Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255

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


Loomspicker again[edit]

I moved it to ANI Pass a Method talk 01:36, 21 October 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've raised this issue here before, but the user in question oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days while the thread was open. To sum up, User:Loomspicker is a single-purpose account devoted to pretending Islamophobia doesn't exist by scrubbing the word from Wikipedia, and in the service of this crusade, has engaged in a number of prohibited behaviors. In addition to the evidence detailed here, which includes the introduction of factual inaccuracy, blanking sourced material, and adding scare quotes, he has more recently continued to misrepresent sources ([1] [2] [3]), remove sourced material ([4]), delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted ([5] [6] [7]), and otherwise edit in a disruptive and POV manner. Please deal with this even if the user goes inactive in order to avoid scrutiny. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I take this to ANI instead? Either way, I don't want this to be archived without being addressed simply because the user stopped editing right when the thread opened. That's what happened last time, and obviously he simply resumed the disruptive behavior as soon as it seemed like no one was looking anymore. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
More of an ANI thing IMO, but since it's here, I'll reply here. (Nowadays apparently you're supposed to use some accursed template to move a thread to ANI, and I can't away with it.) It would be easier to take stock of the situation if you provided a link to where you raised the issue before, Roscelese. If they repeatedly go inactive when they're under scrutiny, and not at other times, then that's significant, but I'd like to see for myself. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).
...It's already linked in my first post? But here is the link again. linkRoscelese (talkcontribs) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, yes, this sort of thing should be over at WP:ANI, since it's an "incident", so to speak, regarding another user. As far as I (non-admin) know, WP:AN is more for general announcements and requests, while WP:ANI deals more with user behavior. Ansh666 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support block or topic ban rom Islam for Loomspicker. I have been going through this editors contributions and he is clearly anti-Muslim, goes around articles related to Muslims and puts derogotary information about them as well as other unsavoury edits. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I share Roscelese's and Pass a Method's concerns, which I also had after seeing this edit which removed five sources. The fact that these same types of edits are occurring across multiple articles is troubling. I'm not sure if a block is required, but a topic ban should definitely be put on the table for discussion.- MrX 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That edit was about what should be included in the article, not necessarily vandalism. Our talk page discussion on the issue clearly shows that. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I never said it was vandalism, only that it seems to be part of a pattern of erasing the concept of Islamaphobia from Wikipedia by Loomspicker. - MrX 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Very weak support based on review of edits over the past few days. Some seem to be done with the agenda of removing any sense of "racism" from Islamophobia pages and to cast Islam in a bad light. But based on the evidence presented by Roscelese, the user does seem to have an agenda and is barely here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?[edit]

I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles.Pass a Method talk 22:59, 20 October 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.

On HiyoHiyo article[edit]

article deleted as A7; user blocked "indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) [..] CU-confirmed troll)"
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.

On article HiyoHiyo, I created for the subject's request. Another user is saying negative things about subject of article; they are person involved with the off-wiki harassment. The name is LINDA. LINDA has caused internet controversey before. Their website is here. (Sorry not good English) --Playabeacha (talk) 01:05, 17 October 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 little help on a minor matter[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.

I was unable to move File:Hippodrome.jpg to Commons using CommonsHelper (a communications problem with the tool) or CommonsHelper2 (probably my fault), so I moved the image by hand to File:New York Hippodrome.jpg (because there was already a file there by the other name). However, it seems that the file has a talk page with content in it. The content is negligible, and should really be on Talk:New York Hippodrome instead. I could move it, but that would break the copyright - so could an admin with a few minutes time please move the content, merge the histories of File talk:Hippodrome.jpg and Talk:New York Hippodrome and then delete the former, or whatever the proper procedure is? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 17 October 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.

template uw-block[edit]

Unlikely and beansy. Can be dealt with through the 'normal channels'. (talk) 02:54, 19 October 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.

Should we update template {{uw-block}} to warn users that "pinging" or otherwise using notifications to flag other editors may result in loss of talk page access? NE Ent 02:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds risky ala WP:Beans. PaleAqua (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
And unnecessary. We don't need to provide a specific do and don't list to blocked users - they will do what they do, which will show what it shows, and consequences will or will not be forthcoming, depending on situation and circumstances, which I doubt we could fully explicate even if we wanted to. What's wrong with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I might be a bit slow on the uptake today. Do you mean blocked users repeatedly "pinging" others in order to pester them with the little red notification box? Reyk YO! 04:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe NE Ent's comment was sparked by Tumbleman's talk page access being removed by JamesBWatson after Tumbleman repeatedly pinged IRWolfie, with whom he had had disputes which were the root cause of Tumbleman's being blocked. See Tumbleman's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That and what occurred at User talk:Retrolord#Appeal_workshop. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Suppose someone violates an interaction ban or topic ban by repeatedly hitting the thanks button on the edits of someone they shouldn't interact with or on a topic they should avoid. That would of course be a violation (with no need to spell it out in the rules) that could end in a block, but can you still thank people for their edits while you are blocked from editing? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's try that out, shall we? Face-tongue.svg Just kidding. IMO it would have to be proven that it's not genuine (aka intended to be disruptive or in violation of the ban) - do interaction/topic bans explicitly include thanking? Ansh666 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can not thank someone for an edit while blocked. I recently raised the question of disabling pings from a curious perspective.—John Cline (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
John, what do you mean about "can not"? Is it technically disabled, or are you making an emphatic "must not"? Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not technically capable, whether it was disabled by design, or simply a bug that needn't be fixed, I do not know, but the (thank) link does not appear for a blocked user.—John Cline (talk) 14:40, 18 October 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.

Mops at the ready[edit]

There's a pretty big backlog of requests at requests for unblock, the majority of which are from COI/username blocks. Meet you there?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my usual hangout ... but not allowed to with this ID :-) ES&L 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The last time I looked at your performance in that area (12-18 months ago) it was seriously problematical. You were driving such editors underground by banning usernames that openly flagged their COI but didn't breach policy as, "purely promotional", and supporting the blocking and other harassment of COI editors simply for declaring their COI. If that hasn't changed, then I hope you keep well away. If you return to that area with those behaviours intact, I'll be calling for you to be formally banned from dealing with COI editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
That might be the funniest thing I have read in months. Thanks for that. You'll have to stop letting your irrational dislike for me to stop getting between you and your keyboard ES&L 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't dislike you at all. I admire you. But you were behaving foolishly, along with User:Orangemike and others, in a very difficult area - COI editing - a while back and driving COI editors underground, just about the worst outcome we could have wanted. I'm hoping that's changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, your absence is certainly noted.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Too many cooks, not enough bottle-washers. (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh oh[edit]

Nakon's toolserver account has expired - no more rangeblock calculator or autoblock finder. Does anyone know if any of these tools were moved to Labs? I have other rangeblock calculators I can use, but the autoblock finder is particularly concerning.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's licensed under the GPLv2 so I'll see if I can bring it up on my account.--v/r - TP 00:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to email Nakon and let them know I took a copy of their tool, but feel free to use this. Please don't update any links though. If Nakon restores their account or asks me to take my copy down, then it'll be pointless.--v/r - TP 00:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the stop gap. Note that the link to Nakon's tool is included in at least one template (i.e the unblock granted template used here). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bidgee 's edit warring on Telstra article[edit]

This user reverts edits without reason, refuses to explain his reasons on TALK page, and deleted attempts to TALK on his user page. Pls review and help. Thanks Jimbob96 (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR? ES&L 11:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
If anyone bothers to look and research, there is a single editor who socks by using a number of usernames and IPs (even YuMaNuMa picked up on it) to push though content that isn't supported not just by editors but facts. I'm tired of POV-pushers using socking to get what they want and not the unbiased facts, as far as I'm concerned I've given up on Wikipedia, it is a lost cause and no wonder why it's losing valued contributors. Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Jimbob blocked, and one of his IPs also. Feel free to report additional accounts or IP addresses to me, and I'll happily block them. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR claim[edit]

I see from their site that they claim a 'staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins'. Has there been any sign that they have a WP admin on their books? If true, would the standing of such an admin be affected here? I'm not asking for outing, or unfounded allegations. Just a sort of yes or no, and what if. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: For reference, this is the site discussed:

--Auric talk 12:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding? Of course their standing would be affected by this. Assuming they are being paid for being associated with a company, they have the possibility of doing serious damage. Among other things, they could hypothetically delete revisions unfavorable to them, protect articles in a dispute over content to something favorable, block accounts that are causing problems for them and be the judge of (deletion) discussions where they could pose as a neutral party when they are not. Being an administrator and being associated with Wiki-PR is a no-no. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Also dug up this link to past discussions.--Auric talk 13:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There has recently been extensive discussion of Wiki-PR at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What happened to WP:AGF Moe? This whole thing is a big ABF witch hunt imo.--v/r - TP 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Good faith is acting with detachment (as one paid for cannot, as they are attached) - good faith is (without other commitment) acting. Pretense is the opposite of acting in good faith, and failing to disclose a financial COI is acting under pretense that one does not have another commitment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with good faith. Good faith is trusting others. Being paid is not contradictory to improving the encyclopedia. Ya'all haven't proved Wiki-PR has harmed the encyclopedia. That makes this a witch hunt because they give you the "wee bee gee bees". Salem Witch Trials anyone?--v/r - TP 17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What? Have you just assumed bad faith? Salem Witch trials? Did you read good faith? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
How about you address my point? Has any evidence been submitted that demonstrates Wiki-PR is a net negative?--v/r - TP 17:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The Salem fucking Witch Trials. When is that allegory going to be officially declared "lame"? Soon... Doc talk 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Although there is no conclusive evidence, the thinking goes that such a team of editors and admins could essentially WP:OWN articles and insert NPOV material unopposed. KonveyorBelt 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought witch trials was your point. But sure. This discussion is one example: it undermines the basis for assuming good faith. Moreover, it casts doubt upon the articles created by people who are not upfront about their paid interest. In every edit there is one judge of V; NPOV; NOR; and BLP and that is the User who makes it; sure others may come along and and debate it or even revert it -- sometimes. But where the judge has been paid for the edit, there is no basis for faith in the judgment, where the judge is not honest about the other interest they serve. It misleads our readers to present it otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Doc, if you have another historical reference for trying someone w/o evidence and concluding them guilty and sentencing them, please share it. Konveyor - The thinking may go, but that's why we have a policy WP:AGF. @ASW - I'm sorry, are you saying the act of defending someone proves their guilt? No sir, that's a logical fallacy. Show me evidence. Or are you accusing me of being one of the 'secret admins'? If so, prove it or find yourself at ANI. (Since you can't, because I'm not, you need to rephrase your comment)--v/r - TP 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What? You are accusing you, which would be much more damaging to you than anything I have said. My comment said nothing about defending someone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
A reliable assessment of the impact of Wiki-PR presumably requires a list of their accounts. Is there one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be the easy way, but not the only way. So you're saying we can accuse and try someone because they don't make it easy to convict them? Do the work or this is all a witch hunt.--v/r - TP 18:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I said "A reliable assessment of the impact of Wiki-PR presumably requires a list of their accounts. Is there one ?" Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkin' like a witch hunter. Witch hunters deserve no answers. Doc talk 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
For a list of (some of) their accounts, see here and here. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
So, without even having to look at a single edit, and assuming those accounts have been connected to Wiki-PR, there's evidence that one or more Wiki-PR editors have used deception via sockpuppetry and resources have been wasted having to deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The casepage says it's not socking.--v/r - TP 20:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────WP:MEAT is part of the sock-puppet policy. So is "editing under multiple IP addresses [...] where it is done deceptively." I presented evidence of the latter in the cases that were closed without investigation (search for the word "Pleasanton"). —rybec 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A more precise phrasing would therefore be to say "via WP:PUPPET policy violations, primarily WP:MEAT" rather than "via sockpuppetry". So this case is rather like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying, with financial gain replacing nationalism as a motivating factor. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • TParis: The original question that I answered was whether the standing of an administrator be damaged by being paid by Wiki-PR or not. I still believe it would be. It's not a question of whether the material being put into Wikipedia is acceptable or not, they are paid a lot of money so that it sticks and isn't PROD'ed or AFD'ed. The problem is that editors associated with Wiki-PR are being deceptive by pretending to not have a conflict of interest, which certainly being paid to edit does make you have one. It's doubly so for an administrator though, because you're in a position of power which means you have the nod from the community to go ahead do what you like as long as it seemingly fits within a policy. There's not much to assume good faith on because if you haven't directly declared that you're a paid editor, as an administrator, you're going to cast doubt as to whether your administrative actions were in fairness and all your past actions would be given a second look, which to me tarnishes your reputation as an admin. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You're assuming those editors value the payment more than Wikipedia. I've been paid to write an article before and I had no problem putting Wikipedia first. It wasn't a ton of money, but that's not the point. The point is, you have to judge people by their edits and not because of who they work for. If you can't find anything wrong with the edits (and let me once again repeat that no evidence of misbehavior has been found and a user has now been blocked not because of his edits but because of who he works for) then there is no problem.--v/r - TP 19:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
      • No it is not an assumption, it is a documented, evidenced problem [8]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, so where are the bad edits?--v/r - TP 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the LTA or SPI for Morning277? There's plenty of deleted tripe in there. There's plenty of obvious PR fluff added to Priceline's subsidiaries, and although it's not the worst stuff in the world, it's still PR fluff. There's plenty of other horrible Wiki-PR edits easily trackable, but for the most part I've given up tracking them until it's clear what we're going to do regarding them now that the SPI is closed. By itself, the fact that Wiki-PR that was responsible for the series of events that resulted in the departure or effective departure of multiple long-term highly productive editors is enough to say they're a net negative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, seriously TP, 'no evidence of misbehavior has been found'? Between the LTA and SPI cases and what has happened in private channels, people have spent hundreds of hours compiling evidence of misbehavior by Wiki-PR, and there's been plenty of it. Are you thinking of the cban for Alex's group that passed a few days ago? They are a different group of people and should not be conflated. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Kevin, I am. Which group is that guy then?--v/r - TP 22:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion (and blocked account) from several days ago involved Alex_Konanykhin's They generally only accept high profile clients and make an effort to stay within at least a couple margins of neutrality so that they don't get outed. The people involved in Wiki-PR create huge numbers of really shitty articles, and don't try to approach anything resembling neutrality on their higher profile clients. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
My bad then. In that case, all of my arguments thus far were meant for WikiExperts.--v/r - TP 22:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question that I am not sure has been answered: it seems highly dubious they have admins on their payroll. That said, I think that we would benefit significantly from having an open conversation about what we are going to do about this clearly identified, clearly problematic issue. I would encourage people to avoid further discussion of unrelated matters (like WikiExperts) in this thread, and if anyone wants to hat my off-topic comments, please feel free to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please archive my talk page[edit]

That'll teach me to try and work on a friend's tablet while he's giving me a ride home! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:08, 19 October 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 User:Salvidrim!, I'm logged out cause I'm not home. I just created User talk:Salvidrim/Archive8 to archive part of my talk page but some automated anti-vandal filter prevents me from removing the same sections from my main talk page as an IP. Please just remove sections up to and including User talk:Salvidrim!#Help me with the summary "manually archiving per request"... thanks. (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done: [9] :) equazcion 13:28, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Why are your archives at a different username (one with no exclamation point (!))? Ah, none of my business. Rgrds. -- (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It's actually only this new one that's at the non-exclamation version, or so it looks. Could just be a mistake. equazcion 14:03, 19 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Ah... I was renamed from Salvidrim to Salvidrim! a few months back and my existing archives were moved & renamed but I never updated the links on my talk page's archive box, so the new one was created at my previous username. It's not a problem, since I still control both SULs... I'll just fix it at some point today. Cheers, and thanks Equazcion! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:08, 19 October 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 second opinion please[edit]

Hello. I have been recently blocked for 24 hrs period for alleged edit-warring on Boro Primorac article, I have decided not to appeal due it's short period however I believe putting me on some warning list is way to harsh. You can see me reporting Timbouctou (a user who has been blocked and warned several times before for similar transgressions) at WP:AN3. The final result was that I was also blocked and put on a warning list. Now it is my deepest conviction I did not deserve this kind of treatment because: 1. I did not break the 3RR at the moment I reported this incident. I made only three reverts and the situation already diffused. My final edit which I added later along with the valid reference shows and proves I was right the entire time. 2. By the subjective opinion of the moderator who handled this issue I was also, allegedly, edit-warring. But the question remains: is reverting a disruptive (and unsourced) editing of an aggressive user, who BTW followed me to that article just to instigate a conflict, edit-warring? By such logic any action of reverting disruptive editing can be interpreted as edit-warring. And 3. If you look at my history (I am on Wikipedia about 2 years now) I have never ever been in such dispute as this, nor have I ever been even warned for anything similar. And now I am blocked and warned for something someone else did...I accept that perhaps a part of responsibility lies in my corner but surely I shouldn't have been treated the same way as the other person in question - the other user was not even put on a warning list for that same article. So I ask for a second opinion and is this really fair? I feel this was blown out of proportions, the main issue was 3RR violation by the other user. I ask that you review how justified it is for me to be placed on that warning list. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"Warning list": what do you mean? This edit? If so, you've not been placed on a warning list; this is basically something saying "In case you didn't know, these articles are treated differently, so be extra careful to edit within the guidelines, since doing otherwise will quickly result in a block". Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, you are asking a few different questions there. One is "were you really edit warring" and the answer to that is yes. Unless you were undoing blatant vandalism there is never an excuse for edit warring. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, anyone who participates in one is in the wrong. I hope that clears up that point.
As to the list, it is a list of many users who have been warned that they are editing in area where there are sanctions in place. It does not confer any special status, you are not under any personal restrictions, it is merely a log stating that you were warned about the general sanctions in this area so that if you violate the terms of those sanctions and are blocked for it you can't turn around and say nobody told you they existed. It's not a mark of shame or anything, just a log for the sake of clarity. If you don't want to be affected by it you can either make sure you abide by the terms of the sanctions or just don't edit in that topic area anymore. It is no more complicated than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah...thank you Nyttend and Beeblebrox for replying. I interpreted that list as some type of warning where I would get some special attention or something. If it's only a notice list then I don't have a problem with it. As for my block, yes, I consider I wasn't edit-warring but reverting obvious disruptive behavior. You can see from my edits that I was reverting to the original consensus version of the article which the user in question was trying to change without discussion or references and IMO followed me there just to instigate conflict. However since the block was already applied and expired I guess that issue is already settled, I don't see how I can remedy that. Anyway thank you both for replying. Shokatz (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, editing the Boro Primorac article is under discretionary sanctions? Liz Read! Talk! 1:50 pm, Today (UTC−7)
It falls under ARBMAC, which applies to "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". Given that the edit war was about whether this footballer is Croatian or Bosnian, the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions apply (although I'm open to a different interpretation). —Darkwind (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that Shokatz's claim that "If you look at my history (I am on Wikipedia about 2 years now) I have never ever been in such dispute as this, nor have I ever been even warned for anything similar" is quite simply not true. I've personally warned the user about edit warring here. The user regularly edit wars on Croatian related subjects to try to WP:WIN content disputes, often violating the 3RR in the process. See Talk:2013_enlargement_of_the_European_Union/Archive_1#Deletion_of_official_sources, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Admin intervention please... and [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] where the user made 4 reverts in a little over two hours. The user has demonstrated a lack of understanding of WP:3RR, and their usual response is to deny or rationalize having violated the policy citing "vandalism" or "disruption" as excuses, even when (as in this case) there is an obvious bright line 3RR violation (ie "I am convinced I did not break the 3RR, the fourth edit was added after the reported incident and it included a reference which ended the entire charade"). TDL (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
When I said I was never warned LIKE THIS I was obviously talking about moderators not about users who were in "content dispute" with me...which BTW I had only 2 of such cases in my entire time at Wikipedia prior to this. And funny you should complain after all this time since I clearly remember you being a participant of that same incident. Erasing official sources without discussion or consensus. The entire issue was settled when it was ME who stepped back and when you accepted to leave those sources as you should have done in the first place. And as far as I remember it was I who started the entire discussion on the talk page although it was you who was removing references from the article. Saying "The user regularly edit wars on Croatian related subjects" is a fallacious and offensive statement. WP:CIVIL anyone? Shokatz (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Then your memory is mistaken as I never removed any official sources. In fact, I agreed with you that the source should not be removed. And the entire incident was actually resolved when you complained to ANI that multiple long-standing, good standing editors were "clone accounts" without any evidence and made WP:Hitler attacks that their edits were "vandalism" even though it was clearly a content dispute, which led to the article being full protected.
You have also been warned for edit warring on a Croatian issue here ([16], [17], [18], [19])
There are plenty of other recent examples where you edit war on Croatian related subjects. Just from the last couple weeks I found: [20], [21], [22]; [23], [24], [25]; [26], [27], [28]; [29], [30], [31]; [32], [33], [34].
Obviously I am interested in Croatia-related subjects. I have never made that a secret and I was always very open with that. Also I am not exactly sure what is your motivation for this entire "show" of yours, although I can guess by the way you are choosing certain edits of mine and making baseless out of context comments. So since I don't really want to spend any more time on you, I will just say this - if you think I am such a disruptive menace for Wikipedia, feel free to report me. It's simple as that. Over and out. Shokatz (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Block appears MORE than valid. They have also been made aware of discretionary sanctions on Balkans articles - which is simply SOP. No issues with block, or the "adding to the list of warned users" ES&L 23:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged. Admins get your mop ready, ... and mop it away. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We will have to get you a mop of your own, one of these days Face-smile.svg -- Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Caught up as of right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Armbrust isn't an admin! Good grief. I hate that overused expression, so much that I won't use it, but this should be rectified?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
He keeps getting picked up for edit warring, alas. If he could just keep that block log clear for a year or so, I will nom him myself. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel[edit]

