Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250

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

Noticeboard archives


Template:WikiProject United States needs updates done[edit]

Request responded to by Orlady. Shutting this down before the heat goes up. Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 10 June 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.

There is a massive list of updates that need to be implemented for Template:WikiProject United States. All the changes are done in the templates sandbox, they just need to be implemented. These changes have been building for a month and I have twice removed an edit protected request template from this template after it went unanswered for a week. There are quite a few more edits that need to be done to this template still. Its bullshit that I have to even ask for these to be implemented. I should be able to do it myself and get credit for the work I perform. If some admin can find the 11 seconds time it takes in their busy lives to implement these changes it would be greatly appreciated by an editor who is wondering more and more why I even bother editing anymore. Its so hard just to contribute I really don't know what the hell I'm still doing here since its clear my time isn't appreciated. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are not getting a response from the {{Edit protected}} template, the simple solution is to flag down any admin on his or her talk page and ask for the edit to be performed. Orlady (talk · contribs) has implemented the changes you requested. --auburnpilot talk 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, I didn't see the request on this page before making the edit. I saw your template-talk-page request while scrolling through a couple of days' worth of watchlist activity. As I noted on the talk page, the complicated way that you presented the request was a deterrent to making the edit. The edit itself was simple, but it took me a lot more than 11 seconds to figure out what you wanted to have done (and verify that I was interpreting the request correctly). In the future, I suggest that you package your request as a simple statement of what you need an admin to do (and please omit the editorial comments about "bullshit", etc.). That's likely to get much faster action. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change but the easy and best way would be if I could make the edit myself. Someone with 400, 000 edits and over 6 years on the site shouldn't have to ask for someone else to implement their work. The reason I phrased it the way I did was so the admin would be able to verify the changes were correct and that is how it has been asked to be done in the past. Ironically, it took over 30 days for the changes to get done, less than 3 hours after the bullshit comment so it would seem that comment actually helped. I shouldn't even do the change at all, I should leave it to the admins to do the work rather than take the credit but it won't get done at all if I do that. So you'll excuse me if I have a bad attitude that I am required to do the work that admins refuse to do or don't have the technical ability to do, while the admins take the credit for that work and then am told I can't be trusted because I don't do any admin related work, because I never get credit for the admin work I do. Its extremely frustrating, insulting and stupid. Kumioko (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Kumioko, if you want people to react positively to you, you might want to consider being a paragon of good behavior regardless of any past history. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 10 June 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.

UAA Overflow[edit]

WP:UAA has many bot reported and user reported issues that need resolving one way or annother. If a Admin could see their way into mopping the reports up, that'd be great. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review[edit]

I noticed today that Wikipedia:Move review has very few watchers. Could we get a few more people be it admins or not watching this page. I dont care if anyone joins the current debate(s) - just thinking that a page like this could (should) get some more editors looking over it. Wikipedia:Move review - watchers 55 - 6 are new. I have been here many many years and had never seen the page before - I believe this may be the same reality for many people.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am now watching the page. Might I suggest that you contact the editor of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and ask if they are interested in featuring the move review process? That is just the sort of thing they like to cover. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • There doesn't appear to be a deficiency in attention for the current review. :-) Watchlisting the page isn't very helpful as watchers will still miss the discussions as they are on transcluded monthly logs. DRV has the same problem and I don't know what the answer should be.... Spartaz Humbug! 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The answer is to have review discussions on their own pages, and to transclude them directly. As per MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

E-Cat topic ban[edit]

Ban imposed 24 hours or so ago. Appeal overwhelmingly denied. BencherliteTalk 20:47, 11 June 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 wish to appeal the topic ban shown here:

What I object to is Andrea Rossi being declared guilty before being found innocent. I have no interest in advocating Leonardo Corporation products. I will be eighty later this year so even if the E-Cat works it is unlikely to do me much good. I objected to the editors refusing to correct referenced errors and the piece as it stands has factual errors as well as those of Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality. Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud. This is unfortunate as I read up to 7000 people seek guidance from Wikipedia on this topic per day.

It has been suggested I don’t understand what argumentum ad hominem means. I do. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi still believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper(1), the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article, written before the third party tests, and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.

My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view.(2) This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable.(3) AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Swedish Elforsk R&D organization equivalent to our EPRI(4,5,6) It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test was never designed to do that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. Secondary reports by Engineering News(7) Forbes(8) A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News to do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, these were trial balloons floated in an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers at I find it likely that the group-think conclusion here that it is impossible to overcome the Coulomb barrier will prevail over the experimental evidence, but of course it shouldn’t. I am more interested in getting the article corrected than being an editor.

References. 1. Rossi’s blog 2. Old Popular Science article Used in Wiki, written before the 3rd party test. 3. Current PopSci article 4. Elforsk Primary source 5. Test Report by Dr. Levi 6. Test report by Penon pdf file. 7. Engineering News Secondary source 8. Andy Gibbs Forbes Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any modification of the topic ban. It seems clear to me that Parallel is here to push a fringe viewpoint. This appeal shows that the editor has every intent of continuing on the same path. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
"Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud" - that's because it doesn't, and while fraud is an unacceptable word to use due to WP:BLP, 'completely unscientific woo woo bullshit' is perfectly fine. When and if (never and not gonna happen) Rossi actually submits the device to real peer review--that means no restrictions--that will be the time to discuss this snake oil as being useful.
Here's a thing for you: the whole basis of science relies on replicating results. Every single scientist in the world who has discovered something publishes their results so that every other scientist in the world can replicate or disprove them. That is how science works. Rossi does not work this way.
Obviously I oppose lifting this topicban. I said on ANI, every single person who advocates for this spammy scammy bullshit should just be banned from Wikipedia on sight. NPOV doesn't mean swallowing crap. — The Potato Hose 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose lifting topic ban. Editor is clearly here solely for the purpose of promoting a fringe idea and product, and has not shown the slightest whiff of a hint of a trace of intent to edit constructively and collaboratively. Has wasted lots of editor time already. Enough is enough. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. This topic ban was just instituted after a discussion on ANI. Parallel took part in that discussion and it's not even archived yet. It seems sort of pointless to appeal it immediately, going back over the same arguments. Parallel, you'll have a better chance to get the ban lifted if you first spend six months or so editing other topics. If people get the impression that you're here to contribute to Wikipedia, rather than merely to push your views on a particular subject, they'll be more likely to eventually unban you. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Oppose. It seems self-evident to me from the above that Parallel has failed to understand the reason for his topic ban - that he has repeatedly abused Wikipedia facilities in order to promote a fringe topic, with complete disregard to Wikipedia policies. To address a few specific points Parallel raised, it is simply untrue that I have accused him of threatening others - it was admin Edison who made the comments regarding what he considered to be a threat, not me as I have already pointed out to Parallel. Regarding the claims that Rossi is being 'libelled', as soon as Parallel made this suggestion, I advised him to raise the issue at WP:BLPN. He did not do so, instead continuing with vague assertions. As for comments about copper, I have no idea what Rossi's latest version of how the E-Cat works is, or how he thinks copper is involved - it simply doesn't matter unless it is published in reliable sources, something the Parallel has failed to provide. As for the rest, Parallel seems incapable of grasping what WP:FRINGE means, what we mean by releable sources, and why, when confronted with extraordinary claims regarding a supposedly comercially available LENR/cold fusion device, Wikipedia places the burden of proof firmly with those making the claims, and those promoting them, and unless and until such proof is available from third-party sources, it is a requirement of policy that we assert no credibility to the claims until mainstream science accepts them. Parallel seems unable to grasp the simple fact that Wikipedia is intended to follow scientific advances, not lead them, and that Wikipedia is simply not the place to promote fringe devices. If the E-Cat ever sees the light of day, Wikipedia will cover it - but until then, its promoters will have to promote it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Parallel argues the content again rather than addressing the behavior which led to the ban. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Potato Hose. wrt Neutrality, contentious articles will never be neutral to everyone. You (parallel) want it changed to appear neutral in your eyes, but that may not be neutral in the eyes of others. Until this has been fully independently verified, (i.e. independently replicated and run) by other scientists, then it will be fringe, and the article should reflect that. We cannot claim the E-Cat is a cold fusion/LENR without reliable third party tests, and there are none.Martin451 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work". Wikipedia may have a reputation for occasional unreliability but at least in this article it's completely accurate. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 11 June 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.

