Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 84 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 43 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler#Splitting proposal - Sep. 2024

(Initiated 61 days ago on 1 September 2024) Discussion has become inactive and I'd like a third party opinion of the concensus. Adriazeri (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	8	0	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	13	0	13
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 157 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 192 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Larnoch_Road_murders#Requested_move_2_October_2024

(Initiated 30 days ago on 2 October 2024) Discussion has slowed after 30 days; needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor please. Muzilon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just closed a requested move discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Suggested_move. It was the 12th move discussion on this page since January 2010 (which may be some sort of a record), and the second move discussion in 3 months. I have therefore imposed a 12-month moratorium on further move requests.

I don't recall doing this before, so I am unsure if I should log this somewhere ... which is why I have left a note here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You did well IMO. Irondome (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I don't think there's a log for this, but am not positive. Miniapolis 01:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. Right or wrong, the clear fact is that there is no consensus to move, and there probably never will be. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

When administrator rights are granted like this by administrators to other administrators, could you guys at least indicate that somewhere? I don't see any place where it says that administrators are allowed to impose a moratorium on conversations on talkpages. This is a wholly new right for the sainted class.

Alternatively, you could have done this as a part of discretionary sanctions, but what are the discretionary sanctions? I have no doubt that administrators like to give themselves new rights to control the community like this, but as long as it's not in WP:ADMIN, I think you guys shouldn't be doing this sort of thing.

If this becomes a thing you guys feel empowered to do, it's invariably going to end up in arbitration. The whole point of Wikipedia's consensus model is to encourage discussion. So if discussion is now to be discouraged, then what is there to be done? Note that the discussion was closed "no consensus" which necessarily defaults to the wrong version. You are basically declaring winners by default whether you like it or not. In contrast, WP:RPP protections for one whole year are extremely rare things. Why should a move moratorium be so cavalierly entered?

jps (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No new powers are involved. All we would be doing is clarifying a behaviour that will be judged to be disruptive, namely a request for a move of this article. I don't agree with the title any more than you do (and probably for similar reasons), this has absolutely nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the title, and everything to do with the futility of the debate that has raged for a very long time and in the process demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that no consensus exists for a move. It's not going to happen and nobody wants to police the warring parties any longer. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think this conversation has ended as I don't think a coherent voice has been heard yet and that's why I'm not convinced that closing the discussion makes any sense. Keep it open for one year, if you like, and then have someone evaluate what happens. But by closing like this, you are just asking for people to stop until May 2, 2014 when they will just pick up where they left off. Why not let the conversation continue. What's the WP:NOTPAPER harm? I think you admins may not like reading such conversations to try to figure out who is right and who is wrong, but that's not a good reason to stop a conversation. It's just not. jps (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those who have a view different from the status quo will see the close and moratorium as a "win" granted to the other side, when clearly there was no consensus. That's not "no consensus to change". There was very strong argument in favour of change. It's just "no consensus". It's an unfortunate quirk of our policies that will now allow those who have "won" to say "You tried to change this and failed", implying that they are right. And that's not at all what has been demonstrated. A brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument and make a ruling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The ruling would be that there is no consensus to change. The current title does not provably violate policy. Sure, it's asserted to violate policy, but that's just an opinion and it's not held by people like Jimbo, according to his stated opinion on the matter, so arguing that it is, is futile. I say this as one who strongly prefers the "myth" title. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 It's a bit tedious to spend time weighing a discussion in accordance with WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus, and then be told that "a brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument". AGF, please. I am quite willing to go against the numbers where the circumstances justify it. (See for example crowned crane, Chipewyan people, and Hillary Clinton).

I did weigh the arguments, discarded those which were not founded in policy, and was left with a set of good policy-based arguments on both sides. Having judged that both sides had well-founded arguments, the job of a closing admin is explicitly not to make a WP:SUPERVOTE and decide which set of arguments she prefers. The admin's job is to weigh strength of policy-based argument and strength of support for them. In a case such as this, where there are broadly similar levels of support for well-founded policy-based arguments, it would be entirely wrong for an admin to impose their own choice between the two sides, and closures such as that are rightly and properly overturned at move review.

Where there is no consensus, policy is maintain the status quo. In situations such as this, where there is a persistent failure to reach consensus on a choice between two sides, that confers a first-mover advantage. The community may want to consider the notion that in cases such as this of long-term lack of consensus between 2 options, pages could be cycled between the two alternatives; but no such policy exists for now, and WP:TITLECHANGES prioritises stability.