older discussion

I'm here with a simple issue. While attempting to continue a major overhaul and merging of Dungeons & Dragons content I noticed that Folken de Fanel made 36 redirects in the court of 22 minutes from 23:42 on October 4 to 00:04 October 5.[35] Each of these redirects bore the edit summary "restore merge per a previous consensus". Whether or not the previous consensus from 3 years ago is valid, the edit summary is very misleading because Folken de Fanel did not carry out any merger at all. It was just a blank and redirect, resulting in dozens of pages being redirect loops, breaking over a hundred pages of links and removing a large amount of content under a misleading edit summary. I've gone and rollbacked these redirects; not on the grounds of contesting them as "keeps", but on keeping the content up while an actual merging process goes on. I have zero intention of keeping these pages beyond the time needed for merging in. I ask that these pages remain so Folken de Fanel does not promptly re-redirect them out and threaten me with ANI. I am not seeking any action against Folken; I do not have the time or energy to argue. These pages will be likely all gone within the week. Thank you for reading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting does not remove content. If these are truly pages that were up for AFD years ago, and the results were merge + redirect, and no one bothered to merge in those three years, FdF is in the right to simply redirect - any editor can still get at the old content and add what is necessary. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
They were not AFDed, they were discussed briefly three years ago in that link. Mass breaking content including links and entire groups of pages is not "merging"; Folken de Fanel did not merge the content as his edit summary stated. I've already begun redirecting them again. But I must sleep and more will be taken care of tomorrow. Also, the original mergers were contentious and not redirected out or had additional discussion prior to Folken's re-reverting.[36] If you check that link, you will see I have re-redirected (kept categories) the page out again. This is a brief and temporary solution to not break the rest of the Forgotten Realms content area. Whether or not I can recover the content in four-five additional steps means little when hundreds of readers will miss out unnecessarily. I find this option the best route and not deter, confuse or otherwise hinder readers who seek out the page's content until I can tidy the rest up on a list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a better justification for your use of WP:Rollback? I don't see that it was necessary or allowed by the guideline. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Masem: really? Chris has been rapidly taking care of all this in the last couple of weeks. And you've no problem with someone using a clearly false edit summary? Oyi. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How is "restore merge per a previous consensus" "clearly false"? I don't see an implication in "restore merge" that FdF is redoing the merges at the list article. Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Archive 1#Merge with individual deity and deity group articles is a valid wikilink to an archived discussion. The articles I spot-checked are in the discussed list. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Two reasons: #1 the articles were never merged, just redirected as far as I can tell. I see no evidence of any attempt to merge either years ago or this time. #2 Even if there was a merge at some point, redirecting isn't "restoring a merge" because, again, there is no merging being done. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC) clarified Hobit (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
1) Redirecting without copying anything is allowed by the last paragraph of WP:Merging#Reasons for merger. The wording dates back to 2005 and 2007. You participated in the 2010 discussion, and you had 3 years to raise the issue with Neelix or edit the articles directly, as FdF pointed out. Requiring FdF to investigate and be responsible for Neelix's 3-year-old edits is unreasonable. 2) An edit summary like "revert to redirect per a previous consensus" would be more precise, but I think that describing FdF's "restore merge" as "clearly false" – in the context of your other comments, implying willful deception – is a gross exaggeration. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Merging does not require any material to be brought into the main article, if none of that material is new or appropriate, as long as that fact is checked. And as long as it is simply a redirect and not a delete, recreate and redirect, the content before the merge+redirect can be reviewed without admin assistance and brought in if the editor believes the fact was missed. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting assertion, but completely unsupported by WP:MERGE: "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Merging creates a redirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page." If no content was copied, then it wasn't a merger, it was a redirection without merging. While a merge includes a redirect as part of the process, what differentiates a merge from a redirect is the copying and pasting. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting bit of wiki-lawyering there. Don't think it's been merged properly? WP:SOFIXIT. It's in the edit history. Which is still there. So, you know, not a deletion. --Calton | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you can actually merge, though, since all but one I've looked at were entirely sourced to TSR or Wizards of the Coast publications. In other words, nothin' but primary sources. --Calton | Talk 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Still not the point. There were 36 edit summaries that claimed he was merging stuff. No merging actually happened. He could have said "redirecting" and we'd not be here. But he didn't and we are. There is a strong difference between merging and redirecting, that's not wiki-lawyering.Hobit (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No, not really. Redirecting an article to another where the appropriate encyclopedic content - in the eye of the person doing this - is already present, is a merge; the topic that was redirected still has content available about it in WP. It would not be a merge if the person redirected the article to a target article that made zero mention of the topic that was redirected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that merging something, in the Wikipedia meaning of the word, doesn't actually involve merging anything? While Wikipedia certainly has terms of art that are like that, WP:MERGE says quite the opposite. So your definition doesn't seem to work for the English meaning of the word "merge" nor the Wikipedia meaning. Could you explain why you think your definition is correct? Hobit (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The WP definition, which matches the real world version is "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page." Doesn't say anything about retaining information from every page involved in the process (unless you're wikilawyering the language). The only outcome that I would expect of a merge is that the topic that is merged in is not reduced to a single mention in passing: whether this means the topic has its own section, paragraphs, one or more sentences, or a line in a table, it doesn't matter (a mention in passing would simply require a redirect). If this means that information from one page is duplicative or not appropriate encyclopedic to be inserted into the target page, so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I'm wondering if you just stopped reading at that point. WP:MERGE goes on to say "with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page". So yes, it does say something about retaining information. As does the English definition (combine or cause to combine to form a single entity, notice the word combine...). Are you seriously claiming that a redirect is a merge? Hobit (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
If some of the content in the article(s) to be merged already exists in the target article, then yes, some of the content has been put into the target article already. If that then leaves content that is deemed unencyclopedic and is left out, then that's what happens. (Mind you, the language "copy and pasted" is not really correct because more than likely a merge that does add more from a merged article will be edited appropriately to fit the flow of the target article during or after the merge - the attribution path should still be followed when doing so.) --MASEM (t) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
So assuming a redirect target has some information on the topic, any redirect is a merge? That is taking the English language (and Wikipedia terminology) and bending it so far on it's ear it's amazing. Our policies speak of redirection and merging as different things on a regular basis. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where a redirect from an AfD wouldn't also be a merge in your use of the terminology. I'm starting to feel like you are just yanking my chain. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
─────────────────────────A redirect (as a close action from an AFD/discussion) w/o a merge means that an editor can go and blindly replace the page contents with the right #REDIRECT, not having to worry about attribution, existing content, or the like. It may be worthwhile to consider anchors in the target article as to help the redirect link land at the right spot, but that's it. A merge w/ redirect means that the editor performing the merge should review the contents of the to-be-merged article(s) and target and carefully determine what, if any, content should be brought over, and if any content is brought in, add in tracking for attribution, before making the target page a redirect.
Yes, that means that a merge that doesn't bring over any information before the redirect is going to look from a 60,000 ft level like a straight redirect, but that's where AGF comes into play, that the editor performing the merge made a judgement call that no new information from the page in question was needed in the target page. And that's why merge + redirects are tons better than deletion, because any editor can go back and pull out details they felt were important that the merging editor might have omitted and add them after the merge. (I would argue we would be in a similar place if FdF pulled one sentence and added it to the target articles before redirecting, with claims "he didn't merge enough!"). If FdF did this blindly, without any prior discussion at all, sure, I would question the motives behind it, but here, FdF is doing an action discussed before, with changes that were undone in the interim. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
My last reply on this: If nothing is merged, it ain't a merge. That's pretty obvious in my book. And as the action discussed before was a merge which never was implemented. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
All I can say is that you were part of the original discussion back in 2010, Hobit, if you had any objection about the amount of content moved, you had all the time to say it, or to move more content yourself. You never did, so I had no reason to assume you were not in agreement. All I did was to restore the 2010 status quo. You obviously have your own view on what a merge should be, but I see nothing here in opposition with WP:MERGE, so this discussion doesn't belong at ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
... none of which deals at all with the fact that Masem has asserted something so utterly ridiculous that it defies common sense. He's asserting that redirecting an article to a target that already contains something relevant and not adding or changing any of that content at the target article constitutes a merge, contra the definition that I quoted, and (as Hobit pointed out) he selectively re-quoted. Masem's behavior in this matter is clearly worse than yours, Folken, because you could simply say you were going too fast and assuming that the merges had previously been done, while Masem's argument is something that's meritless, has been pointed out as meritless, and yet he maintains that it is the definition is wrong, rather than he. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Common sense would suggest that merging involves taking some portion of one thing and including it in another. But reality is not that clear-cut, especially when more than two articles are involved in the merger. We could imagine a discussion closing with consensus to merge articles A,B,C,D into article X. Now suppose that the merging editor finds that article C just repeats one of the sections of article A, and that article D is nothing but tinfoil hat gibberish sourced to the article creator's personal blog. In that case, after the merge there will be nothing of articles C and D in the merge product but I would say the whole thing still does constitute a merge. Wouldn't you? This D&D situation is the extreme end of that scale, where a lot of articles have gone into the merge discussion and some content from some of the articles has found its way into the merge target, but nothing or very little from each individual article. I agree that this is more like mass redirection than a merge, but calling it a very selective merge is not totally off the wall. (And a very selective merge is exactly what this content needs, not wholesale Ctrl-C Ctrl-V). Reyk YO! 05:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit) and the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger explicitly states that it's OK to simply redirect instead of merging if there is no mergeable content. Reyk YO! 05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
What it actually says is "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." (Emphasis mine) That is, if there's nothing to merge, than redirect it. Don't call it a merge, because it's not. It's not saying that there's such a thing as a merge without content added to the target, it's telling editors to use redirect instead, and be clear in their edit summaries that they are not merging but instead redirecting which is exactly what Folken de Fanel failed to do. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out over and over again, Folken was not claiming to be doing a merge. He was putting things back the way there were after someone else had undone the previously performed merges. That clearly is what "restore merge" means, and no amount of feigned incomprehension or creative misinterpretation will make it mean anything else- particularly when this has been clarified REPEATEDLY in this discussion, by Folken himself and several others. There is no dishonesty from Folken de Fanel here, as much as you obviously wish there was. If you think the original merges (or whatever you want to call them) were inadequate, take it up with User:Neelix who performed them. Otherwise, how can you call restoring an edit disruptive when you wouldn't call the original edit disruptive? And I still maintain that you could, at a stretch, call this a very selective merge anyway. Reyk YO! 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - that's exactly what MERGE says on the tin - combining two or more articles into one. It doesn't say a minimum amount of an article to be merge has to survive, only that we keep attribution history and redirect so that all the prior edits can be traced. There's a distict lack of good faith here in assuming what FdF is doing is purposely harmful. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a RfC draft discussion at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
"If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talkcontribs) 06:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Better history links:
Spot-checking these articles, I see a pattern where User:Neelix proposes and performs the merger in October 2010, and an IP editor restores in December 2011. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you identify where the merging was done? I didn't notice any merging at all. I might have missed it, but I don't think Neelix made a single edit involving content. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Neelix did merge the lead of Circle of Greater Powers to the lead of the list (overall diff, history). The last paragraph of WP:Merging#Reasons for merger allows for redirecting without copying, but asks that it be clearly identified in the edit summary. I prefer precise edit summaries, as they make WP:Copying within Wikipedia checking easier. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Folken de Fanel has a long history of problematic behavior, which was cataloged at a recent RFC/U. He has been blocked on multiple language Wikipedias for edit warring, including this one. He is indefinitely banned on, his home language wiki, and remains indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on He's had plenty of chances to shape up his contributions, but seems more intent on harassing those of us who point out his poor, uncollaborative behavior. If indeed he's making widespread use of misleading edit summaries, then it's probably time to increment the number of Wikipedias in which he's no longer welcome. No doubt some of the same people who opined in the that RFC/U that he was being persecuted for his views will rush to his defense here, but it really falls to the greater community--how much longer will this conduct be allowed to continue? Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Chris has been doing a great job with the merges so far, and needs to be allowed to continue. If it helps him to have the articles live as he merges them, then I don't see a problem holding them restored for a brief time. He already merged back a few last night before logging off[37][38][39], and given the sheer amount of cleanup and merging work he has put in over the last week, I don't see why we can't extend a little good faith that he is going to have that taken care of quickly. If that really is an insurmountable problem for everyone else, then since he is doing merges by going through the categories, then at least do him the favor of keeping the categories when you redirect the pages. BOZ (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with Chris merging D&D articles in his own way, but he absolutely needs to master the simple courtesy of communicating with other users rather than making misguided accusations of bad faith or needlessly dragging them at ANI whenever something doesn't go exactly the way he wants.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. I noticed a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mask (Forgotten Realms) explaining that a series of merges to List of Forgotten Realms deities, performed per a consensus discussion in 2010, had been restored by a disruptive IP around 2011. Some of these articles ended up at AfD recently, and I agreed with the editor's recommendation of a procedural close to redirect/merge. I went to check the discussion and all the articles that were part of the merge proposal. Indeed, most, if not all of them had been illegitimately restored by an IP, and since there were was already users asking for these articles to be redirected right away so as not to clutter AfD, I went ahead and restored the redirect, ie the merge procedure from 2010. I saw that the 2010 consensus was apparently satisfied with the short content already present beforehand in the target article, so I didn't do more than restoring the redirects that should have stayed as such. What little content was added to the articles between 2011 and now didn't amount to much, and WP:MERGE doesn't prevent only a small part of the article to be moved, so yeah, that's it. I simply returned things to the 2010 status-quo, and the accusation of "false edit summary" is at best laziness, or at worse outright and misguided assumption of bad faith from ChrisGualtieri.
This is really a non-issue and a useless cluttering of ANI. ChrisGualtieri can easily access article histories and move whatever content to the target he deems necessary (something he doesn't seem to get), if he considered there were better merge targets or ways to merge, then he could just have informed me, changed the redirect target without mass-reverting me, and just proceeded (as long as he has consensus on his side). ChrisGualtieri seems to have major communication issues per his recent ANI reports, and on top of that this comes only a day after he again misguidedly assumed bad faith against me about another case of redirect, so I would not appreciate if this behavior became a trend. I have also noted that ChrisGualtieri has just created a new article, List of human deities (Dungeons & Dragons), to apparently merge all the articles in question there. I don't necessarily agree with this choice, of which ChrisGualtieri failed to notify me, and I hope this ANI report was not a way to preemptively stifle opposition.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with your post.since you were notified of it going to this noticeboard. You have harassed me and caused a great amount of stress and all because you are incapable of understanding when people are even on your side. In the span of two weeks, I've done more to fix the Dungeons and Dragons content than you have in your entire editing history! Deletion is a last resort and of the 100+ pages I've merged, you have the audacity to flagrantly twist my words and actions into some sniveling little behavior dispute? Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia; it is not therapy and you should not be here to fight anyone. Folken de Fanel, you are not worth MY time, and you are not worth this communities time when you refuse to understand even the most basic of reasons why I temporarily restored them: To prevent over 400 broken links that go into a redirect loop. If you had bothered to check and carry out a merger instead of creating said redirect loops, I wouldn't have rolled them back and I wouldn't have brought this here. You equate "causing stress" to a personal attack.[40] You have caused a lot of unnecessary stress with your battleground behavior and wasted hours of time responding to your sheepish excuses and disruptive actions. Now I am going to conduct the rest of the mergers now that I have a few spare hours and maybe do some of the 500 other D&D pages that need merging or fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Outside of your own, obvious hostile behavior against me, I can't see anything here that belongs in ANI. I have provided all the necessary explanation in my previous comment, that you keep ignoring it and even go further in your groundless accusations speaks volumes about you. That's not the first time you've written frivolous ANI reports, so I wouldn't like you to think ANI is your go-to whenever you don't want to bother communicating. I'm not (yet) seeking sanctions against you because you're otherwise a valuable user, but I'm asking the closer of this thread to firmly remind you that ANI is not your personal alternative to civil discussion. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If one merges a number of articles which are only besourced to primary sources into a list (which is therefore similarly only sourced to primary sources), the list is just as subject to deletion as the original articles ("Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies"). Not that it would get deleted round here, as there are too many people prepared to ignore Wikipedia policy in AfDs, but I hope Chris is hoping to add some real-world notability to that article. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The plain descrption of plot and characters in fiction can and should be preferentially taken from the work itself, it is one of the places where primary sources are appropriate. since the sections of an article or the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements, there is no need for secondary sourcing of undisputed factual content, and the attempt to remove such is one of the reasons why some of us are a little apprehensive about indiscriminate merging. This attitude that we should remove ll mention whatsoever of the actual events and individuals in a fiction is thoroughly unencyclopedic. BK, you closed a very closely related discussion at AN/I --your comment above suggests to me that you are too involved in these questions to have done so. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yet, at the same time, WP:NOT#PLOT says we don't burden topics with too much detail taken from primary sources even if it is verifiable. If no secondary source has bothered to do a more detailed discussion or review of the fiction, we should not be going into that great detail ourselves. The articles FdF is merging rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing, and as such, a lot of that content has to be trimmed out in the merge to make the target article appropriate for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I closed the ANI as it was getting off the point (towards RFC/U territory) and there was no admin action required. As for the above, I don't see how merely stating Wikipedia policy is at all contentious. As Masem says, if "the articles ... rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing" then we shouldn't be creating a bigger article with the same problem. Since the individual items are non-notable, the one reason for having such a list (navigation) does not apply. To say "the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements" is flat out wrong - there has no be notability for the main subject of the list, and that means secondary sources. Otherwise we could create lists of, well, pretty much anything non-notable using the same criteria. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
DnD's use of deities (and how it changes between settings and over time) is certainly a subject that has received outside coverage. Now, I don't think the current organization in any way promotes the effective presentation of that coverage, and the merges (by race of fictional adherent? seriously?) don't seem at the moment to be creating any better of a situation. But the topic does pass N, because you could go write Gods in Dungeons & Dragons and that would be a real article on a notable topic. --erachima talk 10:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
At which point, due to its length, List of deities in Dungeons & Dragons is a valid WP:SPINOUT (if not worthy of being that topic's main article in its own right). I don't remember the precise bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP but it's always been my understanding (after reading it long ago) that if a list is on a notable topic, the individual items in said list do not necessarily need to pass N themselves (and this is why, my not-yet-caffinated brain continues remembering, merging to a list is often a good idea at AfD). That said, we shouldn't necessarily merge wholesale from fails-N articles to a list, instead using "X is Y, and is recognised in-universe for Z" in a single paragraph at most in the list with the article redirected there. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment- I do not see how FdF's edit summaries are deceitful. It's very clear that he is not claiming to actually be merging anything. Rather, he explicitly states that he is returning these pages to their post-merge state and links to the discussion where the merges were proposed. That much is obvious from reading the edit summaries. And if that wasn't clear enough, he's said much the same thing here at this ill-thought-out ANI thread. Reyk YO! 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Realistically, since we're not even prepared to put any constraints on Claritas' freedom to roam the fiction topic area removing content at will, there's no point even discussing Folken de Fanel. Unlike Claritas, FdF doesn't have a history of bad faith.

    I do seriously question the community's judgment on this. I think it's a horrible mistake to let these users blunder about the fiction topic area like loose cannons, and I feel we could save ourselves a lot of future drama and heartache with a few judicious topic bans. But the community won't stomach it, so move on.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Primarily because if we topic banned everyone who did anything controversial, nothing would ever get done. --erachima talk 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I still can't see anything "controversial" or any "blunder" that I would have done in this case. In 2010, a consensus discussion established that a series of articles were to be merged, and several users, including some who have contributed here, approved the move, as well as the amount of content being merged (perfectly in compliance with WP:Merging#Reasons for merger). In 2011, a disruptive IP reverted the redirects against consensus and without discussion. In 2013, some of these restored articles ended up at AfD, where a member of the D&D project noticed the IP's disruptions and remarked these articles were better restored back to redirects rather than cluttering AfD. Following the said AfD I found all the other articles in question and in perfect accordance with my edit summaries, merely restored them back to their 2010 status, which should never have been changed. If there was anything controversial or any blunder, it lies with the original disruptive IP and the misguided user who overreacted by opening this thread in blatant assumption of bad faith instead of just trying to properly understand the situation, or even to initiate simple communication. End of story.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A three-year-old consensus of three users is your justification for this, right?—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia policies are like scripture; somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules you can find support for any position no matter how extreme. I'm sure you'll be able to trot out other policy-based excuses as well. What I'm suggesting is that you're justifying your actions on the basis of a three-year-old consensus of three users.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And comments at AfD. And support in this very thread. Your point being...?Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My point being that there's considerable good faith doubt about your edits in this topic area and you should not continue with them until the consensus is clearer.—S Marshall T/C 19:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And there has been objection to this consensus...where? (Somebody coming along and deciding "oooh boy I can make this article on my favourite fictional deity/Transformer/Pokemon!" doesn't count.) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Exactly, I don't see those doubts in this discussion. Or at least they failed to garner consensus, which unfortunately forces me to consider them unreasonable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)#
  • Okay, well those of us who aren't The Bushranger or Folken de Fanel can see the doubts in this very thread. You're not "unfortunately forced to consider them unreasonable", FdF. You apparently choose to consider them unreasonable because it suits your purposes to do so. As I've said before, there's no chance of this leading to a topic ban of any kind because you've shown no bad faith on recently, but there's a wide gulf between the absence of a topic ban and the ringing endorsement of your actions that you're pretending is happening here.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent}<self removed>

  • Folken de Fanel has not been lying, either here or in his edit summaries, as has been conclusively proven in this discussion. The only poor behaviour I have seen is your misuse of rollback. Reyk YO! 00:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(Comment self removed - comment was twisted to a personal attack and I rather remove it as withdrawn in apologies to Folken ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC) )

  • Sigh. Folken restored a bunch of redirects that had been left behind after another editor's merge of those articles, stating so explicitly in his edit summaries, which also link back to the merge discussion. Your position is that not enough of the articles made it into the merge target for it to really be called a merge and therefore Folken's edit summaries are deliberately dishonest. What a load of bullshit. Reyk YO! 03:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I split my reply into numbered items:
  1. FdF's edit summaries and merging versus redirecting have been thoroughly discussed above. I think that your replies would be better directed to specific comments there.
  2. I don't understand your reference to WP:Articles for deletion. WP:Articles for deletion/Mystra (goddess) was closed as no consensus in 2007. Do you mean that AfD is required to establish a binding decision and that Talk:List of Forgotten Realms deities/Archive 1#Merge with individual deity and deity group articles is not a valid merger discussion?
  3. I agree with FdF calling the IP editors' restorations "disruptive". The users in question are (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and editor(s) on a dynamic IP ( (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), from Tyr, Talos, and Mystra). No substantial improvements were made during December 2011, and the only added sources through today are source books, an adventure module, and a tie-in novel. A lack of acceptable reliable sources was the original rationale for merging. The date parameters were removed from the cleanup tags, but there may be a reasonable explanation.
Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Noticeboard behavior by User:ChrisGualtieri[edit]

Dispute resolved. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 21 October 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.