Norden1990 Harassment[edit]

I feel threatened and intimidated, User:Norden1990 behavior make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. This user also wrote some dubious nationalistic nonsense on my Talk page, Norden1990 has done a lot personal attacks against me (frustrated, chauvinist etc.) and a constructive discussion is really very difficult with this user. I wrote recently also ANI about his harmful speech[1], but now he is trying to discourage me from editing entirely. His last work in the 8th June 13:17 - 17:42 was the deletion step by step of my contributions[2]. So let's analyze his undo-edits:

  • Rajka[3] > User:Norden1990 wrote: they are Slovak citizens and not the Slovak ethnic minority in Hungary (so they are not Hungarian citizens) His statement is like from the end of 19th century or communism. Norden1990 is trying to make second-class citizens or some refugees. European Union policies aim to ensure the free movement of people + we have Schengen Area. Slovaks do not need Hungarian id cards or passports. Only nationalists from Jobbik have problems with Slovaks in Rajka[4]. I used 2 sources where is clearly written - Slovaks and the term "Slovak citizens" has a logical error too > Hungarian citizens where 19.4% are Slovaks + "Slovak citizens" where 50% are inhabitants of Rajka, so total Slovak population is ??%. Ridiculously. They live and pay bills there, they are owner of homes and estates. Yes, they are all Slovaks in Hungary. On the WP is not the place for first-class citizens and second-class citizens or for discrimination.
  • Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538)[5] > this is clear bad faith, I reverted questionable "newbie" IP editor - back to stable version. User:Norden1990 did not use citation needed template, but he deleted very well known fact which has thousands of sources.
  • Adam František Kollár > I edited dubious edit of questionable "newbie" IP editor - and then User:Norden1990 reverted my contrib[6] back to IP version. User Norden1990 used anachronistic dubious POV names. I used according to NPOV in good faith accurate historical names in the multilingual and multiethnic country[7]. My version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Neosolium) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Banská Bystrica"). Norden1990's version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Besztercebánya) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Besztercebánya"). My version has logical etymological content and name "Besztercebánya" was valid and used only in 1863 – 1913 in the period of Magyarization. And another Norden1990's names: Selmecbánya 1863 - 1873, Nagyszombat 1863 – 1913, Liptószentmiklós 1863 – 1913.
  • University of Trnava[8] > User:Norden1990 wrote: English name is enough in this article - He added only anachronistic names for Trnava, other terms this user deleted. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. According to NPOV in good faith I added latin name for Archbishop of Esztergom and Pázmány, because Latin was official language[9]. I added Pázmány's Slovak name because the article is about University of Trnava in the Slovakia. I also added neutral correct historical names for Slovak city Trnava. User:Norden1990 recently wrote that "The mention of other name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." in the article Giglovce[10] (with typical editing habits against my contribs), where 0,00% Magyars live, Norden1990's added name is totally unknown, unimportant, it was used in the period of Magyarization + there are also other names, but he added only this one. And this is aftermath[11]. Indeed quality of the article first.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Youreallycan ban appeal at AN/I[edit]

Since a few people in that thread have commented that ban/unban discussions should be held here and not AN/I, I'm adding a courtesy note here to point interested AN readers to that discussion. 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Need advice/help dealing with an IP[edit] (talk · contribs) has been bugging me and several other editors regarding the My Little Pony tv + comic series, specifically begging "these must be for children, so they can't be dark stories", or "if this is going to be dark, they can't be for kids, and should be marked as adult stories." I don't know whether the user is trolling , a poor English speaker, a child, or the like, but this is all the user has done and is starting to get to a point of bothersome. I do note that this user has apparently been aggravating people on an MLP wikia and is trying to bring that "fight" here. His actions certainly aren't disruptive, but they are annoying.

I don't know what action can be taken here, since by good faith I would think the user is just confused, but this has been going on far too long. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Looks like normal trolling to me. My Little Pony is a common target for trolls as its fans tend to be young and easily riled. If they seriously have issues with the show's plot (or whatever) they'd stop watching or write in to the people who actually make the show, not bug random wiki editors. I see they had a final warning already last month so if they're still at it it's block time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
With a splash of AGF, I'd expect that the IP is someone very young who is mixing up Wiki for WikiA. On a lot of Wikias forum like discussions are pretty common and generally allowed. Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Kafziel has blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
[Referring to the struck part:] Not possible. One of their edit summaries specifically references some kind of feud with another editor on MLP Wikia (who is, in their words, "crazy and dumb"). It's pretty clear that they're trolling the MLP Wikia too, presumably with the same or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a strong belief that the editor is trolling. As I commented on their page, their claims seem to be inconsistent and they keep going back and forth. Furthermore, at one stage they kept adding nonsense to the article claiming the comic series featured extreme violence, gore, sex etc. Perhaps they could have really been so confused once, but after it was pointed out to them it did not have this, they appeared to briefly accepted this before adding the claim again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah they're not consistent at all, alternating between pretending to know nothing about the comic obviously being familiar with its plot details. But even besides that their main claim (that there's an official "adult" My Little Pony comic with lots of graphic sex and gore) is so silly that it could only possibly be trolling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The troll has been appropriately blocked. Trolls are bad enough, but trolls who try to confuse children are worse than usual. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the block expired and he's back again [12]. I've asked the blocking admin to consider a re-block, if that's not done first from here. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and blocked them again. Any benefit of the doubt is just about run dry at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hence my striking of my initial comment, though valid on the surface, but on going through the rest of IP's contribs it's pretty obvious it's jsut the latest round of MLP trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Inactive possible sockpuppets of a banned user[edit]

I've a question that this seems the most appropriate board to ask this on. As part of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up, I've come across a few accounts that look like they may have been Qworty sockpuppets, but have also been inactive for a year or more. What is the proper way to deal with such accounts? Tag them? Report them to some board or other? Or just assume that since they're inactive they're not harmful? Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain what we should do, and I am not an administrator, but I think we should just tag them as suspected sockpuppets. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty/Archive, Dennis Brown made it very clear that he thought it was not a good idea to tag inactive suspected sockpuppet accounts. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I would just leave them be. The odds that any of those accounts would be resurrected seem pretty slim to me. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You could create an edit filter to flag them if they start becoming active. Not perfect solution but its possible. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Not worth the server resources IMO. A pair of human eyes from time to time should suffice. -- King of ♠ 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive user[edit]

TenOfAllTrades has summed this up quite well below, and I don't think I can improve on that. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 10:28, 15 June 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.

This is a minor but ongoing issue where perhaps an attempt by someone else will have more effect than my efforts have had so far.

User:Candleabracadabra, an editor since April 2011 with some 6,000 edits, is a regular creator of new articles. Despite multiple requests, his creations don't have any categories and don't even have the "uncat" tag either. Considering that he has (including many redirects) created 1269 articles, which as far as I can see all had that problem, I believe this is not really acceptable.