I think that a better way forward would be for the two sides to prepare for the end of the moratorium by planning a structured decision-making process, such as has been used for pending changes (e.g. the 2014 RFC). Breaking the question down and separately assessing consensus on various propositions would be much more informative for all involved, and it is more likely to produce a clear outcome than yet another round of free-form discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your motivation, but there is no indication that drive-by closure and a rude "work it out yourselves, but don't bother me for a year" is the right direction here. I'm happy to start a structured conversation that would not have an outcome, but I'll note that I tried to do just this without a WP:RM and instead others took it upon themselves to claim a WP:RM. So if I wanted to start a discussion about how to start a structured discussion, am I banned from doing that on the talkpage? jps (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

jps, a little more AGF please. This wasn't a "drive-by-closure", and I didn't say "don't bother me for a year". My concern is not for myself, but for the editors who have been dragged into rehashing the same round-in-circles freeform discussion a dozen times in 4 years.

There isn't going to be another discussion for 12 months, so best to leave it for a while. But as you get towards the end of the moratorium, you could start seeking out the editors with whom you most strongly disagree, and start a discussion with them about identifying the issues at stake on both and starting a discussion on how to address those questions, separately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl, you didn't address my question. Am I banned from discussing how to start a structured discussion on the talkpage? jps (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

jps Hmm, "best to leave it for a while" was my attempt to answer your question, but you seem to want it spelled out in very precise terms, so I will try to make it as clear as I can be.

You are banned from starting a substantive discussion for another 12 months. There is no point in dragging editors into a 12-month meta-discussion about what to do next year, so don't start the talks-about-talks now. I was trying not to be too prescriptive about when it might be appropriate to start talks about talks, but if you want a precise time ... I'd say that 1 months before the expiry of the moratorium would be quite enough. That's 2nd April 2015. Is that clear enough? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that's quite clear. Just so I am 100% understanding, no one is allowed to discuss moving or renaming that particular article until 2 May 2015 or have meta-discussions about moving or renaming that particular article until 2 April 2015. And how is this to be enforced? Should we come to you every time we see an infraction or report it to this noticeboard? Or should we simply remove the talkpage comment? Or should we archive it with a collapse box? What are the parameters by which the enforcement will occur? jps (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

jps, please relax a little. Honestly, all this is about is simply that repeated discussions are going nowhere and wasting editorial time and effort ... so please everybody, just drop the issue for a while and get on with other stuff.

If anyone starts down that path in the meantime, any other editor can close the discussion by noting the moratorium and hatting it with {{subst:archive top}}/{{subst:archive bottom}} ... and if anyone wants to contest that, ask for assistance at WP:ANI. There is no need for any enforcement to involve me rather than any other admin.

Hope this helps!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• In practice such moratoriums - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months (most usually 6 months) - are not uncommon in RM closers' instructions. However they are not always of the high quality of BrownHairedGirl's moratorium here. An informal log somewhere would be helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall I fix this? Can you identify any other RM moratoria in place? jps (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to have a hunt, a quick request at Talk:RM would probably yield up to a dozen examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the need for a centralized log - what would it be used for? In each case the RM moratorium is noted on the article talk page, where any admin about to make a change, or user about to request a change, can see it. Why would someone need to see it elsewise? I think WP:BURO applies here. BMK (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Logging is a good idea because it guarantees transparency in what are often contentious decisions. It encourages a kind of institutional memory which is important when looking at longterm development of a situation. That's why it is done for discretionary sanctions, for example. jps (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikipedia can ever find a solution to problems like this where a decision that there is no consensus to change, plus a moratorium on future attempts to change, delivers precisely the result sought by those wanting no change, and is seen by both sides as a win for them? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I also endorse BrownHairedGirl's handling of this issue. Cutting down the pointless move discussions (which are doomed to end as "no consensus," since it always seems to be the same alternate title that's suggested) to once a year is a good idea. May I also add that this talk of "winning" and "losing" has an unfortunate taste of WP:BATTLEGROUND about it. -- 101.117.2.111 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's just dismissing a real view obviously held by many. Labelling it doesn't change that view. And maybe that repeated alternative is a bloody good one. That it's the same each time probably points to that, rather than it being wrong. Any objective observer would have to admit that those seeking change aren't a bunch of irrational bigots. Dismissing their request because it's the same each time is not helpful. The arguments against are also the same each time. Will you similarly dismiss them? HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As closer, I do not see either side of the discussion is irrational or bigoted. Nor do I see any such suggestion from the IP above. Sure, there was some ILIKEIT/IDONTLKEIT commentary on both sides, but there were also a lot of well-reasoned, policy-based arguments. However, endlessly discussing the same thing without ever reaching a consensus is not a productive use of anyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my post beginning "I wonder..." above. Even if arguments are evenly balanced on both sides, what we get from this is a status quo result. That might sound fair, but in fact it's simply one that reflects the thoughts of the side that got in first, and is diametrically opposed to that preferred by a lot of editors with well reasoned arguments. We ARE declaring an absolute winner, when in fact it's been a pretty even fight. The well regraded views of half our editors are now being suppressed by the other half. I wish there was a more even solution. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 When there is a lack of consensus (as is repeatedly the case here), any choice of title will be unfair on half the editors who expressed a view.

