Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267

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

Noticeboard archives


Starting an article on the film "A Nigger in the Woodpile" (1904)[edit]

The article List_of_American_films_of_1904 has a red link for A Nigger in the Woodpile. I have secondary sources from which I can create an article on this film. I cannot do so because it gives me a "permission denied" template then recommends I bring this up here, which is what I'm doing. Please unlock this title so I can proceed. Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

When I had a similar issue (I think a film title with Bastard, or something along those lines), I created it in my sandbox and then got an admin to move it to the mainspace. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I put in a barebones stub, only the creation requires admin privileges. You should be able to edit it without issue now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Seraphimblade - would you be able to do the same with the talkpage, with just creating it with the {{film}} project template? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't suppose that the second the article is created, we could go on ahead and put it on indefinite semi-protection? Or at least pending changes? I totally WP:AGF with everyone here, hope for new accounts, and am grateful for the huge amounts of work IP editors put into this place, but we can't even trust the rest of the internet with Cheese. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've created the talk page accordingly. As to preemptive protection, that's not really done, but I imagine any disruption will be dealt with swiftly. I doubt most of our vandals are into early 20th century silent films in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a real film and part of film history. Pretty much all film from such an early time is notable to some degree. It might be a troll/vandal magnet but I think it too obscure. I have watch listed it. Chillum 23:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanction Shortening Request[edit]

Moved from WP:AN/I by RGloucester

I sincerely apologize for the drama yesterday. I was upset that someone else doxxed me, and I just lashed out. I took some time to think, drew a bit, and in general took the rest of yesterday and most of today to calm down. In light of yesterday's drama, this will probably be turned down, but I request to have my topic ban shortened. That is all. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:53, Today (UTC−5)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: This is the wrong forum. Move this to WP:AN, and please follow the appropriate instructions. RGloucester 22:59, Today (UTC−5)
@DungeonSiegeAddict510: I've done it for you, to make it easier. RGloucester 04:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out that User:DungeonSiegeAddict510 wasn't topic banned for yesterday's drama, but was topic banned for disruption. I think the topic ban should remain in place. In the meantime, surely there are other articles this user can edit in a positive manner. Dreadstar 06:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I commend DungeonSiegeAddict510's apology. It's rough being doxxed and it's understandable that such an act might prompt some poor behavior or judgement. But I think that it's best to stay for him to stay away from the issue a bit and if can be a productive and non-disruptive presence on non-GamerGate articles for a while, then we can revisit shortening the topic ban or consider removing it altogether. Gamaliel (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies are great but they enter into diminishing returns when used often. This is a different issue than the Kangaroo Court thing that brought you a hair from being sanctioned but for an apology? I may be a softy but I am willing to accept a second apology in as many days.
That being said I can see the point of view for those seeking sanctions against you. Chillum 08:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One editor posts a picture of Hitler to the talk page, and you tell that editor: "You sir, made my day. You'll probably be indef banned, but you will forever have a place in my heart for that edit." [1] Cant you see how that does not help in improving the article? You were banned for WP:FORUM posting, in other words not trying to improve the article with reliable sourced information but just trying to talk about the subject on the talk page. So far I have not seen a reason to believe that has changed. --Obsidi (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not just yet It's been less than a week since the topic ban was enacted, and there is virtually no activity on your account outside the Gamergate controversy (there is some, but it's either ancient or consists of a few scattered minor edits). An apology is a good step to take—it's something I rarely see around here, and as such I'm impressed. But to lift a topic ban like this we really need to see a pattern of improvement in behavior. I would strongly recommend you try finding some topic area you like editing outside of Gamergate. Even if it's all minor edits, even if it's all discussion of improving articles, even if it's discussion of improving policy: so long as there's a pattern of improvement that those reviewing the topic ban can hang their hat on. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not just yet Your post at AN/I and ArbCom throwing the nuclear weapon indicates that you're completely wound up in GG to not be productive for any use in the topic area. Endorse Mendaliv's suggestion, but also editing outside of the topic area for the full duration of the topic ban is going to earn a lot of good faith that your actions so far have burned. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to hear from DSA ... How are you going to change your behavior regarding the editing of this topic? Because from what I recall (vaguely), a lot of your posts on the GamerGate talk page weren't very productive to me. That said, you should indeed follow the suggestion to edit something else during this time (are you not interested in anything else?) starship.paint ~ regal 07:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Revdel problem[edit]

Firstly, I don't want an argument as to whether or not the user name is "grossly offensive". What matters here is the problem I am describing. A user with an offensive user name made a vandalistic edit to the Boeing 777 article. This was quickly reverted by ClueBot NG and the user was blocked by Jehochman. I atempted to revdel the user name from the article's history, but was only partially successful. This is due to Cluebot NG's use of the User name in the edit summary. I realise that this is only going to create a problem in a very small minority of edits, but... Is it possible for the software to be tweaked so that where a user name is revdel'd, all occurrences of user names are suppressed, not just the user/bot that made the edit. Alternatively, could the bot be recoded to have a filter so that when potentially problematic user names are encountered, the user name is not repeated in the edit summary. To be clear, I have no complaints about the bots edits, ClueBot NG does sterling work and is a real asset to the project. Pinging its operators Cobi, Crispy1989 and methecooldude so that they are aware of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't you just apply RevDel to the edit summary for the bot's edit? I'm not sure that there would be a big benefit to one-click RevDel everywhere, and it seems extremely hard to implement — for example, a human might just write "Rv [disruptive username]" manually, and how would the software detect it? Also, see the WP:STOCKS section "I missed that day at target practice" — some time ago, a high-activity user was accidentally oversighted, causing tons of server problems. If someone misclicks and RevDels a high-activity user's username, this will probably affect thousands of pages, including (perhaps) ones where the user was mentioned without a link. Finally, how should the bot know which usernames should or should not be filtered? Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! - why did I not spot that? Anyways, that has been done. Aren't there filters in place that trigger bot reports to WP:UAA? I appreciate that not all names triggered are problematic, but I don't see the harm in not repeating a user name if there is a potential problem. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


There's currently a backlog (155 pages, 22 media) at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion if someone feels like heading that way. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 07:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Spanish arrival to Chiapas[edit]

Per below, at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Guatemalan user ("Simon Burchell") stubborn not add a template to the article partly about his country. I request help please. Thymepeekk (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#disruptive editing on Spanish conquest of Chiapas. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've commented at the above thread. Somebody close this please to avoid multiple discussions on the same topic.  Philg88 talk 16:46, 26 November 2014 (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.

Clarification /Closure review of Siteban of Djcheburashka[edit]

Ricky81682 clarified the close as a block not a siteban.--Obsidi (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (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 am requesting clarification on the current status of User:Djcheburashka as to if the user is indef site banned or only indef blocked. I requested clarification from the closing admin here, but it has been almost two days without a response (the admin did post one other edit during that time period [2]).

Evidence suggesting that the user is indef site banned:

  • The admin closed this discussion by saying "User:Djcheburashka is hereby indefinitely banned"
  • The edit summary says "closed - editor is banned" [3]
  • The blocklog says that the user was "banned"

Evidence suggesting that the user is indef blocked (but not site banned):

  • On the users talk page, the admin wrote: "Pursuant to this discussion, I have indefinitely blocked you"[4] (could just be a block to enforce the ban though).
  • The user does not appear to be in the Category:Banned Wikipedia users.
  • There were only 3 of 15 (20%) people who supported a siteban in the discussion (and 2 of them were highly involved). Should the user have actually been sitebanned I would like to review the closure as I believe that would have incorrectly interpreted the consensus.