Well, if I'm being called a "dick", a "troll", a "liar" who "spews bad faith and threats to any opposer" and other nice words, all that while consensus in this thread is clearly supportive of my actions, I'm changing my mind and formally asking for sanctions against ChrisGualtieri following his blatant personal attacks (at AN of all places...). It's time for this farce to end.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm closing this as I've said it was off-topic before. This is not AN and the page issues have been rectified. No need for drama between inclusionists and deletionists. Sorry, Folken if this upset you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

...and so User:ChrisGualtieri's quest to become the first user in Wikipedia history banned for sheer hypocrisy continued. Today's evidence that Chris believes different rules apply to himself and everyone else: [41] vs. [42].
Anyway, I would like to second Folken's call for sanctions, and specifically propose the following:
Given his serial history of forum shopping and spurious noticeboard complaints, User:ChrisGualtieri shall not be allowed to directly create threads on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or similar noticeboards for a period of 6 months. Instead, Chris is required to take his complaints to another user of his choice, preferably an administrator, who will post them on Chris's behalf if they think there are legitimate grounds for community attention. --erachima talk 08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We have already resolved our differences following my apology at his talk page. Simply put, this was not about getting Folken in trouble, but merely notifying that I had done a bold and questionable rollback under unusual circumstances for a very specific reason. The inclusionism and deletionism sidetrack is bad and off track. I'm reclosing this as the matter is already settled between both of us and this was never a "sanction" issue on Folken and I have removed the other offending post after its re-insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, and now we can add reverting noticeboard postings about yourself to the list.[43] This is not about your "differences" with Folken anymore, Chris, this is about your serial disruption, forum shopping, and attempted intimidation of other editors via spurious Noticeboard postings, as seen here, here, here, here, and here, as well as several other DRN postings which are also likely WP:FORUMSHOP violations but I'm not counting because they were actually used rather than summarily abandoned.
Oh, and for another fun one for the hypocrisy log, you apparently consider removing posts from your talk page disruptive when User:Ryulong does it, but a Right when you do it. --erachima talk 15:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
But if the two users in question have indeed resolved their differences for now, then what further purpose is there to continue discussions here. If more people worked things out between them, we'd need the Drama Boards here a lot less. Let it go. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, that will not do. Treat this as a new thread if you'd prefer, the discussion's only happening in this particular thread because the hypocrisy involved in the close was enough to spur me to actually document the problem. Chris's abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages is longstanding and noted by more than just me. I'm requesting a minimal sanction here in hopes that it can head off the need for broader sanctions later by forcibly breaking Chris's pattern of responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result he wants by starting a new discussion elsewhere. --erachima talk 16:03, 21 October 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.

Complex username-block situation - Senseltd and Wikikl[edit]

Copied from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention at the request of someone trying to address the issue:

begin copied text
  • Senseltd (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) and Wikikl (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Senseltd was blocked as a username block and renamed to Wikikl but the block followed to the new name. I assume the editor was frustrated because he began editing under the name Senseltd again. This has created a mess that is not the editor's fault. Separate from this, the editor has been warned about recent edits, but that is not what this is about. Recommended action: Rename Wikikl to "Wikikl-usurped" and block the account. Rename Senseltd to Wikikl and ensure that Wikikl is not blocked (if necessary though, give him a "final warning"). Re-create the account Senseltd and block it. Alternatively, just switch the blocks so Wikikl can edit and Senseltd can't and copy the edit warnings from Senseltd's talk page to Wikikl's talk page to make sure they are seen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Um, OK. Maybe you want to take this to WP:AN? It's a little more complicated than what we usually deal with. Daniel Case (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
end copied text
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've requested the attention of MBisanz, the bureaucrat who renamed Senseltd early last week. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I've renamed Wikil to Wikikl-2 and Senseltd to Wikikl. Can someone communicate to him to now use Wikikl? MBisanz talk 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@MBisanz: the best way might be to create the account "Senseltd" and indef-block it, then leave a note on both the user and user talk page explaining what is going on. If either or both of the existing accounts have email enabled, email might work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I emailed him when I did it, but I would prefer not to block him (and possibly upset him further), unless there is no other option. MBisanz talk 01:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Very diplomatic of you. I hope we can mark this discussion as "resolved" the next time he edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Appeal of indefinite block by Dunkmack9[edit]

Per consensus below (and editor's increasingly-absurd efforts at digging their own grave), user's unblock has been declined and they have been warned that further disparaging comments will result in talk page access removal. m.o.p 23:09, 22 October 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.

Dunkmack9 has posted an unblock request on his talk page. Since the block was the result of a community discussion, I am posting here to initiate a discussion as to whether or not the block should be lifted. Here is a link to the blocking discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#User:Dunkmack9 on a fringe theory tear. Here is a link to the sockpuppet case page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dunkmack9/Archive. I strongly oppose an unblock at this time, as the unblock request demonstrates that the user, if unblocked, intends to continue pursuing fringe theories regarding Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories and Rudolf Hess (disclosure: I am the person who brought Rudolf Hess to Good Article status). From a content point of view, it's not enough for our purposes for an editor to read a book on a topic and then, in the belief that they have discovered The Truth, relentlessly pursue the insertion of fringe theories from said book into our articles as though they were true. In the case of Hess, the conspiracy theories are mentioned in the article as an important part of the story, but that's it. In addition to his original account, he pursued disruptive sock puppetry to continue pushing fringe theories whilst blocked and lied about whether or not User:Grapestomper9 was him, in the face of some pretty overwhelming behavioural evidence. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#User:Grapestomper9. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose an unblock at the present time, based on the unblock request and on the previous discussions. --John (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Between the socking and the failure to get why they were blocked in the first place, no reason to unblock at this time. Miniapolis 22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this editor clearly isn't going to abide by our policies and guidelines on fringe theories and is just using the unblock request as an opportunity to rant about the topic and about other editors. Other behaviour since the block [44] [45] [46] has been less than helpful. I suppose we could have a topic ban from all fringe theories, or all topics relating to the Second World War, but inflicting this kind of behaviour anywhere else wouldn't be fair. Hut 8.5 07:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's good that this editor returned to the original account and abandoned the sockpuppet, but the person behind these accounts is not here to improve the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. Rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs, ones that he and very few others have identified—he is an activist for fringe positions, replacing mainstream consensus with fringe, or at least holding them up as equals. We do not need this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this user is not here to build an encyclopedia by a long shot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think he's made his intentions perfectly clear at this point. An unblock would result in an almost certain re-block and unnecessary frustrations for other contributors. Kuru (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Dunkmack9 has posted some further remarks on his user talk, but has not asked for them to be copied over to this page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • He's clearly just digging himself a hole at this point. The talk page remarks in question are lengthy rants about the topic and about other people he's interacted with, and very little is directed towards the reasons for the block at all. About the only points he does make in his defence are that the problems were confined to two articles, which isn't true, and that there were no threats or foul language, which is beside the point, as he wasn't blocked for doing either and you don't have to do either to get yourself blocked. Hut 8.5 17:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Help with svg image[edit]

File:Information orange.svg is now in use on level 2 warning templates and needs to be brought over from the Commons and fully protected. I'm not sure – is there a special technique for copying and uploading an svg file? -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Zad68 has given it full protection. Diannaa, would you please download the image from Commons and attempt to upload it here? If you can, that will prove that we need to do it; if you can't, that will prove that we don't need to. I can't directly test it myself — since I'm an admin, I have the ability to override page protection, so I can't see whether non-admins can modify and/or overwrite it. PS Oops, never mind, Diannaa; I assumed by your request that you weren't an admin yourself. Would some kindly non-admin please attempt to fulfill my request? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to download it - it's an svg file, which is kinda different. As soon as I try to copy the image it converts it to a png image file. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
If you're using Internet Explorer, rightclick the image and select "Save Target As"; this will download the original SVG and put it where you want it. However, since you're an admin, there's no real point, because you're able to override the blacklist just like I am. I'm asking for a non-admin to test it, so we can see whether we even need to worry about a local upload. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on this. It will require a new name, right? --NeilN talk to me 03:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually not. I'm asking you to attempt to upload it at the current name, which is presently protected; whatever happens, please come back and report your results. If protection prevents you from uploading it, please create the image description page with absolutely nothing except a {{db-g2}} template. If protection prevents you from doing that, we won't need to do any more protection, because vandals won't be able to hurt the image. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


@Nyttend: The image needs to be uploaded locally (by an admin since the local page is protected) because otherwise a vandal can change the image on wikipedia commons and that change will automatically be reflected on English wikipedia, irrespective of the protection of the en-wiki page. (Note that the commons page is not protected and en-wiki admins have no direct control on that)

@NeilN: The image can be uploaded to the local wikipedia page (again, by an admin) under the same name, because "If a file of the same name exists on both Wikipedia and Commons, the Wikipedia file will be displayed." (see WP:FILE). Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Both upload buttons (for en and commons) are greyed out when it's the same name. They are active when I change the file name. Any attempt to edit the description sends me to Commons. --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I've done it. Abecedare is right about the images. Protection here if the file is not here is useless. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to replace this file [47]. Error message: "This image name or media file name is protected." --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I was able to upload a copy over it a minute before @Crisco 1492: increased the protection. (I couldn’t do it with the wizard, and I had to brush off a warning.) The second time, a couple of minutes later, it didn’t work: the warning had escalated to the above error. Please delete my upload, somebody, as I don’t think I can any more.—Odysseus1479 03:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That's because you uploaded between the time I uploaded locally and protected the page. Don't see a need to delete your upload as it is the same file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: wasn't just restoring the deleted versions an option here, especially as it's the same file in the deleted history that was moved over to Commons? -- curious as to whether there are any technical issues here as I don't work on image deletions. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Original wasn't stored under that title, by the looks of it. I don't see any deleted revisions. Restoring the deleted files instead of uploading new ones (if at a different title) would mean any subst: templates would not be protected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, weird as I see six deleted revisions and two file uploads there. Perhaps my staying away from images is a wise decision after all. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Special:Undelete/File:Information orange.svg has six deleted revisions, including two file uploads. Crisco, did you check the page history? I was momentarily confused until I realised that it existed locally, so there would be a history tab and wouldn't be the "deleted revisions" blue link that appears for Commons-only images. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I did open the history. I didn't see that last night. (Maybe I was overly tired.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom overstepping their bounds[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#David_Gerard_restricted_in_use_of_tools is one of the worst decisions I've seen in some time. It places an indefinite restriction on a user without any previous finding of any sort of pattern of abuse - a single admin action is being used to justify a restriction that will never expire.

This is, simply put, a policy violation on Arbcom's part. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Blocks_should_not_be_punitive and the requirement that blocks be preventative are violated when there's no evidence - not even a finding of fact - that there is any pattern of behaviour, or even any evidence that this behaviour will repeat. Arbcom is not given the right to override policy.

I don't think we, as a community, should stand for this, and would like to ask for a community override of a bad, bad Arbcom decision. If Arbcom cannot use their powers appropriately, the community should take them back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Dude; they can appeal every six months so it is obviously NOT permanent and CAN be lifted... If the administrator in question does not fall afoul of Wikipedia policy in the meantime! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Also: this explains why the restriction was put in place. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It's permanent until such time Arbcom - a group not known for ever undoing their decisions - accept an appeal. This is grossly in violation of normal practice, where things have an actual length. Further, their finding of fact is highly questionable in its own right, but even it shows no evidence of a pattern of behaviour outside of the Manning situation, or even outside of then-current policy and practice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well it seems obvious that you hold admins to a lower standard of behavior that Arbcom does! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Umm, Adam, do you not remember that they unblocked User:Russavia recently?--v/r - TP 01:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
ARBCOM does lift blocks and, furthermore, no one but David Gerard can appeal his block on his behalf. ARBCOM says they will hear appeals after six months time. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't even a block. Gerard is just not allowed to use his administrative tools in a topic area where he is rarely active. He can still edit in that topic area and use his tools elsewhere. Personally, I think Gerard got off easy given that he does have a track record for misuse of the tools.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Even if true, what previous abuses would the current finding have protected from? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I'm afraid its time to step away from the deceased equine. When the only person riding forth to right a perceived wrong is yourself then I'd suggest its time to go find a new hobby horse. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Adam, (1) Given all that has transpired in this specific situation, I hope that David (and others in comparable situations) would have the common sense to leave usage of admin tools going forward in this area to others who are less involved -- whether or not this restriction is in place, and irrespective of whether he acted suboptimally earlier. (2) sometimes clearly redirecting people who have played a major role in a conflict elsewhere is an important element of resolving the conflict; in my personal opinion Arbcom should probably make more use of specific topic bans or tool restrictions as a remedy -- even in the absence of clear "punishable" misconduct. Sometimes you just need to change the team in a specific area if the interpersonal dynamics just don't work. (3) In this instance, there is actually a finding against David, one which is not absurd even if you (and some others) disagree with it. That's why we have Arbcom! To make the hard judgment calls, ones that some people will disagree with and others agree. For all these reasons, let it be. Martinp (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't like the decisions that ArbCom is handing down? Then change the timbre of the conversations. The ArbCom Election is coming soon and all it takes is a change in the majority of the committee to change the decisions that are handed down.
In no way am I advocating for a TeaParty Arbcom sub-faction. Just making suggestiong for upset users to resolve their complaints. Hasteur (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

iPad (5th generation) move request[edit]

The iPad (5th generation) needs to be moved to iPad Air if an administrator has a few spare seconds. Uncontroversial. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

IP editor making controversial copy/paste moves[edit] (talk · contribs) has been making copy/paste moves, which is not only wrong but these moves are also pretty controversial and should've been discussed first. Somebody with the appropriate powers should fix whatever's happened here and make sure there's a good consensus. (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored redirect at AdBlock and another editor has reverted at AdBlock (Chrome). But IP 108.235 is correct in saying that AdBlock is not specific to chrome. So AdBlock(chrome) should be a redirect to AdBlock, not the other way around. I request an admin to do the move properly ( due to a history at AdBlock, move is not possible by non-admin).--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Move's done, with a history swap to preserve the redirect's non-trivial page history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The history currently under AdBlock (Chrome) may be non-trivial, but it's not properly attributed or particularly useful. made an exact copy (cross-page diff), and there were no substantial edits made. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help figuring out what to do about in-Wikipedia copyvio[edit]

If you look at History of Lower Saxony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it seems to have been moved/merged to another article here[[48] and renamed Theodor Gottfried Liesching. Then recently he was given his own article[49] and a large amount of material was restored to this page and it was renamed again.[50]. Now this is clearly copyvio, presumably from our own articles, but there's no way of knowing where it comes from. The editor, Izraías (talk · contribs) didn't discuss this anywhere and also made other page moves I don't quite get, and I'd like help sorting it out. I think History of Lower Saxony needs reverting to remove the copyvio, and then if anything is replaced (hopefully with a discussion) it needs to be clearly attributed so it isn't copyvio. I'll notify the editor. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the original page was Württemberg; then it was moved to Theodor Gottfried Liesching which in its turn was moved to History of Lower Saxony. Thus, Theodor Gottfried Liesching was effectively "deleted" and Talk:Württemberg ended up in Talk:History of Lower Saxony. There is indeed copyvio from our own articles (particularly, Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, House of Welf). (Note that -Ilhador-, Jack Bufalo Head, and Izraías are apparently the same editor—already blocked many times before for copyright violations and sockpuppeting; I'm about to open an SPI and then maybe organize a ban.) I created a new article for T.G. Liesching in order to avoid copyvio but I would like to request to restore the old one [51]. If I'm not mistaken no article about the History of Lower Saxony existed before -Ilhador-'s meddling; so if it's a copyvio from our own articles it should be turned into a redirect to Lower Saxony. The difficult task, though, is to avoid eliminating any page histories. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
G11 deletion is normally appropriate in egregious cases of internal copyvio, but this is complex enough that we really shouldn't start off with any G11s. Let's figure out the page history and then make any necessary deletions, which I suspect will require more extensive use of G6 for history merging than G11. I'll be happy to try to help when I have time later. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so I've spent a bit of time looking over the articles, and I'm quite confused. There's no way I'm going to do anything without input from others, lest I accidentally make things worse. Let me propose the following actions (NB — "history" is page history; "History" is the article about Lower Saxony):
  • Delete History of Lower Saxony, Theodor Gottfried Liesching, and Württemberg under G6
  • Restore the Liesching edits from History, move them to Liesching, and restore the deleted Liesching edits
  • Restore the Württemberg edits from History, move them to Württemberg, and restore the deleted Württemberg edits
  • Restore History
  • This would resolve the history splitting for Liesching and Württemberg, if I'm understanding rightly. After that, we need to deal with the stuff that's been merged into History.
  • Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Duchy
  • I don't see anything in History that derives from Welf. Unless I'm missing something, we can ignore Welf.
  • Cut out everything from History that derives from Braunschweig-Lüneburg Electorate
At this point, we're left with a rump: the first 1½ sentences of subsection 6.1 and perhaps subsection 6.2. It was added by a disruptive sock, and it might be copied from somewhere else. Let's delete it with G5 and a dash of IAR. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There is further complication since Württemberg and Baden (effectively "deleted" by -Ilhador- [52]) were eventually rewritten from scratch by User:Fadesga. Also note that History of Lower Saxony could also redirect to History of Saxony. Give me one more day to check if the suggested solution can work. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
To sum it up the problematic moves are the following: [53], [54], [55], [56]. Regarding History of Lower Saxony and Theodor Gottfried Liesching I agree with Nyttend. But we must retain the articles User:Fadesga created. 'Baden' and 'Württemberg' are historically ambiguous names; they may refer either to a series of historical polities or to their respective historical regions. Especially in the case of 'Württemberg' none of the historical polities could be described as a primary topic in either English or German usage. That is why the German Wikipedia has a dab page for 'Baden' and a geography-related article about Württemberg and that is why the English one should have them, too (see Baden and Württemberg). So I propose that there should exist two different articles: Kingdom of Württemberg and Württemberg as they stand now. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And now that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador- is settled with 3 socks blocked (thanks Omnipaedista for doing the legwork on this) I'm available for any necessary article deletions. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


Because of the current high profile discussions about Wikipedia and paid editing, I am becoming increasingly sensitive as I patrol new pages to fully formed articles with a substantially promotional tone, yet concealed as well referenced articles, but created as the only contribution of a new editor, one who only edits in this area, or even this article. I'm sure you don't need examples, but they are easy to find.

Because of the fully formed nature of the articles, created with a skill that takes almost every ordinary editor a while to learn, I smell sockpuppetry. Because they are SPAs I see no easy way for the ordinary editor to reach a conclusion. I suspect that an experienced sock hunter and the checkuser tool is required to sniff them out. However, I see no way of reporting what I might term a suspicious editor.

I hope to catalyse a discussion, here or elsewhere, that will create a place for we ordinary editors to place suspicious editors for investigation. Some will be innocent. Good. Others will lead to a PR organisation, perhaps the same PR organisation. The outcome of WIkipedia's discussions about paid editing will be relevant to this class of editor.

Such an investigation platform ought to make it easier for our hard working SPI clerks and others to form an educated view about the extent of the problem. Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to identify traits of such editors, but I wonder per WP:Beans if we ought to be doing so in the open. I'm a big fan of conducting as much business as possible in the open, but some things appear to be legitimate exceptions. (It occurs to me that WP:Beans isn't quite the right metaphor I need a beans inverse or !Beans or something like that.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation statement can help how you approach this, particularly the parts about "required disclosure" and the part about violations of terms of use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful, Sue Gardner has less than a newbie's understanding of the English Wikipedia. She knows how to run a non-profit, not how to edit Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Disrespecting Sue Gardner is irrelevant and gratuitous, it is the Foundation she is speaking for and the Pedia runs because of them; they have tons of experience here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? That must be why they don't hire community liasons.--v/r - TP 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a tool that can identify near-orphan articles predominantly edited by an SPA account? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, creating multiple throw-away accounts is a common sock-puppeteer and PR editing tactics. A trow-away account is not just an SPA, but an SPA active for a short period of time to make a very limited set of edits (a lot of such accounts are actually legit). The most efficient approach would be an automatic global check of all throw-away accounts to see which of them originated from the same IP address - under a supervision by Checkuser. Some of detected accounts would have to be blocked as sockpuppet accounts; contributions by others would have to be posted somewhere and checked. Unfortunately, such method contradicts the currently accepted philosophy of user-checking (as a privacy violation; I personally do not think so). With advent of numerous PR people around here, this will be necessary, I believe.My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
See [57] and [58]. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thanks to everyone and especially Dennis Brown who helped to fix this problem. I am afraid we will see more of this in the future.My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And that, with precision, is the reason we need to discuss what is required, followed by how to implement it. There are private pages that things get handled on. Some of the filters, for example, are on pages that I can;t read because I don;t have the permissions. So things can be done in a non beansy manner if we wish. But we need to wish it. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Action History[edit]

hi. Saran, Iran:historySaran, East Azerbaijan .--E THP (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic with the page history. Could you explain what's needed? Are you saying that the pages need to be merged? Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple Sarans in Iran, so a disambig page is required. What's the issue? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I created this article(8 April 2011), But later renamed not transferred History.E THP (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a completely different page; it wasn't a cut/paste move or anything else that needs repair. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
History must be moved.I created first article.E THP (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That's only necessary to preserve attribution histories; Carlos didn't take anything you wrote when he created the second page, so no histmerge is necessary. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Two userpages with same picture and text[edit]


User:Valeriypavlov and User:Valeriy Pavlov, please check. Thanks--Musamies (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

De728631 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted both under WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Same userpages created again and also user talk page added same spam.--Musamies (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've re-deleted both of them and blocked both users as spam/advertising-only accounts. Graham87 05:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding Manning naming dispute[edit]

By motion of the committee, finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs, has been replaced by the following:

During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct [59], [60] [61]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [62] [63] [64] [65]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [66].

