Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247

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

Noticeboard archives


Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic[edit]

It seems fairly clear that consensus supports a formal ban on Acoma Magic. Any further socks can be WP:RBI'd. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 24 March 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.

Acoma Magic (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([1]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

  • Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
      • When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [2], [3]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
          • For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
            • FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                • I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer
    18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer
    19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offerChed :  ?  18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's comment[edit]

Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [4] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Per this suggestion - [5] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help us to help you: → unblock ticket request system - MrX 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request:

Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer
    03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous[edit]

A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 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.


Unblocked by Monty845. King of ♠ 09:47, 20 March 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 can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [6].

I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [7], but that was reverted [8].

I asked why it was reverted [9], and that was reverted too [10]. And again [11] [12] and again [13] [14].

Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.
So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of[edit]

I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty845 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.
And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis (talk) 07:57, 20 March 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.


There is nothing for admins to do here. Requests for Bwilkins to say or do things should be directed to his talk page. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 20 March 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.

Thanks for unblocking.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.

The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [15] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [16], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [17].

A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.

B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.

Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [18].

I asked BW to explain the block [19] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [20]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [21]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.

BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. -- (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --OnoremDil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 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 is now bordering on harassment of Bwilkins. If the editor continues to pursue this WP:AXE to grind here, s/he may be blocked. RFC/U is the option at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 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.

If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)

I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last of those requests was just reverted [22] as "Rmv trolling". (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
My bad, sorry; done [23]. (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". (talk) 23:42, 22 March 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.

Article ban request[edit]

Thread has been opened for five days, the community has not come out in support of a topic ban. For long-term problems with specific users WP:RFC/U may be a better option. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 26 March 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 would kindly ask administrators to look at the conversation on the talk page of Jan z Jani and article ban ColonelHenry (talk) from further editing on that page. Reason: We faced a dispute regarding correct spelling of the name but the discussion move on forward in good way, the subject is quite difficult and we wish to reach consensus i matter. However, in last post of ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) the input is insulting me personally. ColonelHenry use words like polish Czy rozumiesz teraz, półgłówek? whitch can be translated to Do You now understand halfbrain or similar. Furtheremore, no statements of ColonelHenry have any given source or can verify or backup his statements. I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion. camdan (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess the pot calls the kettle black. This is ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Look at the tenor of his replies at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Jan z Jani, and Talk:Jan z Jani if you want to see the true character of this "complainer." --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I welcome administrators or anyone to look at what have been posted. As You can see, I do not agree in most of what ColonelHenry is posting and I question academic value of his comments that I believe are of more personal character. The discussion can sometimes be hard and I also understand this but calling people by names is rude and not acceptable. I do not think that this board is for ColonelHenry or me to discuss this matter further since I asked administrators to overlook this question to come up with conclusions. Please respect that and let other persons come to their own conlusions. Thank you.camdan (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no view on whether ColonelHenry should be banned from editing the Jan z Jani article. I do note that shortly after receiving two warnings and the threat of a block for personal attacks on other editors [24] [25], ColonelHenry referred to me here as "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty" and continued by harassing me on my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
Xxanthippe, you trolled a GA review to rehash old grudges on material that had no place per policy in the article, and then lied about something that could be easily refuted. And my only comment, that you call "harrassment" was to point out that the grudge rhetoric wasn't constructive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Lied" and "trolled" can be added to the list of insults. Spoken on an administrator's notice board, no less. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
The user doth protest too much, methinks. What is your interest here? What was your interest at the Thomas Traherne GA? (at which you offered nothing except rehashing old grudges...which I had forgotten and were not in the slightest bit relevant to the GA issues until you brought them back up. While "trolling" might be a loaded word, from an objective viewpoint your lingering around things regarding me and passive attempts to pick a fight and provoke when you do emerge from the shadow appears very furtively insidious. Did I really get under your skin so badly so long ago because I acted to improve an article in accordance with policy by relocating an inconsequential quotefarm to wikiquote and removed useless popular culture trivia section? Have you seriously been harbouring a grudge for 4 months and aching for any chance to feign victimhood? This is beyond ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know enough about the backstory here to offer an opinion about an article ban, but I think it was inappropriate for ColonelHenry to refer to camdan (or any other editor) as a "half-wit" (Google translation). An apology is in order. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, even if it was improper, neither party is blameless--although I doubt the other user, camdan, is willing to admit that or reciprocate...which makes his complaint rather disingenuous.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like we have a blame game going on. I think it is disconcerting that after calling someone a half wit and being told that does deserve an apology that you can't just offer it. If you can't just say "I'm sorry" than how can your words here even be trusted.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I'm not inclined to apologise to someone who spent the previous three-days being disrespectful and condescending. What's worse is that apparently none of the comments take that user to task for their previous incivility, but just because I call him a "half-wit" for being obtuse, I'm automatically demonised. The best that's going to happen is I'll ignore him/her and the ridiculous hypocrisy of that user's complaining here when their previous statements were more abusive. I could care less, I commented on a requested move that ended up getting me notified when the matter was brought to WP:DRN, and there User:camdan has rather rudely said:
  • Your emotianal input have no sources and no value at all,
  • Your lack of knowledge in this subject is obviouse
  • Furtheremore, this subject is not about what You think since You do not have any academic degree in subject.
  • anyone that write on the subject should have academic education and those that do not have such education shuld actually reflect on what they are writing since it is just pure reflection of subjective mind and not scientific or academic.
  • That would be end of discussion! Please comment if You can provide any academic source on subject - Your translation of wiki rules are just trying to defend knowledge in subject that You do not have.
  • You certainly do not have any academic education at all in such subject, Your input is pure emotional (Note: I have two doctoral degrees, so his assumption was as baseless as it was wrong.).
  • You throw latin just to make people think that You have knowledge in subject that You do not have. You reference to french spelling is just embarrassing
Despite what User:camdan thinks, my statements on the matter at WP:RM, at WP:DRN, Talk:Jan z Jani were correct and backed by scholarship (For more information, see Wright, Roger. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. (London, New York: Routledge, 1991); and Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. (Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1982).
So, unless User:camdan is taken to task, any criticism of me lacks credibility. I really don't care if someone abuses me, I've never really had a thin-skin and I take a punch better than most. Until I said "half-wit" I was incredibly civil and willing to discuss the scholarship, despite being told by User:camdan I was essentially an uneducated idiot. And in the interest of the "pot calls the kettle black" school of thought:
  • I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion
Tu quoque. Go figure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You do seem to be a rather intelligent person to me. I am sure you can figure out why the above is not on the same level as name calling. Look, I doubt anyone is going to be topic banned here, but furthering the conflict in the manner you did was not appropriate. If someone makes accusations that just not accurate about your education that is pretty bad, but it is because we don't know each other here and sure, the other editor should not be discussing you in this manner. It was an act of escalation on their part. But you jumped right in and began making it worse by not just cooling down and making your case. I think this is a matter for both parties to simply back off from each other for the time being. Pretty simple...if you both can do it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I must be the uneducated idiot that User:camdan thinks I am because I seem to miss the distinction between someone being called a half-wit or being repeatedly belittled as "you must not be educated" (a less forward way of saying "you're a half-wit") and "you're not worthy of participating in this discussion" (i.e. again, effectively saying "you're a half-wit, go away"). Your assessment advocating a distinction strikes me as "splitting hairs". Lastly, I made my case...but apparently it wasn't deemed worthy or valueable for User:camdan to discuss on its merits because all I was told in response was several iterations of "you're an idiot, go away" in slightly more polite terms. But then again, *that* (for some Kafkaesque reason) isn't "name-calling."--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz. If you ask ColonelHenry to apologize to camdan for calling him a "half-wit", which I think you are justified in doing, would you like to ask him to apologize to me for accusing me of being "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty", "lied" and "trolled" (see above in this thread where the latter two insults are issued). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