Either way an appropriate template should be added to the users talk page. And if they are not banned I would ask that the closure be edited and the blocklog corrected. Blocks are different then bans (Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks), and a block could be reviewed by any admin, while a ban would require community consensus to overturn. As such we should be clear which one applies to a user. Normally I would like to wait for the closing admin to answer questions, but so far I have not received a response in almost two days so I brought it here that it might be resolved. --Obsidi (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I too think it would be good to get everything consistent and clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
According to my tally of comments, consensus does not support a site ban. The latter seems to be a drastic measure for a new user who didn't fully understand the process, and yes, I realize in some instances it is not an acceptable excuse. An indefinite block also seems harsh for what some editors perceive to be unamenable behavior, and I am but one voice among many. I have always respected the decisions of our admins, but I tend to be more lenient and forgiving of new users, having been in that position myself in the not so distant past. AtsmeConsult 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It should have been an indefinite block not a ban. I'll correct the close. Also, it's is not a vote but a view of the consensus. The consensus from those arguing for an interaction ban to those arguing for sanctions to even those arguing against sanctions admitted that the editor has been problematic and has at the very least responded with bad-faith comments and tactics in response. Those arguing against any sanctions only kept saying "he's a new editor" which is a very weak version of WP:AGF. No one has provided an explanation for why an editor who has a serious issue with bad-faith tactics should be permitted to continue here. Simply saying "be patient, be patient" when an editor is repeatedly and hostile to everyone else is not a solution. I saw no evidence that anyone even suggests that the editor was improving, merely that everyone else needs to understand that he's still learning. Bold editing is not slapping POV notices on pages and edit warring to keep them there without any serious interest in discussion. That's inappropriate behavior from an established editor and being new (which seems to have been debated) really doesn't give you a pass. It is somewhat bizarre to argue that for an editor to be too new to get the general way things are done here about consensus but should here making large-scale policy-based arguments at the same time. If the editor responds with something other than "my antics should excused because I am correcting a great wrong," and actually shows the competency to discuss incremental changes and to avoid grudges, then I think they could be a productive user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I do not appreciate the desire to immediately come to ANI rather than waiting even a day for me to provide a response on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the block and rationale. I assume that the OP meant no disrespect by asking for clarification here. Ivanvector (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (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 blocks of new users who commented at Talk:Punjabi language[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask for one or more outside admins to review the indefinite blocks which I recently placed against Jimidar, Jaspr8, Harvard2014, Jaskaran singh sachdeva, and Soulmine22 in connection with a sockpuppetry investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babanwalia).

A discussion was started at Talk:Punjabi language over the question of which writing systems should be mentioned in the article — specifically, over whether the article should mention Devanagari (the customary writing system of the Hindi language) as one of several writing systems used for Punjabi. Several brand-new accounts, which had never edited on Wikipedia before, showed up on the article's talk page to register opposition to the idea of listing Devanagari as a writing system for Punjabi. The arguments brought forth by these new accounts are, for the most part, recitations of personal experiences that the users have never seen Punjabi text written in Devanagari. Statements of this kind, of course, are generally discounted here as "original research" (WP:NOR), though there were a couple of outside sources cited which might or might not be good enough to satisfy WP:RS.

I blocked five of these new accounts after they were reported in an SPI case (see above), because when a bunch of posts like this appear all at the same time in a discussion, more often than not it means someone is trying to influence the outcome via sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. However, the originally suspected sockmaster (Babanwalia) has made what I consider a reasonable case against his being responsible for this set of events.

One of the five new accounts (Jimidar) turned out to be someone who is active on the Punjabi Wikipedia (, and I've unblocked him. One of the remaining four (Harvard2014) has now asked for his block to be reviewed — and if you look at his unblock request, you'll see there is a strong feeling here (also reflected in the SPI case page) that the SPI is simply a pretext for an effort to suppress the anti-Devanagari viewpoint in the Punjabi writing system discussion.

I, personally, have no ties whatsoever to the Punjab region, the Punjabi language, or any other language or ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent, and I took my actions solely as an SPI clerk and not with a view to promote any side to this argument. However, just to be sure the people in question get a review that is not only fair, but is also seen to be fair, I would like to ask other admins to look at Harvard2014 and the other still-blocked users and decide whether there are reasonable grounds for unblocking any or all of them.

For that matter, it probably wouldn't hurt to get some neutral outside input at Talk:Punjabi language regarding the writing system debate. My only real concern there is that any content decisions should be based on the applicable Wikipedia sourcing policies, including the WP:BURDEN subsection of the verifiability policy. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment)Given the Checkuser said the accounts are Unrelated (not Possible or even unlikely but totally unrelated), I would unblock all of them. Yes its possible meatpuppetry is going on, but it would have to be from some kind of online source. If you just talk to your friend into posting, you are going to be from the geographic region and as such at least be "unlikely" to the checkuser. Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this. And if you find out who is doing it, ban them. But, given we KNOW that is occurring for gamergate, and yet we have not banned all the SPA's for that, these shouldn't be banned either. Even so the closure of any RfC's or other discussion should properly analyze the arguments made and discount the statements unsupported by RS, thereby ignoring these SPA. --Obsidi (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Obsidi you state "If you just talk to your friend into posting, you are going to be from the geographic region". That's an incorrect assumption. I have many family and friends who live all over the world that could potentially be used to support my position in arguments and checkuser would find us unrelated. I think many people could say the same. Checkuser is just one tool that can be used in an investigation, and an unrelated finding only means that there is no technical evidence linking the accounts. That's why we say that  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. I can't understand why you would say "Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this". Why would you not care if a group of individuals were editing in concert in order to skew an argument and undermine a neutral consensus from forming? I'm not saying that there are definitely nefarious tactics being used in this case, however your arguments make no sense (at least to me).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes its possible they contacted friends from all over the world and asked them to participate. Yes checkuser is just one tool, but its important for what it suggests as much as what it says directly. I would rather that these SPA's who are not presenting policy based arguments have their views appropriately discounted for not making policy based arguments during closure. Just mark the posts as {{subst:spa|Example}}, that's why we have the template. --Obsidi (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe it's more than likely some of the users involved were canvassed to contribute through an off-wiki mailing list. Personally, I would recommend leaving the accounts blocked for now and require that they submit an unblock request first. The blocked accounts don't have any contributions outside of the RfC and I think they should demonstrate their willingness to edit outside of this context. While they'd be welcome to contribute to RfC discussions, I'd also like some assurance that the accounts won't engage in a group-like mentality to sway the conversation in their preferred manner. Mike VTalk 22:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In The News needs you[edit]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is a lightly watched page that has the very important function of selecting items to post in the top right corner of the Home Page. We need more participation. You could help by:

  1. Review nominations and leave comments.
  2. Nominate articles about topics that are "in the news". The simplest way to understand the criteria is that ITN items should receive coverage in multiple news outlets, preferably in more than one country. There is also a list of news events that are, by default, considered to be ITN-worthy. The list is located at WP:ITN/R.
  3. Help improve articles that might be failing in their nominations because the article need updating or expansion.
  4. Decide if an item has sufficient support and is ready to post. Any editor with sufficient skills can mark and item [READY].
  5. If you are an administrator, you can post items that are ready. We have a timer that indicates when the next update is due.

