Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban[edit]

The subject of the ban has asked the discussion be closed. Let's respect their wishes for now; they can start a new thread when they are ready to pursue it. NE Ent 02:23, 15 January 2013 (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.

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

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

I would further add that the vagueness of the current Topic ban has caused Alan to be blocked a couple times (all by the same admin) and a clarification and modification to this ban would greatly benefit the pedia. It would allow the user to continue to edit while being able to fix the minor category problems they run across without violating the ban and the basis for the ban. Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current topic ban is clear and simple, which is a great virtue for any sanction, I also have no confidence (given past edit history) that a relaxed ban, as suggested here, would still avoid Alan's problem use of categories overall.
That said, I don't support his resultant block (GF suggests a warning to please be more careful to avoid accidental overlap would be appropriate and adequate). I'm particularly concerned that all patrolling of his topic ban seems to be coming from one admin. Now that too must surely be coincidence, but it still doesn't look neutral. If Alan were to (and I hope he doesn't) breach this topic ban, then I'm sure it would be obvious and noticed soon enough to be handled by other admins – and if it was benign enough to not raise concerns, then there's no harm done and little point in pursuing blocks over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I don't understand how a clear and simple topic ban is better than a topic ban that addresses the problematic areas and does not extend beyond it. Alan only violates policy in the areas I mentioned. Ryan Vesey 00:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I also don't see how clarifying and loosening the ban to allow some and still factor out those that the community determined to be troublesome. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
We rarely topic ban because of a breach of clear policy – if it's that cut-and-dried, then those are usually blocks. Bans arise where the community is being disrupted by persistent edits that don't clearly breach a policy (and we just don't have a policy against most of Alan's problem edits, we'd not previously needed one), but where these edits are going against (and repeatedly and disruptively) community consensus of "good practice". We base this on our policies against general disruption, but there's no simple policy to point to for the specific issue.
I see Alan's edits involving categorization to any namespace as having been part of this disruption. Not every edit, and some namespaces (e.g. file:) have been much more of a problem than others, but it's the categorization that's the common factor, not the namespace. On that basis, the topic ban should remain defined by categorization.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you are trolling (the first time I have ever made such a judgement AFAIK). Perusal of my talk page and its archive will show that there is no basis in fact (as I have been repeatedly saying) for your accusations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You do not appear to understand what trolling means, since Andy Dingley's post did not even come close. Please read Internet troll. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that I said "I think you are trolling". It is a statement that has a qualification to indicate the I am unsure. Anyway, I used the page at m:What is a troll? as an explanation. The section on misplaced criticism is especially applicable. Also, my suggestion that he is trolling is an opinion based on his numerous edits with regard to me and not simply the foregoing comment from him. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

User/User talk is probably a good extension since it applies to the same types of articles as AFC. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And as can be seen from my editing history I have completely steered clear of those edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic-ban reduction to only apply to files and AfC pages: I do not really see the need to restrict edits in categories of user/user-talk pages. If category edits still seem excessive, then I think discussion at User:Alan_Liefting would be sufficient to request fewer edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with caveat. I've had problems with Liefting's mainspace categorization before, frankly (as did many others - his talk page for a while was flooded with "STOP!" messages), but he seems more clueful now. The extant topic ban is clearly overbroad, thwarting Liefting's ability to work on the encyclopedia in legitimate ways that interest him, and resulting in unjust blocks. For those who feel that he's simply a problem editor and will remain one, see WP:ROPE. Because Liefting has previously engaged in blatant WP:FAITACCOMPLI action, I would support only after the mainspace-categories-in-templates issue reported below is resolved, so that Liefting has a consensus in place to follow, instead of a lack of consensus to sway in favor of his sometimes strange categorization notions by going on a recategorization AWB run or whatever. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it is that editors have an issue with my categorisation edits with respect to user namespace pages, AfC pages, image pages and templates. For the purposes of this reply lets ignore the first three (which I have not touched since my topic ban was enacted). You want to have my current topic ban to remain in place until the "mainspace-categories-in-templates issue" is resolved. I see two problems with that idea. Getting any sort of decision on editing policy/guidelines appears to be next to impossible let alone for categories, so I will end up being penalised for no good reason. Secondly, not so much as a problem I guess, there is already an apparent consensus on template categorisation by virtue of the fact that the vast majority are not categorised in content categories. It is a consensus by virtue of convention. The lack of that realisation by some of the editors involved in prior discussions appears to be a partial reason for my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If there's really a de facto consensus against categorizing templates in mainspace categories (I feel that there probably is), others will resolve templates that don't comply. You personally don't have to be involved. Virtually all of the problems that have arisen with your editing have been category-related. This is a strong indication you shouldn't be messing with categories any time there is even a hint of controversy, or you'll just end up right back here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Question, I am 100% willing to remove mainspace categories from any and all templates. Would it be a violation of Alan's topic ban, as it stands, to inform me of these templates so I could remove them? Ryan Vesey 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Kind of a moot point; he could simply send it to you in e-mail and no one would know. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Why should I be stopped from doing something for which there is de facto consensus? Please also bear in mind that a large part of my editing before having the topic ban imposed was category related. It therefore stands to reason that it is catgory related edits that would be noticed by other editors. And you are saying that if I come across a categorisation edit that needs changing I ignore WP:SOFIXIT and ignore the problem? I have tried that and developed quite a list both at the categorisation WikiProject and offline. Some of the items on my list have been attended to and sometime I leave comments at various WikiProject topic talk pages to get things sorted out. Having to do that is ridiculous and a complete waste of time. But that is what you are suggesting I do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You've asserted that there's a de facto consensus. I lean toward agreeing with you. Doesn't make it a foregone conclusion that everyone will agree. The very fact that a large part of your pre-ban editing was category-related is my point – your talk page had a strong tendency to turn into a firehose of objections to what you were doing with regard to categories, and you typically took a standoffish position with regard to these criticisms and requests to stop. To me, it does not bode well for you to re-involve yourself with categorization in any programmatic or sweeping way, especially given that various other editors are wary of you have having such involvement and looking, probably, to "jump on you" for any perceived transgression in that sector. If avoiding controversy with a little extra work is "a complete waste of your time", then why were you already doing it? "Methinks thou dost protest too much" in suggesting that I am, with "absolutely no sense at all", recommending you do what you're already doing, at least until the controversies about your categorization behaviors settle down. WP is a human endeavor, and like all other human endeavors, politics is always and automatically a factor. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Complicating matters in regards to templates[edit]