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Corbet's Couloir[edit]

This and this should redirect here. Anyone know why they're blacklisted? Brycehughes (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The first one has a Hex C2 92 before the s (CorbetÂ’s Couloir) and the second has a Hex C2 92 after the s (Corbet'sÂ’ Couloir). Searching for either one brings you to a search result that links to Corbet's Couloir. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Strange... I wonder how I ended up with a Hex C2 92. Anyway, thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is actually worth looking into for me, because I would like to get a better understanding of how the blacklist regex works, but it does not require administrator intervention, so I am going to pursue it elsewhere.
Before I do that, I have one final question that someone here might be able to answer (or should I ask at the help desk?); When I tried to open an edit window on the two links Brycehughes lists above using the usual "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name... Start the X article" link, I got a Permission error ("The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists") When an administrator tries to open an edit window does he/she get a more specific error message? If not, is there an easy way to find out which blacklist and which regex is being triggered? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I get no error message whatsoever. Creating either one of those would be as easy as creating Couloir1, which presumably isn't on a blacklist. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Confirm that Couloir1 is not on the blacklist and that I could create it if I wanted to.
Also, the above tells me that if I want to create a page and the blacklist stops me, I can ask any administrator to create it for me. It would be nice if the admin got a message saying that he was creating something that the blacklist does not allow ordinary editors to create rather than silently allowing it but that's not something that should be dealt with here. I think we are done here, and this can be closed as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I solidly agree. I can't remember the specific page, but I know at least once I created something that was blacklisted, and if I remember rightly, I ended up realising that I shouldn't have created the blacklisted page in the first place. Besides telling us admins that we should be careful about creating pages with blacklisted titles, it would help us by giving us a clearer sense of what's impossible for non-admins to create — at least for me, the more I'm accustomed to admin userrights, the harder it is to remember how many things I can do that others can't. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There's been a request since 2008 (Bugzilla:13780). Something that's possible already is to provide more information to editors who are unable to create blacklisted titles, either by adding the default message to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, which would display title and blacklist entry for any blocked title, or create custom messages for those likely to be mistakes (similar to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-nbsp, but for control codes, soft hyphens and byte order marks). Peter James (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I skied this run twice, but not very gracefully. First time spun around backwards and left my skis sticking in the snow, and had to climb 100m back up to get them. Second time crossed skis on the landing, but recovered and skied away. Wyoming, and Jackson are just amazing. Jehochman Talk 04:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation[edit]

Per the consensus below, the 1RR restriction previously imposed by the community has been reinstated (effective immediately) and will expire after 1 year (2014-10-27). Additionally, the 1RR restriction is now applied to all articles related to the "men's rights movement". —Darkwind (talk) 15:05, 27 October 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.

Based on a community discussion, MRM pages were put on article probation in October 2011. There is no expiration date. Based on a subsequent discussion, a WP:1RR restriction was imposed, which is set to expire on October 20, 2013.

I propose that we extend the 1RR restriction for another year. At the same time, I propose a modification of the wording. The general probation impacts all MRM-related pages. However, the 1RR restriction, as worded, literally applies only to the Men's rights movement article. I propose that the 1RR restriction can be applied to any MRM-related page. It has already been applied in that fashion, at least by me. Some of the entries in the sanction log aren't clear in that regard, so I'm not sure if other admins have also done so.

Although no sanctions have been logged since August 2013, the previous sanctions have been effective in minimizing the disruption to the MRM pages. In particular, a 1RR restriction, which is a bright line, is helpful. There are still editors out there, who, in my view, have an agenda, and I suspect more will pop up, even if we are vigilant, but potentially a greater number if we are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I support this motion because it is clear that POV activism by SPA editors is a constant feature of the topic. Raising the floodgates will overwhelm the article and related topics. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the truly horrible state of the Men's rights article (see my rant on the talk page), I'm unclear how things could get much worse. "By their fruits you shall know them" is a pretty good motto. And the fruits of this 1RR restriction are pretty nasty. Maybe not as bad as if the restriction were removed, but certainly not a poster child for 1RR working in this area. I'll defer to those that generally oversee this area on the 1RR continuation/expansion, but wow, that article is a mess of generalizations. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I support the renewal and expansion. The restriction has very clearly forced things to be discussed on talk pages, and limited general disruption to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support renewal and expansion. Although I haven't been active in the men's rights arena much lately for real life reasons, I have still been keeping half an eye on it, and the 1rr restriction has helped some of the silliness. The article isn't great, and until a greater body of comprehensive secondary literature about the movement emerges would be hard to make great, even without the silliness - and the silliness makes it harder. 1rr hasn't been a panacea, but has helped restrain some of the biggest problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Bbb23's proposal fully. Article remains on my watch and I see this as a positive for the community to renew this probation as suggested.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, unfortunately, because removing it would make it worse. Hobit, which rant? I'd be interested to hear if you have any suggestions for improving the "policing" of the article; I wish I had some. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It's under the NPOV tag section. I think the real issue is that those unhappy with the article have at least a few good points--the article is poorly written and seems to paint with too broad a brush. After having lots of things explained to me, I think the problems are fixable but it's a lot of work and I'm a horrible writer and I should be working... We'll see. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support based on the history of conflict over this topic. I don't think a 1RR restriction puts an undo hardship upon Editors who work on these articles. Restriction can be revisited in a year. Liz Read! Talk! 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Reviewing the article and talk page history of Men's rights movement suggests to me that the value of the 1RR restriction on that specific article is still rather high and it should therefore be kept. Looking through the sanctions logs also leads me to support explicitly expanding the restriction to other MRM-related pages as well. In both the specific and the general cases, there still seems to be an issue with editors attempting to insert (and re-insert) advocacy without the support of good sources. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines work fine for the other 4,353,716 articles, so I don't see why this one needs special treatment. (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That could well be that you simply do not know about the conflict and disputes involved with the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Whoever the IP is, they're not new to Wikipedia, given this reference to Malleus, which, in turn, links this comment. On a more substantive note, the IP is, of course, wrong. There are many articles and topic areas at Wikipedia that are subject to restrictions and sanctions--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Even less correct is the notion that Wikipedia policies and guidelines work. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a former Wikipedian whose experience with Wikipedia was significantly diminished by Bbb23's tactics on this article, I'd like to point out something revealing in Bbb23's request. Bbb23 wrote that it is "useful in dealing with accounts that are agenda-driven". This implies that one's status of being "agenda-driven" (in Bbb23's opinion) is more important than whether or not one is correctly applying Wikipedia policy. The fact of the matter is that once Bbb23 has decided that you are "agenda-driven", he or she will dismiss your arguments as "weak" without actually discussing their merits, even after repeated requests to go address a certain point. Furthermore, Bbb23 has a history of deciding that users on one side (mine) of a given argument are "agenda-driven", while not noticing any agenda-driven actions on the other side. The upshot is that it appears to be impossible to get Bbb23 to even discuss the issue on its merits, let alone concede that the other person has a point. Eventually, another admin comes along and says Bbb23 is right, also without discussing the merits. Checkmate, and whether or not one is correct is irrelevant. This is all documented in detail, with diffs, in the archived discussion here[67]. That said, I recognize that the community has made its choice. (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Closure. Can an uninvolved administrator please determine the appropriate closure?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I'm wondering why this discussion isn't being closed, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to a new editor, @Maleliberation: (lovely user name, isn't it?) who made this series of edits to Men's rights movement. Notice the repeated sourcing to this website. We have an article about Farrell. Notice also Maleliberation's user page, which says "Link to our Images directory" (first person plural pronoun), but it gets better when you follow the link: "Made 10 (useful we hope) contributions. We must wait 4 days until Oct 29 or 30 before we're allowed to upload our images" & "yeah, some on both sides are gonna distrust us...we'll try to fight for ending the abuse and shame and oppression and defaming and restrictive roles and unfair treatment of men.....and of our "sisters", women, too". And the promise that the user(s) will upload images from And one wonders why we need this topic under probation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello. Two of the many edits pointed at Warren Farrell's web page(no personal affiliation) One included a critical piece of information missing form "relation to feminism" section, namely the fact that some advocates of Men's Rights were leaders in 1970s feminist movement. The issue is not whether one views this as tainting that subset of MRA nor whether one views it as exonerating (to feminists) that part of MRA. The issue is that it was factually missing from the "relation to feminism" section that it's not just about antagonism/tension/critique but also have overlap. Second, there's nothing sinister about being deliberately open and transparent on one's user page. Third, part of wikipedia is to allow people to upload images and put them into the public domain and allow (not force) others to use such images. It's widespread and part of what's beautiful about wikipedia, whether photographs or in this case, symbolic gif graphics. So in case that was not clear, we plan to put some images into the public domain on that directory in the user page, that's all that part of the note meant. I am first person singular but have allies to help me built my/our .org (off wikipedia) website mentioned, but this user account is for me. With those clarifications, is there any concern you can share with me about the edits, in light of your "[no wonder] this topic [is] under probation" comment? Or does this address your concerns? Maleliberation (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • P.S. You will notice to make it easier for folks to undo any part they had concerns with I separated (out of an abundance of good faith) into separate smaller edits a few times, things that could have been put into one edit, making it easier for each separate piece to be modified or undone. I'm also not sure if your comment about our user name being "lovely" is to be taken at face value or in irony. (At the moment I'm not sure if you have or had, strong pro-MRA or strong feminist or strong anti-MRA or strong administrator-worried-about-flamewars, or other concerns. Ah, how lovely to be innocent, if only briefly, before tasting from the fruit of the tree and joining the rest of you ;-) Feel free to reply here or on my user page as is appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleliberation (talkcontribs) 20:41, 26 October 2013
  • The above post by Bbb23 is an excellent example of why Bbb23 should not have the power to sanction users in this area. A user name of "Maleliberation" is immediately labeled (by Bbb23) as "lovely." Doubtless, Bbb23 will be quick to enforce any perceived violations by Maleliberation. But wait a minute. While picking a user name of "Maleliberation" does suggest a pro-MRM bias, doesn't labeling that name as "lovely" suggest an anti-MRM bias? Is one of these biases somehow better than the other? And who has more power over the article, and the community -- a biased user, or a biased admin? Lastly, since we all have our biases, Wikipedia policy is supposed to judge the strength of arguments, rather than the biases of people who make them. But that's not what Bbb23 appears to be doing above. (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello User:William Jockusch. Frankly, it would be much more transparent if you logged into your account rather than editing as an IP. You have been sanctioned by Bbb23 before, no? Do you really think that pointing out the actions of Maleliberation - who is promoting their view per their website at - is not the job of an adminstrator (and actually any editor interested in neutral point of view?) Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've been trying to ignore drama, but it has been impossible to miss the stream of editors eager to right the great wrongs that have been perpetrated against men. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'm involved as an editor, but I'd agree that 1RR has really helped with this article, and that it should be continued.Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 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.

Proposed formalised community ban for Wiki-PR[edit]

Pashtun diaspora / people[edit]

Could someone take a look at Pashtun diaspora and Pashtun people? There seems to be a heated battle going on. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal by Martinvl[edit]

There is zero chance of this being lifted, so I'm closing this. Martinvl is strongly advised to read and listen to the comments of others here, as if this same tactic is adopted in any further appealing an indef WP:BOOMERANG is likely to hit. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 27 October 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.

ẦI wish to appeal this ban on a number of items. In order to speed things up, I plan to first contest a number of "show-stopper" procedural items - items which if upheld will save everybody having to wade through reams of text.

  • When Wee Curry Monster wrote that I had resumed edit-warring, he was not in full possession of the facts.
  • My version of the vote-stacking issue might well have got lost in a WP:Wall of text.
  • As an adjunct to my version of the vote-stacking episode, I made it clear that I did not intend to rebut the allegations against me until the vote-stacking issue had been cleared up. The closing editor has made no reference to this request and I have not yet rebutted the accusations made against me.

Wee Curry Monster misunderstood my activity on the page Template:Systems of measurement[edit]

Firstly, the claim by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) that I was continue to edit-war was ill-founded. Although he gave a number of references, he was unaware that I was in the process of preparing an this ANI request for an investigation into User:EzEdit.

EzEdit appears to be running an account for the sole purpose of discrediting then article Imperial and US customary measurement systems of which I was the principal editor. If it transpires that EzEdit is running an account for this sole purpose, then the actions on which WCM commented were totally justified making WCM's claim ill-founded. This should be sufficient for the block to be raised forthwith.

I notice that this SPA request has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. I request that this SPA be reopened and investigated as part and parcel of my appeal. It is highly possible and that User:EzEdit is a sock-puppet of the banned editor User:DeFacto - he is quackling like DeFacto but has possibly fooled WP:CheckUser by changing his editing habits and in particular using different sock-puppet accounts for each type of attack (cw a One-time pad. For the record, User:R.stickler used this technique - more details on request). If this is the case, then the trigger for this ban become null and void.

Wee Curry Monster factually misrepresented facts In his last posting[edit]

WCM's account of what happened in the last few hours is factually wrong.

  • He stated that I was blocked for week. The actual period was 48 hours.
  • He stated that I was edit-warring. The reality is that a new user EzEdit started edit-warring. In exasperation with EzEdit, I set the page back to its last stable version - the version that existed when EzEdit first opened his Wikipedia account. Since WCM had never been involved with that page, he was unable to asses the true situation.
  • His statement about natural justice showed his ignorance about legal matters. This is discussed in more detail in the section #Right of Reply.

Vote stacking issue[edit]

I twice outlined my reasons for vote-stacking: here and here. In both of these I laid out exactly why I was making accusations of vote-stacking.

My case might well have been hidden by a WP:Wall of text, in which case the administrator might well have missed it - the first of these two posting is hidden under green banner with the text "Moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)". The first of these requests were lying around for a week without action.

In both postings, I requested that if the closing administrator did not see fit to close the ANI on grounds of vote stacking, that I be in formed so that I could prepare a rebuttal of my case. I request that the closing admin revisit the vote-stacking issue taking note that WCM selectively notified certain editors and as a result the whole case was prejudiced from the very beginning. Will the closing admin please also note that it was WCM who made this request which should also be viewed in the light of WCM's vote stacking.

Right of Reply[edit]

As explained earlier, I have not yet exercised my right to reply. I knew that to reply to an accusation where the vote-stacking issue had yet to be resolved would merely cause the ANI to expand out of all proportion, so I decided to wait until the evidence was in place and then, when requested to do so by the closing admin, reply.

May I draw to attention that Wikipedia has very strict rule about WP:BLP. Editors are also living people and like non-Wikipedians, are entitled to demand that facts about them are accurately reported. Normally if a Wikipedia discussion is getting out of control, an editor can walk away unscathed. However, if the discussion is about the editor concerned, then I submit the editor has an unfettered right, just as any other living person, to ensure that his rights are not infringed.

When I tried to exercise that right here, User:Beyond My Ken suppressed that right. When I protested, User:Beyond My Ken was assisted by two other administrators to supress those rights further and to impose a 48 hour ban on me, (not a week as alleged by WCM). Beyond my Ken subsequently posted this statement which showed his complete ignorance of the situation - Wikipedia is subject to the law of the State of Florida and as such, I have many rights. I do not know all of them, but everybody, including Beyond My Ken, must surely be aware of the right redress in cases of libel. These rights are very closely tied in with the concept of natural justice.

I ask therefore that the ban is lifted and that I have the right to reply without interruption from any other party. This is exactly what happens in a court of law - the accuser lays his case and then the defendant answer the case, thereby avoiding the problems of Ochlocracy.

Misrepresentation of fact by other editors[edit]

In this section I will rebut the evidence placed by other editors. This will involve considerable preparation work by me and considerable work by whoever reads is, so rather than waste a lot time, it is probably best to initially examine the first parts of the appeal. If those are grounds for the appeal to be upheld, then a lot of work will be saved all round.

Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


  • This appeal is a very good example of why, in my !vote supporting a topic ban, I commented that an indef block would probably be more appropriate. Martinvl's behavior – tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT, lack of understanding of the nature of the project and extreme Wikilawyering – is a strong indication that he is not a good match for this project. At this time I will not call for an indef block, but I do strongly oppose his appeal; however, if Martinvl does not turn his behavior around and start editing productively in areas outside of his topic ban, then I do think an indef block will be called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since it is pertinent here, I will repeat my statement that Martinvl refers to above as "completely ignorant." It is, of course, precisely correct, just as his protestation about the laws of Florida is totally irrelevant:

    Your misunderstanding is that you have no rights here, nor does anyone else who edits Wikipedia. This is a private website, operating under rules promulgated by the WMF and further developed by the community of editors. You have no "right" to edit here", no "right" to have "justice" done, no "right" to due process. What you have is an obligation to follow community-determined mores of behavior. Period. If you don't understand that, you will never be happy here, and if you don't observe that obligation, the community can, and will, turn you out without batting an eyelash, and you will have no "right" of protest - although the community will almost certainly allow you to appeal any ban, even though it is not obliged to do so. Does that make the situation any clearer to you?

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note to point out that Martinvl has, in the very short time it has been in effect, already broken his topic ban. He asked the admin who applied the ban if the ban could be relaxed so that he could report another editor's behavior in the topic ban area, but did not wait for a response and went ahead and posted on AN/I a few minutes later. (The answer, which came a few minutes after that, was "no".) This behavior seems typical of Martinvl's sense of entitlement and unwillingness to "play by the rules". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The claim to refuse to address the substance because there was some other process issue, makes this appeal seem unworthy of much consideration. Sorry, you did not address the substance when you had a chance to, but that was your decision (and may, in part, have led to the TB because it was seen as stonewalling by not addressing the substance). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Action is needed to prevent any further legal threats combined with misguided wikilawyering. Here is the diff of Martinvl adding the following text in the OP above: "Wikipedia is subject to the law of the State of Florida and as such, I have many rights. I do not know all of them, but everybody, including Beyond My Ken, must surely be aware of the right redress in cases of libel." That is a friendly reminder to BMK that they are subject to legal redress for comments made at Wikipedia, and that is as misguided as it gets. The entire tone of the OP shows that an extended break from Wikipedia is necessary to prevent further time wasting. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks but I have no concerns. Truth is an absolute defense for a claim of libel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you are not concerned, but I am (and you would be too if you seriously thought about the consequences of being involved in a lengthy and highly disruptive legal process, regardless of personal confidence in the outcome). WP:NLT is not switched off if the threatened editor is not concerned, and the reason for that is the chilling effect upon other editors who may have been contemplating commenting in relation to the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry not to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that my lack of concern had any bearing on whether Martinvl's comment was a legal threat or not, as we define it. In fact, now that the statement has been pointed out to me, I do think it fulfills the requirements of WP:NLT, and is yet another reason why an indef block may be required. (And, yes indeed, I've given his comment every bit of thought it deserved.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • While that's clearly unhelpful wikilawyering and Martinvl should strike the comment, I don't think that it was intended as a legal threat. My reading of the discussion at ANI which led to the ban is that Martinvl has the mistaken belief that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process runs through a formal legal process. He also tried to have the ANI thread closed due to what he claimed were procedural problems, and it's concerning that he's doubled down on this failed argument by opening this thread dispute the lack of support he received for this position and the attempts by myself and several others to point out that the crux of the issue is his conduct and that the procedural matters he raised are irrelevant at best. As this appears to be classic WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT conduct, I agree that an indefinite duration block appears to be in order until Martinvl provides commitments to abide by the topic ban and avoid disruptive conduct such as this. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the earlier history, I agree with Johnuniq that the edit referred to above is an invocation of external legal systems to intimidate, and thus a violation of the spirit of WP:NLT. It is true that everyone does have some rights here: however, among the most important of them is the right to be free from attempts at intimidation. I agree that a substantial block of Martinvl is justified to maintain an open editing environment. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No rights here, privately owned website. I guess if someone steals your stuff from off-wiki (copyvio) you have the right to send WMF a take-down notice, but that's about it. NE Ent 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No, @NE Ent:, the CC-BY-SA licence on contributions here is irrevocable. You might be able to get something taken down, but it would be done as a courtesy or out of pragmatism, rather than through the exercise of a right. A third party’s violation of the conditions is not WP’s problem.—Odysseus1479 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If you issued WMF with a DMCA takedown for an image you uploaded, they would be obliged to takedown the image with an OFFICE action to comply with the DMCA, it would not be handled as a mere courtesy deletion. IIRC that has happened on Commons, even though that's not really the task of the DMCA. If the takedown is contested, then legal action may well follow (and a block necessary to ensure legal processes occur elsewhere).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If WMF gets a legit takedown, they remove the content; see example [74] NE Ent 02:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Question I am trying to understand the voluminous earlier history. Am I correct that there is no substantive issue of content involved: that the dispute is over how the group of articles on the subject should be arranged and linked in the template? If so, this discussing is an example of what has become a frequent misuse of WP AN and WP:ANI, wasting everyone's time over the unimportant--some uninvolved editor should decide one way or another and the issue settled. If our procedure does not provide for this, it should be evoked by IAR. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Response The ANI thread didn't begin with any mention of that template and hardly anyone touched on it. It is arguable that Martinvl was not wise to risk appearing to edit-war over the template rather than engage with the ANI discussion, as that did prompt a request for the discussion to be closed. NebY (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I've had past run-ins with this editor, but I would have to agree with Nick-D - if he shows no intention to abide by his topic ban, an indefinite block is in order. --Rschen7754 01:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: The Florida stuff is a historical artifact from when servers where located there -- WMF now recommends simply "US law" per this wt:edit warring discussion. NE Ent 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If this ban is to be sustainable, then all three of the issues that I have outlined need to be addressed. So far, nobody has dealt with the vote-stacking issue. User:Wee Curry Monster's actions "ticked all the boxes" in respect of vote-stacking. In so doing, he introduced a systematic bias into this discussion. The introduction of systematic bias is sufficient to get the whole discussion declared null and void, and possibly for the proposer himself to be banned. Martinvl (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia processes work at all. We don't have formal legal-syle processes or apply formal legal-sytle tests as you are arguing here. There was a discussion of your conduct and how to respond to it (to which you had ample opportunity to respond), and the consensus was to apply a topic ban. The judgement of the admin who closed the discussion was sound and in line with policy. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl appears to be unwilling to acknowledge that multiple admins and long-term editors have dismissed his "vote-stacking" allegations as unfounded. Those interested can peruse the topic ban discussion above, and the discussions on Martinvl's talkg page (now deleted) to find them, but the most obvious one came in the closing by TParis. In short, Martinvl, the vote stacking case is done, caput, finished. You did not prevail. You were on the losing side. No one thought it was a problem. Get over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any modification of the topic ban of this editor who is doggedly determined to push a POV regarding measurement systems. Nobody stacked my vote; I am 100% independent. The editor has utterly failed to reflect on their own problematic behavior, and instead, as I see it, persists in wallowing in the swamp called "Wikilawyering". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Matinvl, if you wish to demonstrate to the community that your topic ban should be removed, then you will need to justify that in terms of your own conduct. To do that, demonstrate either that your conduct in the initial dispute was not problematic in the first (by focusing on your own actions), or that you realise your conduct was (and is) problematic and you will not do so again.
Realistically you need to reflect on your own actions, including the wikilawyering, and understand why your conduct is wrong. If can change your approach, and demonstrate that you have improved and are able to act in a collaborative manner (which will need time), then the ban will not be needed and will likely be removed.
Your quasi-legal approach, along with the failure to listen to the views of others (how many have told you to stop it?), has ZERO chance of getting the ban removed. As others have noted, you are heading towards an indefinite block.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 October 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.