  • First of all, this seems like a better fit for WP:ANI. Second, though I'm only tangentially related to the issue at hand (I performed a NAC on an RM at Jan z Jani), a quick look over the dispute suggests an interaction ban may be more constructive. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think any talk of any sort of ban is ridiculous at this point...User:camdan has acknowledged that I was correct and dropped his objection at my talk page, and at Talk:Jan z Jani. This, for all intents and purposes, is a moot issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There is difference between influence on language and what is written in medieval sources - there are totally different things - if I talk about vitamines in tomatoes, why taling about onion and olive oil? So...I never questioned CH's education or knowledge about language and influence or his other knowledge but here he simply did not spend years in archives reading original sources - which is not the same as reading publications (contain errors). Therefore, writing about 19th century influence have nothing to do with this case and was destructive. In this link You find the work of Parpocki, although it have none academic value, it is still written in 16th century. Look at page 66 (64 in book version - what does it tell? And it does not matter whatever influence there is on language, it is simply matter of how names where spelled in Poland in medieval times - what is in original sources - and from that question if it would be better to spell names in medieval latin or polish on en:wiki - influence or not. The outcome was no, so case is closed and I have no problems with that. Still, I wish to discuss further matter of spelling in other way and maybe reach consensus and therefore, I wrote on this board, becaue if we are going to continue in same way, we just waste time - and we will face 100 more discussion like that in the future. So yes, I don't have any objections about the note in art Jan z Jani that CH wrote regarding influence on language and why should I, I never questioned that part, I questioned something else. camdan (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please show a DIFF that requires admin action? Thanks. (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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


WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged with 29 open requests, some more than 2 days old. Admins needed. Get Set, Ready, Mop. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Unfortunately, the list hasn't been dealt with in order so you'll need to go down the whole list to see which requests have been dealt with and which ones haven't. Any help would be much appreciated. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Cleared now; thx everybody. Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template screwup[edit]

Hi, I need some admin assistance, in that some templates I made protected edit request for, see:- all have a simmilar error, owing to a misreading of the doucmentation concerning the ifeq parser function.

It would be appreciated if an admin could review the relevant templates and remove the spurious | character that got inserted by mistake. This fix should resolve a long standing issue with certain license templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who answered the {{edit protected}} requests, and I really should have spotted the syntax error, so I'm feeling quite embarrassed now... I've fixed all the affected templates. However, if the request at Template talk:License migration complete is anything to go by, the templates will need to be changed yet again - which is enough to put me off touching them for now. If somebody else wants to fix them in the meantime, be my guest. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox (single)[edit]

Issue resolved. TBrandley 06:30, 27 March 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.