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

This actually seems a lot like the leed up to the topic ban. There is no policy that allows it, and no policy that prohibits it. Some editors don't see a problem with it, and object to the removal of the categories. In the file categories case, we then had an RFC that soundly rejected a policy that would have supported the removals. Alan then continued removals after the RFC. I'm not really sure what is going to be different this time around. I have no doubt that Alan means well, but the topic ban really is necessary. All it would take for me to support lifting the topic ban would be for Alan to acknowledge the root of the problem and pledge not to continue courses of category edits in the face of objections, especially when there is no clear policy or guideline backing him up. If there was a proposal allow him to participate in category related discussion while still banning him from direct edits, I would probably support that as well. Monty845 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about that since it appears that WP:Categorization allowed for categorization of files long before the issue began. As for templates, WP:Categorization is what allows categories to appear on pages, it does not allow categories to appear on templates, as a result, templates cannot have categories (mainspace ones that is). Ryan Vesey 10:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The original problems were with the files (and some templates) and the userspace drafts. The first is a contentious, and difficult, field, the second are edits that 'have to be done', but there are several ways of doing them (removal by outright clear-cut removal, commenting them out, or colon-ising them - and it depends on which you deem the best and the least bitey to a new editor). However, the topic ban is covering all fields of categorisation, and enforced even though hardly ANY of the edits that have resulted are reverted, removed, undone, whatever - the edits stand, for months, but the editor who performs them is blocked because of an edit restriction which is too broadly worded.
I would support to restrict the edit restriction to 'mainspace categorisation of pages in the files, templates and categories namespace' (he can still suggest them to/discuss them on e.g. the categorisation WikiProject for others to solve, but no addition or removal or recategorisation of files, templates and categories when it involves mainspace categories), and that for the categorisation of userspace drafts (including articles for creation) Alan has to perform the following: 'colonisation of the categories on those pages, followed within 10 minutes with a note on the talkpage of the creator of the draft article' (or leave them alone and suggest them to others). I would also ask for the removal of the restriction on Alan that disallows Alan to discuss the lifting of the restriction on AN, which was implemented because he asked for it for the second time (sigh, that is akin blocking talkpage access of a blocked editor as soon as the editor asks for the second time to lift his block). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, I have reviewed his category-related edits, and I can say the edits he has made to violate the current ban were recategorization of templates and categories (mostly removing categories, e.g. [6] [7]). I think he has not been editing userspace drafts recently. If the goal of changing the restriction is to affect the current block, it would need to allow him to edit such pages. However, removing categories from templates was one of the things that was discussed before the topic ban was implemented, and I think the inclusion of templates was intentional. I have interpreted the current ban as allowing Alan to post cleanup messages such as [8], which should be sufficient. However, one problematic aspect of his editing is that he sometimes has posted the note, only to later remove the categories himself, e.g. [9] [10]. I think the reason few of his edits are reverted is the same reason the cleanup tags are not promptly answered: few people watchlist templates and categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Or the reason is that the edits are simply fine. But that does not matter anyway. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Carl, Dirk Beetstra is correct here. The reason that few of his edits are reverted is not because people don't see them. If that was the case, he would never be blocked. You chose to block him, which was in line with the technical bounds allowed to you by the editing restriction, while endorsing his edits by default. Ryan Vesey 17:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but let's all stop beating on Carl. Alan broke the rules of the community-endorsed topic ban several times, on several separate occasions. There's no point in a community-endorsed topic ban if it's not enforced. Sure, as I've said on Alan's talkpage, Carl might have given Alan a warning, but in all honesty, we should credit Alan with more intelligence, he knows the bounds of the topic ban, there's thousands of edits he can make without infringing it. Please stop pretending Alan is the victim here, Carl is technically right to do what he's done. Having said that, if 0.2% of my edits were called out as being bad and I was blocked for a month, I'd be upset, but then again, I would work hard to avoid that situation. Can we just focus on the idea that the topic ban phrasing could be updated to include a single warning should Alan transgress once again, and have a duration, e.g. three months? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ryan seems so keen to whitewash Alan that he's now blanking any criticism of him on other projects as "removing unrelated crap" and edit-warring to re-blank it when it's restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's completely unrelated and your idea that I'm "whitewashing" Alan is wrong. Ottawahitech made an inappropriate edit in an improper venue. Editors have a responsibility to remove crap like that. Ryan Vesey 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alan Liefting is a clear deletionist and a regular at AfD. To hear him discuss editor retention with the comment, "We should also keep editor attrition in the back of our minds when !voting on deletion discussions." is thus a little surprising, at least when it's coming from him. Not surprisingly, Ottawahitech then challenged him over this and noted some of Alan's past actions that were rather at variance with his words here. Ottawahitech's comments were very far from complimentary and might have been phrased more modestly, given the fluffy kid gloves we're all supposed to wear whilst typing, but one thing they certainly weren't was "unrelated". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a question, is this actually related the topic ban we're discussing across most of Wikipedia, or is it a different matter that needs to be dealt with locally/elsewhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's unrelated. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • When Ryan is trying to instigate presenting Alan as the innocent victim of an unwarranted topic ban, whilst simultaneously blanking other's well-founded criticisms of him, then it's related. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Andy Dingley on all his points in this section. (And note that I support partial relaxation of Liefting's topic-ban; they're severable concerns.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

  • Andy, your position on the quality of my edits is all over the place. You have contradicted yourself on my talk page about these supposed "well-founded criticisms". Now are you sure that your comments are not clouded by the fact that we have not seen eye to eye in past discussions? You seem to be clutching at straws to make sure that I am penalised. BTW, another editor has endorsed Ryan's edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a narrowing of the topic ban - to File, AFC and other's user-space. Blocking an editor for making perfectly good edits shows that either we are slavishly following rules, or the rules are wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This portion of the discussion is done and can be archived. Discuss modification of the topic ban above this section, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2013 (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.

The problem with this type of discussion[edit]

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

I feel that he should have been unblocked just to take part in this. I've seen it happen before. I'll ping a neutral admin. Ryan Vesey 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm that neutral admin, and I am in fact neutral. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have unblocked Alan so he can participate in this discussion. See the conditions I set on his talk page, and please be advised that I am well aware that my blocks and unblocks are always subject to community approval. I trust that Alan will not abuse this limited freedom. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. That at least fixes things for this case. I still stand by the statement above that it happens all too often and all too often people turn their backs too it. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a systemic problem with administration of WP by our administrators both individually or collectively. I don't have any animosity to the admins involved in this discussion so my comment is not a case of sour grapes (having said that I do wish Carl would turn a blind eye to my uncontroversial edits relating to the topic ban.) Time and again there has been complaints about the behaviour of admins. Admins should have exemplary behaviour, mind you so should all other editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Alan, you realise that comment actually has no content at all, right? You think there's a "systemic problem" but go on to explain that admins/non-admins are all the same and should all behave in the same way. Do you have a point, or is it one of those Merlot mornings? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Waddaya mean by no content? I put forward an opinion. An opinion is content. My point is that it is good that the whole RfA process is tightened up so only the good ones get through but there are some admins who have atrocious behaviour and I think it is hard to control or get rid of them. Admins control the common rabble so they should be on their best behaviour. To set the example and all that. BTW, I only drink Merlot in the evenings. Probably your mornings. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Rambling Man is correct; that was totally content-free in any meaningful sense. Alan, your verbiage was just noise, in the information theory sense, since the logic was so faulty that half of what you said cancelled the other half out. You're not parsing "content" correctly, just as you didn't understand "trolling" properly earlier. I strongly suggest that you stop trying to get into nit-picking arguments here. You were unblocked to make a case for a change to your topic-ban, not to engage in petty bickering over and act defensively and haughtily in response to criticism. Further behavior of that sort is highly likely to convince me to rescind my support of a relaxation of your topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of Alan proposal[edit]

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

That doesn't seem sensible: as long as the topic ban is in place, the block is legit and should also remain fully in force. Block conditions should never be complex as they're tricky for admins to enforce and there's a potential for the editor to misunderstand the conditions (or claim to misunderstand them, as happens sometimes - though hopefully not here). Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Nick, there is no suggestion by Ryan to change the original topic ban at this stage. He simply wants my current block to be lifted in light of the emerging consensus above. Also, given emerging consensus the block cannot really be considered "legit". BTW, I think the current topic ban is a bit easier to understand, and therefore follow and enforce, than the modification to it suggested in the foregoing discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be a clear consensus from the above that the block was made in accordance with the ban conditions, and as such was a legitimate action. The issue is whether these conditions should be amended (which would then lead to the block being entirely lifted), and this appears to have general, though not overwhelming, support from the above discussion. Am I correct in reading your last statement as meaning that you don't actually want the ban conditions altered? Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the block was a "legitimate" action but from a common sense viewpoint and as a means of protecting WP it is completely nonsensical (and no one seems to be helping me to clean out the rapidly expanding Category:Articles with missing files...). And no, I am not saying that I don't want the topic ban conditions changed. I am simply pointing out that perhaps it will be more complicated to enforce. I don't want any sort of topic ban hanging over me at all - but lets not go there! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that a block is legitimate doesn't mean it is beneficial. Ryan Vesey 04:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal[edit]