ITN is one of the easiest ways to get your work featured on the home page. Please consider participating. Thank you, and have a great day. Jehochman Talk 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A situation has developed that requires help from a second admin (besides me). Is there somebody around who could take a look at this thread and advise? Jehochman Talk 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that uninvolved admin eyes would be valuable on this. Jehochman has posted an item to ITN which many editors think (and are saying loudly) didn't have consensus to be posted. It is not the first time that Jehochman's posts at ITN have raised eyebrows. I realise a good number of those are somewhat on the old side; the two very controversial items in the last month show that the lessons have not been learnt, despite assurances they would be. I'm loathe to suggest that any admin step away from ITN, given the general lack of admin involvement, but some of these threads have been extremely disruptive and have made ITN, always a fairly controversial place to work, even worse. The best solution here would be (a) for Jehochman to listen to what others are saying and be more ready to self-revert where he's mis-read consensus and (b) for more admins (and perhaps a more diverse group of admins) to get involved in ITN to take some of the pressure off those who work pretty hard there. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about revdel'ed content[edit]

BLP subject writes to OTRS with concerns about a paragraph added to their bio that is inappropriate and unsourced, and serious enough that it merits an RD2 revdel. Subject then asks for identity of editor, I reply we have nothing more than their username (not an IP in this case). Matter apparently closed. Subject writes back two days later asking for a screenshot of the revdel'ed material. Under the deletion policy and access to deleted material, can that be provided to them? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Was the content deleted (not revdel) in the normal manner for BLP violations? Was the talk page used? Was the community involved in that decision? Should OTRS volunteers get involved in aiding unknown and likely COI conflicted individuals possibly prepare legal action against editors? I know, that's a lot of questions, but proper procedure should be followed. COI conflicted individuals who misuse the OTRS system to make an endrun around following normal procedures and PAG are problematic, and we should not enable them. Our normal way of dealing with BLP matters must be followed. OTRS does not make an exception, even when dealing with BLP matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If it was deleted for BLP issues, it's a valid deletion reason. The policy says that a valid reason needs to be given for normal review of the information. Taking a screenshot and sending it to them isn't normal review or a valid reason. If they asked for the identity of the editor and that was refused, and now they're asking for a screenshot, it sounds like they're setting up for a legal dispute - of which, they'd need to go to the Office. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Seems likely to me that they are trying to use the screenshot of the material as evidence to seek a subpoena for the users IP address. I would refer them to: Wikipedia:Libel and ask them to send an email to and ask for it. --Obsidi (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I know it's going to feel like I'm picking on you Obsidi, but again your reply makes little sense. You are suggesting that the subject email in order to request the rev-deleted material when the opening statement of this thread states that's exactly what they have already done. I understand you are trying to be helpful, but perhaps, you could use a little more experience prior to providing advice at the Administrative Noticeboards? It seems to be your primary activity on Wikipedia. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I meant --Obsidi (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, so the revdel was perfectly valid, and any admin or 'crat or oversight member can verify that. That's not my concern. OTRS is used for this routinely because bio subjects would rather write an email than try and figure out a talk page, or otherwise call attention to the material. That's the reason we don't ask for oversight or revdel ON Wikipedia, we have other channels for that. COI is irrelevant, I'm not deleting sourced criticism of a politician or anything like that. Now, as to the purpose of the request, I think that's also irrelevant, since they could have taken a screenshot themselves and used it for whatever purpose (legal or otherwise). My question is: Can we or should we provide that information after it has been removed from public view? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
They have to provide a valid reason for the request. At that point, it's up to the admin that's responding to the ticket in ORTS to decide if it's a valid enough reason to them. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The point in the policy says: Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Repeating problematic content can get you into real trouble. Leave it to the professionals. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't provide the requested information. In past occurrences, I've deferred the customer to legal and told them that we may require a subpoena to release such content. This helps prevent frivolous requests and ensures that the requests are for legal purposes only. Mike VTalk 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've replied to them and told them we regrettably cannot provide such information (regardless of their motive in requesting it), the reasons why, and referred them to Legal. Thanks everyone for your guidance, I appreciate it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, and please refer matter to WMF legal. NE Ent 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:John Donato[edit]

A page was moved all over the place, involving pagenames: WP:Dony Boy (record producer), WP:Life, Dony Boy (record producer), Gum donato, Normal Life Style, The great bible, Book:Holy bible, The Holy bible, Dony Beatz (record producer), User:John andro -- all a mess created by John Donato (talk · contribs) ; this needs cleanup. I don't know if there was an original article somewhere in that mess, but as redirects, they're inappropriate and as some pages have been speedily deleted, they all point to nowhere. I found out about this mess by a request at WP:RMTR that indicated move vandalism revert was required. -- (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Anthony Appleyard for deleting the mess. -- (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like cleanup has been done already. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just patrolled and tagged a new page Dony Boy by this same user with WP:CSD. Looks like it's been created and re-created a few times. Mediavalia talk 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirect/Disambiguate Allen Bernstein[edit]

Hey guys sorry to bug you but I've spent the last 3 hours creating a new article and now I have to go do other things in the real world. The new article is:

Allen Irvin Bernstein

But there's already a redirect page sending searches for "Allen Bernstein" to Roxy Bernstein. At the moment I can't remember how to make a disambig page containing both names, but seems like it would be a good idea, if anyone wants to take care of that. Appreciate any help on this. Textorus (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done at Allen Bernstein - tweak if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much. Textorus (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator eyes appreciated[edit]

The enforcement request page for the Gamergate general sanctions could use the eyes of more uninvolved administrators to respond to requests. Please watch the page. RGloucester 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Radical idea: Get rid of the page and/or redirect it. It's only serving as a bottleneck in terms of the full sanctions enforcement request page. The enforcement page for ArbCom has 1000+ watchers. Even if you get 15 more people to watchlist it to make it 70, it will never be in the full capacity of the full. There's tons of uninvolved admins at the general enforcement page. Tutelary (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "bottleneck". Any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at any time under GS/GG. The enforcement page is a place where non-administrators can request action and provide evidence. This deliberative process provides an appropriate way to deal with complaints, and doesn't allow for unproductive threaded discussion. There has been no problem with answering requests. They've all been answered in a timely manner. I've seen AE requests linger for weeks, and that hasn't happened at this page. WP:AE cannot be used for community-established sanctions. Please work within the processes provided to you, as this will result in a better ending for us all. RGloucester 06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
From WP:AE request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, or request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or or appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators. Seems appropriate given GamerGate is discretionary sanctions. Tutelary (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There are two types of discretionary sanctions: ArbCom DS and community DS. The reason that page is called "Arbitration enforcement" is because it is only for the enforcement of remedies specified by ArbCom cases. These are not ArbCom sanctions. These are community issued discretionary sanctions, and hence cannot use the "Arbitration enforcement" page. There is nothing wrong with the present channel. RGloucester 07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Though Tutelary was unaware of the distinction between arbcom and community sanctions, she still has a point about centralizing the requests page. Instead of having separate RFE pages for each community sanctions, we'd better have a centralized requests page for all community sanctions, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Requests for enforcement, shortcut WP:CSE for community sanctions enforcement. Several community sanctions don't even have requests page, and some others got abandoned, so it's no surprise that enforcement of community sanctions isn't as streamlined as AE. ANI is a second best, we need a proper structure for this (the GG RFE is a bit lacking compared to AE too, further reason to have a well structured centralized page). Cenarium (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Page creation needed[edit]

I request that Mᵫller is redirected to Müller per Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Mᵫller. It appears to be create-protected. Rcsprinter123 (orate) @ 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Bad redirect. You should have tried to find at least one example of this ligature in use. It is not used. (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up request for a template's history[edit]