Hello! Can you help me with the article These Days, I Have Nothing? I copied and pasted here infobox (Single), but it doesn't work=) Maybe there are any problems with template? With respect --Stellsman (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Those things are sensitive, you left off a closing bracket in one of the links that broke it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you very much))) -- (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Will Beback[edit]

Just to let people know that there's an informal RfC at User:Jmh649/Will Beback to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Umm, wasn't this just announced here? I can't find it on this page or in the archives, so I'm questioning the page history, not your helpful notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe Doc James posted it to AN/I, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, Nyttend. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Right you are; sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects[edit]

Moved to WP:VP/T, section "Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects ". Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of new user name[edit]

No further admin action seems warranted at this time, but if it is needed WP:SPI is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 26 March 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 had no intention of creating a new user name nor editing from anything other than as an IP however since my work and home both user proxy servers and the IP's are dynamic and change frequently, the result appears as though I am socking. Since I am an outspoken critic of several areas in the community this gave my accusers an avenue for attack. So now I have created this username, which I intend to use solely for the purposes of editing here. This will eliminate the variable IP mess and will eliminate the arguments from some of my accusers who like to delete my comments because they don't agree. I notified a couple members of the Arbcom (I would have notified more but the Email spammer triggered) that I would notify the community of this new account so I could not be accused of socking and that I would create an account that would be easily identified as me to prevent any "confusion". I got no response after a couple days so I created it. Silence is consent. This is about as clear as it can get. I am trying to be honest and forthcoming here so if there are any questions let me know. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, your account is both globally locked and locally indeffed. You're actively evading your (b)lock by editing here, no matter whether you do it under an IP or an account. The option of a clean start is not available to you. You know the rules well enough to know that none of what you're doing here is ok. If you want the right to edit Wikipedia, you will need to resolve the issues that have your account (b)locked; until then you're continuing to flagrantly violate policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am globally blocked because that is what I wanted and persisted to get that. I was refused multiple times and had to post my password to get the global block. As for here, I am blocked here due to socking or the perception of socking. Mostly because of the variable IP's. I really wouldn't care about having the account and would be fine editing from an IP however since that is perceived as Socking because my IP's constantly change, this is necessary to "resolve" that as you put it. I also agree that a clean start isn't possible, for me or anyone else. In order for a clean start one needs to identify I was X now I am Y or else they will be charged with socking. I created another username in an attempt to clean start which was ThePhoenixReborn. That was when I knew for certain that a clean start wouldn't work for me and was affirmed that it was a garbage policy that probably should be deleted. I have edited all over, to a wide array of topics. My knowledge of the system and the rules is immediately recognized after a few edits. Its not like I edited some obscure topic like extinct flowers, I was all over, in every namespace across tens of thousands of pages, in multiple wiki's. Any other concerns you want me to address? KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who indeffed Kumioko, I just want to go on the record saying that I'm fine with him returning with a new account if he's willing to edit solely with that account and not edit logged out. As I said after blocking, if he was willing to stop editing as an IP I would lift the block I'd placed, and as far as I'm concerned that is still the case. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 26 March 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.

Full protection of User:Captain Occam and User talk:Captain Occam[edit]

This request for administrative action has been reviewed and action taken. This is neither a forum for general discussion of a banned user nor a place to propose new policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 27 March 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 site-banned user Captain Occam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) is militating on wikipediocracy for anonymous accounts and established editors to make disruptive edits on wikipedia on his behalf. The IP above has twice removed an arbcom notice placed on the User:Captain Occam by an arbcom clerk when implementing Captain Occam's indefinite site-ban. It was previously removed by another IP. From what he has posted on wikipediocracy, Captain Occam intends to disrupt wikipedia. Amongst other things, he has intimated that he would like to help mount an arbcom case concerning MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In those circumstances, there is no reason for him or others to have access to either his user talk page or uner talk page.

Please could User:Captain Occam and User talk:Captain Occam be fully protected to prevent further disruption. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the user page, reblocked Occam without TP access, and hatted the entire page. Hopefully that will be sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ain't seeing any registered user edits that would justify full protection instead of semi. NE Ent 01:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The intent is to just stop all drama and tag warring in its tracks, which is what, so far, is happening. Let's just leave it at that please. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Mathsci policing those with whom he has editorially disagreed needlessly adds to the drama. Others can protect WP just as well. Just saying. VєсrumЬаTALK 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"Needlessly"? Seems pretty needed to me - and Mathsci has a better handle on these people than anyone else around, so that's a prety clueless remark. Just sayin' Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to Beeblebrox.
In reply to Vecrumba. I have no "editorial disagreement" or "ideological differences" with Captain Occam. He is a site-banned user, who was banned for being disruptive. That disruption partly involves proxy-editing and sockpuppetry. It continued during the whole of 2012 through repeated misuse of arbcom processes. Off-wiki he has been nurtured and encouraged by a small coterie of wikipediocracy moderators. One consequence on wikipedia has been the resubmission of evidence previously rejected on several occasions by arbcom. The problem has nothing to do with the editing of articles. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh man, that case had input from the late and much lamented Steven Rubenstein. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    What do you mean? Thanks. (talk) 16:20, 27 March 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.