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

And if you break the terms of your topic ban? Are you happy to be re-blocked on the current escalating scale with no recourse? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I would hope that good sense prevails and policy and guidelines will be developed, which will then allow for the suggested modification to my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You disagree with the way your ban has been handled (including subsequent blocks), the community don't consensually agree with your point of view. Wait, this is exactly the status quo. So if you breach the terms of your current topic ban, things will return to the existing status quo, i.e. you get progressively longer blocks. All you're asking for now is for the current block to be removed? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally I read that as 'I am going to try my hardest meanwhile to change policy & guidelines so the actions that got me restricted in the first place will not be subject to restrictions'..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

So are we done here? Do you have anything further to add to AN or are you now content to sit out the remainder of your latest block? Either way, you should contact User:Drmies who was collegiate enough to allow you the opportunity to edit here despite your current block. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rambling Man--my involvement, as far as I'm concerned, ended with the limited unblock. A "reblock" should be done by someone familiar with the issue and the discussion here. I do note that Alan has made a few talk page edits that do not pertain to this matter, though he noted that he shouldn't be conversing about other matters. Not such a big deal to me personally. Anyway, I am not well-versed enough in the matter to reblock or to leave him unblocked. You all should come up with that consensus, and the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, as an "involved" admin, I've been advised to avoid any admin action here. You unblocked him with certain conditions. I suggest you now reblock him per the original conditions since Alan is demonstrating no desire to continue discussion here. It's pretty simple for me. The unblock was to assist Alan's communications here and nowhere else, right? You unblocked him for that didn't you? Please now "undo" the "unblock" and restore the original conditions of the block. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
TRM, you are making an incorrect assumption about my intentions or misconstrued what I said. Yes, it is true that I have "no desire to continue discussion here" but that is because I want it resolved so we can all move on. When I said "Forget I said anything" it was for the comment that I struck out. You and I have a strained relationship for some reason and it looks like the tension is increasing again. Your desire to pass punitive measure agaisnt me and which is contrary to the will of most others who have contributed to this discussion is demonstrating that animosity. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No, not really, just not sure what you need to be unblocked for right now. You made your plea, you retracted your plea, everything else can take place at your talk page or after your block expires. I don't get why you feel the need to circumvent your block now you're not interested in discussing your position here. "Your desire to pass punitive measure agaisnt me and which is contrary to the will of most others who have contributed to this discussion is demonstrating that animosity." - no, I'm just asking that the original block (or the most recent block) for transgressing your topic ban should be re-enacted since you decided to remove your request. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, as far as I understand it there is nothing stopping me from editing my talk page on matters that are not related to the block? Is that correct? Anyway, looking at it from a rational and collegial viewpoint it is best to reply to questions from other editors on my talk page. If policy prevents that it would be petty. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
TRM, the conditions imposed on me means that I cannot post on Drmies talk page. I am essentially still blocked from editing. PLease make yourself conversant with the issue before making comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I assume Drmies will be watching this since he unblocked you? I was half-way through reminding Drmies of this scenario and thought better of it. Now I wish I'd pursued it sooner so we could close out this latest episode of Alan's mini-drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes you are right, this has nothing to do with protecting WP. I would like to point out that I have a long term strained relationship with the two editors here who want to continue with punishing me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No, we (well at least I) want to just see things done properly. Alan has been blocked but allowed some latitude to post here by the kindness of Drmies. Two questions into this, Alan has decided to tell us to "forget it" so I suggested we returned to the status quo. Big deal. Seems straight forward enough to me. And no, Kumioko, this isn't a "punishment", it's a standard incremental block on an editor who continually ignores his community-sanctioned topic ban. It's as simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
TRM first let me lead this off by saying that I have always thought you were fair and a level headed editor. Your one of the few who I still have a high degree of respect for. With that said, when he said that, he was clearly referring to the struck out comment when he said forget it. Your right about being allowed to edit here. I am glad that Drmies did that. I was one of the ones who fought for that because I personally think it is wrong to exclude a longstanding editor from a discussion like this. I also still don't agree this isn't a punishment. Its clear to me that's what this is at the detriment of the pedia. I am familiar with the background of the case and the grounds for the Topic ban but it is clear as day to me that these edits have absolutely nothing to do with that ban. The only thing they had in common was they were categories, thats it. The situation is comparing apples and oranges. Now I am not going to keep arguing about it because I have basically given up on the community and this is the sort of thing I expect to see. You get users like Alan that get blocked for petty shit like this and you have other users and admins doing whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want and we just turn our backs to it. Its absolutely pathetic the way we treat our editors these days. Its disgraceful and disgusting. It makes me ashamed to tell people I edit because every time I bring it up, they tell me things like I tried to edit once but the told me I was a "fucking idiot and I need to learn to spell first". I hear many stories like that. I stopped telling people I edit. This situation is no exception. We continue to cannabolize our ranks; we burn each other down and then piss on the ashes. If Alan was doing such a horrible job then why is it the exact same involved admin who blocks him each time. I'll tell you. Because he is involved and looking for a reason to do it. Plain and simple. I don't expect anyone to care what I say or care about my opinion. But I wanted it on record I don't agree and several other editors don't agree as noted above and on Alan's talk page. So if the admins in this case want to go ahead and say there is no consensus and continue to the block then fine. But again you are doing it because that is what you want, not what the community wants. Kumioko (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact, if you block him, please block me for the same duration! Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well said! <personal attack redacted by Dweller> -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Alan, consider yourself extremely fortunate that I haven't blocked you for that egregious personal attack. --Dweller (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the leniency. I am now unsure where the boundary is between describing the behaviour of others and what constituents a personal attack. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)
Just to clarify I think very highly of TRM. I attribute it to the atmosphere of Wikipedia these days and this is in no way directed at TRM. The atmosphere here is toxic, corrosive and infectious. Even the most respected editors and admins are not immune to occasional acts of stupidity and assholery!. Unfortunately, more and more are making those acts less occasional than common. That's why I have gone from doing more than 10, 000 edits a month (some months over 20 and 30 thousand) to less than a couple hundred a month and 99% are on discussions. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Eh... There is too much focus on Alan's unblock and the conditions thereof. I unblocked him so he could participate in this here AN thread about his editing behavior. I did not unblock him so he could a. make personal attacks or b. have conversations with other editors.
  • a. What was redacted above by Dweller was at the very least unhelpful. I don't like civility blocks and this, for me, was not blockable. The Rambling Man considers themselves too involved to act on it and that's probably a wise decision. Dweller's finger hovered over the block button but they refrained, wisely or not. As I said before, if any (uninvolved, I suppose) admin thinks that Alan's edits here are disruptive one way or another I won't stand in the way of ending his temporary freedom to participate in this thread. Again, I won't (re-)block for that particular remark, but YMMV and that's fine with me. I have no horse in this race, no dog or zombie either.
  • b. I did not, Alan, unblock you so you could advise other editors who come to your talk page. The proper answer is "sorry I'm on the other line" or some version thereof. Again, I won't block for it, since you produced that answer after a few responses, and at any rate your talk page privileges were not revoked, AFAIK. But please stay on point, and don't comment on your block while your block is being discussed: it's foolish and there's enough bad blood already.
There's a proposal below. I hope you all can focus on that so we can bring this to a close. Ent is chomping at the bit to close this entire discussion, Alan wants some clarity, Floquenbeam is still racking up points for their Christian charity exercise (power to you, Floq), and this needs to be taken care of. In Bradspeak: I have unblocked Alan's one-month block temporarily so he could participate in this here discussion at this here Administrators' Noticeboard. If, in your judgment, he trespasses that privilege and is disruptive one way or another, reblock. Then, </end bradspeak> decide on something, close the thread, have a beer, move along. I am in no way endorsing the use or even abuse of alcohol among editors, though it makes your French more palatable. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