I have noted this problem at his talk page three times (at User talk:Candleabracadabra#Categories; 24 May, 27 May, and 3 June), but he hasn't responded at all nor changed his behaviour (see e.g. Mercantile Bank Building (Jonesboro, Arkansas)), so I'm looking for a good soul who is willing to give it another try or who can find another approach with better results. Fram (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Treat them as you would any other editor who continues with disruptive editing despite warnings. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's what I try to avoid. It seems a pity to start blocking without trying at least one more time if another approach might help. Getting his attention and cooperation without needing to block is better, and perhaps if he notices that multiple people have the same concerns, he will change his approach. If not, then blocking still remains as an option of course. Fram (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I had experience with one editor, who was constantly adding unreferenced material to BLPs - the info not controversial and later verified to be true, but it was still a problem. Over a period of months numerous users tried to communicate with the editor, using templated and personal messages. Nothing got through to him. Then one day enough was enough and he was blocked (I can't recall if I blocked him or another Admin) but it worked - it made him realise the seriousness of the situation, and now he communicates and adds references. GiantSnowman 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I don't rule out blocking as a last resort. But blocking is harsh, and I wouldn't want a productive editor with some minor problems leaving over being blocked without trying more gentle approaches first. A block may improve his interactions, but it may also piss him off and make him leave Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems like an admin (User:Dennis Brown?) once had good results by plastering their talk page with a ridiculously *huge* stopsign to get their attention. -- (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
In what sense is a failure to add categories to an article disruptive? Disruptive of what? Eric Corbett 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is s/he removing the {uncat} template once it is added? It strikes me as not actually disruptive or damaging for an editor to prefer to leave category work for others. Wikipedia is a collaborative, volunteer project, and we don't expect or demand any editor – new or not – to do all the work on articles. Looking at, e.g. Mercantile Bank Building (Jonesboro, Arkansas), I see a reasonable, competently-written, credibly-sourced one-paragraph stub about a historical building, about which we did not have an article before.
Presumably, other editors will arrive over time to expand the article with images, more information, additional sources...and category tags. To accuse Candleabracadabra of 'disruptive editing' and to suggest harrassing them with repeated nuisance templates as a valid solution – let alone suggest blocking someone who is quietly and competently producing good, constructive content – because s/he doesn't do category grunt work is ridiculous.
If you want an {uncat} template on every new article, write a bot to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
TOAT, look at it this way instead - an editor is deliberately ignoring sound advice (which doesn't make for a collaborative project) and every single time they create a stub, other editors have to clean up after them by adding categories / tagging as uncat. That is disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Why do others need to 'clean up after them'? Genuine question, whats the actual downside to not having either a CAT/uncat? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm ... please don't go through the dozens of stubs, articles, etc to see if I always added a CAT to it or you'll want to block me too! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the "B" word has been mentioned in the context of an editor who doesn't dot every I and cross every T is troublesome indeed. The editor concerned may not give a shit about categories - so what? This issue doesn't even begin to touch the troublesome threshold. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:YFA - "Every article should be in one or more Wikipedia categories". GiantSnowman 16:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Are we really going with "Your first article" as grounds for a block now? C'mon, this is not a big deal. (Also, I can't remember if I've ever added cats to my paltry collection of articles; I rather doubt it.) Writ Keeper  16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see how this is mildly irritating, and I see no problem with reaching out to find other editors to try a different approach, but this strikes me as absolutely not block-worthy. Where do we draw the line on this type of thing? Shall we block people for not providing images too? Or not adding infoboxes? Its irritating, but not a necessity, and not a blockable issue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I would say categories are a necessity. For example, I create lots of articles; before doing so, I often check a category the new article will be placed in to ensure an article on the same subject does not already exist. That prevents wasting both my time (in creating a duplicate article) and that of others who have to clean up after me (delete/merge etc.) GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I try to add a few of the most obvious categories when I create articles too, I know what you mean in practice. That being said, I don't see a policy supporting their necessity. (I would think something more direct than WP:YFA would be needed to make that argument.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Suggesting that a highly productive editor should/could/might be/ blocked for not adding a category is so daft that those mooting the idea need to take a long hard look at themselves - and maybe add a few categories to the articles rather than honing their block button. Leaky Caldron 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Who has said this editor should be blocked? GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Treat them as you would any other editor who continues with disruptive editing despite warnings. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC), from here. I mean, yes, you technically didn't use the word "block", but there's really no other way to interpret that; I mean, what else do we do with disruptive editors who've ignored warnings? Writ Keeper  16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Depends how long they've been around / how many friends they have made ;) GiantSnowman 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, this guy hasn't made enough friends, given that we're here, so yeah, lame block suggestions are lame. Writ Keeper  16:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The recent furore about category:American novelists indicated that the category system is quite dysfunctional. You can be castigated if you put someone in a category and now you can be threatened if you don't. "That's some catch, that Catch-22". Warden (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A gross and incorrect over-simplification of both the recent issue with categories, and this current thread. Kudos. GiantSnowman 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Other suggestions welcome - how do others suggest we proceed then? Saying "it's not an issue" is a cop-out, what you really mean is "it's not an issue for me cos I don't care / don't have to clean up the mess." GiantSnowman 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess my (and perhaps others') point is: why is it considered a "mess" for an article to not be in a category? Writ Keeper  16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I seriously cannot believe I am having to link administrators to Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. Brb, off to bang my head against my desk for 5 mins. GiantSnowman 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, no need to bang your head: you didn't need to link that page, as it didn't answer my question. Does it say in there that articles must have categories? I read it through (again) and don't see anything that says that. I guess the closest thing is the "What should I do if I see an article without any categories?" section, but that doesn't say anything about warning editors or anything like that. Writ Keeper  17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that we stop using categories or anything. Just that it's not that big of a deal when they're not there. Its not a life and death, BLP type issue. Either it will be fixed eventually by random editors, or it won't...which has no repercussions beyond not being categorized. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Writing an otherwise fine article and opting to let other people categorize it is perfectly acceptable, and is in no way disruptive. To even think of blocking an editor for leaving categorization for others is way out of line. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is something worse than an article without categories: an article with bad categories. RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I have some sympathy for the notion that an editor who doesn't do everything, and expects others to clean up can be infuriating in some cases. However, the cases I'm thinking of are editors who contribute little more than a title and a sentence just barely asserting notability. It may take more work from editors to check it out, search to see if there are references to support the notability than it might for editors to start from scratch without the tiny stub. While the editor may well have been contributing with such a start in 2001, it is 2013, and the world is different.

That said, I see a gulf between that example and the contributions of this editor. I do not know why the editor does not add categories. I happen to think our category system is quite poor, and hate to use it. I can easily believe that some editor may feel more strongly and refuse to use it. If it is done as a form of protest, I'm sorely tempted to join.

Are articles better when they have categories? Sure I can accept that. I don't object to the YFA advice that articles should have categories, but there is a difference between stating the goals for articles and stating the minimum acceptable standards for an editor's contribution to an article. I think articles ought to be spelled correctly. That doesn't mean I support a block for editors who make a spelling mistake. I do not view an editor who makes a spelling mistake as disruptive. Articles ought to have proper grammar. Editors who fail should not be termed "disruptive".

The editor has been asked to add cats, and has failed to explain why they do not. Time to shrug and move on. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The barrier for entry is high enough without adding more mandates to editors wanting to create an article - no need to make it more complex. There are lots of editors willing to spend the 5 seconds it takes to use HotCat and add appropriate categories. Why hassle this editor? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I was going to write something but SPhilbrick already wrote it. This editor just seems uninterested in adding categories or talking about categories. I don't find our current implementation of categories very good or useful either. I was wondering whether this editor was disruptively uncommunicative in general and that does not seem to be the case: I took a swing through the editor's edit count and history of using Talk pages; the editor seems to use Talk pages less frequently than many others but by no means never, and the Talk page contribs made are perfectly suitable. I have seen where administrator intervention is needed in cases of a disruptive editor who won't respond to requests to cut it out, but that doesn't seem to apply here. "Shrug and move on" seems about right. Zad68 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
To me, the best situation is a bot (or software feature) that would automatically mark an uncategorised page as uncategorised. Uncategorised pages that aren't marked as such are problems because we can't find them easily; having them marked automatically would remove the problems caused by this editor's unwillingness to mark them as uncategorised. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
How about Special:UncategorizedPages? DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The most problematic factor for me (and the one which caused me to start this thread) is the unresponsiveness of this editor. If someone comes to your talk page with genuine concerns about your editing, the least you can do is reply. If he had explained why he doesn't want to add categories, that might have been sufficient. Like I indicated, simply adding the "uncat" tag if he is for some reason not comfortable adding a cat is also acceptable. But simply always ignoring a guideline (Wikipedia:Categorization: "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category.") and refusing to discuss this is not really the way that things are supposed to happen here. The whole blockworthy/not blockworthy discussion is a distraction (and I note that we have blocked people over refusing to sign their posts, which doesn't even affect the mainspace). Fram (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think reaching out to the editor on their talk page, as you did, was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it certainly would have been polite of them to reply, but if they don't want to discuss it, it doesn't strike me as something we ought to (try to) force them to. There are editors who spend most if not all of their Wikipedia time categorizing things; it stands to reason that there would be some editors with no interest in categorization whatsoever, and it seems that we have found one such editor. 28bytes (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Fram (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(EC)I may have missed it in the above, and the links to the category help pages are not really helpful on this, what is the disruptive or negative aspect of not having a category. I have seen lots of reasons why it is helpful to have one, but not a reason why it matters if it does not. Apart from a vague 'it might be difficult to find the article'. I can count on one hand the number of times I have used the category system to 'find' an article. Thats what search is for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
For me, categories are useful to find related articles, both as a reader and as an editor (for cleanup and maintenance reasons); I have found quite a few hoaxes and duplicate articles thanks to categories. While lists have their use as well, categories get "automatically" maintained (i.e., just add the cat to the page and it appears in the category: delete the article and it is gone, and so on; with lists, you have more extra work (but the possibility for extra information as well)). For readers, they are a way to find articles they didn't know existed. Without categories, I probably would never have found André Van De Werve De Vorsselaer, and noticed that it is badly capitalized. Thanks to Category:Flemish artists, I just came across the oddly named Hermann Naiwinx. With some research, I found another article at the more plausible title Herman Naiwincx. Duplicates? I need to look a bit further to be sure, but I would probably not have found them without categories. Fram (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
One might also consider editors, such as purely copy editors like myself, who don't edit within any particular area in WP and as such categories are largely ignored anyway. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Imagine an editor creating a few hundred articles without standard wiki layout, e.g. not using our section header system but using "bold" or "big" tags to create section headers. You can still read the articles, you won't get a TOC but not everyone cares for a TOC anyway. Would you allow that editor to continue doing this, even after multiple requests to use section headers instead? It is not because categories (or section headers, or...) are not needed for some groups of editors that we should ignore editors who consistenly refuse to apply them. Fram (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Broken templates, infoboxes, extra Big tags, and the like... all of those affect the ability of readers to actually get information out of an article. Categories, or a lack thereof, do not. The issues are separate. I keep having the mental image of one of us standing behind this editor with a riding crop, smacking their hand whenever they create an article without a category. And that bothers me. Half of our cleanup tasks are sorting out what less experienced editors did - and it has always been thus. There is no easier way to tell this editor to go fuck off and leave than to block him/her for not doing something completely optional. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The introduction of the visual editor, which is happening soon, seems likely to result in many new articles which will lack advanced features because the editor does not support them. In my experience, it takes a long time to master these and some may never do it. What Wikipedia needs most is editors who can write good encyclopedic prose as we have plenty of gnomes and techies who like tinkering with templates. It takes all sorts... Warden (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Less experienced editors": we are talking about an editor with 2 years + experience, having created hundreds of articles, not some clueless newbie. And it is not supposed to be "completely optional", it is part of our guidelines that every article should have at least one category. And contrary to what you claim, the lack of categories makes it much harder for people to "find" articles, so it is also affecting "the ability of readers to actually get information out of" the encyclopedia as a whole (and much more so than e.g. "big" tags). The search function is nice if you know the exact article: categories are better if you want all articles around a certain topic or with a certain common characteristic. Without a catedgory, could you easily tell which articles we had on Category:Assassinated Belgian politicians? Fram (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
That might be true if categories were searchable in an obvious way, but they're not. Try typing "country houses in Greater Manchester" into the search box for instance and see what you get. Eric Corbett 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) ^This. Now, leaving a new article permanently without categories would be a concern, granted. But creating such an article does not mean that it disappears into the hinterlands of Category:Articles lacking categories. Even if it's a true orphan, with no links in and out, it'll show up on the new pages list, it'll be tagged (maybe by bot) as an orphan or as lacking categories or whatever, and someone will come by and add categories. And then life goes on. I seem to recall something about there not being a deadline - why do we need THIS editor to put categories on their new articles RIGHT THEN? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
With very little effort (putting "uncat" at the bottom of the page), he would make life easier for others. Apparently that's too much to ask though. Fram (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
How can Category:Articles lacking categories possibly be non-empty? The inclusion of an article in that category would disqualify it from being in the category. Writ Keeper  13:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Honestly didn't think about it. If it existed, I guess it'd be hidden anyway. Oh, I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I get, as the first result, Category:Country houses in Greater Manchester, so for me this works as expected. What do you get? Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I get the message "You may create the page "Country houses in greater manchester", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered", and the first entry in the list below is "North West England (redirect from Manchester Liverpool Polynuclear Metropolitan Area). Eric Corbett 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Special:Preferences: Search in all namespaces" (or search in articles and categories) is your friend. Fram (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It may or may not be my friend, but I'm a logged in user, unlike the overwhelming majority of our readers. Eric Corbett 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
..., in fairness to Eric, and only good if you know that's what you can do. I didn't, and I've been here far too long. GiantSnowman 13:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec)True. Even so, the text of the category (as written on the article) is included in the search, so they still show up in the search, but not as prominent. I agree that the current search is far from perfect, and wonder why categories aren't included in the default search. Not having categories won't improve this of course. And using the search function is only one possibility: going from an article to similar other ones is also made possible by categories, once you scroll to the bottom of the page at least. Again, not optimal. Oh, and if you do this search, no matter your preferences, the category will appear first (at least it does for me). But changing it to e.g. this one ruins that effect again... Fram (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why? Why do we need to imagine anything other than the specific issue you have brought to attention? Just close the thread. The editor deserves and requires no action to be taken by Admins. in respect of the specific concern about categories. There is no support for Admins to intervene in this case and anything else you bring up is irrelevant. Leaky Caldron 12:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
My "imagine" response was a reply to Blackmane, which seemed to imply "I don't care about categories, so ..." Apparently a lot of people don't care about categories and don't see their purpose, their potential uses, which is rather disheartening. Fram (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
But categories as currently implemented are virtually useless. Eric Corbett 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Why? They could be a lot better (category intersection for one should be a standard search function), but that's a far cry from "virtually useless". Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Completely useless to the average reader then. Eric Corbett 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 ;-) Fram (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In reply to Fram: don't get me wrong, it's not an "I don't care about them". As someone who hasn't spent anytime on categories, I solely focus on improving article text when I pick an article. I take it on good faith that the copyedit requester knows where the article belongs and will stick it in the right place. As a reader, I certainly do make use of categories when I find a branch of articles I find interesting. The brevity of my comment certainly could be seen in the way you suggested. Blackmane (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive user 2[edit]