Help with copy & paste move[edit]

Hi. A user just left a note on my talk page alerting me to what seems to be a copy & paste move (see here). From what I can see, the page User:Lubnarizvi/sandbox was copy/pasted to Amina Inloes, and then both articles continued to develop independently. As far as I can tell, the two articles are now exactly the same. I'm not very experienced in this area; I think a history merge is necessary (but I don't know). Help from an admin experience in this area would be appreciated. Thanks. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How about help from an admin who has been meaning to go ahead and learn this for a long time? I think I got it, but a double-check would not be a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Looking over this I'm not sure a histmerge should have been done, looks to me like there were parallel histories. I think it might have to be undone, but before doing anything I'll ping Graham87 – he's the expert in this area. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not ... at least the sandbox revisions that were made *after* the page was moved to the main namespace shouldn't have been history merged (see this edit). But considering the difference between the last version that was in the main namespace before the history merge and the current version, along with this edit summary, there probably isn't any point in undoing the history merge. It just seems like the article was prematurely copy and pasted in to the main namespace before the subsequent sandbox edits, and Beeblebrox's history merge just had the effect of moving the latest version of the article to the main namespace, as [[the original author wanted. I'll notify them of this discussion. Hope this makes sense to somebody. :-) Graham87 07:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, so because the diff between the current revision and what was the current mainspace revision before the histmerge looks alright, it doesn't matter that a bit of the intermediate history looks a bit funky? Also, should the diffs that were from the sandbox but had nothing to do with the Amina Inloes article be retained in mainspace, or should they deleted/moved back to userspace? Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Oops, I didn't notice (or TBH even check properly) that the very earliest revisions in the history were irrelevant to the Amina Inloes article; I've moved them back to userspace. Graham87 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that a history merge is the best solution here, considering the limited differences at any point. The most confusing single diff is when User:Justice007 started working on the draft again, but it's really just the removal of {{Infobox person}} and {{Persondata}}. With the exception of simply crediting Justice007 in an edit summary (discarding the edit history), a histmerge is the neatest fix listed at WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is the "original version" of WP: Spelling in this case?[edit]

An RfC at WP: Spelling has not yet produced a consensus after being up for quite a while. One of the two parties involved in the original dispute says that the original version of the text must now be restored. The other party does not contest this, but there is some question as to which version counts as the original. The first party claims that the original version is the one that contains all of that party's own changes and none of the other party's (this version is currently displayed) [26]. The second party believes that the version of the page from immediately before the two of them began making changes should be considered the original [27].

Which is version should be considered "original" in this case? Is returning to the original what should be done after an RfC?

The original dispute is about whether "theater" and "theatre" mean different things in American English. The text in question is under "Different spellings, different meanings." 17:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talkcontribs)

Neither. The last stable version is where you revert to. This will generally mean, as the second part said, the version from immediately before the two of them began making changes. Not always, but generally that's the case.--v/r - TP 17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The two of us started making changes right after the other. The first party mentioned above did one version on roughly March 7 and the second party did another on roughly March 7 and 8, so neither one was in place very long. Much obliged if an admin would restore the page to last stable status. The page history can be found here and it's all visible on one screen (though the same cannot be said of the talk page discussion). The current dispute is between users Darkfrog24 and Amadscientist.
Other parties have made other changes to other parts of the page during this time. The text in question is the prose description of "theater/theatre" under Different spellings, different meanings. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The Wrong Version.svg
Looks like a mess to me. I say pick a version, any version. On a side note... any particular reason you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of neutrality, as in an RfC request. I didn't want to bias the first respondent. And no, I don't want a sysop to change it from one wrong version to another. I want an admin to change it from one wrong version to a correct version, preferably without deleting changes made to this page that have nothing to do with the dispute. As for "pick a version, any version," I've got some suggestions here but feel free to add more. If you ask me, just telling the readers what the sources actually said would sidestep a lot of these problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


Yet another logic failure in my attempts to code a template... Can an admin revert the change made as a result of an edit protected request, and start a review of my suggested template modifcations back to January. I am having a distinct lack of confidence in my ability at the moment.

I'd also appreciate it if there was a general disscussion on how to ensure this DOESN'T happen again. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. I don't understand the issue, so I can't participate in said discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this was another mistake I made on Monday. The logic in the protected edit request was backwards, and I should have picked up on that when reviewing it. The revert improved the situation somewhat, but still wasn't entirely correct, so I have fixed it. With any luck, this time things should be working properly. I've also reduced the protection to semi, as there were only 500 transclusions. As to how to ensure this doesn't happen again, the answer is for me to actually check protected edit requests properly in the sandbox and test cases page before I make the edits. If anyone catches me being slapdash about this again, please apply trouts liberally to my talk page. (And by the way, it would have been nice to be informed about this thread.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
My apoloigies,I should have let you know about this Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano[edit]