Hi. Casually I discovered this template and, looking at the "revision history", I noticed that it was filled of trolling, heavy isults, personal attacks etc; by an anon vandal and some indef-blocked sp; from March 2012 to April 2014. I would request a clean-up of this revisions from the chronology, as is the practice (if I remember correctly) in these cases. I request it also to discourage this habit to use the "edit summary" for trolling; and to delete the vandalized versions, continuously restored by vandals with a simple counter-rollback. I hope this is the right place for this kind of notices. Btw, thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@DerBorg: Just taking a quick look, I don't see anything there that meets WP:CRD. Can you give an example of exactly what you want removed? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Uhm... the vandals used the edit summary of this template adding several personal attacks. Just to make some examples: xx, are you a complete retard?, YOU UTTER MORONS (again), YOU IDIOT, are you people retarded or just incompetent?, Ido not understand such stupidity people refer to wikipedia..., absolute effing retards grow up this is correct, xx grow up. Francoise Marie was a daughter of France, NOT a princess of the blood. Idiot... and so on. I think it could be better to clean the chronology from all this trolling, IMHO. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I went to the template to remove content anyway, but I decided not to. I thought you meant that a big problem was that vandals were simply reverting to a sneaky state, i.e. they vandalised by hitting "Undo" and the end result was something that didn't look like vandalism. Looking at the template now, I see no obvious vandalism: people have simply been changing French names to English formats, and that's not obviously vandalism. As far as I can see, the only significantly disruptive elements have been the edit summaries, and since you've repeated them here, there's no point now in removing them there. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes protection request for 21 (number)[edit]

I'd like to request pending changes protection for 21 (number). The reason why is because a very popular Vine came out a couple of months ago, where somebody asks a kid what 9 + 10 is and the kid answers 21. The Vine is extremely popular right now (just look up "21 vine"), and I've seen quite a bit of vandalism on the page adding content along the lines of that Vine. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Place to request page protection is thisaway. I've made the request for you with regards to this one. Amortias (T)(C) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Amortias: Okay! I wasn't sure where to request protection (as I hadn't found a page for it yet), so I just put it here. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What does a vine and 21 have to do with eachother anyway? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This video-sharing app; I remembered it when I saw the logo. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RfA Semi protection[edit]

WP:RFA policy is "every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections" (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2014 (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 realize this is not a common issue, but why are RfA pages not auto-semi'd ? Such as at RFP Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:RFA policy is "every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections," NE Ent 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I was thinking IP's can not open an RfA which lead me here :P Thanx. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
IPs aren't allowed to vote, but they're allowed to contribute to the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (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.


The admninistrators listed in the GamerGate case are not considered "involved" per the ArbCom statements listed here, take it to ArbCom if you feel differently. Dreadstar 00:37, 30 November 2014 (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.

Moved from WP:ANI#Gamaliel by me. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

1. On October 24th, after a discussion at ANI, the community imposed a discretionary sanction regarding the GamerGate drama, specifically that..

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

2. Since that date, Gamaliel (talk · contribs) has acted to impose topic bans under these sanctions on four editors: Die-yng (talk · contribs), Cobbsaladin (talk · contribs), MarkBernstein (talk · contribs), and Tutelary (talk · contribs). See WP:GS/GG.

3. An ArbCom case request (Old revision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case) was made on October 27th regarding Gamaliel's administrative actions regarding a content dispute at Neil deGrasse Tyson, specifically regarding him taking actions while he was an involved administrator. To quote from the arbitrator's opinions...

Now, in my opinion, up to this point, Gamaliel's actions were not in breach of the standards of behaviour expected of administrators. The subsequent block, however, was and so was the full protection of Gamaliel's talk page. - Salvio

I would say that Gamaliel was involved, but his actions were generally appropriate (if intemperately made) given the circumstances. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs

I'm generally unhappy with Gamaliel's behaviour at the time and would have been accepting a case - were it not for the fact that Gamaliel had explained himself, apologised and taken a break. I hope he spots that a break is needed sooner in future. - Worm That Turned

With respect to Gamaliel, I generally agree with the comments above. - Newyorkbrad

The consensus among the arbitrators here was that Gamaliel had violated the prohibition regarding administrative actions taken by involved administrators, but then stepped back and apologized, and he was given a pass on that basis.

4. An ArbCom case (WP:ARBGG) was requested regarding the whole GamerGate fiasco on November 9th, and the case was opened on the 27th. Gamaliel is a party to that case. Three of the impositions of discretionary sanctions made by Gamaliel were made since the opening of that request, and two were made since the case was opened (again, with him as a party to that case)

5. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators, point 1, administrators are specifically prohibited from imposing discretionary sanctions when they are involved. "Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping." That would of course be an ArbCom action, and I am specifically not requesting that, however I would anticipate that the committee would consider the opinion of the community regarding Gamaliel's involvement when forming their decision.

I request that the community formally ban Gamaliel from imposing any further discretionary sanctions or taking other administrative action regarding topics involving GamerGate or editors who are involved in the current ArbCom case, and suggest strongly that such a prohibition be extended to any imposition of discretionary sanctions. While not trying to 'broaden' this discussion into a debate about the other editors upon whom he imposed sanctions, I would strongly suggest that in the interest of fairness toward those editors that the community overturn those sanctions immediately, with the exception of the one editor who's topic ban was confirmed at ANI, with the caveat that this would not prevent another uninvolved administrator from reimposing those sanctions if they felt it was appropriate. If it is determined that Gamaliel was in fact an 'involved' administrator, and that his imposition of discretionary sanctions was in violation of policy, then it is patently unjust that those editors be required to appeal their sanctions to him.