Once bitten, twice shy etc. I have an editor whose signature violates WP:SIGLINK (i.e. no links to their user and/or talk page) and they are not responding to my requests. What can I do in this situation? GiantSnowman 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to persuade them of the benefits of such links? Eric Corbett 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
We've dealt with this before, recently, but I don't know what we did. This seems to be a more serious concern than the one above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Why? This one has zero impact on the readers of the encyclopedia or on its content. It only impacts editors. We are not more important than the actual encyclopedia surely? Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This one's easy - you've pointed it out, they're unresponsive, it IS policy. We've done it before. You can either a) name them and shame them here at AN or ANI until they actually follow the policy, or get blocked, or b) block them as per jurisprudence until their sig is policy-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have notified Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 14:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope, WP:SIGLINK is a guideline, not policy, just like Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline. But categorization applies to the mainspace, siglink only to talk pages and discussion pages. Yet you advocate blocking for this one, and not for the categorization one? Fram (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
For the categorization thing, you're advocating pestering or blocking of an editor who doesn't add a maintenance tag to every article he creates. It's something that can be done just as quickly, and probably more easily, by whichever Twinkle-enabled new-page-patroller shows up to slap on their feel-good assortment of likely-to-be-ignored-for-months tags. Candleabracadabra wants to contribute to content development, but doesn't have an interest in article indexing—and that's fine. We don't compel editors to participate against their will in all aspects of Wikipedia's development. Candleabracadabra's articles are, arguably, incomplete without category tags, but they're not broken. He's doing nothing to prevent or obstruct the addition of categories or maintenance tags (or additional content, or navboxes, or infoboxes, or references...) by editors who come after him. We don't demand that he place the {uncategorized} template for the same reason that we don't insist that article creators put {copy edit} on their new efforts.
For the signature issue, an editor has to take a conscious, deliberate, positive step to change their signature from the default. Changing one's signature from the default to something that doesn't link to one's user or talk page is an active step. It takes something that is working, and turns it into something that is broken. While it generally isn't the intent of the editor to make themselves more difficult to reach (usually they're just trying to make their signature 'pretty') it is the effect of their actions. Further, it is something that can be remedied quickly and easily and permanently with a single change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
There are some very basic community norms that shouldn't be hard to adhere to, one of which is either banging out four tildes or clicking the sig icon in the toolbar above. We've dealt with recalcitrant editors in the past with threats of blocks or actual blocks. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu comes to mind. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this pair of discussions because I wasn't sure what to say, but Tenofalltrades has convinced me; we really should take some sort of action regarding users who change their signatures unhelpfully, but I agree that it would be over the top to sanction Candelabra here. Look at my signature; it's only changed once since I registered in 2006, and that was because the default was changed from <User, timestamp> to <User (talk), timestamp> some years ago. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Signature linking is more important than adding categories because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that is a fundamental way in which we communicate with one another. Categories, on the other hand, are just a supplement to the really important things, i.e. properly sourced, neutrally worded, encyclopaedic content. I see categories in the same way as pictures or "see also" sections...a nice addition to any article, but not really a deal breaker as long as the content is up to standard. Ditch 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The editor still has not changed their signature, barring any outcry here I intend to indef them if they do not change it, obviously with the caveat that they will be unblocked once they have changed. GiantSnowman 09:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, threats do work (sometimes...) GiantSnowman 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that 'threats' were what produced the effect, nor that they were necessary. I mean, you slapped the guy's talk page with four messages in six hours, the last of which was announcing that you were taking the matter to this noticeboard. Then you hit him with a 'final warning' less than 24 hours later.
Yes, he needed to fix his signature; you'll get no argument from me on that. But absent any indication that the guy was acting in bad faith or disputing the requirement – or even that he was deliberately ignoring your messages (the new notifications system is a lot less conspicuous than the old) – it is far from clear that the level of...enthusiastic urgency...with which you sought his compliance was required or likely to helpful in the long run.
Instead of a spate of terse, acronym and alphabet-soup laden single-sentence demands, it would have been no more work – and much better 'people skills' – to spend a little bit of time crafting one clear, polite, request that contained a few words of explanation. (Particularly given that English does not appear to be this editor's first language.) As admins, we have a duty to educate and communicate, not merely to threaten and enforce. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 14 June 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.

Edit disputes at Microsoft Office 365[edit]

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.

There appears to be a significant edit dispute at this page. One editor took it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Then they took the dispute to my talk page at User_talk:Bearian#Re:_Office_365. Can somebody help?! Bearian (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While it seems to have become a bit more stable now (there have been discussions on the edit warring noticeboard, and there haven't been any further reverts), I'm still a bit concerned about how things will be going forward. But still, I stand by my belief that vandalism covers things like saying The Annoying Orange is the president of the United Kingdom, and not good-faith efforts at improving an article. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This is already being addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ), so I suggest that this section be closed immediately. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:35, 12 June 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.