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

  • Alan affirmatively states he intends to follow the topic ban.
  • He's declared "unblocked" for the purpose of editing.
  • All parties in the discussion stop talking about each other. Not important. NE Ent 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I support this per the sections above. I should like to clarify that this, and the rest of the unblock discussion I initiated, should in no way assume the topic ban modification should or should not occur. Should Alan be unblocked, he is bound by whatever the topic ban is when he is unblocked and if the modification is closed with consensus to modify, Alan would immediately be held to the new ban rather than the old one. Perhaps I shouldn't have started the unblock discussion as soon as I did, but the topic ban modification was dragging out so I jumped the gun a little. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If I am unblocked I hereby affirm I will follow any topic ban imposed on me (even though the current one is seen as overly draconian). I guess I will have to wait for the day that the community decides to create comprehensive categorisation guidelines before any alteration of my topic ban can take place. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It might look like I'm making you grovel by repeating yourself, Alan, but as an uninvolved admin, I'm just making absolutely sure I understand what is going on. Do I understand correctly that:
    • You were topic banned from all category-related edits outside of mainspace, and have been blocked for violating it before
    • You strongly disagree with that topic ban, and believed at the very least it should have had a narrower scope
    • You made some category-related edits that weren't problematic per se, but which violated the topic ban
    • You were blocked 1 month for it
    • You still believe that the topic ban is unreasonable/unfair/too broad/what-have-you
    • You agree to abide by it anyway, and make no category-related edits outside of mainspace, no matter how obviously correct you believe they are
    • If the scope of the topic ban is modified, you'll abide by that. If it isn't modified, you'll abide by the current one
    • You have not previously affirmed that you will abide by the topic ban; this is new
If this is correct, please say so here, and I'll modify this limited unblock to a full unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You sum up my stance and my promise with pretty much 100% accuracy. I am also sick and tired of this endless discussion. It is a wasting a lot of time and energy (although some may be here solely for this sort of thing...) Maybe even close this whole AN discussion and we can all go our separate ways. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, then a couple of things. First, you're now welcome to edit anywhere on WP, subject only to whatever topic ban is currently in place. Second, since you're already unblocked, the only way I can figure out to modify your block log is to reblock for 2 minutes, and then unblock so I can add a note about this to the block log. With my luck, this will cause you an autoblock, for which I apologize in advance. Third, probably best if you and those who disagree with you limited your interaction for a while, in order for things to cool down. Fourth, I'll look through this again and see if I agree that the entire section can be archived. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ryan thanks for being staunch but do you think archiving the whole discussion may be a better idea? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you have no desire to modify your topic ban, yes. It seems to me that there is consensus, or at least close to consensus, for a modification. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to have my topic ban modified but I also want this discussion to end so we can all move on. I am willing to have the current topic ban remain in place and maybe it can be revisited at some point in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Floquenbeam. From my POV I don't think the discussion was particularly heated. Frustrating and interminable but not heated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Blacklists and assholes[edit]

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

You don't think there's a single notable work with the word "asshole" in it? It took me less than twenty seconds to come up with five. IPs and other casual editors add the vast majority of our content, and every barrier that's put in their way hurts us. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. You probably thought I meant I couldn't search for existing articles with "asshole" in the title, as opposed to not thinking of any ideas of new articles. I also said I had created an article on a notable subject with an expletive in it myself, going via this very board to do it, so that's not really the issue - more that creating an article with this title is so infrequent that it would be a net benefit to add "asshole" to the blacklist alongside "shit". --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You missed the point. If several such articles, mostly about notable published works already exist, and "asshole" is not an obsolete word like "hungred", then logically it's a near certainty that more notable works will use this word in their titles in the future, probably the very near future. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Would the edit filter block the creation of AFC pages? I just created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit with my non-admin alternate account (containing nothing but a deletion tag and "Page created to test the title blacklist."), and to my surprise it went through quite fine. I was planning to comment on the wording of the message presented when the blacklist prevents the creation of a title, but I'm not sure how to do that without disrupting mainspace. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The warning depends on the regex that the page gets blocked under. (By the way, do note that the edit filter and the title blacklist are two totally different things.) Writ Keeper 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I knew that, but obviously I wasn't paying attention. I was only attempting to trigger the title blacklist. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You should be able to find most of the messages here. Writ Keeper 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
See also this AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
And, for completeness, this thread is when I noted I couldn't create an article with "shit" in it, about a fortnight after that AfD. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the messages. The text of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit almost seems to presume that a false positive has happened and provides full instructions for creating a needed page. I don't understand Chris' last clause. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised Asshole from El Paso doesn't have an article. I might just write this one, if only to try to get it pushed through WP:DYK and on the main page. (muahahahahahaha) caknuck ° needs to be running more often 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made a change that should probably resolve this issue. Before this change, the title blacklist would have rejected names that included "is an asshole". I've changed it so that it also rejects phrases like "are assholes". ‑Scottywong| confer _ 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My most recent DYK was Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, the First Sixty Years, so I definitely disagree with the premise "I can't think of a single valid reason to create an article using this word." 28bytes (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, the title blacklist will currently only prevent IP's and non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles that include things like "is an asshole" or "are assholes". There are very few valid articles (like The Devil is an Ass or The Masses Are Asses) that this entry would have prevented. Just the word "asshole" on its own in a page title is not restricted, to my knowledge. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, but not really[edit]

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

If you look at Alameda's history, you'll see a lot of problems. I don't think the editor is a bad actor, but more likely generally incompetent. I suppose they need some advice at a minimum, although I'm not sure if the problems are fixable (call me cynical).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not an isolated incident... Salvidrim!  02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know, you removed a bunch of the false block notices. I've now removed the rest (I think). I've left a note on the editor's talk page, and we'll see what happens next.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


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

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

Carson30, can you explain why you think you are qualified to call for the discussion to be closed? You appear to have only made 8 edits to Wikipedia - none of which were of any significance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: per this [11] it seems evident that Carson30 and Alameda15 are the same person - and neither account is a net benefit to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've indef'd Carson30 per WP:DUCK and blocked Alameda15 for 48 hours. -- King of ♠ 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Aaronsw RIP[edit]

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

Generally accounts are not blocked after death, but I have locked the userpage. The talk page is open just incase people wish to leave notes of condolences. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably put something there during the weekend. I'm calmer now, but sleepy. Goodnight. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
It's no hoax. It is a tremendously sad event; see the Wikimedia blog --My76Strat (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)(condolences)
In case of any doubt, BBC has also put up an article on it. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

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

  • persistent tendentious editing: Wingwrong edited Talk:Comfort women[14] on 11 January 2013 three month after the previous edit[15] on 24 October 2012. Is this persistent tendentious editing? This block is as if the user violated a topic ban.
  • persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women: Is what Future Perfect at Sunrise call denialism a legitimate reason to block a user?
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I had a quick look at User talk:Wingwrong and Talk:Comfort women, and it is clear that "persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women" is accurate. There is no policy that such activity must be blocked, but does anyone recommend an unblock? Is there a reason to expect that an unblock might help the encyclopedia? The user's English is not good enough for an expectation that advice would be understood, and the user recently repeated unsourced advocacy (diff) after a one-month block in August where three separate unblock requests were declined by different admins. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Wingwrong was blocked twice before for similar behaviour; the last time was for a month. At that time, Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) told him that he was "running out of chances", that he needed to make a "complete change in attitude" and that he would likely be blocked indef the next time [16]. Wingwrong's editing has consisted purely of politically motivated national advocacy editing on matters of Japanese foreign conflict (Comfort women, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands), and in particular on Comfort women he has persistently used the article and the talk page for agenda screeds, promoting denialist fringe positions. That article has been afflicted with these kinds of edits from several (usually Japanese) editors for years. It is my position that people misusing Wikipedia for pushing their agendas of Japanese-war-crime denialism should be treated no differently from those who push Holocaust denialism, Armenian genocide denialism, 9/11 "truth" conspiracy theories or other similarly outworn political fringe positions. We block such editors. Fut.Perf. 10:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
FPoS is absolutely correct here. This user is here to push a fringe ultra-nationalist position on a large number of articles. While it's good that he stopped edit warring on the articles themselves, it's a waste of other editors time to have to constantly respond to his posts on article talk page that are generally somewhere between wrong and ludicrous. And the viewpoint he represents, especially on Comfort women is held by such a tiny number of people that it qualifies as WP:FRINGE. His last set of edits there (demanding physical evidence) demonstrate he has no interest in understanding or implementing Wikipedia's core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. While Phoenix is correct that the frequency of editing has gone down, the key problem has not. I support the block. It is somewhat conceivable that the user could be unblocked at some point, but he'll need to demonstrate a radically different approach to editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've had a look at the relevant talk pages, and I have to agree the block is valid. This user obviously doesn't understand (or doesn't care about) our basic policies and is determined to push a fringe POV. Their English skills don't seem to be good enough to make meaningful contributions either. I suppose we could issue a topic ban from all articles relating to comfort women, but almost all this editor's contributions relate to some sort of international controversy involving Japan and the problems are sufficiently severe that they are likely to crop up again if they try to edit anywhere else. Hut 8.5 11:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A good block, for sound reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This looks like a good block to me as well - this editor is essentially a single purpose account for pushing a Japanese nationalist POV, and clearly isn't here to develop neutral encyclopedic articles. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Out of fairness, Wingwrong has stated the following on his talk page in reference to this block:

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

Then in User Talk:Wingwrong#Comfort women's question there is more evidence presented to support his position, in particular referencing a Japanese news article that claims that the Japanese government has explicitly supported the position he's pushing, and therefore it doesn't qualify as fringe. I'm too close to the content dispute to offer an opinion on this (plus, I was reading the news story through Google Translate, and that's iffy at best). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to be debating the content issues, but the Kono Statement of 1993 is the Japanese Government's official position on the issue, and it acknowledges that coercion was used to recruit 'comfort women' from Korea and elsewhere: [17]. According to a quick Google search, the current Japanese Government is considering moving away from this position: [18] [19], but that doesn't excuse this POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clarify what exactly is the problem with Wingwrong's editing. Hut 8.5 (and Nick-D, in different words) says that "almost all this editor's contributions relate to some sort of international controversy involving Japan", but there are many such users that are brought to this board and that's not automatically ground for a permaban. Is it the poor English competency, per Johnuniq? Some people alluded to edit-warring, but haven't provided links to ANEW discussions. I've only seen blocks issued in punishment for talk page rants at AE, and the "comfort women" issue is not sufficiently high-profile to go there.

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree with NE Ent. A block for being offensive is a block for being in a small minority that most people in a heated discussion don't like. I agree that Wingwrong is blatantly wrong to advocate it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a block for refusing to follow project orthodoxy. Perhaps Wingwrong should have been blocked some months ago for inserting this kind of thing into the article, but that's apparently not at all what was the basis for this block, and a block now for something several months ago would be quite inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Tendencious editing is certainly possible using talk pages, too. There's a point at which repeating discredited notions becomes in and of itself disruptive as it just wears good contributors down trying to deal with it. And as for the whole "saying offensive opinions is always allowed" thing, that's just not the case. A point comes that repetition of an offensive position is disruptive, frankly, much worse incivility than a few F-bombs. If we were dealing with a Holocaust denier, would we even be having this discussion? I doubt it. We'd be throwing away the key. And with good reason: It discredits Wikipedia for us to entertain such people, even on talk pages, and it drives away good contributors to see this happening. The fact that the actocities committed by Imperial Japan are less well-known in the Western world than the Holocaust is does not mean their denial deserves any greater tolerance on Wikipedia talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
We actually have an article for that ... putting aside the the Godwin's law tangent; it's our mission to "tolerate" reliably sourced minority but not fringe viewpoints. It discredits Wikipedia to censor good faith if misguided opinions we disagree with -- the better solution is education -- explaining to ww the reliable source and original research policies. 16:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You are mixing up article coverage and talkpage discussion yourself here, and I must say I'm astonished to see an editor of your experience make such a basic mistake. No, it is not our "mission" to "tolerate" advocacy for such viewpoints. It is, of course, our mission to represent them, in articles (which we of course do). But that's not what Wingwrong was trying to do; he was trying to proselytize other editors for them. And it's nothing to do with Godwin's law if we state that proselytizing Japanese war crimes denial is no different from proselytizing Holocaust denial. Fut.Perf. 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, invoking Godwin's law is meant to be done when someone inappropriately compares something/someone to the Nazis/Nazism. Comparing forum moderators to Nazis, for example, is inappropriate. Comparing Imperial Japan's war crimes to the Holocaust is wholly appropriate. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
FPaS and Heimstern are absolutely correct here, and this is a good block. There is a massive difference between representing and promoting extreme fringe views. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a substantial difference between blocking for "persistent offensive advocacy" despite only a few incidents and blocking someone who's constantly advocating for a problematic position. Were this the result of more advocacy of the same position, I would support blocking, but not for "persistent offensive advocacy", because that says that certain positions are inherently unwelcome here. Block only after warning the user in a way such as "Sources are consistently strongly against the position that you're taking, so it is disruptive to continue repeating the same arguments over and over again", because keeping it up is thumbing one's nose at everyone else. It's disruptive to get in the way of reasonable discussion on any topic, but what this user did was infrequent enough that it could easily be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Good block. My words before the edit conflict were very much the same as Black Kite's, immediately above, but more verbose - so just read that comment again for my opinion too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Unblock: I see nothing in users contribs since the last block that would indicate this should be extended to indef. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have considered the most recent post and believe that this comment is not a sufficiently sound basis for an indefinite block. Binksternet was citing sources to dispute a claim that prostitution was not generally forced. First source was questioned on the basis that it was a collection of testimony, and such testimonies are not reliable sources for making a factual statement. Looking deeper into that it appears the source is an advocacy organization and thus is not independent of the subject so it can only be reliable as a source about the organization's views. The second it was noted that this was citing a single individual when making the claim. I observe that nearly all of the sources are essentially just going off the testimonies and do not give any indication of independent research into the claims. One of the sources Binkster provided is actually from one of the women who has made these allegations so her book is definitely not a reliable source for anything other than her own view as she is not an independent source. Looking over it, I feel the question about the reliability of these sources are generally apt.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I would generally agree with this, though I am not hip to the idea of not allowing him to participate due solely to a language barrier. His comments are not incomprehensible and he seems to have sufficient grasp of English to understand what is going on, even if it hampers his communicative abilities. On a number of occasions he has raised legitimate points regarding articles, including the one in question, and made legitimate contributions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a terribly accurate representation of what happened. This edit was made after coming off a one-month block for the same behaviour. If someone returns from a block of finite duration and repeats the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place then they clearly aren't cooperating and an extension to indef is reasonable. In that edit Wingwrong dismissed various sources on the grounds that they don't measure up to their personal standards of proof, which is clear original research. If you look back over the talk page you can see that Wingwrong has made numerous previous comments dismissing sources for an alleged lack of physical evidence and other personal reasons, so they obviously haven't listened to the explanations of how Wikipedia works that they received. The article probation on Liancourt Rocks is much stricter than a simple 1RR restriction, as you can see from the box here. The fact that we have encyclopedic coverage of fringe views is simply irrelevant here - it certainly isn't justification for tenaciously pushing those views in violation of core policies. Hut 8.5 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. A user previously warned and repeatedly blocked for serious problem behavior, who is warned then that further misbehavior may result in an indefinite block, does not require further additional warnings prior to indefinite blocking. It is already established that advocacy of war crime denialism is disruptive of the encyclopedia and brings it into disrepute and is serious problem behavior, though this set of war crimes are not the ones we most often have to respond to denialism about. Good block. A more verbose block message with links to all the history would have avoided the confusion, perhaps, but the warnings and prior block notices are still in the users' talk page.
This would not be controversial if this were a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. This is not exactly as bad but is along the same lines. It's nearly as offensive to Koreans, and similar denialism about atrocities in China and elsewhere is to those peoples, as the Holocaust deniers are to survivors and descendants of the Shoah. It may not be as well known in the west, but that's not a good reason to treat it differently.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Free images[edit]

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

Off-wiki possible canvassing regarding Teresa Perales[edit]

Enough drama has been spilled here. There seems to be a clear consensus that no canvassing took place, while simultaneously it seems that most agree that asking people you know to do a GA review of your article (in any off-wiki venue, not just IRC) is discouraged, since the system works best when the GA reviewer is as impartial as possible. Finally, while posting off-wiki conversations on the drama boards isn't disallowed, it is definitely considered rude (especially when you were asked not to) and should probably only be done in extreme cases (which this doesn't even come close to). In the end, we can't really do anything about off-wiki behavior, so reporting it here is really only effective at stirring up drama. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:42, 15 January 2013 (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.