Since writing most of the above, though I'm not going to rewrite it, it has come to my attention that there has been evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) at the GamerGate ArbCom page regarding the involvement of Gamaliel with the subject Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#Gamaliel_is_INVOLVED. I had not previously read that material, and my post here is not based upon it, though I do feel that it is worth perusing. Regardless of any prior involvement, once he was named as a party to the ArbCom case his involvement became explicit, and he was thus specifically prohibited from taking further administrative actions in the matter. Reventtalk 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Revent - please see [5] where one of the Arbitrators has suggested administrators will not be considered involved just by being listed as part of the case and previous involvement would need to be taken into account. It will be the responsibility of the committee to decide whether Gamaliel's actions should be reversed or sanctioned. They cannot be reversed by another administrator and probably shouldn't be reversed by the community with an open Arbitration Case. Nick (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from individual arbitrators do not constitute statements with the authority of the committee, so ... what Nick said, mostly. I don't think the arbcom case has affect until it's closed, but given the nature of the Gamergate dispute I'd expect the community to give wide latitude to the discretion of the admins monitoring the situation. NE Ent 23:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why we need to have this discussion? Since TDA's brought this situation into the Arbcom case, presumably Arbcom will act on it or decide not to act on it, so a community discussion seems to be kind-of pointless. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel has been acting under the authority of DS that were imposed by the community, not ArbCom, and the ArbCom ruling is not due for a month. This is a question of the appropriateness of his administrative actions taken in regards to that community action, regardless of the opinion expressed by Salvio. I think it is fair to say that the community expects administrators to err on the side of not taking action in matters where they would be considered to be involved by a neutral party (note that I have had absolutely nothing to do with any of the GamerGate drama), and that it was poor judgement on Gamaliel's part to do so. Given that Gamaliel was quite recently 'chided' by ArbCom for the same thing, taking action in a case where he was involved, I think it is perfect legitimate for the community to discuss actions taken under the color of the community's authority.
I would also note that Gamaliel's 'not a closure' of the recent discussion regarding a topic ban of Tutelary, and his decision to impose a topic ban under previously existing community DS when such a ban was the exact subject of discussion, was IMO an overt act on his part to subvert the authority of the community to make a decision regarding such a ban. Given that he had previously !voted to topic ban Tutelary, as noted by TDA at ArbCom, he was not uninvolved.
The matter of actions taken under the authority of community imposed DS is a completely separate matter from what ArbCom may decide. Reventtalk 00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't have logged onto Wikipedia this evening.
The first statement in the case is dated November 10. Since then, other named parties including User:Dreadstar, User:Acroterion. and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise have continued to act in the capacity of uninvolved administrators, as I have, including imposing topic bans. To my knowledge, none of the administrators working in this area have indicated that they will cease working in this area now that the case has been officially accepted by the Committee. In the comment linked above, Arbitrator User:Salvio giuliano explicitly states "you can continue enforcing the community sanctions".
The frivolous claims of User:The Devil's Advocate that I am "INVOLVED" (you can tell it's serious bizness because he used all caps) have been dismissed by uninvolved parties when he brought them up previously at ANI, where he was also blocked by an uninvolved admin for his disruptive behavior on that thread. I expect the Committee will reject them as well and sanction him for his behavior.
I seriously erred in the Neil DeGrasse Tyson matter. I will not participate in a rehashing of that matter here, other than to say that my involvement consisted of actually editing the article, so there was no question that I was an involved party. I have not edited the GamerGate articles. With GamerGate, the claims of involvement are frivolous at best, and at worst deliberately designed to influence administrative decisions and prevent enforcement of Wikipedia policies.
So why are we here? Your points seem to be that I fucked up in some completely unrelated matter, I'm party to an ArbCom case where it was explicitly stated that it I can continue to enforce these sanctions as other administrators are doing, and someone brought up some claims which you admit you haven't even read.
I'm sure your post is well intentioned, but it is irresponsible for you to waste the time of the community in this manner. Having to deal with frivolous complaints does not encourage editors and administrators to get into the trenches and help restore order and policy compliance in contentious situations like GamerGate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"someone brought up some claims which you admit you haven't even read." I did read them, actually, after I wrote the bulk of my post, as I noted. I think I made it perfectly clear, though, that what I was saying was not based on TDA's statement to ArbCom. There is, at least in my opinion, ample reason to consider it inappropriate for you to be taking action in this area, and to question your ability to judge whether or not you are involved in a matter before taking action. The fact that you quite recently 'seriously erred' in the exact same way that I am questioning now is perfectly relevant, as it shows a history of poor judgement in assessing if you are involved in a matter. There is no 'requirement' or 'need' that you be the one to take an administrative action... there are other admins perfectly capable of doing so, and that you have continued to do so after the question was raised IMO makes it quite clear that you are incapable of being impartial regarding this... otherwise, you would simply have left it for some other administrator to address. Reventtalk 00:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not seriously err "in the exact same way" unless you are somehow claiming that I am secretly editing the GamerGate articles or that a single action taken in the heat of the moment after three days of harassment is exactly the same as many different actions taken after much deliberation over the period of months. Every single one of my major administrative actions in GamerGate has received the support or approval of other uninvolved administrators. The claims of my involvement have been dismissed by uninvolved parties at ANI. Even if you are correct in your assertion that I am incapable of judging when I am involved, I feel that is sufficient evidence to verify that my judgment is sound.
Could I simply walk away and leave the mess for others to clean up? Sure, I could, but that would make me a shitty administrator who isn't willing to do the job he signed up for and should resign. And if every administrator who was the subject of a frivolous complaint walked away, that would leave no one to do the work and provide a powerful incentive for involved parties to fabricate frivolous complaints. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Close with prejudice to include all future GG issues while ArbCom is involved. Preliminary injunctions are available at arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Close as well. The dispute does not seem to be a review of the topic bans but for a pre-emptive request. I'd say we let Arbcom take care of it at the moment and/or if there is a future GG-based topic ban that's questionable. Arbcom can determine if Gamaliel is involved or sanctionable, there is no need for this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2014 (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.

Redirect problem[edit]

I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong place. I have stumbled across a page Continuous positive airway pressure that has a somewhat interesting history. It was moved to Positive airway pressure in 2006, then a new article was created (or perhaps broken away from PAP) in 2011. However, the talk page remains a redirect to the PAP talk page. I don't want to simply remove the redirect because all the history of the talk page will be lost. If somebody who knows what to do in this situation could have a look it would be great. (On a separate note, if someone could translate the CPAP page's lede into English that would even better...) Thank you, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird, so Continuous positive airway pressure does not have a talk page (only a redirect). And Positive airway pressure's talk page is the merge of the talk pages about both Continuous positive airway pressure and Positive airway pressure. Are these really two different topics (or should we propose to merge one of them into the other)? From what I can tell both seem to be talking a lot about CPAP. If the articles can be merged that solves the problem, otherwise I don't know how we will be able to tell which talk page edits belong to which article (and would probably just have to remove the redirect). --Obsidi (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like this merge is already been proposed Talk:Positive_airway_pressure#Merging_Continuous_positive_airway_pressure_and_Positive_airway_pressure. That would solve all the talk page problems. --Obsidi (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion amending and rescinding some discretionary sanctions remedies[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

  1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
  4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
  5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
  6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
  9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.

The archived copy of the amendment request and discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)\

Discuss this

How to delete a vector page[edit]

I am trying to delete User:Neotarf/vector.css, but the deletion code I pasted on it doesn't look right. I have no idea what this page does. I'm pretty sure this isn't the right forum, but I'm also sure someone will be along shortly to tell me where to ask.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Although the code doesn't look right, don't worry. When you put {{db-u1}} on .js, .css, .etc pages, they show up in CAT:CSD anyway. In the future, if you run into some situation where you can't figure out what to do, feel free to make a request just like this one; WP:AN is a great place to ask for help on administrative issues such as deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
  2. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
  3. For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  4. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
  5. Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

    If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

    If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

    The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

    Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

  6. Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
  7. For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  8. Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
  9. Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
  10. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. [6]
  11. Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
  12. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Ilvon and copy and paste moves[edit]

Heading says it all really. They were advised here and warned here, haven't responded and are still at it. This is breaking many things (the first notice was because of a copy vio warning triggered by it) and just creating work for everyone, and has to stop.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, and am prepared to block if the violations persist, as they have shown no understanding of what they have done wrong. I should have time to fix up all the remaining stubs (by redirecting to the corresponding minor planet list per our guideline WP:NASTRO, since they are all non-notable anyways) tomorrow. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
And they've done another copy-paste move. I've now blocked them indefinitely until they acknowledge that it is a problem If they do acknowledge it and promise not to do it, any admin has my permission to immediately reverse the block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Advice requested regarding mergers and moves of Bach articles (restored from archive)[edit]

I'm at my wits' end dealing with a situation with which I was asked to help, so I've decided to punt and bring it here for wider attention.

