeleton.jpg[edit]

Resolved

Hi there, is there any source information or permission documented in the local history of this image? --Flominator (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly sure what you were asking, so I undeleted the image. Just tag it with {{NowCommons}} when you are done. NW (Talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I didn't realize that the uploader was somehow related to the photographer. --Flominator (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I redeleted the image. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD vs Speedy?[edit]

If an article is currently under review at AfD, is it speediable? Doesn't that subvert the community process? I can see (and have seen) admins taking action *at* an AfD to delete an article that is obviously speediable, but can someone involved in the AfD debate simply slap a CSD tag on the article? Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it meets the speedy deletion criteria, it can be speedied. Obviously, if people disagree on whether or not it should be kept, then it should go through the whole process. However, there is no need to wait the entire week just because it was brought to AfD instead of C:CSD. We are not a bureaucracy. NW (Talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why not? If someone researching the article in order to comment in the AfD finds, for example, that the article is a cut-and-paste copyvio, tagging it for speedy deletion on that ground (and noting in the AfD that it's been so tagged) seems entirely appropriate. Deor (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In cases where there is harm in keeping the article on wikipedia for even a short period (attack pages, copyvio etc.), certainly. In other cases, having to do with notability, context, advert. etc, it is usually better to let the AFD run through (esp. if there is any good faith opposition to the deletion) , although early WP:SNOW closure may be justified in really obvious cases. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it happens quite often where the comments on the AfD identify that the article is speediable - no point wasting time when the result is obvious. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix an incorrect move?[edit]

Resolved: deemed by -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\

I don't know if it's possible anymore but this move was done wrong back in 2006 [8]. Can someone merge the histories or is it too late? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone good at whois?[edit]

12.149.30.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) resolves to "First Baptist Church of West" using the whois link on usertalk. There are lots of "First Baptist Church of West somewhere", and given the recent "jokes" from this IP about thousands being killed and the Holocaust, I think it might be helpful to know just which one this is. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It geolocates to Hollywood, Florida (method: I used that info link in your post). It's not in Kansas, if that's what you're thinking, but of course there are obnoxious people everywhere these days. Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Could be First Baptist Church of West Hollywood (Florida). It also looks as though they're in the midst of swapping out websites and ISPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they also seem to be changing/have changed their name to Hollywood Community Church. DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Also they have a small school, Hollywood Christian Academy so I think it's likely a kid pranking away on their AT&T network link to the Internet. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well found (thanks for the block by the way). Should the IP be tagged as a shared IPEDU or suchlike? DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
...maybe from this very room. Don't know yet if this is truly a shared EDU IP, but it seems most likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've emailed the school using their "contact us" form to suggest they look into this. If it was run-of-the-mill "My teacher's a tosser" vandalism I wouldn't have bothered, but joking about the Holocaust sets my teeth on edge. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Kids sometimes do stuff like that, more or less cluelessly, to see what it stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I know they do - the point is, if joking about stuff like that doesn't get them into trouble now, they'll do worse in the future. Better for them to get a proper bollocking over this than to get into real trouble later for something worse. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
So true, so true; after I reported this edit to local police (a few minutes after it was done), I got a response from the police saying that they were already quite familiar with the kids who had done it. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a sock, please block me[edit]

Resolved: Plaxicoed, thanks for the lulz.

Durova412 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Fran Rogers has been adding incorrect information into two articles with a strong pro-transgender bias (see WP:NPOV). [9] and [10]. He is inserting information that says that men being attracted to men is heterosexual when, in fact, it is homosexual.[11] He then banned me twice for correcting those errors.--Storyadded101 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, this editor appears to be a sock of banned editor Reachspace101 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for admitted socking, Plaxico... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick tangent -- WP:Plaxico was deleted for BLP and I reposted a fixed version: WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Equazcion (talk) 03:39, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I propose a BLP-friendly and easy to remember shortcut: WP:PETARD. Pcap ping 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Mmph!  Confirmed the following accounts as socks of the one editor;
One proxy blocked - Alison 09:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's just JarlaxleArtemis.  Confirmed. Also, the following accounts;

- Alison 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(No need to smear an editor in the section title any longer, changed to reflect reality a bit more...) Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP-Fact cat overlaps[edit]

Having just reverted this BLP nightmare, I've noticed that IP and new editors often pitch up on talk pages to say that they don't know how to remove such nonsense and ask if they're allowed to, as here. IP and new editors therefore tend to be the ones to add a {{fact}} on libel and insults rather than removing them.

That got me thinking: is there some way to produce a list, or a category, or a bot, or something that will show us articles that are in both Category:All articles with unsourced statements and Category:Living people? Perhaps such a thing already exists and I don't know about it. It just seems an easy score for a bored-at-work ten minutes: run through 10 articles that are in both cats and remove the offending junk if required. Ideas?