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

  • It's not unheard of for editors who are friendly with each other to review each other's articles. Now, as to how good a review the other gives... As for any possible canvassing, in my opinion she asked for a review, which is not explicitly asking for a pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I find myself agreeing with Crisco here. More likely, they weren't asking for a free pass, they were asking for a fast pass, simply getting a review now instead of in a few weeks. Was it proper? Meh, maybe not. Get in line like the rest of us. Was it canvassing? Not really, since they didn't ask for a specific outcome, just a quicker one. Probably not a good idea (because it can be misread, like here) but unless there is more to the story, I don't see it as "actionable". Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I on the other hand must be having my cynical day, because I find Crisco's remark about "not explicitly asking for a pass" a little naive. Nobody is going to explicitly ask for a pass. Asking a friend for a review instead of waiting is tantamount to asking for a pass. In my opinion. Mind you, although I think the request is inappropriate, I agree that it's not actionable. I'm sure similar requests for review go on in complete privacy (e-mail and other one-on-one communication) all the time. Well, some of the time. It wouldn't feel right to sanction someone for being a little more open. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC).
      I totally agree. Bad form due to the medium used, but not actionable unless there is an explicit rule about this that I don't know. Note that an on-wiki request would be fine IMO. Hans Adler 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Anything and everything can be argued as asking for support, which is why I generally don't cross post my PRs, FACs, and GANs. Even the most neutrally worded request for review can be seen as gaming the system. Unless it is explicit or decidedly not neutral, I don't think we should consider it a violation of our canvassing policy. Not naivety, but a hope to avoid drama by establishing objective criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What's my opinion? Easy. I'd suggest that Laura is most likely overenthusiastic rather than malicious. What should be done? Well, if ThineAntiquePen takes up Laura's invitation to review it, he gets a slap with a trout. And if Laura treads as closely to the canvassing line in the future, she gets a trouting too. There. Swift justice from Tom's School of Administrative Common Sense™. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If TAP gives a solid review, or ends up failing it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm hoping he has the sense not to. Not because it'd be wrong but because people would make a flap about it and he's grown to be a sensible user who knows that not getting people into a flap even if you aren't at fault is a good way of behaving. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not disallowed, or even uncommon, for nominators to request reviews, so I don't think this in itself is worth sanctioning. I am more worried about the semi-private way in which it was done. It is not the first time. I personally have received an email from Laura (neutrally worded, but a little pandering) requesting I look into a WP:GAR someone started on one of her articles. I also have suspicions of some off wiki contact at a reassessment of Laura's I initiated. Again, contacting other editors and asking them to comment on this processes is not uncommon, but it should at least be done transparently. Maybe that could be made clearer here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
How can it be addressed here, if it requires new guideline or policy? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


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

I respect all of you, but let's leave the sniping for now — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Rcsprinter, as stated by you, it was said in a private channel and so why publish a private comment that is harmless question and turn it into something that its not. I also wonder if the IRC channel has a policy for "logging" and "publishing"? Bidgee (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, and look who's here, Bidgee—I was just thinking of pointing out how much Laura Hale has banged on in an obscenely public way about what she confabulates might be other people's conflict of interest, when you, her ally at Wikimedia Australia, turn up with a supportive comment. Tony (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Sigh. Think what ever you want Tony but at the end of the day, you're just another troll with your own agenda. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, ok, enough with the sniping. Let's take things one at a time here:
    • Laura, while you didn't violate our canvassing guidelines here, you did put TAP in an uncomfortable position by privately requesting his help. It's not uncommon for users in channels like #wikipedia-en to throw out a "hey, anyone want to do a GAR?", but much like putting a request onwiki, asking in a public channel means you get who you get, and is considered acceptable (by most people, at least). Asking in a private channel where you're friendly on a personal level with the members is a bit less cool, because no matter what wording you use (and no matter how absolutely pure your intentions), you're then asking someone to either review your work favorably (whether because it's good, or because they like you) or to make the uncomfortable choice of reviewing unfavorably the work done by a friend. It's not canvassing, but it is both reducing the chances of you getting a good review and putting your requested reviewer in an awkward position - and those things aren't great. I know you prefer to interact with people on a one-on-one basis for requests, but sometimes that's a bad call.
    • Rcsprinter, while it's good that you didn't publish a whole log this time, you've sort of stepped into an awkward gap here between "misbehavior on IRC" (which is not AN's problem) and "off-wiki collusion" (which is, sometimes, very much depending on the case). Generally if someone is doing something untoward in an IRC channel, the way to handle that is to speak to the channel's ops, because it's their job to handle behavior that goes on there - or, if the ops can't handle it, the Wikimedia GCs, who have responsibility for administering all our IRC channels. Copying excerpts of conversations onto WP, whether in full logs or in snippets, rarely leads to anything but drama, largely because it results in trying to cram together two worlds that only vaguely touch in the normal course of things.
    • Everyone that's sniping in this thread: oh for heaven's sake. Do you think everyone else isn't just shaking their heads and muttering about the "usual suspects" here? We get it, some people are friendly with each other, others dislike each other. Could we at least attempt to act like everyone's also capable of putting aside their personal preferences and evaluating matters on their merits? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Rcsprinter, I question of you have actually read the topic of the channel. ... Also, respectable people are expected not to provide logs of this channel publicly... It is not uncommon for editors to ask other editors to review articles during the GA process. LauraHale did not ask for it to be passed; she asked for it to be reviewed. Personally, I think that Rcsprinter has "misbehaved" the most with IRC, given the RfA log-publishing incident and this one. Both of the incidents occurred in the same channel, which has the topic I have stated above. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As I said above, TAP, if you think someone is misusing IRC, you generally want to address that complaint to the ops of the channel you feel they're misusing. Accusations back and forth here on AN don't get anyone anywhere unless it's truly an issue of backroom-collusion about how to misuse Wikipedia - which as far as I can tell, it's not in this case. On either (any?) side. I do want to point out to you, though, that common sense says that a channel topic asking people to not share chat contents is not foolproof - things have a way of leaking out from private chatrooms and private mailing lists, even if everyone does their best to avoid it, because humans are human and occasionally talk to each other out of turn. As a rule of thumb, it's usually best to not say anything in a wikipedia-related IRC channel that you would be embarrassed to say on Wikipedia or to explain onwiki or to Arbcom, because you never know if you might have to someday. This covers things like canvassing, yes, but also just things like in-fighting or name-calling, which we all know aren't allowed onwiki but we can be prone to in more private settings if we don't pay attention (because hey, humans are still human). Just because you don't want people to see doesn't always mean they won't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
      There's a distinction between asking "other editors" to review articles and asking a specific editor. Frankly this entire thread makes me sigh, in line with Fluffernutter's comment above. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