Review requested[edit]

I have semi protected Amon Goeth for a week and indef blocked Benji7674 (talk · contribs), whose sole activity so far has been to remove material from the Goeth article. Seems pretty staightforward but I am posting here for review as I have done extensive editing on the article. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes to the block. The semi-protection now appears to be unwarranted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have taken off the protection as suggested. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2)[edit]

There are 11 pages whose edits by everybody require reviews. I really thought that level-two PC is no longer active. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

7 pages and one redirect, actually. The testing pages are allowed. The result of Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1 was that there is no consensus for use of PC2 on the English Wikipedia other than on those test pages. Was there a more recent RfC? If not, these should all be converted to full or semi protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no consensus to prohibit use of PC2, it's just not part of the standard protection policy. Peter James (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe that you are mistaken. Besides the above-mentioned RfC. Wikipedia:Protection policy is an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, and Wikipedia:Protection policy#Comparison table clearly states "Pending changes level 2 protection ... No consensus for use on the English Wikipedia per WP:PC2012/RfC 1". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no consensus to prohibit it's use either. There's Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3#Proposal but that proposal is "only to end the trial". If you're contesting the use of PC2 on these pages, Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus may be a reason to remove it if after discussion there's still no consensus on these specific protections, and local consensus can be used if there's no wider consensus. Peter James (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"No consensus for use" does, in fact, equal "do not use". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that the Conventional PCI article was protected as a Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which is policy. Mojoworker (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Permissions request[edit]

This being my public account, could you kindly apply all the rights and privileges of my regular account? Thank you. IneuwPublic (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

no Unnecessary: Your Ineuw account does not have any special privileges other than being "autoconfirmed", which your public account will achieve automatically 4 days after creation, once you have made 10 edits. —Darkwind (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That said, post this at WP:RFPERM (confirmed) using the appropriate template, and then follow it up with a confirmation post from your original account, and someone there will confirm it. That is, after all, why that board exists ES&L 18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP vio article moves[edit]

This is an incident. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Slavic neopaganism edit war[edit]

Ip keeps entirely deleting the properly sourced section "etymology" of the Slavic neopaganism article. See this diff for example.-- (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Permissions request[edit]

This being my public account, could you kindly apply all the rights and privileges of my regular account? Thank you. IneuwPublic (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

no Unnecessary: Your Ineuw account does not have any special privileges other than being "autoconfirmed", which your public account will achieve automatically 4 days after creation, once you have made 10 edits. —Darkwind (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That said, post this at WP:RFPERM (confirmed) using the appropriate template, and then follow it up with a confirmation post from your original account, and someone there will confirm it. That is, after all, why that board exists ES&L 18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Headaches with regards to Lynx (spacecraft)[edit]

I am making a request for some informal mediation to take place among the participants of the Linx (spacecraft) article and to review the behavior of User:Skyring. I think this needs to have a few additional eyeballs to witness the discussion and for perhaps policy to be explained to some of the participants as appropriate. Yes, I'm willing to be educated if I'm going over the top here too.

I would appreciate any assistance from anybody involved in this matter. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My observation, before I bailed out of that discussion for my own sanity's sake, is that Skyring/Pete (he signs using the latter name) is engaged in disruption involving a complete misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH, with refusal to listen and/or Wikilayering using weasel-words when contradicted. A quick glance at the shenanigans since then indicates no apparent change in behavior. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that the article relies too much on primary sources and obvious press releases. We should drop those and use the numerous good secondary sources available, such as those from the industry press and Smithsonian Air and Space. That's in accord with WP:PRIMARY. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, WP:PRIMARY does not exclude the use of primary sources from a Wikipedia article, and there is no need to perform a wholesale purge of those primary sources simply for the sake of using secondary sources alone. Besides, there are numerous secondary sources that are cited in this article, so I presume "too much reliance" is that any primary sources are used at all? --Robert Horning (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that article is not so much any one edit, but rather massive disruption to the process of building the encyclopedia by one particular editor, who repeatedly makes Bold edits (fine, as far as any one edit goes), and then refuses to enter into Discussions in good faith after his edit is reverted and a WP:BRD discussion started–because he continues to reinsert his edits (and/or citation deletions) into the encyclopedia while the discussion is ongoing (borderline edit warring, but usually stops short of the 4th edit in 24 hours (3RR); seems to be totally unable to hear the comments of multiple editors who challenge his non-consensus edits. That is the frequent reoccuring and general problem. When the disruptions initially started a few weeks ago, he also went WP:FORUMSHOPPING, plus opened up an AfD, on which a half dozen uninvolved editors did not side with his position. In fact, I don't believe any one of some ten or so editors who have dialogued with him have backed a single one of his positions. In short, disruptive behavior since his earliest edits on that article a couple of weeks ago. See the Talk page for more than enough background to assess what is going on there in that article; but he has also run off a couple of editors by arguing and not listening on other pages as well. Sadly, there is still a lot of work to do yet on that article just to clean up his previous deletions of citations. N2e (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggested earlier, on an edit summary, that this could be moved to AN/I, given that it mainly relates to complaints about my editing behaviour. On closer examination, this could be something of concern to admins in general, namely the use of primary sources in certain articles to provide high-value links to commercial organisations. In the case of Lynx (spacecraft), there are 32 links in the article, 13 of which lead to the manufacturer (XCOR) or their Caribbean ticketing agent (SXC). There were several more, before I began trimming them down, resulting in howls of outrage and dismay from the article's regular editors. Other similar articles display similar characteristics, such as:

There are undoubtedly more. This pattern of heavy reliance on primary sources seems to be rare in Wikipedia articles, at least for those with non-trivial link counts. --Pete (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So, now you're alleging WP:COI and suggesting this be taken to the kangaroo court...have fun when the WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Dear administrators. Would you please help me to update and overwrite MTN Irancell Logo? Current logo in wikipedia: New MTN Irancell logo: Thanks in advice --Hamid 2fun (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Any help? --Hamid 2fun (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Posting this request in the middle of the board, as opposed to the bottom where it belongs won't help - however, I have left you some image-related help on your talkpage. ES&L 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Admin. I did not post my request in the middle of the board. Please take a look at the dates. Thanks for your consideration but i did not get my answer. --Hamid 2fun (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't understand the problem. What you identify as "current" logo, File:Irancell.gif, is no longer the current logo; the current logo is File:Irancell Logo.gif, which appears to be exactly the same as the image you link to. I'm trying to verify whether that logo agrees with the company website, which is mindbogglingly slow--OK, I'm giving up on that, I hope their cell phone connections are better than their internet accessibility. The picture you linked is from the company site, so I consider that legitimate. The earlier image is up for deletion since it's no longer in use; in other words, there is no problem here. (Except that MTN Irancell reads like it was posted by the company.) Drmies (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, Thanks for your answer. I have uploaded the correct logo in wikicommons (while it seems that it is not the right place for non-free logos) and updated the article's source by myself. But now i am trying to find out how i can replace the correct logo with . Because it has been uploaded in the right place with a real copyright information. I may not need to replace the files. Instead, I need to know how to upload a non-free copyrighted logo. --Hamid 2fun (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Block Appeal by User:Colton Cosmic[edit]

No, per WP:IDHT, WP:OTHERPARENT and WP:SOMEONECAN'TCOUNTTOSIXMONTHS. Presumably the odd spacing Colton Cosmic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uses is to try and make it harder to find his appeals in the archives. Guess I've scuppered that, haven't I? Apologies, another block-evading (and now blocked) IP tells me that in fact it's because of an abuse filter stopping Colton Cosmic from typing his name. BencherliteTalk 12:57, 28 October 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 has been six months since my block was discussed here. At that time it wasn't lifted but I'll try again. I hope for a previously uninvolved administrator to volunteer to discuss my case with me at my talkpage (you will have to unblock me there). I was blocked more than a year ago on the basis of sockpuppetry, but I've always said I didn't do it. Like my very first edit says, I had privacy concerns with my original account so I switched to this, never going back. What Timotheus Canens says, though it took him a long time to explain it, is that I "stirred up trouble" with my new account and therefore it became a sock. I feel that it is wrong to characterize my contributions as troublemaking. Even in the short time before I was blocked I improved several articles, and authored one: Rain City Superhero Movement. It is accurate I was uncivil to Nomoskedacity (spelling?) I called him or her a "provocateur" and questioned his or her value to the project. But the context is I was aggravated because I viewed Nomo. as persistently bullying Youreallycan. Anyhow, if you are willing, let's discuss this at my page. The last thing I'd ask is don't accept allegations against me as true without letting me answer them. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, you just went through an extensive unblock discussion at Jimbo's talkpage ES&L 09:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's something I'd have brought up at my talkpage to any administrator considering my appeal. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You miss the point: as per WP:OFFER, you'll need to wait at least 6 months after your most recent appeal, which was to Jimbo. Seriously Colton, I have given you sage advice again and again - this one simply shows you have no desire to act according to the rules. You have no rights to edit here. Whether or not you feel the ban was just, it's been upheld by the community and by Jimbo. You now have to follow the processes to the letter. Stop shooting yourself in the foot by trying to circumvent things - it just proves the community and Jimbo right ES&L 09:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Editing as an IP while indef blocked is, by definition, block evasion. No appeal of the block should be considered, and the IP should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Policy (WP:EVADE) expressly makes such actions discretionary. You would be correct to say my IP "may" be blocked. To explain it from my view though, I've no alternative. My talkpage is blocked to me, so I can't appeal there. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c.
They've tried arbcom, they've tried Jimbo, now they're trying to find a WP:OTHERPARENT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's a few dozen editors who regularly state that admins are idiots. I suppose Colton's trying to prove that point and actually find one of those idiots ES&L 09:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude by not replying anymore to ES&L (aka Bwilkins) and Demiurge1000, but I'm beware "wall of text" that turns everybody else off. I'll squeeze though in that I'm not calling any administrator an idiot. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. GiantSnowman 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for block evasion. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

RfC regarding new userright[edit]

Please see this RfC regarding a admin-granted userright "reviewer permission" for AfC. I'll tread on the edge of the canvassing rules by saying that this proposed userright does not seem to be able to be implemented in a way that it will effect any real technical permissions or restrictions, and leave it at that. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You should have stopped after the link to the discussion. GiantSnowman 12:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. I really debated. I'll strike it out, not that that really helps anything. If anyone thinks it's a serious problem, please archive this entire section and place a more neutral link. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RE User:Medeis[edit]

The OP's suggestion to close this and move on is a good one. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 28 October 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.

For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death.

  • This editor publicly accused and threatened me, without even attempting to contact me, of and about:
  1. Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre)
  2. Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!)
  3. Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!)
  • First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed and had no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death.
  • Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for.
  • This is the text in question:

    On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death;[1] however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace "passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing".[2][3]

  • Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text:[3]
  1. ^ "Wallace's son claims she was cancer free at the time of her death" (October 2013)
  2. ^ "Marcia Wallace, Star of 'The Bob Newhart Show' and Voice of Mrs. Krabappel, Dies at 70". Variety. 2013-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-26.
  3. ^ a b "R.I.P. Marcia Wallace". Deadline. 2013-10-26. Retrieved 2013-10-26.
  • "editor has expressed OR on talk [page]" -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages??
  • This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis merits a block, in my humble opinion, particularly given his history of being blocked for abusive conduct. Quis separabit? 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Medeis notified of this ANI action. Quis separabit? 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOR is not applicable to talk pages; the first sentence of the policy page reads Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. You made three sets of edits in a 24-hour span before Medeis' edit, so even without looking at the diffs, I knew that you'd not violated 3RR. Meanwhile, the sequence of edits I find rather confusing, and a non-3RR edit war really demands a clear and non-confusing history. Even the strictest and most absurd application of BLP permits what you've added, and removing it violates WP:NPOV — there's a dispute over the cause of death, so our article mustn't mention exactly one of them. You're to be commended, RMS, for ensuring that the article retains the ambiguity over the cause of death. At the same time, this really isn't something block-worthy; I'd suggest that we close this now, only implementing any sanctions if it continue. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I just want to say that Medeis (I don't know if this is a he or she) accused accused me of 3RR and BLP, claims he/she has been "civil" with me when my first knowledge of his existence came when I checked my watchlist and saw this edit summary accusing me of this, that and the other, because Medeis was too lazy to look for the reflink at the end of a sentence/paragraph. I know NOR is not applicable to talk pages, apparently Medeis doesn't. Sorry, I am just really mad about being blindsided over nonsense by someone who didn't even have the decency to contact my talk page. Thanks for listening. Quis separabit? 21:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Response by Medeis[edit]

This is getting a bit absurd, given this was cut and pasted from AN3, where it was closed. I'll just ask admins to look at the language used by Rms125a above ("outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault "), compared to the complete lack of diffs to support it, and paste my comments here from AN3:

Actually, there's no strict violation of 3RR here by anyone, but the editor who needs addressing is
He has repeatedly added uncited material to the article claiming Wallace died of pneumonia, diff; claiming repeatedly that her son said she was cancer-free until his last edit, after being challanged; arguing his own personal OR and BLP violating opinion "my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial" on talk, diff; and attributing quotes to the Mirror without any such reference, diff, diff. Of course, the claim of pneumonia and that the son had said she was cancer free nay have been true, but unsupported they were subject to removal, especially given the article's Recent Death listing.
Then, when my communication with him has been nothing but civil, he insults me and people with disabilities on my talk page: "you are evidently a slow learner/special student" diff and files this incredibly hostilely worded AN3, with no 3RR violation on my part.
Please admonish or block Rms125a.

Or better yet, just close this summarily. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets work on her article to expand it and not get bogged down in her death. That is indeed part of being sensitive to the subject and family per BLP policy isn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Mark, and also that this be closed out. I am not going to keep repeating the same things over and over. I never claimed she died from pneumonia and went out of my way to point out the discrepancy re cause of death, and added external reflinks, which if I mishandled somehow I regret but it was not intentional. And NOR doesn't apply to talk page discussions, which Medeis should know. Medeis' behaviour here is both inexplicable and execrable, but I am moving on. Quis separabit? 22:31, 28 October 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.

Jumu'ah should be corrected to Jum'ah[edit]

The title of the article Jumu'ah is an inaccurate transliteration of the Arabic word جُمْعَة jumʿah. The short "u" does not exist in this word. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to start a requested move discussion on the article talkpage ES&L 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've just done so. --Akhooha (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Range block of Colton Cosmic[edit]

He continues to disrupt, the last few IPs have been: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is a range block feasible? GiantSnowman 12:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The allocation is a /10, that's around 4 million addresses, so probably not going to be range blocked. --GraemeL (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As CC keeps edit warring on this page using a variety of IPs, I've semiprotected it for 12 hours. 28bytes (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
His disruption is not limited to this page; see also Jehochman's talk page, amongst others. GiantSnowman 12:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the four /16 ranges above. They are very busy, and any rangeblocks would cause too much collateral damage. I'll also note that since they are mobile ranges, single IP blocks are almost completely ineffective - he hopped over at least three ranges in just the past hour. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got the time to edit filter 564 this morning. Any competent filter editor (King of Hearts, perhaps?) that wants to try adjusting it to block his latest antics should feel free. Otherwise, I'll try in about twelve hours.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The filter was fundamentally flawed in the way it was attacking the problem, so I rewrote it. This, at a minimum, works against recent edits and should be a little more resilient. However it should be noted that unless tripping the filter results in a very quick block, EVERY filter will eventually fail to catch something. I'm going to add this filter to the list of automatically reported filter hits if it's not there already. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Shirik: I've optimized your filter, see notes. m.o.p 03:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Undid that one, m.o.p. Look through the filter history and you will see he has access to wider ranges than that.—Kww(talk) 03:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Kww: My mistake, didn't see those. Since that range can't quite be filtered for, I'd suggest incorporating the other line - checking edit deltas takes a bit more time. m.o.p 03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
What I wrote should be very heavily optimized; everything it uses except for the last check is already computed. I don't want to talk more about it than that because it's a hidden filter, but we can discuss it over email or whatever. I note that removing the check you're referring to would actually be disastrous to the filter's performance; it should be there, even though functionally it would produce the same result without it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Marcia Wallace[edit]

User:Medeis is now vandalizing the Marcia Wallace article which was the cause of the AN just yesterday (see [75]). He has now determined by fiat that the comments of Wallace's son regarding aspects of her death, which helped cause yesterday's AN discussion, in which Nyttend ruled against Medeis on every point, are "unimportant". I reverted his vandalism but he will undoubtedly respond by restoring the edits, hence trying to initiate an edit war. Please hand him the lengthy block he deserves. Quis separabit? 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently every single edit to this article is going to be met with screaming. (Note that once again we don't get a diff form Rms125a of the edit at question, while Rms125a finds it necessary to revert two entirely unrelated edits of mine wholesale.)
There's no vandalism. The AN which was "caused" was Rms125a' sole doing. There's no such "ruling" allegedly by Nyttend--the complaint was simply closed. I do happen to think a comment on the beliefs of Wallace's son that contradict all published reports are out of place in the article as undue weight. But that's BRD, not vandalism. Can someone please tell Rms125a to stop this nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There is this may only be in my imagination....but I feel my memory serves me well enough to say...take it to DR/N as this is clearly a content dispute. I said on my talk page Quis separabit, please stop accusing editors of vandalism unless it clearly falls within that scope. This does not. Also...this is not an issue about an admin or even anything I feel admin should intervene in at this time. Eventually they will....but I don't think you'll like that outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Mark: you can call me Robert. You stated on this very page (above):

"Lets work on her article to expand it and not get bogged down in her death. That is indeed part of being sensitive to the subject and family per BLP policy isn't it?"

So can you tell me how I am supposed to deal with the other editor mentioned on this page who removed by fiat the comments of Wallace's son (part of the subject's family you made mention of, no) when there remains a discrepancy. Her son says she was cancer free; the friend says she died of complications of that disease. Maybe this article should be 1RR until the editors can agree on how to proceed. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Her son is not a doctor or a medical expert is he? It may be worth a mention but is not the clear reason to her passing and your continuing in this manner is VERY insensitive to that family. Seriously. Please stop. As I said, this is just a content dispute. Take it to DR/N please.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal by Dolovis[edit]

There is clearly little to no support for lifting this topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 17 November 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.