Gerda Arendt created articles on variant forms of Bach's Magnificat (or different Bach Magnificats) which Francis Schonken regards as undesirable forks. He added material from them to a previously existing article and then proposed them for merger. He then started a merger discussion, closed it in his own favor despite objections (one of which took the form of removal of a merger template) and implemented the mergers. Gerda brought the situation to me for review at User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 7#Magnificat, where I eventually determined that a new merger discussion needed to take place, to be closed by a neutral party, and that Francis had not raised any compelling reason why the articles should not be reverted to their state prior to his implementing the merger, to facilitate that discussion. I announced that to that end I would be reverting his actions, and did so. (See my contributions for November 21, reverting edits by him earlier the same day.) He meanwhile left several messages on my talk, which I stopped to answer, and then began reverting me. I re-reverted him once and then left the situation after notifying all who I had seen participating in the former discussion, plus one who had appeared on my talk, and suggesting that one or more WikiProjects be notified. The new discussion is here. I have asked a couple of times subsequently whether the articles are now in a condition that facilitates the new discussion; the answer has not been clear, complicated by statements that Gerda had agreed to some part of what Francis did (and this is the point where my unfamiliarity with the topic and inability to keep strings of letters and/or numbers straight, which I believe makes me suited to acting neutrally in the dispute, becomes a disadvantage). However, I was concerned by this edit, in which Francis accuses me of involving myself in the dispute and demands I revert and censure others, and I now see edits such as this at the new merger discussion and this section on Gerda's talk (with an objection by another editor), in which Francis is in my judgement overstepping the bounds of civility. There was an earlier instance of his accusing Gerda of battleground tactics and reminding her, in my view inappropriately, of the ArbCom case concerning infoboxes: that concerned his moving an article on a mass, also by J. S. Bach, and is here in my talk page archives. I remain neutral on the issue(s): Francis obviously has relevant expertise and it might be that he is correct and can achieve consensus for his view. However, in my judgement he is making a fair discussion of the issue next to impossible, and Gerda's not chopped liver as an expert (or an article writer) either. I've considered re-reverting and massive application of protection, but I'm not sure I could get it all right even if that heavy-handed approach is appropriate. So I'm bringing this here for the consideration of more and wiser heads; I will now inform both editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I asked Yngvadottir because I wanted to avoid going to a noticeboard ... - Clarification: there is only one Magnificat by Bach, however he wrote two distinctly different versions, first (1723) in E-flat major (BWV 243a), then (1733) transposed to D-major (BWV 243). There are other differences outlined in the merge discussion. Even for works with fewer differences, it has become common practise, initiated by Nikkimaria in the summer of 2013, to have individual articles for all versions. I started such an article on the first version. The problem I see is that Francis first copied massively from the new article to the old one, only then demanded a merge to the old, when de facto he had merged already. I believe that we should have two articles, but need to decide how to avoid redundancy. I don't think we need admin action but a fair discussion of the proposed merge, keeping in mind that it happened already and would need to be reverted if consensus is against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
ps: reading it again, I think that Yngvadottir thought of several Magnificats because several redirects point to the two versions of the one. When I wrote the new article, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, I moved the old one from Magnificat (Bach) to Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, to disambiguate by the different key, but think now that it was not necessary, because the later version is the one commonly performed today. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
pps: handle advice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, or the other half of the conversation at the other person's talk page. Pinging Francis Schonken to come here and explain himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: For what it's worth, I got tired of beating my head against the wall with Francis Schonken, who seems to think that consensus is "whatevere I want." The failrue to collaborate and the tendency to edit against consensus - and to do rather poor quality editing when he does - is worrisome. The individual articles are not POV-forking, they are not stubs, and they all are fine as stand-alone pieces. Francis Schonken is creating a problem in search of an issue. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd probably have agreed with a merge, but that's neither here nor there, because unless I'm misreading, it looks like Francis self-closed as favorable a merge proposal where two out of two other people had opposed the merge. Question - did anyone take this to a wikiproject? It's irrelevant to the behavior issue, but could help, or have helped, with content. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Gerda stated that it was put to the WikiProject but there was little interest. As to your reading of the first discussion, Roscelese, that's what I see too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Merge?, I took it there, it was changed and restored. To find the actual discussion, on the redirect which Francis would like to make the article title, you have to follow his closing comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The merge discussions are way too long, for my taste. The question he raised was if BWV 243a should be merged into BWV 243, - a version before he started copying into it from the other. To first create "his" version and then request that what he copied from should be redirected makes no sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Works by Bach have been mentioned. His major works have a general article and a specific one for the structure, for example Mass in B minor vs. Mass in B minor structure. The splits started when featured article Messiah (Handel) had no room for details on the music, and I created four supporting articles, such as Messiah Part II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have restored this section from the archives since Francis Schonken has now asked me to perform a merger while the discussion at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion continues. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Please see my close of the merge discussion at Talk:Magnificat_(Bach)#Merge_discussion, and let me reiterate that the behavior of Francis Schonken is well below the level one would expect. Any future edit warring will be met with a block, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Chamath237 uploading copyrighted images[edit]

User:Chamath237 has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images on Wikipedia despite numerous warnings (see talk page). His latest upload was taken from this newspaper website. He has been banned indefinitely from Commons for the same issue.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Few of those deletions were relevant; most of them were unrelated to copyright or were for items already marked as nonfree, e.g. File:Nadra.jpg. All I see is Maithripala and File:SLTB luxury bus.jpg, and we shouldn't block for just two. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Constituencies of Pakistan[edit]

So I thought I'd try to get back into article content this morning. Clicking the 'Random page' link took me to Constituency MR-1, one of over 120 stubs for constituencies of Pakistan, all apparently non-notable. What's the best way of dealing with this sort of thing? I've gone through and added over 30 of them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency MR-1, but, TBH, life's too short, and there's a beach just over there that I think would be much improved by me being on it. Is there some better way through this? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do would be to make a list of all of them; asdd that list to the said AFD; and tag them all with AWB (if you can't do it yourself, leave a note at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks linking to a full list). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to Ban GTKRWN14882014, and I suggest semiprotecting the draft for GamerGate[edit]

Blatent vandelism to the draft by user:GTKRWN14882014. Only other edit is vandelism to the Gamer article. Sorry If I put this in the wrong place. I'm still quite new. HalfHat 15:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Blocked for vandalism. Fut.Perf. 16:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to review conduct of a Page Banned editor[edit]

Hey all, LogFTW, who is to my understanding subject to a 6 month ban from editing at Module Syrian Civil War detailed map, has recently reverted an edit of mine on said page. I have opened a discussion of his and another user's conduct on the talk page here. Thanks for your time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza[edit]

Ban implemented. Closing comments below. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (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.

We've been here before (here, for instance): Hoops gza's contributions to WP:UAA are greatly appreciated but also greatly overdone. Recent conversation is found at User_talk:Edgar181#Usernames. Recent examples include a username "Da Cow", which they wanted blocked for being the pronunciation for "Dachau"; "Ratbastardassn", which I think may mean an association of rat bastards and thus in reference to the user themselves; and "Bangminah" which I think they think is a way of saying "bang a minor". Other users/admins recently involved are Yngvadottir, Edgar181, Connormah.