After looking the AfD over, I come to the conclusion that a SNOW close would be premature. While I personally just watched a news report on the topic and it certainly seems worthy of note, I see interesting (and numerous) !votes for a Merge/Redirect to Mali conflict#French intervention. Of course, another admin may see it differently, and I'm leaving this thread open for another opinion. Salvidrim!  08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
All the merge votes were from the first day of the discussion. The votes since then (when this has been reported as a major story) have been to keep the article separate. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have closed it as a WP:SNOW keep. No one aside from the nominator is arguing for deletion here. Any potential merges back up into the main conflict article can be discussed per WP:PM. KTC (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem isn't that we're considering merging the article, the problem is that we've tagged the article with a stupid wiki-insider notice that makes it sound as if we're going to delete encyclopedic coverage. After spending some time trying to reverse engineer what the heck the overly complicated template does -- it's really crappy code, by the way -- I've iar substituted more specific wording the box. Probably broke some bot crap or invisible category crap -- don't care that much because we're supposed to be about the reader, right?NE Ent 11:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved

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

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

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

SA rename[edit]

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

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

Request for advice[edit]

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

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

Admin attention to an RFC/U, please[edit]

Based upon both the below discussion and the linked RfC/U, it is clear that Apteva has exhausted the patience of the community in this area. On these grounds, the following is enacted: Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion. Apteva may appeal these restrictions by filing at the administrators' noticeboard after a reasonable amount of time has passed. Violation of this ban may be reported at the incident noticeboard and may result in a block from any uninvolved administrator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:40, 6 January 2013 (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.

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

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

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

Thank you!

NoeticaTea? 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC/U cannot be closed. You appear to be looking for option 3 under instructions which is a motion to close. However, you miss the general explanation over option 3 at the very top which says "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." Although you have a motion that has consensus, not all of the parties have agreed. So this cannot be closed yet. I might be reading this too strictly, I've only closed a handful of RFC/Us, but that's what I am seeing.--v/r - TP 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)--v/r - TP 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tom that generally user conduct RFCs are not closed except by the subject user's consent. Generally, user conduct RFCs either fade away and are delisted or are escalated to Arbcom due to the subject user's refusal to consent to consensus. It's also worth noting that while it cannot serve as the sole basis for administrative sanctions, such as a block, a user conduct RFC can be indicative of behavior which could result in an administrator blocking the subject user. MBisanz talk 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
If Apteva doesn't accept that consensus there, or at least abide by the spirit of the ban by stopping the disruption (which he seems to be continuing as we speak), then I'm told that a good next step is to request a community ban here at WP:AN. Is there some suggested process for that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course there is the option of requesting a topic ban here at WP:AN. Remember? That's what happened with PMAnderson, though that ban was later trumped by more stringent sanctions.
I have reviewed the rather confusing provisions for closure of an RFC/U. Option 3 includes this text (my underlining):

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

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it? And why would any radically different new summary be seriously proposed? Yet I see that Hasteur has attempted another, much weaker summary, and has sought to impose it as somehow superseding those already in place. (See Motion to close (5) at the talkpage, which until I refactored for conformity with the established structure purported to be in a special category, somehow standing above the preceding motions.)
Hasteur seems to have unusual views on the closing of these things: different from the guidelines, and different from views expressed above. I have asked Hasteur to give an explanation, here in this section.
Again, if things do not proceed according to the guidelines, it may be necessary for ArbCom to settle the matter. Let's hope it will not come to that.
NoeticaTea? 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This has already been at [24] Neotarf (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
*COUGH* Noetica, since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first.
  1. You have failed to follow the instructions of this page. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. It's a big yellow box.
  2. The proper location to request closure of a RfC is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a subsection at the very top of this page.
  3. If you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva, you would have seen that the proposed closure I make is weaker only because that's a neutral summary that doesn't impose any next steps. RfC/U is not about making next steps, it's about informing the subject of a significant problem with their editing.
  4. You'll see that I've "propose closed" contentious RfC/U's in the same manner before and been thanked for it [25].
  5. Finally, your request here is what caused me to come look at the RfC/U again. Finessing the rules is how these lower closes can happen while at the same time leaving tracks for future disruptive behaviors to roll forward on.
I question if you, Noetica, might benefit from a vacation from the area around this RfC/U as you seem to be heavily invested (both mentally and emotionally) in seeking sanctions. Let it go. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Serious, guillotine? blood? I don't hear Noetica suggesting anything like that. He's just frustrated, as I have been for months, that there doesn't seem to be a way to get Apteva to stop the disruption. I thought that after a few months and warnings my request to AN/I would have been enough to get an admin to give him a firm warning with penalty of block for continued disruption, but it was ignored. Now that we've got a huge consensus that he needs to stop and avoid this area where everything he has tried to do has been firmly rejected as disruptive and against consensus, we're still nowhere in terms of a process to get him to stop. Can you help instead of trying to make Noetica the bad guy here? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, Hasteur did say this: AN or RfArb, but first see if Apteva will take on board the viewpoints (Apteva hasn't. or at least has not agreed to stop what is being asked to stop). HaugenErik (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hasteur, I answer your numbered points:
  1. Do you mean Apteva? If so, that is explained at Apteva's talkpage. The discussion was not started about Apteva, but about the state of an RFC/U and how to close it according to settled procedures. If you mean I have failed to notify you, please note: You are not the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about how to proceed in a case that cries out for closure when there is already a very strong consensus established, and you have sought to act administratively in the case. Anyway, you were notified of this discussion, at the talkpage of the RFC/U.
  2. A request for closure was indeed posted at the location you suggest. I sought action on that request, and that seems to be fair and normal. I also sought clarification of some very obscure closing instructions. Obviously people interpret them differently, so I feel perfectly justified in making this approach here.
  3. The neutrality and utility of your attempt at an administrative summing-up are seriously questionable, in the face of a clear expression of opinion from a great majority of the participating editors. Your immoderate language against me does you no credit: "since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first"; "if you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva". By itself, that is a good basis for action concerning your conduct. In particular, for a request or sanctions aimed at excluding you from intervening administratively in any RFC/U.
    I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording, which I say is inflammatory and abusive, and does not reflect the facts.
  4. I know that you have been thanked for your actions in the past, and I don't doubt that they were well intended. I am concerned about the present very serious case, in which there is a plain consensus – one that your actions might possibly nullify, despite your good intentions here also.
  5. My request here was specifically for an "admin who is experienced in these processes" to deal expeditiously with an important case where a clear consensus has emerged. It was specifically not for a non-admin. It is disappointing that you still intervened. No one is trying to "finesse the rules", except perhaps you (I regret having to say). I came here to get action, but also clarity about Byzantine rules that I am now convinced need re-drafting. (I might take some part in that, because I have experience with clear unambiguous drafting.)
Last, I note your condescending remarks about my taking a vacation. I could make similar remarks about you, with at least equal justification. I am a style specialist, with more edits at WP:MOS than any other editor (mostly to tidy things, and to guard against non-consensual or ill-documented changes), but believe me: I willingly absent myself from there for months at a time. Almost a year, in 2010. It is impertinent of you to make suggestions about my mental and emotional well-being, when I pursue the normal business of assisting to deal with disruption in a WP area that is my specialty. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording also.
NoeticaTea? 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
@Noetica: You said