A Talking Cat!?![edit]


I wish to be allowed to edit the entry for the film A Talking Cat!?! I created the entry for The Room (film) and therefore should be considered qualified. The A Talking Cat!?! entry is currently locked for administrators, so I am pleading to be allowed to begin building this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoll (talkcontribs) 08:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above editor posted this request earlier but someone deleted it from the noticeboard. I think Jcoll is referring to this [13] which does instruct him to come to the Administrators Noticeboard with such a request. Whether or not the request is viable is another matter. Taroaldo 08:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This may be the movie Jcoll is referring to [14] Taroaldo 08:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've created the page (the title was being blocked by the blacklist). Jcoll can now add some content to it. Hut 8.5 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What was the problem? Perhaps the !?! sequence? Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That'd be my guess - it wasn't protected directly or SALTed as a result of shenanigans. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright. I've left a note at Jcoll's talk page about the article being ready for editing. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


Chauahuasachca (talk · contribs) recent page moves have separated talk pages from their subject pages. So this needs administrators to repair them, as some of the talk pages have active discussions, and some of the destinations have generated new discussions, making a simple talk page move impossible. A histmerge and restore of older discussions would then be necessary. -- (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

These articles were created by IPs without regarding the criterias for page names. I don't understand what you want now.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you like to prove that statement? IP's have not been able to create live articles in years, and once ONE SINGLE PERSON complains about your page moves, you MUST stop and use the WP:RM process. What's happened now are cockups that only admns can fix ... well done! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The IP here is complaining about my "forgettings" to move the talk page also.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Chauahuasachca, you've been previously requested to show more care with page moves. At some point the difference between carelessness and willful disruption becomes moot. Tiderolls 14:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Huh? First,were the articles created by unregistered users without regard for the criteria for page names? If so, how did that happen? A bug? Second, when the article pages were moved/renamed, did the editor override the default to move the talk page along with the article page? The default on page moves is to move the talk page with the article page. If the default was overridden, why? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
None of the pages I checked (see below) were created by unregistered users; I don't know what he's talking about. That being said, there are two ways for it to happen: either they get created through WP:AFC, or they're old pages that were created before page creation was restricted to registered users. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very annoying and disruptive and so on. Could we perhaps bitch about it and fix the pages? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've left Chauahuasachca a final warning — moving tons of pages without their talk pages is quite disruptive when the new titles have no talk pages that would require administrative assistance, and it's made worse because you actively have to prevent the software from moving the talk page. I've also checked his entire move log for the past six months and moved all the talk pages that were still at the old titles. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You beat me to the final warning! I was busy moving pages myself. Thanks for the hand. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Seeing as these often appear to be non-consensus moves to beging with, a topic ban from ANY page move - being forced to use RM - was more along my lines of thinking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours; he moved Juma Ahmad Atigha and left behind the talk page, even though the new page title had no associated talk page at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


Could someone take a look at the above article please, the legal stuff has me a bit concerned--Jac16888 Talk 18:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recently added legal stuff - looks like an advert/addition by the law firm involved.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have watchlisted this just in case of further legal excitement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on PC Level 2[edit]

We need closers for the big RfC on Pending Changes Level 2. Discussion is welcome at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013#Looking for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm offering my services.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

deadmau5 move review discussion[edit]

Hello, since 7 days has elapsed on this move review, could an admin who knows how to deal with stuff like this please close it? Thanks! Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of User:PumpkinSky[edit]

Unblocked per consensus here and on PS's talk page. There is no support for the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 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'm formally requesting the community immediately unblock PumpkinSky. User:Jmh649 (Doc James) blocked PumpkinSky specifically for this [15] and later clarified as being a string of incivilities. Please read the entire discussion here.[16] Blocks for incivility are at best controversial, and in this instance, inappropriate. While a couple of comments from two weeks ago were well over the line, they were dealt with. Using a comment from 2011 as a reason to block is clearly inappropriate. The "trigger" diff was when PumpkinSky called an editor a "pompous ass" after that editor started a large thread mocking the efforts of other editors [17]. If you look at the start, the context at the "Hall of Lame"[18], then you realize the comment wasn't nearly as out of line as it seems.

While I can't and don't condone calling another editor a "pompous ass", neither do I wish the community to micromanage and police every comment from every editor in this way. I've asked Doc James to unblock but he has declined. To me, the standard is simple: Had I called someone a "pompous ass", I would not have been blocked. Even on that page, I inferred that PumpkinSky was being an "ass", yet nary an eyebrow was raised. And I've seen admin call each other worse without sanction. The block doesn't need to be for time served, it needs reverting. While I assume good faith, it is my opinion an error in judgement occurred. Rather than wheel war over it, I bring it to the community and ask them to swiftly do the right thing. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 21:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revert block
  • Unblock - clearly bad block that needs to be quickly reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock- I agree with Boing! said Zebedee Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a fairly long list of incivility as shown by the diffs provided.[19] I see no indication that the user in question feels his current comments or his previous comments were an issue. When he added "I can by to see what you were up to and saw you haven't edited in three months. Good riddance because the way you and Townlake behaved on my talk page in Oct 2012 was appalling. You should be ashamed on both a personal and admin level. But I'm sure you're not. But that is okay because karma will get you and I won't have to do a thing." to a users talk page and when someone brought concerns regarding these comments to his attention his reply was "I won't remove it nor the one on Townlake's talk page; but I also won't interfere with what others do in that regard."[20] When the concerns today were raised the response was "If you're not man enough to admit to the community you couldn't wait to make this block because of your feelings for Will and against me, at least admit it to yourself". This is no very conducive to collaborative editing IMO. If this continues a longer block may be needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Doc, that was two weeks ago, you can't really be saying that is the reason for the block. It WAS inappropriate, and had I seen it, I would have chewed on him much stronger than Strat did, but I wouldn't have blocked him two weeks later, and saying so here doesn't reflect well on you, to be honest. Digging in deeper by threatening a longer future block is not appropriate at this particular discussion. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock Bad block.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock. There's no denying that PumpkinSky has been a bit testy lately, but the comments cited did not warrant a block. It's not really relevant to the unblock request, but I feel obliged to observe that Tony1 was inviting a comeback like that one in making his persistent accusations and insinuations against the people who participate in WP:DYK. And plenty of worse things than "pompous ass" get said around here on a regular basis without getting the speaker blocked. --Orlady (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock, per Dennis and Orlady, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 16 June 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.

Unblock of User:Who Am I Why Am I Here[edit]

This looks like sufficient discussion to go ahead and unblock. Thanks everyone for your feedback. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 18 June 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.

Who Am I Why Am I Here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked in early 2011 for creating malicious sock accounts. Then, a few days ago they created a new account: User:Think for Yourselves. The creation of their userpage was the account's first edit, and it explains all this in their own words.

So, upon reviewing an unblock request by Who Am I I concluded that the correct course of action was to block the new account and open this discussion. I consider that block purely procedural as they were technically evading a previous block so I restored the status quo and advised them I would be asking for input on the matter. I have also requested that they pick one account to use from now on, so I would suggest that this discussion is about unblocking one or the other but not both.

My own feeling on the matter is that I do believe that the creation of this new account was not in any way malicious, unlike the previous accounts, and that it has been a long time and people actually can change.

  • The blocking admin is no longer active.

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied from the user's talk page[edit]

What do you plan to do if unblocked? --Rschen7754 07:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would probably update a lot of pages and the like about U.S. politics and politicians. I consider that my expertise, and although many of my troll posts in the past were about that, I feel that I can overcome the past and be constructive. I also consider myself to have a fairly good knowledge of various movies and TV shows, so I'm sure that I could help there, as well. I could probably help fill in some history pages, but I'd probably want to start with something less complicated.

Think for Yourselves (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


  • I say why not. Worst case: relapse and reblock. Best case: successful rehabilitation. It hasn't been as much time as I'd like but I see no harm in givng the user a chance to prove what he's saying. :) ·Salvidrim!·  05:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the WP:Standard offer applies. Just engage them and get a promise to not engage in the behaviour that got them blocked, and since it's certainly been over 6 months, and they've not engaged in any questionable behaviour, I think everything's pretty kosher. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As the user who answered to their helpme request, I totally agree with allowing the user to edit constructively under any one account he chooses to. From what i can see, he appears to be a promising candidate for some constructive work in the future. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Standard standard offer. How easy would it be for the user to never acknowledge a previous account... the standard offer exists because it inspires transparency. This is that, as far as this thread indicates. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept standard offer with current account. Previous accounts can be reblocked with a comment pointing to the new account if needed. Any time someone wants to join the the editing side and leave the lolz side, it should be encouraged. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 10:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, seems good to me too - hopefully we'll have a good convert from the dark side. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure. Standard offer applies. --RA (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with everyone else. Acknowledging his past is solid evidence that he wants to be helpful; if he wanted to remain disruptive, he'd have absolutely no reason to acknowledge it. I agree with both sides of Beeblebrox' actions — the block was necessary because this is someone with a disruptive history, but the unblock request here is really the only appropriate way to respond to someone who seems genuinely rehabilitated. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 18 June 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.

Closure of ANI thread[edit]


Would someone close this thread at ANI. It has been open for over a week and has already been archived once due to inactivity and has received sufficient input IMO.

I've proposed a wording for a restriction, if that is the result of a closure.

--RA (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz RfA topic ban/restriction[edit]

The unblock restriction placed by Drmies and in particular the restriction on replying to any comments at RfA as detailed at User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Unblocked have gained a community consensus and shall be applied. --Salix (talk): 06:45, 18 June 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.

There seems to be some confusion regarding the RfA topic ban and whether or not "enough" consensus was obtained before it was implemented as a condition of unblocking Kiefer.Wolfowitz, by Drmies. The events surrounding his block are already well documented on his talk page and in the block log, as is the rationale for the RfA topic ban and don't require rehashing here. The purpose of this discussion is solely to document a community consensus for the topic ban, one way or another. It does not affect any other part of the terms of the unblock.

The short version of the restriction is that Kiefer is allowed to !vote at RfA but not allowed to reply to any comments on the main or talk page of individual RfAs. This is narrow enough to be enforceable yet allow him the ability to participate in all RfA !voting, making it the least aggressive method of restriction. Kiefer has agreed to some limitations in theory, but adding clarity by formalizing the existing topic ban is the better solution for the community.