Old-timers and OTRS agents may remember Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who threatened the WMF with action over his Wikipedia biography. He was today convicted of nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception, eight counts of fraud, three counts of acquiring criminal property, two counts of using a false instrument, one count of attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception, one count of obtaining property by deception and one count of using criminal property, related to his fake claims to be a lawyer. I must confess to some small personal satisfaction in adding that fact, sourced to three separate news organisations, to his biography. A great case of WP:DEADLINE: having bent over backwards to be fair to him, as we should, and having been attacked even so, we can now document the fact, adjudicated by a court, that he is a fake. No statement from him in reaction as yet but I expect an appeal. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed your link; it went to a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, thank you. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
And he's now been jailed for 14 years. Seems like a good result. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that the early revisions have all been revdel'd, but there is no entry in the deletion log. Can they be restored? -- King of ♠ 18:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest contacting the admin who did the deletions but, yeah, I can't figure out who that was either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that restoring any revisions be done with caution. I don't know the history here or what might have been deleted, but if there were unsourced allegations, they should not be restored - just because someone has been convicted of a crime now does not mean that our normal policies about living persons no longer apply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with this. I don't see how we have a desperate need for these lost revisions; if stuff needs to be "restored" it can be added anew from the original sources. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The pair of deleted revisions from last September have been oversighted; you'd need an oversighter to restore them. It's hard to find them in the deletion log because the page has been moved multiple times and the logs don't move when the page does; if you check the logs for Giovanni di Stefano, you'll find that Coren removed a ton of revisions on 3 July 2009, citing "Attribution fix (avoid BLP)". The original version of the article had a bunch of information on him getting convicted of some things in the past, and the first publicly visible edit was one that removed a bunch of conviction-related things that appeared to be decently sourced, such as the (now dead-linked) At least the most recent of the deleted revisions appears fine (barring threats from the subject, I see no reason for it to have been removed), so I think it would be good to ask Coren for an undeletion. Note that there are also 472 deleted revisions in the history of Giovanni di Stefano; some are fragments of pagemoves, but others have content that might be worthy of undeletion; I've not looked at them, so I can't say. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't realized it had been moved more than once, that would explain it. I did check the OS log, obviously I can't go into specifics but those edits will indeed need to remain suppressed. I also agree that caution should be used and the revdeleted material should not just be put back wholesale. I'd ask Coren first, but basically any admin who wants to can review them one at a time and restore them if it seems warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would just undelete the lot, frankly. I don't know what's in those diffs but from the contents of the talk page archives, it seems clear that Di Stefano was objecting to reliably sourced info about his criminal record. Of course, today's verdict makes it clear that his objections were just as fraudulent as anything else he got up to. Prioryman (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── To note: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to whitewash the article by removing mention of Di Stefano being a convicted fraudster and retitling it as referring to him as a "legal counsellor", which he never claimed to be. He also appears to be move warring. This is evidently in response to agitation on Wikipediocracy. Prioryman (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the sources and article will see that his claim to notability arises from him offering legal services to notorious people. That fraud is also often brought up in this context does not mean it is appropriate to define him as a fraudster and act like that is why people should know more about him. If you have a better term than suggest one, but labeling someone a fraudster at the top of their bio should only be done if being engaged in fraud is why the person is notable. Seems Stefano is notable primarily for his activities as legal counsel so anything that is faithful to that would be better, and he has simply faced fraud counts for presenting himself as having the necessary qualifications to serve that role.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please keep the content dispute on the article talk page, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If my memory serves, the early revisions mixed some (now proven) fact with some editorialising. We now have better sources, there's not much to be gained by restoring the early revisions, particularly as it would require a very careful rev by rev analysis to ensure that the material is accurate and well supported, and other material is not slipstreamed. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

NOTE ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: Jimbo Wales personally deleted the page and rebooted the article. Like Beeblebrox, I would advise caution. I saw some of the old versions in mirrors of wikipedia, and some of the information was plain wrong. It also had some very strong claims that only had paper-thin sourcing from unreliable websites. As far as I know, all the salvageable content has already been salvaged, improved, and sourced adequately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Niemti at RFC/U[edit]

see thread below at "RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 29 March 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.

Fladrif has proposed a site ban and topic bans at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti#Motion_to_close, which is not the usual page for such proposals, but perhaps it would be best not to move the discussion. This RFC/U has been going on since November; my closure was reverted. I think the disputants are going to require firm assistance in getting this elderly RFC/U shut down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely the wrong venue to discuss a "community" topic ban. It's not a community ban by any sorts. It's a ban by editors with beef and a couple uninvolved passersby. It just simply doesn't get the audience required to enact such a proposal. That's why Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance says "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." The proposal will have to move here or it's invalid. Your close was reverted because you didn't follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing but other than that there is no real reason you couldn't close it. Just keep in mind that the ban proposal can't be done on an RFC/U.--v/r - TP 12:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
TParis more or less has it - it would be fine to close that RfC as "proposals will be made on AN" or if you don't want to haul the entire discussion history here, you could probably just close it and then do an AN proposal asking the community to ratify "the suggestions in the motion to close on the RfC." But involuntary sanctions do need to be ratified here in some form, and an archiving of the RfC with no result or close text, which (seems to be?) what WhatamIdoing attempted is downright odd. WhatamIdoing, if you want to close it that's fine but you'll need to close it with some content in the close, based on the consensus (or lack thereof, I've only skimmed it) of the RfC. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
And while you're here, Whatamidoing, I'm going to go ahead and throw you under the bus: When will we be able to support you at RfA?--v/r - TP 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the close was reverted because the disputants couldn't bring themselves to believe that RFC/Users/Closing really does say that RFC/Us should be closed after about a month or so if no progress is being made, despite no agreement having been reached, not because of any failure to follow the four steps on my part. They are simple enough steps: paste two templates, delete one line, and update a table. Closing statements are not provided in these instances. Whoever updates the table this time will see that the page has been listed as closed there for a long while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there is pretty clear consensus that the RFC needs to be closed, and that the formal ban needs to take place here, not there. So we'll need an uninvolved person to close (I participated.) and then assumeably someone will restart a more formal ban discussion here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. An uninvolved admin will have to summarize the RFC to see if a block is necessary and we can reference the additional evidence subpage if we have a ban discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll do that.  Sandstein  17:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) – Never mind, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Niemti#Timing and process appears to prefer letting the "motion to close" vote run for a bit longer.  Sandstein  17:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Let it run til tomorrow. Then go ahead and close it. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 03:36, 29 March 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.