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

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

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

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

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

Most people who wander over to MOS make one or two edits, almost 300 in the last couple of years, while less than half a dozen made over 50 edits, and only two over 100 edits each (one of whom quit editing WP because of being tired of "arguing with [deleted] about trivia"). Not sure about it being quicksand, but it has not exactly been what anyone would call welcoming, although the talk page header says "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" (it was missing for part of last year). On the talk page almost 500 editors made one or two edits (about half), and just over half a dozen made over 500 edits each. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Apteva, twenty-eight editors have just signed a statement saying they want you to change your behavior, and you are babbling about numbers of edits???!!1! Do you have any clue about what is going on here? Are you willing to pay any attention to them? —Neotarf (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Mostly 28 signatures, with sparse comments: Remember that the format of the RFC/U was very limited, with the restriction that other users "endorse" each view (by signature), with little commentary, where the comments were fractionated onto the attached talk-page. For those reasons, Apteva has stated, here, that it will take a while to wade through the various comments (and gobs of signatures) to find real explanations. Plus, remember, that the RFC/U did not require diff-links to prove claims, and so Apteva will have difficulty following some opinions about alleged incidents from months ago, with no diff-link text to provide specific details about each claim. In essense, that RFC/U was a pile of vague claims that there had been some problems, but few specifics. In fact, I think many people do not understand the talk of "false consensus" as meaning that although a consensus was reached to draft a wp:DASH page, that result seemed to have been forced into agreement, and did not account for true opposition, where the results should have been "no consensus" and hence no rule to suggest dashes be used in some cases. Another problem was the notion that "6,000 people" could agree and 1 opposed person be right, because actually, per wp:CONSENSUS, a wiki-consensus must align with policies, as determined by a wider consensus, and no "local consensus" (even among "6,000" people) can override a long-term policy as developed by the combined attention of 110,000 active editors each month on Wikipedia (33,000 editing over 5 article-edits per month). So the issues about "no consensus" were in relation to those problems, rather than the claim that "consensus was being ignored". I hope that clarified the mystery of why consensus needs to be broadened. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban for Apteva[edit]

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

The consensus RFC/U summary says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • A topic ban and community ban are different things; may want to clarify. --Rschen7754 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    WP:CBAN says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." I'm referring to a community-imposed topic ban. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's a topic ban. When you say "community ban" or just ban in general, you're talking about an indefinite block that can only be overturned by consensus or Arbcom and is usually the result of long term abuse. A topic ban, however, is...well you know.--v/r - TP 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The topic ban needs to be defined broadly though, the area of disruption has been wide. —Neotarf (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've been monitoring this from a distance, and the fact that Apteva does not understand what she is doing wrong is quite disturbing and disruptive. --Rschen7754 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    While I occasionally miss these, that is he or she thank you. Or xe. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This should be at ANI, not AN. I have been watching the progress of the RfCU and I must say that a topic ban on hyphens and dashes is long overdue. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This is a ban proposal rather than discussion of a specific incident, so is entirely appropriate at AN. KTC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This was already taken to ANI. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Apteva disruptionNeotarf (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • And if no action was warranted then, and my behavior has changed, which it has (but not my beliefs, which I am entitled to express appropriately), why would any action be warranted today? I would ask that I be allowed to read over the reams of accusations at the RFC/U and correct my behavior on the basis of those accusations. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        • The difference now is that you haven't stopped beating the dead horse despite the advice from the last ANI. We know you want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way. Repeated consensus has decided against this, and yet you continue to push your agenda, including to the point of disruption of talk page functionality. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It is false that I "want dash/hyphens in titles to be used a certain way". It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately. What we do is not under any one editors control, and wanting something a particular way is ludicrous. Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
            • It's called a "house style", where consensus has decided to uses dashes and hyphens in a certain way, because other style guides have conflicting advice. You don't like what consensus has decide and/or you believe you know what's best for WP - both attitudes are ones that lead to disruption and eventually blocks. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Does this propsed topic ban on hyphens v dashes extend to article content and article titles via the RM process or does it just apply to the MOS guideline? I think this aspect should extraordinairly clear in the propsal. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • We have also seen disruptive refactoring discussion, archiving, resetting of bots, tampering with templates, etc. None of this was a problem when Apteva was editing only in article space. —Neotarf (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The proposal includes "must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories". I have not noticed any disruption in article content, but if the dash aversion makes itself felt in articles, too, then the provision "Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes" ought to be enough to keep the disruption down, I would think. I'm not into trying to wikilawyer the details; I'm sure xe can be warned if the behavior seems like it's near the line, so xe's not going to accidentally get ximself blocked. Propose a clarification here if you think one is warranted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the strongly expressed consensus, and the topic ban as a regrettable necessity. (I have closed the RFC/U, though I was involved. It was just a technical matter, since the transfer to this page.) There is no need for a new round of voting here, of course. Everything has already been thoroughly gone over at the RFC/U and its talkpage, with a convincing outcome.
    NoeticaTea? 23:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    Which I reverted - no involved editor can close a non-consensus RfC. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Not helpful to your cause or to anything else, Apteva. I have reverted your reversion. For one thing, you are centrally involved. For another, it is highly disruptive for you to revert a technical closure (fully explained as such), which any editor in good standing may perform, regardless of involvement. Nothing in the closing instructions for RFC/U provides otherwise. I call on editors to assist in keeping the RFC/U duly closed; the discussion is now correctly transferred here. NoeticaTea? 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Typical. I trust that an uninvolved admin will revert the above action and post a warning appropriately on the above editor's talk page. How many times was the RfC closed and reverted at MOS by the same edit warrior?[26] Edit warring is prohibited. [The only thing I am asking for is that this editor learn to stop edit warring.] Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Uh huh. A quick and dirty link to a complex matter that was thoroughly dealt with at ANI, with no action against any of a whole bunch of parties including some shady old hand posting as an IP? Sorry – no more straws to clutch at. Move this along now? NoeticaTea? 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, now I remember that sockfarm-infested RFC. Apteva/Delphi234 admitted to being one of the IPs, that resolved to central England, even though Apteva is obviously American. But nobody ever copped to the rest of the IPs, also in central England, but writing in American English.—Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Just to set the record straight, I was not involved in that RFC either as an IP or logged in. I did straighten out the archives and keep the thread from getting archived yet again. Apteva (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • support Whatever it is. I'm happy with an indef site ban by now, after it has gone on this long. Rarely have I seen an editor so clue-resistant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with broadly defined topics. —Neotarf (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – even here, well into the 11th hour, ban looming, Apteva seems intent via yet more ill-judged remarks upon depriving Wikipedia of the one editor who knows an en—dash from their elbow. (I seem to recall that Socrates did not choose his last words optimally.) Oculi (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban, and Oppose Community ban. Just in case, I'm gonna make it clear: A topic ban may be useful, because the user can still edit and enjoy the good parts of the pedia; also, the virus that infects his desire of changing things and all the drama is gone. I oppose a community ban because whe've had enough of that. I don't want another Jack Merridew case here. Let's just cut it simple, remove what has been bugging the community, and give the user the free will to edit elsewhere and being harmless. — ΛΧΣ21 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OpposeConditional Oppose for now, see my comments at the Opposition to a topic ban section. As I said below consider my !vote to become support or partial support if Apteva does not keep to that. PaleAqua (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Switching to pure oppose, with the understanding that if Apteva breaks the voluntary ban, that I will switch to support. Would still see a statement from Apteva agreeing to the terms in the A resolution to the dispute section below. PaleAqua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a ban along these lines, broadly defined—I think we've had enough of this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose RFC/U is a form of dispute resolution. As of right now, the RFC/U has been closed for 9 hours. Give the editor time to reflect on what has transpired. He/she now knows that the community has found their behavior to be disruptive. If they are wise, then they will learn from this. However, if in a week or two the disruption has continued, then we can revisit a topic ban. Right now though I feel such a topic ban would be preemptive rather than solving a problem that may well have been at least partially resolved through the RFC/U. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    That close was to bring the conversation here, after Apteva had rejected the consensus summary of the RFC/U and continued the months of disruption into the new year. Dicklyon (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    Obviously the purpose of all of our dispute resolution mechanisms is to help us learn to work harmoniously together, and not call for blocks and bans. It is certainly reasonable to wait a week and see if the RFC helped. But just to be specific, that close was allegedly because of the conversation here, not to bring the conversation here. But this is the "Admin attention to an RFC/U, please" thread, and an admin was specifically requested, and rejected, as the proper close was to just let it finish, which it has, but it is not correct to close it by anyone involved, and that should be reverted. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    AQ, Apteva has soundly rejected what was asked at the RFC/U. Even here in this page, since the RFC/U was closed, Apteva has said: It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. We've waited months since it has been made clear to Apteva that Apteva's campaigns are disruptive