Proposal to keep topic ban as shown here[21]
Moved here from "editing restriction" page
RfA restriction and interaction ban

I should not be restricted at RfAs. RfAs were explicitly excluded as a rationale for the block by the blocking administrator.

RfA excluded as a blocking rationale by blocking administrator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN, where the allusion to pedophilia was both striking and repugnant. [....] Horologium (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The close of the community discussion at AN did not mention RfAs,

28bytes's closure of AN discussion, which ignored RfAs but considered a two-way interaction ban wise
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"This thread has been running for more than three days, and I don't think it can be argued that the community hasn't had a chance to weigh in here. (As Bishonen notes below, the number of participants here is quite extraordinary.)

Setting aside GiantSnowman for a moment, I personally think Fram's suggestion that Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Demiurge1000 disengage is an extremely wise one, and in fact I told KW as much almost exactly a year ago on my talk page. However, the proposed interaction ban seems to have been rendered moot by subsequent events, namely KW's unfortunately worded comment about inappropriate behavior towards younger editors. While KW has, to his credit, clarified that he meant nothing sexual about the comment, accusing other editors of inappropriate contact with younger editors – sexual or not – is not something do be done lightly, and certainly not something to be done on a public noticeboard without evidence in the middle of a heated discussion. If KW is genuinely concerned that there is inappropriate recruiting (whether political or otherwise) of younger editors, I suggest he instead contact either ArbCom or the WMF with evidence backing up his concerns and they will act accordingly.

Now, regarding the block. Many people have weighed in, but I simply do not see a consensus (1) to unblock KW, (2) to adjust the block to a specific period of time, or (3) to keep KW blocked forever (i.e. a defacto ban). What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated. That may happen tomorrow, it may happen two months from now, or it may not happen at all. I hope it happens quickly and KW is able to return to productive editing, but if it does, I strongly recommend he stay away from, and avoid commenting on the activities of, Demiurge1000. I offer the same recommendation to Demiurge1000 regarding comments about KW. I suspect both will enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia much more if they do so."

so there was no "community-discussion" consensus supporting Drmies's restriction. If Drmies wishes to impose a restriction on my editing at RfAs, he should seek approval of an AN discussion or of ArbCom, as I read the policy on the other side. (He may also discuss RfAs with me, or if that fails try an RfC and ask me to volunteer for a restriction....)

A two-party interaction ban was supported by the community and mentioned as reasonable by the closing AN administrator. Again, there is no policy basis for Drmies to impose a one-sided (inter)action ban on only me,

One-way interaction ban, contrary to AN consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You should not interact with Demiurge. Given the nature of the diff that led to the block in the first place, I cannot really impose a two-way interaction ban, but I have no doubt that Demiurge will not seek you out or bait you, and I hope that they will refrain from commenting on you elsewhere. "No interaction" includes you won't mention them or their conduct anywhere on-wiki, including by allusion (added for us literary types). You won't visit their talk page or follow them around. Obviously I cannot (nor do I wish to) block you from the dramah boards etc; you must let common sense (mine, and I hope yours) prevail--stay out of discussions that they're involved in. This does not mean that Demiurge can, for instance, block you from continuing a discussion you've already engaged in by merely placing a comment, but I trust this won't happen. I have seen your efforts (some after your block, but still) to undo the damage caused by the remark, and I believe that you are sincere and won't repeat this; Demiurge appears to be of the same mind. At any rate, practically speaking it is not likely to be tolerated.