Following the advice given to me here, I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per WP:BRD such as this one, or from even taking part in move discussions such as this one. I thank you for your consideration. Dolovis (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff for the topic ban is here, if I understand rightly. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The requirement of any request to reduce a topic ban is to, in the request, prove:
  1. The editor has been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project, without similar problems
  2. The editor shows how they will behave in a future, assuring the community the the problems that led to the ban will not recur
This request meets neither of these ES&L 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could explain to us what led to your topic ban, and what steps you will take to avoid the behaviours that resulted in it? Resolute 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending answers to ES&L's questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Response to Resolute's questions:
    I was topic banned as a result of this ANI. At that time I thought was editing in accordance with instructions found at WP:REDCAT. I was adding Template:R from diacritics to redirects (a common practice as can be seen with redirect edits at Igor Bacek, Milan Balis, David Arvay, Tomas Bokros, Miroslav Bobocky, Emil Bucic, Tomas Bukovinsky, Tomas Bucic, David Buc, David Skokan, ect.) however, because adding a second edit to a redirect prevented non-admin edits from moving articles without going through WP:RM, it was characterized as “gaming the system” and I was blocked and also topic banned from editing diacritics.
  • Response to ES&L questions:
I was blocked from editing for six months in April 2012, but I did not return to editing until a full year later in April 2013. In the past six months that I have returned to being an active contributor to Wikipedia, I have stayed away from the issue of diacritics, and have demonstrated that I have been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project (mostly within the ice hockey project) without similar problems.
In the future I will not directly move any articles which contain diacritics in their title, but will only follow the written policy and procedures as outlined at WP:RM/CM. Dolovis (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I will preface this with the statement that Dolovis and I severely disagree with each other on several points (and diacritics is one of them), and are on less than friendly terms... I do think your answer above is a tad simplistic, as you were banned from moving pages, then once that was lifted, banned from diacritics for resuming similar actions. However, I presume that you will not be gaming the system in this same fashion in the future, so I see little threat there. Likewise, I will vouch that your editing under the Dolovis account has not repeated such behaviours since you returned. The six-month block, however, was for sockpuppetry and involved using sock accounts to continue your anti-diacritics push. You are not banned from using alternate accounts, but I do trust that you are not actively using any undeclared socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future? Resolute 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Reply to Resolute: Given the amount of interaction we have on Wikipedia, and the large number of edits we have made on common subjects, you probably are better aware of my editing style than anyone else on this project, and I appreciate you vouching for my editing behaviour. If you are looking for a declaration, I will give one: I am not using any socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future. Do I have your support to lift the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Truthfully, I expect that lifting this ban will result in our opposing each other in various diacritic-related RMs. As much as I personally would rather not deal with that, I can't use our difference of opinion to keep you on the outside. So yes, in this case I am willing to support your request for another chance. Resolute 17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced Topic bans do not come out of a single incident. They only come to AN/ANI when everything else has been tried first. When multiple members of the community tried to guide Dolovis, they refused - continuing down their path of "editing in accordance with instructions" - even though advised time and time again that they needed to stop. The ANI was a culmination of many, many attempts to get Dolovis to stop, including (if I recall) more than one trip to an admin noticeboard. This outright refusal to follow guidance was a key to the topic ban, and I do not see those behaviour addressed above, in fact, it's suggested that the topic ban was due to a one-of incident, which is patently false ES&L 08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What would it take to convince you? The topic ban was for an indefinite period, not permanent. Please advise me what more I need to demonstrate for you to support lifting the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Honesty, perhaps. You state that the topic ban came out of a single situation, which is patently false. You were told again and again to stop, but you refused. You therefore FORCED the community to topic ban you. In other words, you have proven that you do not have the ability to actually LISTEN to policy and advice, and require enforcement action to be taken - which is an absolute waste of time and energy that should have been directed towards useful article work. If someone tells you that you're acting out of policy again in the future, what will be your reaction? What steps will you take? Do you even yet understand what was wrong that led to the topic ban in the first place? There are so many unanswered questions here, and the silence is deafening. "I'm a good editor, who cannot do a task" was basically your original request - sadly, you could not do that task because you were not being a "good editor". You're asking the community for a favour, and completely refusing to give the community the warm fuzzies that might actually permit them to grant you a favour - you seem to wholly misunderstand how much of a timesink you have been in the past ES&L 11:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
My topic ban appeal request is sincere and honest. Topic bans are supposed to be used to prevent disruption, and not as a form of punishment. I am disappointed that you are relying upon semantics to suggest that I have somehow been less than honest to discredit my request. Of course their was some history prior to the topic ban being imposed; I have not stated anywhere that there wasn't. But I have made my request with all sincerity asking for a repeal of the ban based on my constructive edit history over the past seven months. Dolovis (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Question (from a non-admin) Hi Dolovis, you're making valuable contributions and it's good to see you back, but when you give the diff for wanting to be released from this topic ban as relating to a move by User:Djsasso of a French-Canadian BLP which you had created as "Jeremy Blain" and which DJSasso moved to Jérémie Blain (for reference ["Jérémie Blain is" Hockey] gets 4 280 plain ASCII html Google hits, and another 339 with the full WP:FRMOS accents, ["Jeremy Blain is" Hockey] gets only 8 results relating to a wrong Jeremy Blain, a software trainer whose company has trained some hockey players.) the question it prompts isn't "great, there should be an RM", but why did you create a French-Canadian known as Jérémie in full sentence sources (using "" to weed out crude player listings) as "Jeremy" as if he was an Anglo-Canadian in the first place? I'm not suggesting you created it purely so another hockey editor following the agreed WP:HOCKEY guidelines would move it and then you could complain here, but why didn't after the move you check first to see whether the other hockey editor's edit summary was correct, because it looks like it was. Sorry, but I think this is relevant since you cited this diff as a reason for lifting the ban. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I created the article based on English-language sources. All English-language news sources that I found use the non-diacritics version of his name. You should also be aware that this topic ban prevents me from creating article title using diacritics, so even if the Blain article is the exception to the Wiki-policy Naming conventions (use English), I would be prevented from titling it with diacritics. But the broader issue is that this topic ban bars me from even raising the issue of a controversial move, which per WP:BRD would otherwise be my right. I believe that I have demonstrated through my edits and conduct over that past seven months that I deserve the opportunity to edit without the stigma of a topic ban. Dolovis (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Dolovis, BLP articles on en.wp except your stub creations are spelled using the living person's French, Finnish, Czech name. The original conflict with other hockey editors reached a peak with you creating a hundred Czech Hockey League stubs WP:POINTEDLY in 52-character abcABC fonts (reminiscent of 7-bit ASCII) which you then redirect-edited locking them preventing editors following normal BLP practice. And you're saying that the terms of your ban prevents you from creating BLPs at living French, Finnish, Czech peoples' names? Can you please link to where an admin told you that the terms of your ban restrict you to doing exactly what caused the fight in the first place?
There was nothing POINTY about my creation of article stubs for notable European hockey players, and you trying to paint my good faith editing as something else is disappointing. My topic ban warns me in bold font that the topic ban is to be “broadly construed”, which is why I would not want to create articles using diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As for "Jeremy Blain," you're not listening. The 3 database sources in your article Elite Jérémie Blain, Jeremie Blain, Jeremie Blain all have the French name. Instead of 48,500 Google hits for "Jeremie Blain" Hockey you chose to use as a source a photo uploaded to a blog by a Chicago Wolves fan with "Jeremy Blain" - among the 1% of Google hits with "Jeremy" - the problem isn't the sources, the problem appears to be something else. But the point is that after User:Djsasso moved according to English sources, leaving a clear edit summary to check English sources, you didn't check sources before citing the diff (you again didn't check or aren't recognising English sources in the above reply to this question) and you ask for a lifting of your topic ban so you can object to a move done following 1% of blogs and no full sentence sources. This doesn't look as though you are willing to follow the guidelines at WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice and the consensus established there. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, but the link to topic ban text is broken, presumably there is a link before [this?
I am genuinely sorry to see that the answer is "no." That no admin told you that following WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice was a breach of your topic ban. Therefore it is your own interpretation that the topic ban obliges you to conflict with WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice. Goodwill would have assumed you e.g. simply missed the ö in the Dennis Nordström source, in creation of Dennis Nordstrom, without ö, but now you say you deliberately left the ö off because you believe the topic ban required you to continue to do what you were doing before you were topic banned? This doesn't make any sense. How could you think the topic ban required you to start creating a new set of diacritic-less stubs after the hassle with the previous stubs. The consensus at WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice is, it seems, in part at least a response to the Czech stubs. And you took "broadly construed" to mean do the exact opposite of what WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice says? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This user has repeatedly found any means possible to try and game the system. His choice of example of article that he would like to be able to edit is a perfect example. Almost all the sources on the article and the vast majority on google as In ictu oculi mentions have his spelling one way. And Dolovis purposefully created the article without. His modus operandi while being blocked has been to rapidly go through as many player databases as possible to create articles for players that have diacticis in their name but to create them without the diacritics in them as an attempt to force the non-diacritic version to be the default fall back position in a case of no-consensus. That being said almost every move discussion has ended with them being moved to diacritics. He uses almost any method possible to push his agenda including the above mentioned situations of double editing redirects to prevent moves, sock puppeting, etc. He has been an very large time waster for a large number of editors. He has shown he is unable to edit constructively in the topic area and as such has to have the community force him to stop. The wiki will not be improved by allowing him back into this topic area. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    I have no agenda other than trying to build a better Wikipedia. To suggest otherwise is patently false. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 29 October 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.

ANRFC thread open for over one month[edit]

Wikipedia:ANRFC#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You might consider posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure; there's quite a queue for admin action right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This is about ANRFC, I believe. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh thanks Pink. I guess I should have had coffee before replying; my bad. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Reply - Good morning Diannaa, thank you for your reply. While I appreciate the suggestion, posting twice in the same forum will put me in the exact same position as we were in before. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko socking[edit]

At this point, most of the discussion below has little to do with Kumioko, who has quite correctly pointed out that no matter what blocks and bans are sent his way, he will continue to opine on the failings of the project whenever and wherever he likes, from whatever account or IP he wishes to use. If there had been any appetite to sanction him for violating our gentlemen's agreement regarding IP address use, someone would have done so by now. Unrelated arguments between and about Fram, Jimbo, EatsShootsAndLeaves, PinkAmpersand and others can continue elsewhere, if they need to be continued at all, which they don't. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 28 October 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.

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146#The disgraceful state of Wikipedia, Kumioko (User:KumiokoCleanStart) is editing as a variable IP ([76][77], and as himself[78], but repeatedly pretends to be two different editors[79][80] and uses that as an argument that he is right (" That editor is accused of being disgruntled and angry and then the user responds to several comments essentially confirming what I started the discussion about."). While he is not fooling any experienced editors, it is still a violation of WP:SOCK. He was blocked early in 2013 for socking ([81]) and unblocked on the condition that "has agreed to edit solely from User:KumiokoCleanStart and not any other accounts or IPs. User:Kumioko remains globallylocked." I have no idea if that condition remains or has been lifted afterwards, but it doesn't really matter, since the socking he did in that discussion is never allowed. I'm not neutral or uninvolved wrt Kumioko, so I can't take any action here, but I don't believe this kind of disruption should be tolerated. Fram (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see Fram is up to his old tricks again. Just to clarify a few things:
  1. Point one, I am disgruntled and angry. That parts true. I'm also a a Leo, I eat meat and I know how to use a shovel, that still doesn't mean I am socking.
  2. I have told Resolute several times over the last few days. I have used that IP a couple times in the past. That doesn't mean I am socking, I'm not trying to mislead anyone.
  3. That discussion and the vast majority of edits by that IP (as well as, and the rest of the Navy) aren't me regardless of what Fram or that piece of shit checkuser program say. Those "experienced" editors he is referring too are mostly abusive admins that have wanted me gone for some time know because I have been vocal and critical of admin abuses and various other things that need to be changed for the better in this project. Since the project would rather keep abusive admins than to fix the system or get rid of them, frankly you deserve what you get at this point. But you can't say I didn't try to make things better.
  4. What Fram and the checkusers don't tell you and generally don't want known is that the crappy checkuser application is wrong as much or more than its right and its extremely hard to use and interpret, particularly with high volume editors. It will show you I edited from this account, a couple Ip's (several of which are proxy servers used by a large number of people), that I use Windows, XP, 7 and 8 and Internet explorer 7 and Mozilla Firefox. Probably some other useless associations too.
  5. The end state of this AN discussion is irrelevant because other than responding to notifications and talk page comments I have only made 3 edits in a month and a half. So it really doesn't matter to me if you block me or not. Because your going to be hurting the project, not me. But that hasn't mattered here in a long time and that's a large part of the reason why I left.
  6. As a point of fact though, the block will do nothing to "protect Wikipedia from harm" because nothing has been harmed. So this block would be purely punitive and petty initiated by an Admin who has tried to get me (and most of the other highly active editors I might add) banned from the project for years.
  7. Fram has done more harm to the project than I ever could in his quest to ban all the high volume editors. Because the more edits you do, the more likely you are too piss someone off and give them a reason and excuse to block you.
  8. I would also add that unless you intend to range block the entire navy (138.156 and 138.162) and the entire verizon fios network, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me from editing if I want too.
  1. Additionally, just to clarify some things. The Kumioko account is globally locked because I made that happen, not because I was guilty of some widespread abuse. That comment is typical of Fram's ability and tendency to exhaggarate the truth to justify his own Point of view.
So in the end, do whatever you all want. Because I have tried and failed to make this place better. Their are widespread problems and the community either doesn't see it, doesn't care or doesn't agree. So I have gone from being highly devoted and productive editor in the project project who believes in the intention of the goals of it, to being inferred and insinuated as being just another Vandal, sockmaster, POV warrior etc. This is mostly done to discredit me so the admins can continue abusing editors with impunity and protecting their POV edits, but who cares right. At least I'll be gone and you won't have to hear about all the problems; 10, 000+ edits won't get done a month; WikiProject United States and about 100 other US related projects will finally be allowed to die with no one supporting them; etc. So go ahead and feel free to block this account indef, make the site so that IP's can't edit and an account is required; go ahead and do all the other stupid things that will be the demise of this site. RANT OVER because no one is going to read this OR CARE!Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, look - in general, I (and I expect others) support your attempts to improve this project. However, in order to get those benefits, we have to far-too-regularly put up with WP:DIVA, WP:POINT and other ridiculous bovine excrement. That part of things is tiring. So, don't be surprised that when you PERSONALLY have a history of pointiness and other bullshit, that some people AUTOMAGICALLY ASSUME that you're simply continuing the same damned pattern. Whether it's you or not, because of your history, it sticks to you. The best idea would have been to not create the pattern of ridonculous behaviour in the first place, n'est-ce pas? ES&L 11:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
With respect, I seriously doubt that anyone, including you support my anything. That is not the feeling I have gotten....repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Also, to which "pattern of ridonculous behaviour" are you referring. Me trying repeatedly to get the WMF to pull their head out of their nether regions and fix Visual editor; my constant attempts to instigate reform to the RFA process; my frequent comments about how the editing environment is toxic in WP because abusive admins aren't held to court; etc.? Or are you referring more specifically to my tendency to once a year get driven to the point where is say F' it I quite because I get tired of the insults, blaming, told how I can't be trusted; how WikiProject United States is so massive and unmanageable (which by the way is far far smaller than WikiProject Biography with about 2 million articles in it)? If the latter is the case, excuse me that I can only take so much before I get fed up. You all are right though. Generally in the past I have come back, but this time, I am really done. After I post this I am going to remove my email address so the notifications will stop being sent to me. That way I'll quite being blamed for Divaish activity because I replied. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"I have used that IP a couple times in the past." and "the vast majority of edits by that IP [...] aren't me". Looking at [82], the edits from 16 October are clearly Kumioko, the edits from 17 October are clearly Kumioko, but the edits from 18 to 24 October aren't you? The edits from [83] are even clearer: the edits from 18 October, made between 18:20 and 18:25 are clearly by you, but the next ones, starting 16 minutes later, are not by you? (Note that here one IP adds to the comment of the other, so we can at least be sure that the two IPs are the same editor here, before that gets denied as well). The IP claims "I do not think I sound anything like Kumioko. They are very angry, I am indifferent.", but I guess that it is better to let uninvolved editors make that call. Fram (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I find Kimioko's attempt at faking split personalities to be rather sad and childish, but I don't view it as disruptive, per se. He's not double !voting on anything and he certainly is not misleading anyone. I would suggest he simply stick with one or the other however, because all he does with these little games is undermine his own credibility. Resolute 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Kumioko has retired. - Who is John Galt? 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Several times, IIRC. This retiring statement is a bit over the top. [84] Ansh666 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Just a thought, but if people would quite pinging me with notifications I would quite responding. I guess I could remove my email address from the site so I won't get notified, but if you all don't want me coming back, quite calling. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • People get notifications for diffs? That needs to be fixed... Ansh666 20:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a setting in your preferences ... you can choose to be e-mailed if someone posts on your talkpage, or (IIRC) when they reply in threads you mark accordingly. ES&L 09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: I know, but I thought that was for direct links only. I don't see any of those here, only diffs, which use the external link syntax. Ansh666 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside whatever's going on with Kumioko, I'm bothered to see that Fram is in any way involving himself with Jimbo's talk page, from which he is banned. Seeing as this is the only way Jimbo still exercises his right to unilaterally sanction editors, and seeing as Fram is, as far as I know, the only sitting admin to which he has done this, it seems to me that Fram should spend more time thinking about his own conduct than that of others. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has banned me because I unearthed some examples of very problematic editing by him, e.g. his attempted outing of Edward Snowden, coupled with an appeal to other editors to help him in this. He wants to use his user talk page as an alternate forum for all editors, but one where the normal rules for such fora don't apply, and where he can unilaterally ban editors who are too critical of his actions. Either he should use his user talk page for his own edits, like other people use their talk pages, or he should make it an open forum, where the normal user talk pages rules don't apply. But he wants, whenever it suits him, to have the best of both worlds, a little fiefdom where he can control and steer policy discussions. He has found one willing admin to do his dirty work for him. That doesn't mean that I can't watch his talk page or note people acting problematically there (he has never complained when I reverted vandalism or removed socks from the page). I see no reason to reflect on my conduct because some person can't handle criticism of his actions and misuses his position in such blatant ways. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Administrators are expected to treat others with collegiality, especially their fellow administrators. It is inappropriate for you to pursue a personal vendetta against Jimbo, and the fact that you cannot see this disturbs me. This is not because he's the project founder; if anything, it's in spite of it—it would probably be more inappropriate for you to behave like this toward any other admin. I encourage you to re-read your comment and consider some of the things you're saying.
  1. First of all, anyone can banish others from their talk pages, within reason. This is a longstanding practice, and the exceptions to it are few and far between.
  2. Secondly, tons of people run their talk pages as alternative fora of sorts. User talk:Drmies comes to mind. A user is allowed to control what he wants on his talk page. If that seems like "the best of both worlds" to you... Well, you're welcome to try to turn your talk page into the same. You'll find there's nothing in policy preventing it.
  3. Thirdly, you're repeating inaccurate and insulting allegations here, on matters that have already been settled as well as they ever be. I see that you have similar material on your userpage. Once again, if this were about anyone other than Jimbo, it would be removed immediately.
For someone so eager to hold the Big Bad Founder accountable, you are alarmingly unaccepting of criticism. Why not open yourself up to recall, if you're so much against abuse of authority? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that I called Fram on it - even clearly stated that if I saw them violate Jimbo's request to stay off his talkpage that I would block them for disruption and harassment myself. Of course, when I'm on leave from my admin account for a few months, I cannot jump into the fray like that, and Fram has increased their visitations to that page, rather than decrease ES&L 09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that I have increased my visits. I do believe that you were not aware of my actions there (e.g. asking me to do vandalism reversions there and so on, when I had been doing that on and off for years), and are now more closely following them, which creates a perception bias. Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Which insinuations are "inaccurate and insulting"? When someone states that he wants to know whether named person has edited here, has found a username which he has used on other sites, and then states, after having been warned of the potential outing issue: "I looked for a couple of variant spellings and found nothing, so I asked to see if others could find anything." (bolding mine)[85], then there is no other possibility under our policies than to consider this a violation of our WP:OUTING policy, and a request foo others to join him in this research. That Jimbo Wales then declares elsewher that ""I am not, ocntrary to the false headline, engaged in any search."[86] (bolding again mine) is him contradicting himself in a very blatant way. So please, tell, me which "insulting and inaccurate allegations" have I repeated here? Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
As numerous users said at the time, it seems pretty clear to me that Jimbo was just asking if Snowden was a known Wikipedia editor, not asking for people to try to find whatever secret accounts he may have used. Your insistence to call this months-old incident outing, and to bring it up inprovoked, is what I find insulting and inaccurate. This as good a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK as there ever was; get over it, take the rant off your userpage, ignore everything involving Jimbo, and get back to trying to improve the 'pedia. And, I ask you once again: Why are you not open to recall? Do you hold Jimbo to a higher standard than you hold yourself? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Boomerangs for evrybody involved for being overly diva-ish and violating your respective bans. KonveyorBelt 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussing something that another editor did on some page doesn't violate a dubious ban on posting to that page. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean he's not permitted to do it, and have it enforced - you know that ES&L 09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
He can do it. That you want to enforce it is entirely your choice though, and the way you implemented the ban was a textbook example of admins acting on personal preferences and dislikes instead of following policies. You were and are severely biased, and shouldn't involve yourself in this in an administrative capacity. Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, what? I didn't implement Jimbo's ban; he did ... I'm not acting on my "personal preferences and dislikes", and how would blocking you - as per Jimbo's prerogative to ask you to stop editing his talkpage - be "involving myself" improperly. Your logic is somehow escaping not only me, but the gravitational pull of Earth ES&L 10:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The short discussion that lead to you claiming that you would block me if I edited his talk page again (and that I wasn't allowed to edit your talk page again either), clearly showed your prejudgment and lack of impartiality. Acting upon a blocking threat you made in a clearly partial and prejudiced manner would be a block while being involved, not a neutral block by an uninvolved admin. It's the reason I brought Kumioko's clear socking here, instead of acting upon it myself. Admin 101 for most admins. Fram (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
What? Shake your head Fram ... I'm not "involved" simply because you claim I'm involved. My reminding you that Jimbo had specifically advised you to never post on his talkpage again, and a warning that I would block you if you did was purely an administrative capacity. It had no relevance to our discussion - other than the fact that I had your attention, and that when you replied to it, you were therefore acknowledging that you had READ the warning. I have no interest in Jimbo's page, and have no interest in you. Any block that you get due to continually harassing Jimbo on his talkpage against his wishes would not fall under any unusual reading of WP:INVOLVED. That is Admin101, Fram. You're an admin - you're here to set an example, and uphold the rules. Continually posting on Jimbo's page when he said "stop" is setting the worst precedent to other editors. ES&L 11:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Duh, it's not the blocking that would make you involved, I never claimed that. Your prejudice and personal comments about an editor make you involved, and if you would then block them, no matter if the block was otherwise valid or not, would make it an involved admin action. If you make comments like "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly", which is a clear personal attack and indicates a prejudice about how someone is "as a person" (going past "discuss the edits, not the editor" to making claims about the person), then you are not the admin that should afterwards block that person. As for the rest of your remarks: we have one person here with the "founder" flag. If he doesn't care about leading by example (or does care, but in reality is leading by bad example, time and again), then people should call him out on it. He regularly tries to stifle critics from his page (you know, the one with the open door policy), perhaps I'm the only admin among those, I haven't checked that. But for some people, it is apparently more important to uphold to the letter a user talk page policy which is hardly applicable in his case anyway, so that he is not disturbed when he makes incorrect claims, violates policy, misuses his admin tools, ... Some people have very strange priorities. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You're funny, and I like that. The warning was given, and you read it. You then tried to provoke a fight in order to make me involved in order to invalidate the warning. I closed it without responding to your baiting. Nice try. You should do standup. ES&L 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baiting? You made claims about my edits, I asked for evidence, and you refused to give any "Out of respect for you". I haven't done any baiting there or elsewhere. Asking for evidence is not "trying to provoke a fight", and providing evidence for allegations made is something all editors (and especially admins, "you're here to set an example") should do upon request. Instead, you closed it with an unwarranted personal attack. While you may have the tools and inclination to block me, you don't have the necessary position to do so under our admin policies anymore. Fram (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
You keep living under that bizarre belief, and good luck trying to continually justify your inexplicable actions. Cheers ES&L 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
At least I try to justify my actions and statements. If you had started out doing the same [[User talk:Bwilkins/Archive 12#Claim at ANI|here], I might have had a more favourable opinion of your edits and considered your block threat. But threats based on malinformed or biased opinions? No thanks. Fram (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Can you two please stop your bickering? I know these are 'teh dramah boardz', but jeez... GiantSnowman 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll shut up now. Fram (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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


This was the wrong place to begin with, and Darkness Shines brought this up at ANEW while I was merrily typing away. Close, therefore. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 30 October 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.