Heads up[edit]

This is sure to become very messy. Moriori (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that kangaroos need to be tied down? --Jayron32 01:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest WP:oversight of these edits unless confirmed by reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
You are requesting oversight in the wrong place, Xxanthippe. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
and I suggest that the page needs to be fully protected until the situation is resolved. I make my comment here because that is where the thread started. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
Agreed: I've just fully protected the article for 72 hours. Any admin may lift this protection (and drop the article back to semi protection) without consulting me if something is reported either way in reliable sources - as yet, there's nothing in reliable sources about this. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It's almost certainly true, but since everybody questioned by police these days gets arrested, it is also of very limited value. We should wait until a statement is made by the police. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

personal attack[edit]

All I did was to add a secular tertiary source to the article, and in response I get a pile of attacks. --Kazemita1 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As "personal attacks" go, that was exceptionally mild. I'm not saying reverting you was right or that there was anything wrong with your edit, but I really don't see a personal attack here.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
When you're telling someone else that he's confused (in a hostile manner) and that he's only trying to defend a wrong, you're breaking the bounds of civility. Not so bad that it's by itself sanctionable, but it's still not appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Even hostile might be a bit much. I have no idea who's right or wrong with the content, but accusing someone of being misguided or misquoting them is hardly a personal attack... It could be wrong, but not an attack. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:

[...] Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months [...] the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 05:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this
So in other words, SchuminWeb has been desysopped. All right, then. Kurtis (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a case of the user would rather just quite editing and take the desysop than waste a bunch of time in discussions in an Arbcom case and then be desysopped. This is precisely the type of situation that I have been talking about for months. Once an Arbcom case is accepted, the end result is that individual is desysopped, blocked or both. The Arb's wouldn't even take the case unless they thought it had merits so once its been excepted the end result is pretty clear and consistant, so why even bother arguing it? Is this really the message we want to send to the users of the site about Arbcom? I think not. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not an inevitable result. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you give me an example in the last couple years of an Arbcom case where the accused was not blocked, desysopped or both? The only one I can think of is the Doncram case recently which very nearly resulted in the desysopping of SarekofVulcan. That is the lone exception I know of. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure: Richard Arthur Norton, Falun Gong 2, GoodDay, article titles and capitalisation, abortion, BLP manipulation, AE, etc. Kurtis (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I added the "discuss this" link that (I think) Hahc21 forgot. Traditionally people have argued endlessly and fruitlessly about ArbCom decisions at WT:AC/N, not here. This board is more for arguing endlessly and fruitlessly about other stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for adding the link, Floquem. It was 2 a.m. and I was a bit sleepy :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not! NE Ent 17:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • NOT .. And I win cause I used both CAPS and BOLD. :-) — Ched :  ?  18:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an argument, you're just contradicting me! -- (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Right...stop it! You're being silly. No silliness allowed here. Intothatdarkness 19:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not silliness. -— Isarra 03:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Round Two done, Round Three is up[edit]

Round Two of the Requests for Comment (RfC) on the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process was a success by any measure, and has now been closed. The final round is a one-week vote on two proposals that got support, but relatively few votes, so we're advertising widely and hoping for broader participation in Round Three. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Which ones do you see as a "success"; I only see 3, but you said there were 4 at /3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The four listed in the closing statement: Concerned editors start searching for quality candidates, Auto-prospecting, Project for nominators and Unbundling - some U1 and G7s. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
We've added another proposal, "Probation", to Round Three. Have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


Resolved: All caught up for now :) -- Dianna (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The WP:RFPP noticeboard is heavily backlogged. Some mops are needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This happens almost every weekend. I will get over there once I am done at WP:FFD. -- Dianna (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic[edit]

CC's already been dealt with. There's nothing here to see, folks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 1 April 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.

Colton Cosmic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Does Colton Cosmic have a documented pattern of trying to hack into other people's accounts, whether Wikipedia or otherwise? Logging into my Gmail account just now, I found a message from the system: "Someone recently tried to use an application to sign in to your Google Account. Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:22:32 PM UTC IP Address: Location: Hialeah, FL, USA". I've changed my passwords, of course, and I can't find evidence of damage, but I'm concerned because this IP has a block log and userpage (and at least one contribution) indicating that it's Colton Cosmic, and we definitely don't want longtime sockpuppetteers trying to hack our accounts. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Such a lame attempt at hacking would fit his general pattern of clueless behavior, he is basically his own worst enemy. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a quick followup. Without going into the who-and-how of this, the IP mentioned above is shared by a number of editors whom I will not mention due to privacy rules. Given the nature of this IP, and some other technical evidence, I sincerely doubt that Colton Cosmic is involved in this incident - Alison 06:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    I've added a note to the IP's block log to that effect. -- King of ♠ 06:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks! - Alison 06:36, 2 April 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.

RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti[edit]

There is no community consensus to indefinitely ban Niemti, though it is evident that community patience has worn exceedingly thin and Niemti is admonished by the closing administrator to be aware of thin ice. There is no community consensus to topic ban Niemti from Video Games. There is community consensus that Niemti is now topic banned from GA. The proposal for a Civility Parole fails. I need to consult with other editors on interpreting the Interaction Ban results; however, both parties apparently having voluntarily agreed to something along those lines is an exceptionally good idea under the circumstances and should be encouraged. I will enact the topic ban for GA. Further discussion regarding the Interaction Ban in the results section below, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) (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.

Today I closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, which had been open since 1 November 2012. I summarized that

"the RfC concludes that Niemti has regularly and over a long period of time engaged in misconduct such as incivility and personal attacks, article ownership, not using edit summaries, and disruption of the "good articles" process. Niemti has not indicated any readiness to change their conduct. There is consensus, in #Motion to close, that a proposal to site-ban and to topic-ban Niemti should be submitted to the community."

Accordingly, I refer the following proposal, as discussed in the RfC (with some copyediting to reflect current sanctions terminology) to the community.

  1. Niemti (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. He may ask the Arbitration Committee to lift this ban after six months have elapsed.
  2. Niemti is indefinitely prohibited from participating in the good article nomination and good article reassessment of any article.
  3. Niemti is indefinitely topic-banned from the topic of video games, broadly construed.

Please indicate which parts of this proposal you support or oppose. My understanding is that the parts of the proposal are not mutually exclusive. Because this referral is part of the RfC closure, I myself am neutral.  Sandstein  12:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

More evidence of his behavior can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Niemti[edit]

Note: Niemti is currently blocked. Their statement, if any, is transcluded from their talk page below.

Oh hi. Long story short so I won't be "ranting" (or what not) this time:

  • Now, GAs. Basically what The Devil's Advocate wrote in his comment - and this example of the so-called "additional evidence" (as it was called by Sjones in his wikihounding thread) is indeed a good example of "evidence", as it shows what is actually this "problem" with me - and it's that I actually know (and obey) all the policies, rules and guidelines (including but not limited to everything regarding GAs and their reviewing process), while many reviewers don't know, and even when they're informed about the rules and guidelines (the proper ones, because in this case the reviewer was misinformed by some other apparently uninformed users, strangely including at least 1 admin) they might even flatly and completely refuse to acknowledge and follow them (here, the reviewer's invoking "ignore all rules" instead of admitting the wrong). I'm all for proper reviewing, instead of incorrect/arbitrary, which is why I've opened this thread recently (aftter this very debacle, precisely) because the scale of this problem (various types of bad reviewing) is pretty alarming, and some reviewers' blatant refusal to play by rules after they're being informed about them is just absolutely unacceptable (that's my opinion, at least, but I can't see how could I be any wrong with being right).

--Niemti (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

After skipping through through the thread, some comments on comments:

  • Wizardman - it's the same person who wrote "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria."[28] Well, I'm still convinced he doesn't understand GA criteria (and yes, shouldn't be reviewing, if he does). See the link for evidence ("additional", even).
  • Sergecross73 - it was this admin who gave the misleading (wrong) advice to the original reviewer from the very same thread.[29]
  • Cúchullain and your "I honestly couldn't believe that things like Ayane (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), or Ada Wong were GAs" made me actually smile a bit. To quote someone, "I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria." Also, your statement of "I've only interacted with Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian" was false as I'm pretty sure you couldn't miss my 94 edits (over the course of 3 months) at Morgan Le Fay (where we both are very top contributors and I did a complete and thorough cleanup, from this sorry state), just for one example. I don't know why are you giving false stataments like that, but that's you.
  • System Shock 2 FA wasn't mine, I just helped it (with 24 edits at around the time of the nom). I don't do FAs.
  • I'm totally for "a mutual interaction ban with User:Sjones23", in fact I didn't even read anything by him here.