The problem here is twofold: a. a lack of good faith on the part of Hoops in terms of what users intend their name to be or to mean, and related to that an overemphasis on the US English pronunciation of certain things ("Da Cow" being the best example); b. UAA is already backlogged on a regular basis and plowing through report after report is tedious, so if that work is made more difficult it is to the detriment of the project. I suggest, and I do this reluctantly, a topic ban for Hoops gza. Mind you, last time this came up I was not in favor of it, but after plugging away there for a few days, yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the username policy is that it does not matter what the user's intentions are, but rather how the Wikipedia community interprets the username. For User talk:Da Cow 2.7 (you didn't spell the username correctly, ergo leaving admins unable to find it), an admin even requested that the user change the username (see the user's talk page for proof of this). For "Bangminah", I don't know what you're talking about - you are completely fabricating information about why I made that report. I never made a connection to "bang a minor", in fact I noted that Bang Minah is a famous person, and therefore this, too, in my estimation, is a username violation. I reported "Ratbastardassn" because it has the word BASTARD in it. That is an offensive word in the English language. If you look through the Users list (search "Bastard", for instance), you will see that usernames containing bastard and its variations are blocked on a regular basis as username violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Lately, I've definitely noticed from Hoops gza both a high volume of UAA reports and a high error rate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
My main problems with the reports (for the umpteenth time it seems) is that many of them are borderline "violations" that are more subjective (not blatant and serious violations of policy) and that a great deal of the accounts have either never been used or have not edited in months to years - both points of which are in the guidelines at the top of UAA. I find myself pretty much in accordance with Drmies' two points. Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For Bangminah you said "offensive and disruptive", so don't give me that "famous name" jive: you said it was offensive. Bastard, as I responded at UAA, meh. Really. "Bastard" here is something the editor applies to themselves, so they're not trying to insult you. That I didn't spell out Da Cow's name completely is that there's no point to it, and that another admin said something too is immaterial. Your point about the user name list is immaterial. You've been asked before to stop interpreting these user names so narrowly and you couldn't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
No. I did not. I said offensive, disruptive, misleading and promotional, because it was all of those things. I pointed out and linked Bang Minah in my report, pointing out that it was a famous person. Now, as for "bastard", as I have said, take a look at the User list and search "Bastard" to see that we do indeed block bastard. After all, the dictionary defines it as a generalized term of abuse. We also block other expletives. Because they are offensive. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Judgment is required to work out when names need to be reported in order to avoid overwhelming the system. Hoops gza's enthusiasm is good, but the reports are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Unfortunately, I think a temporary restriction for Hoops gza on making reports to UAA is necessary. Numerous attempts to get Hoops gza to work within the guidelines for reporting usernames have not worked. Dealing with the bad reports takes too much effort away from handling usernames that are actually problematic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this has been raised several time before, but Hoops does not seem to be learning from experience. If he wants to work in this area, I suggest a three months' break during which he watches the page regularly to see which reports are accepted and which declined and why. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - and as JohnCD suggests, then look at the reports on the noticeboard (including how other reporting editors explain why they are reporting a name) and how they get handled. Also, I'd urge the editor to review the guidelines posted there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Hoops gza has been given ample opportunity to step back and better vet their reports at UAA, to no avail. It's time for a topic ban. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't fault this user's enthusiasm and good faith, but after a quick review of their edits to UAA I see a concerning pattern of newbie biting, failure to assume good faith of new users, and a regrettable attitude when asked nicely to take a little more care with their reports. Hopefully someone can step up to the plate and mentor this user, so their enthusiasm will not go to waste. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose If you want to ban him for being innacurate, you may as well as ban the bot that's filling up the bot side of that page, it's wildly inaccurate. Further, per "Da Cow", it's entirely possible that a user would try to escape notice by changing the spelling of a name so that it sounded like something else (i.e: "Dachau", "Da Cow"). So his posting wasn't out of line. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the bot being sharpened up but that's a different thing. We have humans doing this work because they are supposed to have judgment, not just algorithms. Presuming "Da Cow" as a variation of [ˈdaxaʊ] is just silly. Yes, it's possible that et cetera. Sure--and then you have to make that argument for all the other cases. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak support - personally I do find the "Da Cow" and "Ratbastardassn" usernames somewhat offensive, and had it been some other user filing the reports I would think that we all need to just chill out and give the good-faith reports due process. I don't think Hoops submitted these in bad faith, but having been previously asked to put more consideration into whether a report is necessary, and having apparently not done so, points to a misunderstanding of the policy and has caused much disruption on a frequently backlogged noticeboard. So only because the backlog is an issue do I support a temporary ban from UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note Based on recent editing, the Rat Bastard user name is an artistic reference: Rat Bastard Protective Association. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Ponyo. NE Ent 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Yngvadottir: And a username containing "Nazi" might edit about Neo-Nazi organizations. What is your point? Would you not block the username containing "Nazi"? Ergo, are you saying that the word "bastard" is not offensive? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I can't speak for Yngvadottir, of course, but no one brought up Nazis here. The word "bastard" in this context is not offensive enough to be blocked. You've been told this three or four times now; if you disagree, maybe you should try your luck at RfA and patrol that board 24/7. If you are successful I will argue to have this topic ban vacated, should it be issued. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes this use of the word "bastard" any less offensive? How does the inclusion of the word in the name of an organization make the word any less offensive? Could someone who is a native English speaker please answer? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Frankly, I think that Drmies has a vendetta against me. It was not a few weeks ago that I posted a slew of vandalism-only accounts to AIV. She took the time to block IP addresses that were reported after my reports, but she didn't take the time to check my reports. And now this, which may have been made in good faith. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No vendetta. That I didn't look at some AIV reports while pursuing others means nothing--most likely I checked into a heavily vandalized article and when I got done with that took the dog for a walk. Or the chickens. Do feel free to post an AIV suggestion on my talk page and I will not fail to follow up if I can.

    "Native English"--thanks very much, I think I know English well enough. The problem isn't that I think you're reporting in bad faith: I don't think you are; I just think you fail to apply good faith and, frequently, common sense, to the users whose names you're reporting and from the looks of it I'm not alone. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Hoops gza: I am a native speaker of English (of a sort), for what it's worth. I share Drmies' feeling that "bastard" is just not terribly shocking, particularly when applied to the user him/herself. Also, I'd like to point out that being reported at UAA has the potential for big-time biting of new users who may unthinkingly be using nicknames or internet handles - or have names that sound unfortunate in English - or pronounce things quite differently from you - or have simply not thought it through that this moniker is going to follow them wherever they go in a vast database of edits (newbies tend not to know about contributions pages or article histories). And we don't have anything at sign-up that says "Wait! Don't use the name of your company because we have a rule against that!" And an awful lot of the names are already taken (the first four I tried were.) So this is a fairly sensitive area, which is why the rules highlighted at the top of the noticeboard: there's a risk of turning off or blocking well-meaning new editors, and we do like people to register user names. Does looking at that aspect of it help you understand? It's not just that you're making work for admins - I have to fulfil my quota somewhere or they may take my badge away '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support After going through Hoops gza's UAA reports from August and October, it's evident the the user is reporting usernames that at a quick glance seem to be known violations ie. "shit" which is a very common part of middle eastern sur/given names, also seems the user reports usernames that seem to be famous people, ie "ROBINWILlAMS"[sic] which is a famous person but, it's also too generic to be considered a UPOL. It's very evident the user needs to slow down and take a long review the username policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hoops gza, I think the moment an admin with five minutes to spare walks by here this topic ban will be implemented. Until now you've done nothing to alleviate our concerns; all you've done is argue we're wrong. The problem is that there is an overwhelming majority of users who believe that we are not wrong. If you want to keep on doing what you're doing, I think the best thing for you to do is to listen to what these editors/admins have to say. (Remember, it's admins that have to act on your reports--do you have any idea how much time it takes to clear a day's worth of reports?)

    If you can tell us that we may have a point and that you will take our concerns into consideration (something you haven't said yet) then perhaps this topic ban can be halted for now. That is my offer to you, based on your good intentions and our workload and concerns. But it will have to come with some detail, and you'll have to acknowledge the concerns we've had with various reports, like (the last time) the "nazi" names, for instance, and, recently, names like UWOTM9ILLHITU ("Deliberately confusing"). I would need to see a commitment to more care and more judgment--in general, not just with one or two particular examples. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Closing as ban implemented. Consensus is clear that Hoops is trying to help, but it's also clear that Hoops is unintentionally causing more problems that are being resolved. Ponyo's comment is crucial, When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (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.