when the AN consensus clearly favored a two-way ban. (I was blocked before it was imposed.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I removed the "ban". Even by the heuristics of administrator absolutism and elastic Wikipedia "logic", AN's failure to overturn a block that specifically excludes RfAs does not imply the existence of AN decision to indefinitely topic-ban an editor from RfAs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Dennis, there is no confusion. AN did not endorse a topic ban from RfA and the Horologium's block explicitly excluded RfAs from consideration. AN's failure to overturn Horologium's block, which explicitly excluded RfAs from consideration, did not constitute an endorsement of a ban from RfAs. That is obvious. Whether Horologium would agree to an unblock without an RfA topic-ban (despite his not stating that requirement in the original block or in its discussion here) is another question. I would suggest that those wishing to topic ban me from RfAs please prepare an RfC/U. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my blocking statement. What I said was that I didn't block you for your comments on RFA. That does not say that I oppose a restriction on you there. My comments to DrMies on my talk page make it clear that I support such a restriction; in fact, you have quoted that same post because it is where I expressed a concern about you getting baited. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Quoting your blocking statement is "misrepresentation"? Why don't you all ban me from Wikipedia? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Good question. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
"I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN" "RfAs were explicitly excluded as a rationale for the block by the blocking administrator" Horologium opposes an RFA restriction on KW (the first two are direct quotes, the third is a paraphrase). The statement I made on AN during the block discussion, was because the topic of RFA restrictions became a significant topic of discussion. My block was because of a comment on AN, not RFA. The comment on AN came in a discussion because of KW's behavior at RFA, which I did not witness at the time that I blocked him. At no time do I explicitly reject RFA restrictions on KW, and in fact, on my talk page, I explicitly supported some sort of limitation on threaded responses in my response to DrMies before the unblock. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium, since I have your attention, please deal with your diffless WP:NPA violations in alleging I'd canvassed at some LGBT/feminism project, have an "anti-collaborative nature", etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
After an exchange with Pedro on an RFA,Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Guoguo12 2 (a review of the page history is illuminating), in which he made a comment which was unquestionably a vicious personal attack but not exactly sexist,[22] you first edit-warred with him, and then took it to the WP:Feminism discussion page. [23] There was absolute silence in response to your post.[24] In the same RFA discussion, you accused him of homophobia on truly trivial grounds,[25] and invoked the spectre of involving the LGBT project.[26] It's interesting that you could be accused of the same behavior, based on a pair of posts in the past few days. Your response on AN to User:Fluffernutter, in which you refer to her as "Fluffer",[27] could certainly be interpreted as sexist; she even includes a convenient link to the article on fluffer on her userpage to make it clear that the use of the term is NSFW. Further, you invoke "sucks" on your post here;[28] Pedro's use of the word was enough for you to accuse him of homophobia. As to your anti-collaborative nature, the AN discussion speaks for itself, but you couldn't restrain yourself from a string of personal attacks since your unblock ([29]--the response to Chris; [30]--the edit summary; [31]--the edit summary; [32] and [33]--I'm so power-hungry that I immediately brought my block up for discussion, with the explicit statement that I didn't object to the block being shortened). There are other examples, but I suspect that this is enough to establish that you are not particularly collegial with editors with whom you have had a disagreement. The nonsense in Guoguo12's RFA is justification enough (on its own) for some sort of restriction on your participation at WP:RFA, and your contributions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 only reinforce my belief that your participation in threaded discussions at RFA is sub-optimal. Horologium (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • RFC/U doesn't have the authority to create a topic ban or any sanction, by design. Since the topic ban was put in place as part of your unblock and it is disputed in good faith, then WP:AN is the preferred venue to deal with the concern. This is SOP for questions on sanctions. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The topic ban was an explicit condition of the unblock. Kiefer Wolfowitz is free to reject that topic ban, but if he does so he must also reject the unblock that was conditioned on it, and wait for another administrator to remove what was previously an indefinite block on his account. By editing this page, for example, Kiefer indicates that he has accepted the unblock and the topic ban that accompanied it. However, if the question is whether to also establish a community-based topic ban (rather than just the one that is part of the unblock), I would support that. I think that, compared to other possible resolutions of the original block, the very mild ban being discussed is among the least restrictive outcomes possible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Your argument and justification are absurd. Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Carl, you seem to miss the point that an administrator (or a handfull of administrators) cannot impose a community restriction. Only ArbCom or AN(I?) can. Either AN should impose a restriction (of 3/4/6 months, or indefinite, or removed by the whims of one administrator, e.g. Drmies..., etc.) or advise Drmies that he cannot impose a formal community-restriction by himself. I have not objected to my restricting myself at RfA, as The Rambling Man should, also, but you administrators seem not to care when one of your own goes on a rampage. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think there should also be a link here to Drmies' unblock comment and rationale for this topic ban on Kiefer's page: here it is. P. S., Kiefer Wolfowitz, see how I refer to content on another page? With a link. That's the best way. Please stop copypasting your quarrels all over the place. You are free to mess up your own page with all those collapse boxes, I suppose; it makes it hard to understand and get an overview of, but that's up to you. Please don't do it here. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC).
    Stop the unearned condescension. Quotation often saves me time, which is valuable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The ban and the block were unnecessary knee jerk reactions. Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Though I'm against an RfA ban, I support the proposal to keep in it place. The topic ban was an explicit condition of the unblock (a difficult decision on Drmies' part in the first place) and the terms are fairly benign. I actually think it will help Kiefer who appears to have the tendency to react to everything confusingly and at length. Bishonen and CBM have expressed this well. It is also worth pointing out that the consensus in the previous AN discussion was trending away from an unblock and Drmies did a balancing act with his unblock. Kiefer, you should try to recognize that and leave well alone. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although I would've supported a continuation of the block. Kiefer's comments following his unblock show a persistant inability to drop the stick. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Do you provide diffs on IRC only? The last time you stated I had written "young boys". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to; I assume you're now accusing me of being part of some shadowy IRC conspiracy. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    I'm reminding you of your failure to rectify your violation of WP:NPA, by falsely accusing me of writing "young boys", when you advocated an indefinite block for one sentence. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This particular tempest is because Ironholds transposed "young men and boys" to "men and young boys", once, on KW's talk page. As KW's original post had references to both "young men and boys" and "boys and young men", it is likely that the transposition was inadvertent. Horologium (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The noble Ironhold makes a "young boys" accusation and leaves it for over a weak without manning up and correcting it. The commoner who was first blocked and asked that his inadvertent statement be struck was indefinitely blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw that as well and this is a prime example of how admins are treated differently than editors here on the site. If an admin does something wrong, generally nothing is done about. When an editor does it though they are blocked, banned, reprimanded, harrased and/or hounded. Frequently causing them to leave the site or being banned from it. Its been a problem for a while and I have been screaming it but no one cares because the admins control the site. They have the power and they are not about to do anything that would cause them to lose it. Anyone who tries to bring the issue out in the open becomes the pariah. Its like how the police deal with cops who "rat out" other cops. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't see it as anything to do with the distinction between admins and editors; I really wish you two would stop constantly carping on about how "commoners" are treated differently. You are treated differently, certainly. This is nothing to do with your userrights, and nothing to do with you bringing it out into the open, although everything to do with your insistence that anything negative that happens to you is totally illegitimate, and that admins as a group are somehow corrupt. For reference, Kiefer (and the word is "week", as such a prestigious content contributor should be aware), the statement "young men and boys" can be parsed as either "young men (and boys)" or "young (men and boys)"; evidently I parsed it incorrectly. If you'd simply asked me to clarify I would've solved for it; your needless claims of conspiracy sort of reduce the stockpile of energy I keep around to deal with any legitimate points you have. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Frankly that's is exactly part of the problem. The mentality that there is no problem. Using your own RFA history as an example. It took you like 4 or 5 tries at RFA and still people opposed for various reasons. Yet here you are, successfully being an admin and doing well. So those 4 or 5 RFA's you went through and the opposes, in the end, only proved that the process is garbage. Because you are doing fine, you haven't deleted the main page yet and no one is beating your door down to remove the tools. That's one case out of hundreds including mine. Back to the boys and men controversy. Keifer made the same claims and I believe, as do others, that the wording was taken out of context. But his ban stayed in place and required some wrangling by Drmies to get undone. It shouldn't have been implemented in the beginning. It was unnecessary and therefore the subsequent ban from RFA was also unnecessary. Not that it really matters anyway, as I mentioned on Keifers talk page, because RFA is distinctly dead these days with few applying and even fewer passing. Because its hard for editors to get involved and to vote their conscience without those interactions and voting histories being used against them in RFA. I also want to clarify that I do not want to be an admin! I find the title and the us and them culture appalling and counter to the culture of open source editable content we should be advocating here. I need access to some of the tools available only to admins and the full toolset is the only way to get them. Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, I cannot recall anybody every caring about your input, so don't bother sparing your energy. Your "thwapping" threat was just laughed at. Nice example for you to set as an IRC regular and WMF employee. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, have you figured out the difference between "young boys" and "boys", yet? Hint: It's a life or death distinction and the leading cause of truces in prison-gang wars.... Please strike your falsehood, which continues to violate WP:NPA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the ban, as stated, would be good for Kiefer. I really don't like seeing a good contributor blocked, and anything that can help head off these pointless escalating arguments has to be a good thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    As per MONGO, I'd also be happy for the RfA restriction to be reviewed in six months (the time is not critical, but six months seems about right) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as minimum: (ec*3) The trouble with the terms of the proposed ban is that they state "if there is a thread (two or more comments), you cannot add to it". This means that Kiefer can still comment on an RFA vote, or on any intial posting at WT:RFA ,or on the talk page of any RFA. More effective would have been no replying at WP:RFA and no posting at all at WT:RFA or on the talk page of any RFA. But I support this as better than nothing. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as minimum: Actually, I'd prefer that the block had not been lifted at all, and Kiefer's comments since returning have reinforced that conviction. However, the proposed ban was a specified condition of the unblock, and without it, the unblock would have to be reversed. Propose that the ban be reinstated if Kiefer does not agree to adhere with all of the conditions of his unblocking. Would oppose any modification. He knew the conditions, and agreed to them already, hence the unblock. So he has to live with them, or return to being indeffed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support After being surprised by the AN discussion which supported upholding my indef block, I had decided to wait a few days and revisit the subject. After seeing what happened on KW's talk page, however, I had little inclination to unblock, and in fact stopped watching the discussion because it was refactored beyond recognition. When DrMies approached me about an unblock, I was not optimistic but I was willing to allow him to proceed with a discussion with KW. After KW acknowledged that his actions were viewed by a substantial number of editors to be problematic, and he appeared to agree to the unblock conditions laid out, I was willing to provisionally unblock him, but DM had gone ahead and unblocked him. My biggest concern, in fact, was that Demiurge1000 did not accept a two-way interaction ban, but I was not going to keep KW blocked for someone else's intransigence (I didn't mention that elsewhere because the block had already been overturned by the time I saw that discussion). I think that the RFA restriction is a good idea, and would have added several more interaction bans before I seriously considered unblocking him. KW actually got off light, and seeing him flame DrMies is rather startling. Horologium (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the discussion thread on my talk page which has been referenced by several people is at User talk:Horologium#Kiefer. That thread will be moved to my June 2013 talk page archive at the end of the month, should anyone revisit this page at a later date and wish to review the discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I hate silencing anyone on the website, even those that have a tendency to be pugnacious as Keifer oftentimes is, since it is important to have many voices from many perspectives. I think Drmies is to be commended for how he handled the unblocking since he did it the best way an admin could, by inviting discussion from Horologium, who did the latest block and carefully crafting a reasonable unblock set of conditions, which Keifer originally seemed to agree with. I see no reason why the issue of Rfa participation can't be revisited in six months.--MONGO 17:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support since preceding discussions led me to believe this was a good idea from the side of the community, which I deemed would want to see some restrictions, and the editor in question, whose RfA participation was not the immediate reason for the block but was, as I gauged previous discussions, was cause for dissent in the community. If I erred in coming to a topic ban with some discussion, but certainly not community-wide discussion, I apologize to all involved, and I wish to think Dennis Brown for setting me straight (privately, via email). Slash with my apologies to Kiefer as well for apparently overstepping my boundaries as an administrator and furthering the idea that this is what admins do. Finally, I agree with MONGO's final remark, though I am not necessarily wedded to the time frame. I'd be fine with three. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, for the charity, even when I have been a burden. 3-6 months is quite different from an indefinite ban. I won't bother to document it, but I believe I'm the most thanked editor at RfAs, since Sandy and Malleus/Eric have reduced their participation and it's been months since anybody did a serious discussion of article contributions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Warden (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support at the minimum. --Rschen7754 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    What, praytell, is Rschen's maximal programme? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    K, I don't think your comments on this thread are helping your cause. You may want to think about what the underlying concern is of all the editors voting support, and see if you can reassure them, rather than disputing them. Jehochman Talk 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    My cause is to safeguard the community's procedures against an administrator who was pretending that a failure to have his block overturned gave him a blank check and against a claim that a handful of administrators can substitute their judgement for the community's judgement at AN and declare an editing restriction (again using the blank check). This decision is a triviality that doesn't concern me. Some of you are amusing, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Kiefer, I'm a bit taken aback here. Drmies spent a great deal of time and stuck his neck out and tried to do what he felt was the least oppressive thing that the community would accept, all to quickly get you unblocked. Once I got back into town and noticed the procedural error (and I only know about that error because I have made the exact same mistake once, it isn't well known or intuitive) I privately contacted Drmies, who chose to be very upfront here without delay. I started this discussion to correct a procedural error. With all due respect, were I you, I would be much more humble or at least grateful about the situation, knowing that the system actually worked and self-corrected itself with a minimum of drama, following policy to the letter, and it was done in a neutral and fair way. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 22:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Please read the beginning sentences of my last paragraph, and consider the issues mentioned, which are hardly "bureaucratic" (at least by in the usual sense, rather than the awesome analysis of Weber or Perrow). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    Well, what I really want is for Kiefer to stay out of these controversies, instead of getting caught up in them. I think you get things right a lot of the time, but sometimes you move too quickly into attack mode, as you did in response to my comment. And for the record, I don't think the other party was completely innocent either in the latest flareup. --Rschen7754 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    "What, praytell, is Rschen's maximal programme?" is "attack mode"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This should not have been opened. The restriction is claimed to be "trivial" to the restricted editor.[34] The due process claims also therefore seem trivial, in the NOTBURO manner. But in review of the due process, it appears that Drmies did have reason to believe he had consensus in good faith. So, this should just be closed, nolo contendere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Speaking latin doesn't make you a lawyer. Not sure how you think this is a model of "due process", but there's not a lot of other substance to your point. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm? Since nothing is said about being a lawyer, nor about any model, your comments make no sense. Nonetheless, the substantive issues are clear, the restriction is trivial and the process was due. If what you want is to go on about it fine, but when you make blown-up cases about trivialities, your arguments look trivial.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You've still said nothing of substance. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) That was probably unnecessary. Sorry about that. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah well, if nothing of substance, there would be no need to spill ink on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The block was not for comments at an RfA. Restriction is not relevant to the reasons for the block, so I see no reason why it would be conditional for the unblock. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm neutral on the restrictions themselves, but the notion that an admin can make unilateral ban restrictions to their own preference, and have it taken as gospel, has gone on too long. If there's an ability to unilaterally impose bans with arbitrary criteria then there should be a similar ability for others to remove them. Probably doesn't even need to be linked to admin status. Which of course demonstrates the ridiculousness of such a notion. At least in the past there's been some pretense of consensus for arbitrary ban restrictions. I guess we've forgone that. There seems to me to be some small segment of admins who believe they're in a unique position to make these declarations; that needs to stop. If there's actual consensus (and not just the usual crew piling on at far flung venues over the course of a few hours) then that's fine. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The problem is a poisonous interaction relationship between another editor and KW; this remedy has nothing to do with that. This strikes me as akin to attempting to fix tooth decay by putting a cast on one's leg... Carrite (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as minimum; better yet would be an expansion of the ban to all RFA-related pages. I don't think "threaded discussion" is clear enough to keep KW from pointless arguments that pull focus away from the candidate under discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I did not comment in the previous discussion, but I read it the way Dennis does, and not the way K.W does. The topic ban was clearly a condition of the unblock, and if KW does not want to accept the topic ban, which is his prerogative, then he should be re-blocked. If he wishes to stay unblocked, he must accept the topic ban. While K.W wishes to present his stance as (in some fashion I don't understand) a check against bureaucracy, it seems more like gamesmanship and Wikilawyering to me, i.e. accept an offered option in order to be unblocked, and then rely on prejudice against administrative action to overturn the condition without reverting to the status quo ante. That, in its fashion, is more disruptive than the behavior which led to KW's block and topic ban, because it undermines the administrative authority necessary to insure that the project continues running and not devolve into total chaos, and acts as a corrosive eating away at the community, such as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    "undermines the administrative authority necessary to insure that the project continues running and not devolve into total chaos, and acts as a corrosive eating away at the community..." is even more hysterical than The Running Man's comments at the last RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Kiefer, that response is very much unworthy of your intelligence and your usual powers of perception, as there is nothing in the least "hysterical" about my comment. I didn't expect you to agree with me, but I thought at least your reply would be rational and not simply emotional lashing out. I have to agree with whoever it was above who said that your comments here are not showing you in the best light. My suggestion is that you refrain from further commentary here, as you seem to be doing yourself more harm than good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Previous interactions have made it clear to me (and many others it seems) that KW will often try to "unsay" things or to argue about trivial points that distract from the main subject under discussion. This appears to be a perfect example of that trend, and so a formal, community imposed sanction that is unambiguous seems in order, otherwise it is unlikely he would abide by the terms even if he appeared to agree with them before. I would suggest that the enforcement mechanism be a a series of sharply escalating blocks, limiting out to an indef after about three. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe you should read the "community restriction" policy, which you seem to think is one of several "trivial points"? I look forward to your next run at ArbCom.... :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, all this condescending bullshit you post is not helping your case. I realize that is your go-to move when you feel threatened, but for someone who acts like they are so smart you don't seem to understand how you are often your own worst enemy. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Some less drama wouldn't hurt anybody. If its possible to achieve that through this, I'll gladly support it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Please clarify your argument. Why not just ban me or everybody, which would minimize drama? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to believe that the window of acceptable outcomes here even includes an unblock. If this is the toughest sanctions that will stick, so be it. It's sadly far more likely that KW will continue to test the extremely sanguine boundaries set here than he will to consciously alter his attitude. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe you should ask My76Strat for copyediting help? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support at a minimum. I agree with the people who've said above that Kiefer should have been free to either accept the unblock and restriction, or decline both, but not to mix and match, and that rejecting his restriction as he's doing ought to lead to a re-block until new terms are negotiated. However, there's not likely to be overwhelming support for reblocking Kiefer based on what's been said in this thread so far, so assuming that's a no-go, here's what I think: I think removing Kiefer from RFA discussion is just putting a band-aid on an issue we'll soon find ourselves revisiting anyway, but if it's the best solution we have available right now, it will have to do. Kiefer, I see that even people who've had their issues with the bureaucracy around here have been pleading with you to dial back the approach you're taking lately; I think they're speaking a lot of sense, and I wish you'd consider listening to them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Advice to me based on political expediency is prime facie evidence of political incompetence, at least on Wikipedia. Advice to me on principle is always welcome. Fluffer, you seem to be suggesting that an arbitrator administrator can impose a community restriction, which is not policy. Change the policy through an RfC if you like, but be honest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    Not exactly, at least as far as the imposing-restrictions (I'm not sure what "an arbitrator" has to do with this; Drmies isn't one). I'm saying that it is, to the best of my knowledge, acceptable (and not uncommon) for an admin to tell a blocked editor, "I'm willing to unblock if you agree to [restriction|terms|whatever]". The blocked user can then choose to accept that condition, or say "No thank you, I'll wait for my request to be reviewed by someone else". The user has a choice between accepting the condition or waiting for someone to offer them better terms, so to speak; the admin's restriction only goes into effect if the user accepts it. In this case, Drmies assumed you'd accept the conditions and unblocked without waiting for your agreement, which set things topsy-turvy, and is why I say that ideally the block should go back into place until terms acceptable to both you and the/an unblocking admin are been reached. Since you're unblocked and editing now, though, the question is whether the restriction should apply to your editing going forward. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you think this topic ban is remedying exactly? KW was not blocked for disruption at RFA. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's why I say that I think an RFA restriction is only a band-aid on the problem. The real problem is more a matter of how Kiefer chooses, at times, to engage with other editors in an unnecessarily accusatory manner. Participation at RFA can bring this out of him - not always, but enough so that it's a decent step to take to limit instances of that behavior - but it's not the only situation in which this issue arises, and I don't think this RFA restriction is going to solve the root problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a step in the right direction. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Support KW's constant arguing with every support vote here gives me the belief that such a restriction is necessary. I would suggest that if the result is judged as "no consensus to lift or sustain the restriction" that it be taken to the Committee, if they will accept. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    The restriction does not exist because individual administrators do not have the authority to impose community restrictions. The close may well impose a restriction for the first time, following the suggestion of Drmies. (It doesn't matter for my behavior, because I said I would agree with the spirit and letter of a suggested restriction.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems fairly straight forward to me. Drmies was willing to unblock KW if KW agreed to certain restrictions. As no other admin had given any indication that they would unblock KW and KW had hinted at a similar restriction, Drmies went ahead and made the unblock. This is a normal course of events on the encyclopedia - you do not need consensus for a voluntary restriction. So, if KW does not accept the restriction, he should be promptly re-blocked, until he can persuade an administrator that he should be unblocked without said restriction. Of course, that won't actually help the encyclopedia, we get another few days of discussing the matter and not getting on with anything useful, so if a community imposed restrictions will grease the wheels, I will certainly support the restrictions suggested by Drmies. While I'm here, can I also thank User:Drmies? He stuck his neck out when other admins refused to and tried to find a solution which everyone could be happy with. I don't see him getting as much credit for that as he deserves. WormTT(talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If I follow, effectively any admin can remove the restrictions? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but they might want to read this discussion, the original block discussion and the unblock discussion, before doing so, as it really should dissuade them from doing so. K.W has done himself no favors in those threads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it to others to weigh in on whether the proposed restrictions are a good idea, but I do want to go on the record saying that I support what Drmies was trying to accomplish here. Offering a conditional unblock is a reasonable thing to do, and well within admin discretion. I know some editors dislike the idea of unilaterally placed editing restrictions, but I don't subscribe to the idea that telling someone they can't edit X is anathema but telling them they can't edit anything is perfectly OK. Perhaps Drmies picked the wrong X; regardless, he deserves thanks for stepping in and trying to bring back an editor in a way that would (theoretically) minimize future unnecessary conflict. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 17 June 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.


Proposal withdrawn. There is a clear consensus against it. Apologies for any drama caused. --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 17 June 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.

It seems that several of us feel that the terms of the proposed topic ban are too toothless and afford us too little protection from disruption. I've registered my protest to Drmies for this in this edit. My question here is whether we actually have to put up with the watered-down terms, or whether a complete topic ban from RfA is preferred. I hope this will not muddy the waters -- if anyone chooses to support this proposal, I recommend not withdrawing any support from the one in the main section, in case this one should fail. So, the proposal in this subsection is to make the topic ban an unconditional one for all RFA pages, subpages and their talk pages. --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as Q.E.D. from the discussion above. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because he should be able to weigh in on who will have authority over him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am probably the most thanked participant at RfAs, because of my analysis of the candidates. Where, Stfg, is my participation with RfAs problematic, except in responding to disagreeable concerns in threaded discussions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Examples: [35], followed a day later by [36]. --Stfg (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    That's your "disruption"? Kiefer