In the article Iran–Iraq War a user is using false claims to remove WP:RS. Despite warnings to first discuss it first on the talk page, he continues with the push pov. I'm trying to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO of the page, but again he refuses and uses argumentum ad nauseam in the talk page to try to get out of that. I'm tired of this. Coltsfan (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm using reliable sources in both article and talkpage (Talk:Iran–Iraq War#Death tolls), while you're just forcing irrelevant third-rated publications, reverting and accusing ("pov pusher", "vandalism"). --HistorNE (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, this is fun. Two edit warriors walk into a bar, and call each other out. There is no punchline, only an explanation: this is the wrong bar. You should be at WP:ANEW--both of you. (I note that HistorNE has already been blocked once for edit warring, only two months ago.) Y'all are lucky Bbb23 didn't see this, cause he has little patience for edit warriors. In addition, HistorNE seems to think that referring to an edit as "retarded" is acceptable: it is now (see edit summary in diff above). Coltsfan seems to have missed the HUGE orange bar above this very edit screen I'm looking at that says "notify the other editor".

    I've warned both users for edit warring, with a beautiful template. They should maybe consider WP:DR or some other kind of mediation. The next one to revert gets a free block. Yeah, it sucks--I know the WRONG VERSION is currently up, but what can you do. Hash it out on the talk page. In addition to blocks for edit warring, full protection of the article is an option as well. Hash it out on the talk page, preferably with a third party, or seek dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the wrong version will stay up? Reliable sources were removed and that's fine? Important changes were made without any consensus but hey, no problem? Since no consensus was necessary to remove the informations, then one does not need a consensus to put them back, right? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to find some consistency in this train of thought. As far as I'm concerned "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way". Coltsfan (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Your sarcasm is appreciated. If I had reverted the other one would have been here to claim that "charlatan sources were reinserted". WRONGVERSION may be listed as humorous, but it's serious as well: admins are not supposed to jump in and make content decisions. Find the proper venue, please, at any of the places linked above. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How nice you find this situation humorous. The guy removes reliable sources because he considers them "charlatan" and he gives no explanation whatsoever for it and it's fine, right? So I can go to any article, remove any source I want, change any information without consulting any other users and I'm the wrong one in this situation? And worse, the article continues on the wrong version? And I don't say "wrong" because I think so, I'm saying wrong version because it should had stayed in the version prior to the WP:EW and a consensus should have been studied, but none of that happened. But rules... why bother making rules worth a damn, right? And that, my good sir, is sarcasm. And btw, I'm out. Since you don't care (you should because, as a administrator, the rules should mean something to you), why should I waste my time on this?! Bye. Coltsfan (talk) 18:29, 30 October 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.

Will an admin kindly evaluate consensus and close this?[edit]

A topic ban discussion involving Loomspicker (talk · contribs) was archived before an admin would properly close it. Could someone please tear themselves away from the Eric Corbett admin pissing war and dramapalooza, or elsewise, and please close it? Thank you - MrX 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from moves[edit]

Is the following statement correct?

Every talk page in this category which does not have a page history or any other special issues, can be speedy deleted?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Eric Corbett[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This thread has burned itself to the ground 3 times over at this point: Actions in the near future: A RfC/U will be presented to discuss the interactions into and out from Eric Corbett. Everybody goes back to editing and improving the encyclopedia. Collapsing for the good of the community. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Eric Corbett's actions over the past 24 hours have shown that he has returned to his less productive persona. I find this a shame, but every single edit he has made since returning from his 3 hour block has violated any number of civility based policies. I have therefore taken the step to indefinitely block him. As discussion on his talk page is unlikely to be productive over the next 24 hours, I've taken the unusual step of protecting the page for that period, so that calm discussion can happen here. I should also point out that no ban discussion should happen without re-opening his talk page, to allow Eric to participate, though I think participation in the next 24 hours would be unhelpful. WormTT(talk) 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. If you don't like his particular and/or peculiar way of arguing, just don't read his page. Eric tends to cool off when he's done being hot, and this shouldn't interfere with the discussion here. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Calm discussion here. Right. We know what will happen. Those wanting to ban until the end of time (and beyond) will muster their most strident arguments, as will his defenders along with those who just don't like those who want to ban. If this is supposed to be the high ground it looks more like a cesspit from the edge. Intothatdarkness 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That is no different than any other issue on wiki (or the real world really). You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like. (Alternatively, Gotham has the Batman it deserves...) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Show trials are show trials. Intothatdarkness 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
How does one excuse Eric's behaviour?
I don't want to see Eric blocked or banned (yes Eric, really). However given the choice between him editing and not abusing others, using editing to abuse anyone and anything that moves, or just blocking and having done with him, I see one choice that it's beyond anyone other than him to choose and two where one is very much the lesser of two evils.
We have a rule: you don't use these terms to other editors. It's a simple enough rule. If you can't work within it, you don't have the maturity to be part of such a community. Eric gives no indication of being able to. It's beyond me why he can't or won't, but that's his problem and it should no longer be ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, poking a hornets nest with a stick always helps. It seems you've made up your mind that you're going to push for a ban, which is hugely regrettable. I'd prefer if you were to strike that and see where things stand tomorrow once things calm down. I find it quite astonishing actually that you block his ability to respond then discuss the idea of a ban. That's really not very nice. Nick (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps a request for arbitration would be a better way to handle an appeal of the block than a noticeboard discussion here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Nick, I'd personally oppose a ban, but was trying to stop the conversation before it started. WormTT(talk) 15:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's curious that at least two admins let the poking and provocation just above the final blocks slide, as one example:

Not to mention "cunt" [8]. Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) [87]

For a very long time, Mally's (Eric's) point about civility was the double standard in the way it is applied. That trend has only become worse over time, with other editors increasingly being able to get away with more, and their admin friends defend their even worse, wholly unprovoked attacks, while blocking Eric after he was poked at with not even a warning to the poker. (No diffs supplied on the even worse transgressions allowed by other editors since anyone paying attention knows which personal attacks I'm referring to, from an editor with a long history of same, but dragging worse examples into this will only derail this conversation. I do like Arsten's idea of an arbcase: I've got some relevant diffs to supply.) Fram or Worm, why did you not protect Eric's talk as soon as the poking started? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@Worm, I think protecting Eric's talk page was a fabulously good idea, and was something I've been on the verge of doing myself for the past 12 hours. I think raising the stakes with an indefinite block was a bad idea. The blocks should be doled out after the calm discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion indefinite =/= infinite. I'm hoping that some calm discussion would agree what we expect from Eric should he return, and then he can be unblocked, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Seems a lot shorter than 3 months to me. WormTT(talk) 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to support Worm's actions here and to echo indefinite != infinite. I see an indef (which Eric could resolve tonight if he wished to) as much preferable overall to 3 months. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sandy, that was indeed one of the reasons I protected the page. 6 minutes after that very post, as soon as I was aware of what was going on and had read the history. I'm currently in the process of writing a up a statement regarding my indef, then I was going to deal with other comments on that page. I'm getting to it, but you'll have to give me a short while. WormTT(talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Worm, appreciated. It would be helpful if admins who stood by and didn't protect talk explained why they let Gaijin42's post slide, and whether they do not find it to be equally attacking, even if no fing is used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
After seeing this comment I went to user talk:Eric Corbett to see if EC had ever been warned for incivility and if so to block the account, if not to give a warning. I support the block, but I suspect that as Intothatdarkness says this will get messy. SG as to a warning this user has had lots of warnings so why do you think that another would be appropriate? SG please supply a diff for Gaijin42's post. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
PBS, you don't seem to be paying attention. Not only is the diff there ... even if it weren't, it's not that hard to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
SG where is the "there ..." that your are referring to and what is the diff? It would help me and probably others (and those that read this record when it is archived) if you would be explicit when making such statements. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone else please help PBS find the now two diffs posted on this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have posted two diffs on this page. Which diff are you referring? -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with SandyGeorgia here. If we're going to be sanctioning someone for reacting when poked, can we not address the poking as well? The hot-headed comments that get EC in trouble don't form in a vacuum. I seem to recall a massive ArbCom case not too long ago that said as much. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And most of this started with the usual seasonal editing surrounding a page Eric and Parrot of Doom have put a great deal of work into. It happens every year, and usually generates some sort of drama. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The biggest poke of all came from that exemplary admin role model, Fram. No wonder Eric was so incensed. There would be something wrong with him if he wasn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Where did I poke him? Please compare his reaction before and after the block (the only action I took here). I don't see any difference, so my "poke", the block, didn't make any difference to him being "incensed". Fram (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. Indefing someone who is being poked and prodded on his own talk page is completely unnecessary. Frankly, a f**k off is hardly something to block someone over in the first place - it means pretty much the same thing as 'buzz off' or 'go away' and someone has to be fairly thin skinned to be offended by it. Sort of like putting someone in jail for jaywalking. Am very disappointed in worm (who is, generally, a reasonable sort of chap). --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a fan of the current level of profanity et al allowed, accepted, tolerated here on Wikipedia, but I do understand the point of the double standard, the fact that other posters can say even worse things with or without fing c's and still get away with it, and the issue of poking. I don't defend Mally's (Eric's) language; I do understand the broader points. I hope. And Worm has said he is still composing a post of his reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
RP I do not agree that this comment is the equivalent of 'buzz off', particularly as there is no other comment on that page which are directed toward EC that could conceivably deserve such reply. -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree Sandy. And, I can't really understand why someone who as handy with the English language as Eric obviously is, has to resort to profanity to make his displeasure known. But, we live in a world where profanity is accepted and I don't see how we can effectively ban it from Wikipedia. Profanity is actually less offensive than, for example, what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric Corbett's page. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric's page was arguably worse than a simple profanity, since it was just like a diagnosis (a psychiatric one) about his entire personality, not just a "one off" profanity. Does Gaijin42 have the expertise to make such a diagnosis? Even if he has, did he carry out a medical examination for which he should have got informed consent, in order to reach it? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then it was a direct and profound personal attack.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
User:ddstretch Not sure where you are going with this. Melodramatic and passive aggressive are not psychiatric diagnoses. Nor did I attribute such to his personality, but to the specific statements he was making. I did not acuse him of being bipolar, or schizophrenic, or any such. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This farce has happened too many times. Someone pokes Eric. Things escalate, until Eric crosses some line. Eric gets blocked. Parties who did the poking get nothing. (AFAICT) I haven't read all of the diffs, but it sure fits a pattern. I wish I thought Arbcom involvement would help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm putting this together to explain my reasoning. Overall, I consider myself a supporter of Eric, I do believe he's one of our better editors from a content perspective. However, I do believe he has stepped over the line a number of times. He has been blocked for long periods and has had many of those blocks overturned as unfair. Some, however, were fair. A three hour block yesterday for his actions on the Guy Fawkes especially[88] was a reasonable block, indeed it was softer than many other users would get. Eric vented on his talk page and was needled targeted through the block. He left Wikipedia for the night and returned this afternoon. Not one of the edits he made was remotely productive. From returning to the article for more direct insults (which he knew goes does poorly with the community)[89] to anti administrator tirades, every single edit made was unacceptable.

    I removed his talk page access as he was being provoked, though the provocation was not an excuse for his behaviour. There would be no sensible discussion there. I've only removed it for 24 hours, at which point I hope that he will have calmed down and be able to discuss the matter rationally. If he feels he can do that sooner, he is welcome to email me (or any other administrator), who may remove the page protection. Please do be aware that people will be provoking him should that protection be removed, which is why I didn't remove talk page access for just him, but for everyone. If an admin removes it, I hope they'll be watching his page.

    What do I think should happen next? A discussion at AN about what we expect Eric to do. It might be some sort of civility parole, it might be to stay away from certain hot spot articles. It might even be that he should be able to act like that with complete impunity, but it should be decided. If Eric agrees with whatever the community decides on, the indefinite block should be lifted. Should anyone want to take this to the arbitration committee, I will of course recuse. Should anyone believe my actions as an administrator were grossly unacceptable, my recall procedure is at my userpage. I've got to drive home now, but will be available for further comment soon. WormTT(talk) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

    One problem with your reasoning is that history shows your approach won't work. What will work, perhaps, is dealing with the double standard and the pokers. Mally (Eric) does not return "calmed down" when the pokers get away with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia I fail to see how pointing out a recent example of Eric's NPA failure (with diff) constitutes a issue on my part. For the record, I have no grudge against Eric, in fact recently putting a happy ferret/weasel video on his talk page [90] and holding a friendly coorespondance off-wiki with him about ferret hammocks. @PBS my diff is [91] which includes a link to the diff by Eric [92] where he called (either me or an anon IP) a cunt. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you don't; I'm not here to talk to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia. I think you should apologize to Gaijin for your impolite remark to him. When you post at this forum you talk to all of us. Gaijin is a user of good standing in the community and has of course full rights to participate in the discussion – not least when it is an issue that he has been directly involved in – and to expect to be treated with the same respect as all other users. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I am talking to people who understand that Gaijin's poke was an attack and that the double standard is still alive and well, even after a full arbcase. Neither you nor Gaijin seem to understand that, and those who don't understand, won't no matter how much I type. So, I'm not here to try to convince you either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia You’re basically saying that you don’t want any conversation with people of another opinion than yourselves and don’t seem to respect them much. My view is that Wikipedia is a community where we all have a say, and were we are expected to discuss and work together in order to gain consensus. I haven’t been involved in or followed much the dispute leading to Corbett’s last block, but noticed he called the blocking administrator for “impotent arse hole“. Since double standard has been mentioned: I doubt there are many users here who will say so to an admin who has reprimanded them for incivility and get away with it. A minimum requirement for unblocking Corbett should be that he gives a sincere apology for this comment. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Again. You doubt that someone else would get away with same? Whether you aren't paying attention, or you are just unaware, you are wrong. They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please give an example with diffs of "They often do same or worse". -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
PBS, are you able to read what is on this page? You are three for three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I assure you that I have no one reading this to me, so you can take this reply as an answer to you first question. I do not understand what you mean by "You are three for three". What is the evidence best evidence you have that "They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it."? a few diffs would help because I have not seen worse than this on Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to say that I completely agree with everything that SandyGeorgia has written here. The double-standards that seem to be operating need to have firm action to end them.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Especially since they're not limited to Eric. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, the poking was inexcusable, but so was the reaction - all parties involved here should know better by now. Is Eric's long-term history of incivility and personal attacks embarrasing (for both him and the Project) and disruptive? Yes. Should he be indef blocked for this latest shameful episode? No. GiantSnowman 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to my post as the poke, not that it had no impact on Eric's actions resulting in a ban, as he was banned for actions he had already taken before my post. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
He was not banned (focus please). Once again:[93]

Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis mine. It would have been nicer to just say what that message really says, which is something along the lines of, "fuck you, asshole, you got what you deserved because we all know you are passive aggressive and did this on purpose". You don't seem to see a problem with your poking, which has long been precisely one of Eric's points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Slip of the tongue, I meant blocked. Eric calls me a cunt. I post something about it on his talk page, and I'm the one who instigated it. Your logic is flawless. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • He didn't: "If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one". Semantics are important. Did I miss a diff where he actually called you a cunt? And how is "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche" NOT a personal attack? It's so tiresome to see all this focusing on one word, not even used in direct address. Why would you go to someone's talk page to piss on them? What did you expect to come out of it, except for momentary relief? Drmies (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That's basically equivalent to the old "But he started it!" (a classic of the genre). That shit didn't fly when I was 5 years old and trying to pin stuff on my younger brother; it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly now. If your comment had been "Eric, I was actually really offended by your comment, can you please retract it?" or something equally milquetoastcivil, that'd be a different story. But it wasn't, and it isn't: it's the same old story, it's the same old game. Writ Keeper  16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
(e/cx3) I think it's the manner in which you posted it, almost certainly knowing about previous "Eric incidents", and yet you still went ahead and did it inhe way you did. I think that a more correct way would have been to either say nothing, or be completely neutral in your response. I don't think you were: it was a "counter attack" and you probably knew that Eric would react again.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No wonder Eric gets frustrated. Gaejin, focus! I never said you "instigated" anything. Ditto per Writ Keeper. I asked why admins let your provocation and poking slide (and I see that Worm has now addressed it with you and you still decline to see the problem). You can end this faster by admitting you poked, and that was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. Gee, I am so sorry Eric called you a name, you believe that Eric called you a name, and that rampant name calling is allowed and tolerated on Wikipedia (depending on which admins one has for friends), but you are missing the other point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Strike, correct, better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I suppose congratulations are in order to Spartaz, Fram and Worm for upholding the standards we have come to expect from our admin tradition (though disappointing to see you there Worm). This is what we get when hundreds of lose cannon admins are allowed to operate with no centralised control and not even a mission statement. The real problem here is our unreformed admin system, which cannot operate skilfully the way it is put together at the moment. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@ GiantSnowman Yes, the poking was inexcusable obviously, it was excusable, as it happened, and no actions have been taken. Or does "inexcusable" measn something different to you?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: ah yes, because rashly blocking everybody involved, as opposed to dsicussing next steps, is a sensible move. GiantSnowman 17:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Come on, GiantSnowman. You know what's at stake here: perception of unequal treatment. The way to solve that is of course not to block every poker--but blocking the bear is even worse if the pokers don't even get a slap on the wrist. What am I supposed to do, as an admin, give Gaijin a templated warning? Block him for that foolish remark? No, because I don't want to be that kind of administrator, and I don't think the other admins who are opposing this ridiculous block are either. I wish the others involved could take their fingers off the block button; the only thing they're achieving is continuing the perception that single-word based civility policies ("fuck", "cunt") are in effect and other kinds of incivility is overlooked. Or maybe it's not a perception; maybe Eric is right. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On what basis would you block Gaijin42? Preventative, not punitive etc. Like I said, we need to decrease the drama, and issuing more & more blocks is not the way to do that. As for "unequal treatment" - well, I've already said that the indef block should not stand. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Your sarcasm does not decrease the heat, that's the problem. I wouldn't block Gaijin on any basis, but a civility cop who has more at their disposal than a simple checklist could. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
What sarcasm? We seem to be agreeing that Gaijin42 does not need a block - so why are we arguing? GiantSnowman 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I admit to being disappointed in you Worm. The whole situation became uncivil because of Anselm citing civility policy in an uncivil way. Few people appreciate sanctimony and it is not uncommon for someone to get a little tasty when faced with sanctimony. We need to look at the actual cause, rather than the series of incidents that occurred afterwards. This comment is what prompted all of this and it is far from blockworthy. Anselm's sanctimonious cries of incivility over that comment got Eric to say he doesn't give a fuck what Anselm thinks, leading to Anselm's templated warning about "personal attacks", and Eric's testy removal of said warning. Everything from that point is a product of snotty-nosed sanctimony on his talk page regarding the block. As far as I am concerned, Eric has been indefinitely blocked for calling a discussion "bone-headed" and suggesting people find something else to do and such a block is invalid on its face.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, and that's saved me some typing. Frankly, nothing is going to change here until (a) some admins stop throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti (that's not a particular dig at WTT, though it is one at Fram), and (b) those who instigate such actions through ill-advised poking the bear receive the same sanctions as those they provoke. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? Fram (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
TDA would you consider blocking EC over this comment (Notice it was not in response to a comment addressed to PoD not to EC). If yes then for how long? If no then what would you consider blocking someone under incivility? -- PBS (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, let's see ... how about the last time you blocked Eric Corbett after he'd been poked to death by Doc9871 (who got away scott free)? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
(If you don't remember, that was the one that led to two admins handing in their bits and one going on Wikibreak before being undone early - looks like your mission to rid Wikipedia of Eric has gone slightly better for you this time - so far). Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That was a one month block, not an indefinite one. Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? Fram (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hm - I didn't mean to put "indefinite" in there (fairly clearly, as I was talking about your 3-month block). Apologies if that made it unclear. The rest of my comment, however, stands. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Much has been made of the so-called poking. Note that the comments by Eric Corbett which directly caused the block were some 12 hours after the last post to his talk page, and were posted, according to himself, "after some serious consideration"[94]. None of the posts since his previous reply on his talk page can be considered poking either (so it's not as if he got a yellow "new messages" box, read those, and posted "incensed" about them, to borrow another editor's description. As far as one can determine, Eric Corbett posted his personal attacks calmly and deliberately, not in the heat of the moment.