--Niemti (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You commentary on me is very misleading. Someone asked about a group of sources, and all I said was that in general its best to avoid Facebook and Youtube as sources due to frequently having WP:SPS or copyright issues. Note the word usually, -- I wasn't talking about the specific sources. Beyond that, you're just misdirecting the discussions again; even if my comment was hypothetically wrong in every possible interpretation, it still has nothing to do with this AN conversation. I wasn't GA reviewing your work, nor do I GA review anybodies work. Your point is completely unrelated to this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's you anwswer that was "very misleading", as you've linked to policies/guidelines (namely: WP:YOUTUBE, WP:SPS, WP:LINKVIO) that absolutely didn't support your statement at all - I've already addressed it at in detail here (and the ultimate cop-out answer by the reviewer was that he's going to "ignore all rules" and not admit being wrong). And how is this random example (not even picked by me, because I didn't read it) from Sjones' so obsessively collected "additional evidence" being "completely unrelated" now? --Niemti (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
But like I said, even if I'm complete wrong, you're cherrypicking; if you look at the big picture, only 2 of the 10 sources in question were related to FB or YT, where as clearly here and here, show that multiple other users found multiple problems with multiple other sources, and your GA noms were rejected on those grounds. The reviewer literally says that in the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as your statements on IAR and Sjones comments, I'm not doing a point by point response on every bullet point you made above. I'm just talking about the excerpt you included about me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not any "cherrypicking" - people who don't know policies/rules/criteria/etc, and even just refuse to follow them (not by ignorance but by deliberate choice), want to ban me for actually knowing all that following/applying it. And that's including you. Also, as I've wrote right there 1. all of them were either actually totally correct or easily replacable 2. it's not a quick fail criteria. Which was answered by "ignore all rules", then Wizardman (who als wants to ban me) comes and tell me: "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria" (which is just super ironic at this point). So, anyway, why would you give such a misleading advice like that? Seriously - I never do things like that, so why did you do it? --Niemti (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • See, here's where you're confusing issues. I think you deserve a ban because how you treat people so poorly, and refuse to acknowledge it, or try to change at all. You've always got a finger to point at someone else, that they treated you bad first or did something outrageous or something, and there's always another person who you're starting trouble with because of your incivility or OWN issues. You're entirely unwilling or unable to even see the problem, and as an Admin, I can't justify looking the other way when people come to me for help, because you're making no effort to follow these rules.
  • The GA nom stuff? I support you being topic banned from that for a different reason. Everyone's always complaining your noms don't meet criteria. I don't have much of a problem with that, as I don't care personally about how many you've stuffed rightfully or wrongfully in the queue. I don't do much of that, so it doesn't affect me. But it's always distracting other people from being constructive. That's why I feel you should be topic banned from that; rather than everyone always wasting time debating, I feel like you need a filter, someone else you can consult on whether it meets the criteria, and then they can nominate it for you or something. If someone nominated GA's for you, perhaps there'd be less wasted time debating the merits of the nom. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I've just got a finger to point back at people who point a finger at me. And to prove that I'm not at "fault" for being right. But they're at fault for being wrong (and they are, which I proved already and can prove anytime, it's just so easy) - and oh yes, that's they who shouldn't be doing things like such hack-job 'reviews' by following their own arbitrary pseudo-criteria (despite specifically being not allowed to do anything like that) and even pulling "ignore all rules" after being informed/reminded about the real GA process. Or giving incorrect advice to people, for that matter (don't do this). And oh yes, I also just realized it's not a side issue at all. Because it was precisely this wrong advice of yours, pounced on up by the always-vigilant Sjones and uncritically accepted by the reviewer (and then by Wizardman) that inflamed the whole situation and led straight to this situation we're having now. I wonder if you can accept responsibility for that. --Niemti (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ludicrous. I gave general advice that only had relevance to 2 of 10 of your sources in question, and the reviewer literally said The Facebook and YouTube sources aren't the only problematic sources. Don't blame me for your sourcing shortcomings, and other people's reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
But you've encouraged him (and Wizardman too - "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid. How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?" - now he want to ban me for that). Were there actually any "sourcing shortcomings" is debatable (and it was not discussed with me, at all - he actually came to ask you, not me!), that it had nothing at all to do with abrupt quickfailing is not (as it was an absurdly blatant quickfail abuse, "supported" by "ignore all rules" for the lack of any real arguments). --Niemti (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk to them about it, not me. It's simple: Someone posed a question about sources on the VG source noticeboard, and I gave vague advice supported by policy and my experience here at Wikipedia: I feel many people cannot identify copyright violations or self-published sources from Youtube or Facebook, and since I feel so many are unable to do this, I advise them to use other sources, because it's almost always available elsewhere if it is indeed legit information. Its a "play it safe" strategy. That's all I did. I did not comment on your particular sources. I did not review your GA nom. I did not quickfail it, nor did I even read that review or until today. I had no role in any of that minus a vague piece of advice. If you have a problem with what happened, complain to them. Like I already said, I have no desire to defend everyone you complained about in your comments, merely clear my name in it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
To sum it up: You refuse to accept responsibility for you wrong advice that confused the reviewer (briefly, in the end he just didn't care and "ignored all rules", by his own admission) and then also Wizardman, and also picked up by Sjones, which led me to being reminded of him (and to my current block for using the term "stalker" instead of saying "wikihounder" like a proper Wikipedia gentleman). Now the still confused (despite being explained, but believed you more) Wizardman wants to ban me, and you want to ban me too. Bravo, well played. --Niemti (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that WP:EL basically says what Sergecross says, that's not "wrong advice" (and the reasoning above is exactly why editors are cautioned against YT/FB links due to the inability to judge the proper copyright owner). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"EL" stands for "external links", it was references, apples and oranges (but anyway YouTube and Facebook actually have even their own templates for adding them to external links). --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, the advice isn't wrong, and they're people, not machines; they have the ability to think for themselves and make their own decisions. I didn't make anyone do anything. So, taking that into consideration, yeah, I guess I do refuse to accept responsibility. And eve