Need advice: How to handle a banned sock who is also a BLP[edit]

I am bringing this question here in the hopes of getting some sound advice from administrators experienced in sock puppet and BLP matters. A semi-notable scientist has gotten himself banned for using various IP addresses, etc., to edit the Wikipedia article about him. There are, however, serious BLP concerns about the article that deserve to be addressed. He has posted those concerns at BLP/N using an IP address and self-identified himself as the article subject. Another editor struck the comment by the banned IP user. Please note, I am not alleging any wrongdoing by the editor who struck the IP user's comments. If the banned IP user had posted anywhere else other than BLP/N under these circumstances, I would probably have struck the comments myself, as is the common practice. However, given the circumstances, I wonder if this was appropriate. Should we not be encouraging a concerned BLP subject to bring their concerns to BLP/N, rather than punishing them by striking their concerns (even if they are a banned sock)? I can only imagine the frustration of the banned IP user at this point, who no doubt feels that he is caught in some sort of Kafkaesque web he does not understand. I would appreciate some feedback. For those seeking more background, please see the BLP/N discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerned subjects should not get themselves banned, so that they can avail themselves of the article talk page, BLP/N, etc. Failing that, there's always Bobby Tables (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As Bobby Tables, they can also view the whole section on advice at WP:Contact_us_-_Subjects. Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That e-mail is handled by WP:ORTS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Bobby, theoretically I agree with you: don't get banned/blocked. The common reality of the situation -- which I have now witnessed multiple times -- is an article subject attempts to make changes, or even simple factual corrections, to the article about them, and then they get banned/blocked because they chose a user name that identified them as the article subject. (Some then compound that error by socking.) Most article subjects have little or no understanding of internal Wikipedia policies and procedures -- why would they? I have witnessed merciless blocking/banning with little or no talk page explanation under these circumstances, and I have also witnessed the community controversies that are sometimes generated when a BLP article subject learns the WP rules and strikes back. It seems we should have better procedures for handling what is a relatively common problem. I have encountered a number of BLP subjects over the last five years, and once I have explained the applicable WP guidelines and policies, I have often found them to be a helpful resource in improving the articles about them -- they are often aware of bona fide reliable sources about themselves. Most BLP subjects just want to get the basic facts of their bios correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I find it hard - as a very experienced editor - to navigate Wikipedia's help pages, so I'd suggest providing the person with a fair bit of leeway here. It would be best to direct them to an off-Wiki means of communication though, if only for the sake of protecting their privacy. Bobby, I can think of a few instances where notable people ended up blocked while trying - in good faith - to amend their article to remove BLP issues, so your comment is a bit harsh. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The first thing that came to my mind was User talk:Jimbo Wales, where banned users are welcome to present their case directly to him. This seems like the exact drama that Wales' talk page is generally known for addressing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── fwiw i was involved in the last eruption of Ariel Fernandez back in October, which led to the semi-protecting of the article about him and a couple of days of drama. Ariel knows very well how to work all the boards and how to email WMF. I have been in email touch with him all day, until this afternoon when I told him i was done with him. he knows how to email editors. I think leaving one post from him at BLPN, struck (like this) is reasonable for people who are kind of new to the issues with him, but all other posts should be deleted. i would even say revdelled but i wouldn't want to waste anybody's time with that. Key point is 'he lost his privileges - after tons and tons of warnings. As a WP user he is not "poor little" anything - he has made many many SOCKs and in SPI discussions has outrageously lied (those of you who have seen SPI discussions know how that can go) and his editing has been relentlessly self-promotional. 100% WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • It's really not a good idea to keep this discussion going in such a public forum. If they wish to use the talk page or BLPN and don't cause disruption, we should allow them, but their best bet is OTRS— OTRS agents have a lot of experience dealing with article subjects and working with them to address what issues there are while patiently explaining that we don't write puff pieces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone wonder if maybe the subject's BLP concerns were addressed that maybe he wouldn't keep socking? Just a thought. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Blastikus[edit]

With the upcoming unification of these two SPIs[7][8] along with recent sock activity, I propose a site ban for Blastikus (talk · contribs) (the master sock).

Blastikus' voluminous screeds, sometimes spanning pages, have a recognizable style. He had been using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories,[9] eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment".[10] Socking followed.[11]

Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs), though it never officially connected to Blastikus until now, was another sock that edited fringe topics (Vitamin C megadosing, orthomolecular medicine, and others), including an 84K (!) sprawling rant about the New World Order.[12]

As (talk · contribs · WHOIS) he was blocked twice for warring and disruptive editing at orthomolecular medicine, and later topic banned from fringe science.[13] His ban appeal exhibited the same kind of fringe science screeds that got him banned.[14] Through other IPs he violated his topic ban, proclaiming "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban" and saying that admins "do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems".[15] He was blocked for violation of the ban. As another IP he continued pushing fringe science, resulting in another block.[16]

Most recently he was making a large number of fringe POV-pushing edits to Gustav Geley, along with his characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page.[17]

The new SPI connects to a global account which is currently going hog wild at wikiversity. Maybe we don't care about wikiversity, but if some of us do, then an additional reason for an enwiki site ban is that it will permit the wikiversity community to cite precedent, if/when they need to deal with him. Manul 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support ban as proposer. Manul 12:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the ban from Wikipedia, but due to his fringe interests I suggested for him to get involved with a paranormal encyclopedia, he may have taken my advice. Goblin Face (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The user is blocked indef and will continue to be blocked if his behaviour continues, so I'd consider him banned already. Yes bans mean we can revert whatever he does, but haven't his edits been reverted on the spot already? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a procedural thing. Support ban (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse siteban. He's already de facto banned in that no sysop with a lick of sense will unblock him. Might as well make it easier to revert his edits on sight. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Against ban. I can't see why writing at length in support of an edit should a problem, in circumstances where making the case properly demands consideration of considerable detail. No-one is forced to read it all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The reasons for the ban are not appropriately summarized as "writing at length". Manul 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the phrase 'characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page', which seems to be regarded as bad (or at any rate written with the intention of influencing people against him). In any case, a lot of the case against Blastikus seems to be based on the assumption that anyone writing in a somewhat similar style to him is him, an assumption that in law would be characterised as 'unsafe'. The more one looks into this, the weaker the case for a ban seems to become. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the evidence for block evasion is unequivocal, as can be seen in the SPIs. Writing style is just one facet of the body of evidence. After reviewing the SPIs, you could confirm the findings by googling the real name in the latest SPI. He isn't shy about admitting the socks, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Manul 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

GG sanctions / Brad Wardell[edit]

Per advice I was given in the Teahouse, I am posting here to discuss.

I propose to add the Gamergate sanctions tag to the article for Brad Wardell, on the basis that he has recently been involved in a much-talked-about Twitter exchange with Zoe Quinn, and the page subsequently appears to have been vandalized recently (looks like it was revdelled) after a period of inactivity. I worry that more such attacks may be on the horizon.

Are there any objections? (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As one who penned the GS/GG, I'm not seeing a reasonable case based on the text and the comments to justify enrolling the page. If the juvenile vandalism continues, request page protection is one of the least ways to protect the contents from drive by vandalism. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll keep it in mind and be on the lookout for more vandalism. Agreed that the sanctions only make sense if there's more significant contention over article content.