Was Gaijins comment after the block ill-considered? Perhaps, or at least badly expressed. But it hardly raises to the level of the attacks by Eric Corbett. Fram (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We have different opinions. I think the remark by Gaijins by far more uncivil than Eric's comments.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the part "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage" is the one that you consider to be (most) problematic? It seems to me to be commenting on edits, on style, not on the person. Erics comment was directly about the editor though. One is slightly incivil and ill-considered, the other is a personal attack. Gaijin should have left out that part, but I don't believe that the rest of his comment was a problem, and nothing in it was even remotely blockable. Fram (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't just the words, but the timing. If I told you that a mutual acquaintance borrowed $20 from me and never paid it back, that remark would be, well, unremarkable. But if said to the widow while she knelt before his casket... the same words would be perceived differently.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

I was initially unhappy by Worm's action, but I'm coming around to the notion that they may have been prophylactic. Unfortunately, strong words continue to be thrown around (and I can't exclude myself), when it might be ideal to pull together a summarized sequence of events. I've often seen EC say things that make me cringe. I've yet to see such a incident unprovoked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request for data/evidence and comment? I have no dog in this fight, but I am trying to put together some actual data on the provoked/unprovoked question. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I fully cop to making a single nonconstructive statement as part of my WP:NPA response. I would however argue that my statement was perfectly accurate. As the OP to this thread pointed out Eric made a series of 20 or so consecutive edits that he obviously knew were in violation of policy, at a time when he knew the all seeing eye was on him. He made his posts either with the intent to flaunt his immunity as obviously as possible, or to get blocked. Could/Should I have posted differently? Yes. FWIW I in fact have apologized to Eric for poking him via email (which he explicitly declined to accept). The greatest reason I am sorry for my action is because I inadvertently provided a convenient October_surprise to allow everyone to talk about something other than Eric's actions. His actions were ridiculous, and obviously require a block, but I do not advocate for that block to be indef, nor do I advocate for a ban, as I think if he can cool off he is a very valued member of the community. User:Drmies, thank you for your post on my talk page and here as well. I respect your opinion greatly, and accept your admonishment. I have quibble with your interpretation of the semantics in Eric's post, but I think going into it would only further derail this discussion, so I again (publicly this time) apologize for my poke and consider myself duly chastised. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

?? You use the word "accurate" as if it were a rebuttal to incivility. I daresay that everyone onevery one of Eric's comments, even those I would agree are uncivil, are "accurate".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that everyone will accept that your public chastisement and apology is equal to Eric's block! I do not think so.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm going to post my thoughts, but don't take them as is however. I kind of knew this would happen. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has a policy of saying bad words such as the f word, and I haven't actually read the policy, but at least basic teachings from my grandmother tells me we should never say these things to complete strangers in public places (which I would apply to here) and more importantly, be nice. I do admit that Eric is definitely being provoked, and I do not know if I did as well, so I'm sorry if I did, but I do see that he has been getting posts that are designed to provoke him. By that, I mean some are trying to get a rise and trying to get him in trouble(no I did not deliberately try to do this, at least not purposely...) It's kind of hard to explain, but I do support the block... indef is kind of extreme however, but he needs to cease and desist this profanity, it isn't in the sites interest, and I don't think it's good moral to keep this up. Sooner or later, it's time to stop this. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Next step?[edit]

Solid consensus on this proposal.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:21, 31 October 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 have a great deal of respect for User:Worm That Turned as an administrator, but I don't think the indef block was the correct approach here. I understand that, in theory, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but I don't think anyone realistically expects Eric to negotiate unblock conditions, so we're essentially left with the choice of banishing a productive but prickly editor, or not. I think we ought to come to a consensus here which it will be, and my thought is that we reduce the block to 24 hours and be done with it. That won't make the people who think he should be banned happy, and it won't make the people who think he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place happy, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that recognizes it's not really OK to call people cunts and idiots and arseholes – whether provoked or not – but also takes into account the reality that sometimes our valuable contributors say and do things they shouldn't and it's not in the best interests of the encyclopedia to kick them off the site forever for it. 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Concur. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support GiantSnowman 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If that's the will of the community, I certainly won't stand in it's way. However, we've been here before and if we don't work something out, we are likely to come back here, as we know. However, Eric needed to be blocked for the comments, and 24 hours is a lot closer to the right length than 3 months. WormTT(talk) 18:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No doubt we'll be back here the next time someone lands a unilateral 3-month (or whatever) civility block without gaining consensus for it first. I cannot see any reason for civility blocks to be more that a preventative 24 hours (especially, as in this case, whilst Eric's RFC/U link is still red.) Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason for that is because everybody knows any attempt at an RFC/U would become an absolute circus, given Malleus/Eric's very well-known position on WP:CIVIL and the group of editors for whom he walks on water and for whom any attempts to enforce anything against him are made by rogue admins with horns, spaded tails and tridents. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Circular reasoning that, though; if an RFC/U is not possible now, it's precisely because various admins kept insisting in landing ridiculously punitive blocks on him when their first stop should have been AN or ANI. I bet that half of those, if they'd been short blocks, would have ended up standing when they were inevitably taken to the drama board. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – as a compromise with the dark forces --Epipelagic (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • weak support Support longer. 3 hours didn't work. A previous 1mo didn't work. with that knowledge in hand, 24 hours seems unlikely to work. to be an effective measure against recidivism (and copycats), there has to be an actual credible threat of a real penalty. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support Agree entirely with Gaijin42. --GraemeL (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at EC's block log short blocks have not been a deterrent from incivility the longest block to date seems to have been a month shorted to about three weeks. So I think that the block should defiantly bee more than a month (two or three) with the proviso that next time there is a breach it will be doubled. -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support original proposal by 28bytes — ChedZILLA 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (aka Ched)
  • Support, but. Despite having occasionally crossed swords with Eric on the various drama boards I have the utmost respect for him as an editor - my interactions with him as an editor have, indeed, been calm, constructed, and greatly appreciated. What's needed, though, is that he recognise that, whether he agrees with it or not, and whether he likes it or not, WP:CIVIL is in fact one of the Five Pillars. Yes, he gets poked a lot, because some people think it's fun to poke the bear. But his well-voiced opinion of WP:CIVIL needs to, at least, be filed in the "agree to disagree" folder.- The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support 28bytes' proposal. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Meh. Not really sure what this accomplishes – there really is no way this works; as mentioned above, we know Eric's position on WP civility, we know a block will not accomplish anything, and we'll be back here again soon anyway, so this seems to me like a punitive block, as it will not prevent a future incident. That said, short of an indefinite block, which is also not a good idea, nothing will truly stop the behavior. I am at a loss. A topic ban from the user talk namespace also seems unfeasible, so at this point, I would support unblocking until this eventually ends up before those who make the big bucks. Go Phightins! 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with regret - would prefer unblock. The above discussion provides an unusually clear illustration of varying standards on incivility. Whether we like it or not, there are usage communities in which the use of "curse words" is acceptable, and usage communities in which it's a bright line never to be crossed; and there are also usage communities in which attaching a psychiatric label to someone as a form of disagreement is acceptable behavior and others in which it is insupportably rude. We are unfortunately stuck with these differences, and civility is an important grease in a huge, international project where there will be a lot of disagreements. But I for one consider we do not do nearly enough to discourage snideness, or even direct verbal attack, and in this instance I'm with those who consider Eric was less rude than others were to him. Also, note that his rudeness was confined to talk pages, almost entirely his own, so I have less understanding for the reasoning given by either blocking admin, that all his edits since being unblocked were non-constructive. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Immediate unblock I cannot believe (a) that Gaijin42 remained unblocked despite their behaviour and (b) is getting to decided, in part, what happens to Eric. To be allowed to bait a user into a block should not be permitted, to allow that same user to discuss the unblock is fully worse. If it wasn't too bloody late and the block had drifted from preventative to punitive, I'd block Gaijin42 now. I will, as an alternative, make it absolutely crystal clear they will be blocked the next time they pull a stunt like they did today, make no mistake. Nick (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, would support immediate unblock also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose 24 hour block, support indefinite block until there is promise of change. I post this as an involved user (I posted about Eric's incivility at WP:ANI yesterday) though I suspect many people are involved in some way. Eric has been blocked multiple times in the past for similar incivility, and it has had no effect on his behavior. The solution then isn't to say "It's not working", give up on blocks and let him say what he likes. The "solution", such as it is, is to have an indefinite block until we receive a promise of change. As someone said above, indefinite is not the same as infinite. But if Eric, or anyone else, is allowed to interact with editors the way he has been doing, then Wikipedia will be a toxic place to work. StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support proposal by 28bytes. There must be some sort of compromise between those who want him infinity blocked and those who want him immediately unblocked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why kick this can down the road when we know with 100% certainty that we'll be back here to waste time discussing it in a few weeks when it happens again. Something needs to be decided once and for all, or else Eric will invariably tell someone to fuck off again, and generate another predictable gigabyte of useless discussion and warring about the inevitable short-duration block he receives for it. This is the twenty-third time he's been blocked for incivility since his Malleus account was first blocked in May 2008 (no comment on how many of those were "correct" blocks, as that would be impossible for all of us to agree upon). I say we stop wasting time and draw a line in the sand. Either we agree to allow Eric to have special privileges to say whatever he wants with immunity, or we come up with a set of civility guidelines that he must agree to as a condition of being unblocked. No one is asking him to grovel to an administrator as a condition of being unblocked. We're just saying, "look, don't call people names, don't insult people's intelligence, and if you get angry with someone don't use profane words to express your frustration." While such conditions are arguably a bit stricter than what most other editors have to deal with, I think it is reasonable to impose slightly more well-defined boundaries on an editor who has been blocked 23 times for the same thing. If he can't edit under those conditions, then he shouldn't edit at all. I don't think that's asking too much. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I can't believe people are willing to waste time on this any more. No contributor is worth this.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    I can't believe that people are allowed to blatantly bait users and get away scot-free. No baiter is worth it. Sportsguy17 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support immediate unblock per Nick. Support action against those who baited him. --CassiantoTalk 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scottywong and Kww. Eric - follow the basics of WP:CIVIL as the rest of us are all required to, or else go away. We can and will survive without you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG oppose - WP:CIVIL is not optional! If you cannot follow it then you deserve to be indeffed. Any admin that does not indef for such gross violations of this core pillar are undermining it and the encyclopedia. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Further: If the block is reduced without a guarantee that the incivility MUST stop or the next block WILL be a guaranteed indef with no reduction or release until it is guaranteed that this incivility will stop then I WILL escalate to ArbCom as the community CLEARLY cannot enforce WP:CIVIL in this case. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock I'm very disappointed in the number of seemingly sensible editors who condone the use of profanity directed at other editors and I'm frankly astonished that anyone can think its ok to compare anyone to a cunt as part of a what should be a collegiate discussion but long blocks don't work and are over strict for the behavior anyway. I'd have supported a short block but this is excessive and time served is enough. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Support 24hr block - We've lost far too many great editors this year, Eric may be uncivil at times but yet he's a great editor here, & IMO doesn't deserve an indef over it, Those poking him should be sanctioned!....
-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While action should be considered/taken against anyone who is found to have provoked Eric, there can be no doubt that he has a long history of deeply problematic behaviour and exhibited it yet again. It does not benefit the project to enable his behaviour by circling the wagons in his defence every time his mouth gets him in trouble. For that reason, I would oppose any arbitrary time limit on a block. The ball is in his court, and when he is prepared to behave within community expectations, then he should be unblocked. Be that five minutes from now or five months. And this can be considered concurrently to any discussion on anyone else found to be acting similarly poorly in this situation. Resolute 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Epipelagic.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -I've heard worse language and personal attacks and bullying taking place on here and by admins at that. The sooner we accept that Eric occasionally snaps and calls somebody a cunt or an asshole and don't batter an eyelid the better. Banning him isn't going to improve wikipedia, we're an encyclopedia not a school of manners. It does get tiring seeing the repeated process and drama which ensues but if you stopped reacting to him then it wouldn't happen. Why can't we just shrug and say "whatever, so what" anytime he calls somebody something? We can't afford to throw away anybody who edits wikipedia productively, uncivil or not. Unless he makes serious threats to kill somebody or delivers disgusting racial taunts at somebody banning somebody indefinitely over something like this is more preaching than sense over what is best for the website. No, it isn't acceptable to call anybody anything, but it happens, and you react like this to it. Why an admin can't just silently delete it and move on beats me. It becomes an excuse for more wiki drama everytime this happens. It needs to stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is just the latest in a seemingly endless parade of incidents demonstrating that a permanent ban of this individual is long overdue. How many more years are we going to have to put up with this nonsense? — Scott talk 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Eric is supporting our First Pillar - how many others are? e.g, Fram, how is this user-friendly and welcoming to new users? Do you think you could have at least done a smidgen of source-hunting?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
side discussion involving Drmies, Fram, StAnselm and Cas Liber regarding Fram and the First Pillar NE Ent 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Wow. Is there a templated warning for tag bombing? I did a smidgen on one of the articles; I'll look at some of the other ones as well. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Welcoming to new users? One article that Drmies sourced after my tagging (and which otherwise would have remained unsourced) was from January 2009[95], the other one that would have remained unsourced otherwise was from June 2006[96]. Perhaps focus on the issue at hand instead of trying to derail a discussion with completely irrelevant nonsense? E.g. noting that you are not supposed to pick and choose between the pillars, and that working on the first pillar doesn't mean that you can ignore the fourth one: Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Fram (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
        • The issue at hand is that this has blown out of all proportion - the issue at hand is that we are here to write an encyclopedia - the issue at hand is civility and atmosphere. I reckon tag-bombing loads of articles does more to dampen new editors' enthusiasm due to the fact that maybe two orders of magnitude more people are affected, than by some profanities directed in the heat of an argument. About 98%most of Eric's editing time is spent building or reviewing content - how much of yours is Fram? (i.e. so don't go pick and choose pillars, to I can cope with the occasional blow up as long as passers by don't blow it out of all proportion - I watch the content of this place closely and see what gets improved and by whom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, if you're asking for statistics, Malleus Fatuorum had 61.14% of his edits in article space, while Fram has 62.94%. Eric is now on 72%; you're on 50%, I'm on 86%. I'm sure these numbers don't mean anything, but I thought I'd point them out. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I was waiting for that one - I could go on to look at qualitative analysis of edits but I think that is getting off track. sigh..I must do less drama boards and more content one day... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
            • (ec) But Eric Corbett's mainspace edits are of higher quality than mine. Statistics are meaningless, and not really important anyway. It is because of his mainspace edits that he is still around after all this years, a non-productive or minimally productive editor would have been banned years ago. But that doesn't mean that his article work necessarily grants him infinite protection or some extra-special status. Fram (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
          • No idea of percentages, but by far most of my time here is spent reviewing content, yes. I couldn't find old hoaxes or delete other undetected problematic pages otherwise. And in the course of this, I tag pages for some major problems as well, like being totally unsourced. If you feel that new pages shouldn't be tagged as unsourced, then feel free to propose a policy in that regard. If you want Wikipedia to become a pure meritocracy, then propose that as well. But use another venue than this totally unrelated discussion for it. Fram (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
            • No I don't want it to be a meritocracy and hate the non-level playing-field nature of it. I have no problems tagging articles sometimes but for it to be all someone does? Just even a few times in 500 mainspace edits it'd be nice to see some sign of collaborative editing...just a few..that'd be nice. The point is as I made above - which do I wonder is worse for new editors/onlookers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -- This user is clearly here to build an encyclopedia and actually follow the purpose of the website. The reason we end up here is because users are willing to get in fights with him and deviate him from being productive. It makes me sad that people can bait all they want and will be given at most a reminder while the user who was baited and snapped gets the beating. Most of the time, the users EC calls an asshole are generally assholes who were looking for trouble. Unblock him, stop the fighting, and lets go make some GA's with Eric, eh? ;) Sportsguy17 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Scottywong, Kww, Andy Dingley, Resolute, PantherLeapord, et al. Fram's 3 month block is the correct block. The reason blocks don't persuade Eric is that they don't get longer and longer like they're supposed to, so he doesn't take them seriously. Just enforce policy. -- (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Immediate Unblock given that the people who were goading him have not been similarly blocked yet. NOT Blocking the goaders, or NOT taking action against the admins who reach for ridiculously long blocks as their first response to Eric will certainly strengthen the perceived lack of even-handedness here.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This editor resolutely refuses to accept one of the 5 pillars, and has consistently behaved in a way that drives other editors away from Wikipedia. Slaps on the wrist have had no effect. A long-term block is the only solution. -- (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, it's block Eric time, when the IPs come out of the woodwork, having forgotten their old log-in information of course, and lo, there appear the unverified claims of editors being driven away and blah blah. I call bullshit. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I have been editing Wikipedia for many, many years as an IP editor, precisely because of people like Eric. Without a stable talk page, I can only be bullied in public, and not by personal attacks on my talk page. That makes Wikipedia a little more bearable. There are plenty of studies on the exodus of editors from Wikipedia, and the reasons for that exodus. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And might I remind you to observe WP:AGF, regarding that snide "forgotten their old log-in information" comment. I'd support a block on you as well. -- (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I see, it's just on this particular occasion you felt it necessary to edit from a mobile phone, yeah? I call bullshit too. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I support the IP's proposal to block Drmies. How dare he raise suspicions about a suspicious IP that has come out of nowhere? GiantSnowman 11:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
            • If you're genuinely suspicious, there's always WP:SPI, but what I'm seeing here is breaches of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and a strong slice of "foreigners go away, this is our Wikipedia." Yes, this is how I always edit. And it's not a mobile phone, it's a tablet. -- (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
              • It's OK for Mr. Congeniality's posse to close ranks around him when he acts up, but it's not OK for IP editors to say they prefer that policy be (finally) enforced. Go figure! (Down with IP-phobia!) -- (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scottywong. Someone who cannot accept the matter how productive they are, can they be part of the community? Cheers, LindsayHello 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. But I would prefer an immediate unblock. And I do think that admin Spartaz should lose his tools and be de-sysop'd. (Why? For behavior unbecoming of admin. What behavior? Look at Malleus's Talk page - Spartaz went back-and-forth with sarcastic exchange w/ Malleus, after his block. It is understandable that Malleus might be perturbed from being blocked on the basis he was, but even then, it seemed to me Malleus was cool and asking logical Qs of the blocker [afterall, Malleus is desensitized any more to BS blocks like this]. But Spartaz was all-too-willing to play ping-pong w/ Malleus sarcastically, when if he were acting in becoming-admin behavior, he simply would have stated his case as dryly as possible, accepted any flashback gracefully, then exited the discussion. Instead he hung around to prove one-upmanship "superiority". Unbecoming. Baiting. He s/b de-sysopped.) I'm very happy that this discussion seems to be indicative of a systemic turning of a curve finally ... Very very smart & experienced editors (SandyGeorge, Devil's Advocate, Epipelagic, Black Kite, 28bytes, and DDstretch [I haven't read the latter before but he is very smart]) are all concurring that this is a bunch of nonsense (and it makes me feel proud to be on WP as a result - there are many intelligent editors here!). Intelligence is finally winning over. That said, all the calls for "But but but! Malleus violated the PILLAR. Can't tolerate that!" is BS lynching stuff, since the "pillar" is ill-defined, and doesn't attempt to identify poking or baiting, or dishonesty, or other forms of incivility that are perverse, that humans have honed for all of history since language was invented (and likely even before). What I'd really like to see is a wall of text from Malleus, where he would feel free to speak his mind in detail about what is unhealthy and wrong with the current system and how it should be re-fashioned for the betterment of the encyclopedia aims and everyone involved. But I can understand his disinclination to do that because his solutions would call for restructuring & change ... and as he has pointed out and I think others will concur, "Nothing ever changes around here." (So basically, why waste his breath?) So I'm glad for the editors named to step in and stop anything stupid from happening, like a lynch. To all editors who say "Off with his head!" I have a personal message for you in word-efficient Malleus style: Go fuck yourselves. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOJUSTICE. It matters not who provokes who or even who said what. It doesn't even matter, really, what Eric said. What matters is whether or not the project is disrupted and who is central to it all. It doesn't matter if that person is the cause of it, or if a herd of others are responsible for it. It only matters whether disruption exists.--v/r - TP 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That kind of attitude is one of the many things wrong with Wikipedia. Just because this site is not about justice does not mean it is about lynch mobs. At least, that does not mean it is supposed to be about lynch mobs.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • *shrug* It is what it is. There is crap on both sides of the aisle. Pick the smallest pile.--v/r - TP 14:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What a surprise, people are claiming that someone who's chronically incivil should be allowed to get away from it "because he's a valuable contributor" (read: he has a whole bunch of people who are willing to scream and whine on noticeboards about him). This sort of thing has gone on for years and years with so many different people. Why not just MFD WP:CIVIL already? It's clearly not being applied evenly. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - as really, incivility is a rampant problem throughout the site that exists because of passion, rarely malice. Indefinitely blocking for incivility only serves to limit the amount of emotion people can bring to their work, which will have a chilling effect on contributors. Many of the worst offenders in terms of incivility are very productive editors in every other sense of the word. Blocks should be given in context, and yes, part of that context is the value of a contributor to the project in other ways and what lies behind that value: ie, why they edit here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock now that 24 hours are up: Note to any uninvolved admin: this section has a pretty clear consensus, if you read it through. There's no current consensus (yet) on what to do going forward, but there's clear consensus to either unblock immediately, or unblock after 24 hours (which by now are the same thing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we might as well try and reach a permanent resolution now because otherwise we're just going to wind up back here again. AutomaticStrikeout () 02:18, 31 October 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.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone found a consensus to unblock in the above. A small numeric majority by a group that provides no policy based reasoning for exactly why enabling Eric's chronic abuse is a good idea.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You want him banned; I get it. Perhaps someday you will get your wish, but for now I think it is time to drop the stick and move on. There are several open threads remaining here to work out how to deal with this on a long-term basis, but it's not going to do anyone any good to re-open and re-litigate this one. The close was a good one, and frankly I think a consensus-based decision on whether and when Eric should be blocked or unblocked is a refreshing change of pace from the drama-causing unilateral blocking and unblocking we've seen in the past. Consensus doesn't alw