The question of what to do has been answered in policy. See WP:No consensus: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. In this case we have an unusual situation, where the title has been broadly stable, but only due to a lack of consensus. There is a case for arguing that this extraordinarily oft-repeated evidence of a lack of consensus is a form of instability, but that has not been how I have seen the policy interpreted before. If you wanted to make the case that this long-term-no-consensus amounts to instability and therefore justfies a move to "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" ... then feel free to open a move review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No BHG, your close certainly fits with policy. It cannot be criticised on that front. But I'd say that the multiple move requests clearly do demonstrate instability. Especially since there is so much drama every time a discussion arises. And it's virtually impossible to see any form of compromise that ever would please both sides. The positions seem so diametrically opposed. I just wish there was a way of demonstrating to our readers at article level that, while the current article title is the one reached according to our policies, a very significant number of editors think it's a very poor title. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, there have been very few attempts at an actual compromise, in the form of something that was not perfect but maybe acceptable to both sides. Trying compromise language—language that is neither narrative nor myth—would work better than repeating exactly the same proposal six times (so far). Perhaps something like Genesis creation story (I'm sure someone could do better) would be a more acceptable alternative than the oft-misunderstood "myth" language. You have a whole year in which to think up a compromise. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What we need is a discussion committee with nominees from all sides. I know exactly who I would nominate to be on it, but Wikipedia doesn't like such things. jps (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Thanks for confirming that my close fits policy, tho I wasn't actually fishing for that support!

My suggestion related to the narrower question of what to with this persistent lack of consensus. The reason I suggested move review was purely that within the context of persistent no-consensus, I think there is a case for treating it as unstable title and threrefore reverting to the title of the first non-stub. I don't want to set to create any precedent myself, but I think that a move review on that narrow point could be interesting. Or maybe it would be better approached as an RFC on the principle? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Creation accounts in Genesis? StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I think now that attempts at compromise are misguided. A primary argument of many of those seeking change is that all religions should be treated the same. That such stories should all be called myths. (Even if that's not the case now.) That position will never be satisfied by a solution that doesn't treat the Christian story the same as other religions. It's pretty hard to compromise on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you're not interested in compromise. That goes a long why to explaining why we get all these pointless repeated move requests, and shows the necessity for the moratorium. And you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension -- in fact, where other religions have a written creation narrative, the Wikipedia article typically uses the title of the narrative, without the word "myth." For example: Diné Bahaneʼ, Sureq Galigo, Enûma Eliš, Barton Cylinder, Gudea cylinders, K.3364, Debate between sheep and grain. It seems that what you really want is to treat Christianity differently from other religions. If the moratorium doesn't calm things down, it may be necessary to take this to ArbCom, since ArbCom is empowered to determine facts, which discussion-closers are not. -- 101.117.110.223 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom is not empowered to determine facts, although it can create its own ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been writing in the third person, and not mentioning the thoughts of specific editors. I have been trying to describe the broader problems with this debate. You wrote about me, rudely. Fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous user, your examples imply that equal treatment for the Christian creation myth would be to name it after a myth's title. However, that would not work since Book of Genesis already exists (Genesis alone is a disambig), with this particular article referring specially to the creation myth in its first couple chapters. Creation myths without titles have names like Islamic creation myth, Japanese creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Mandé creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Serer creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, and so on from Ainu creation myth to Zuni creation myth. Those are the articles which proponents of Genesis creation myth wish to be consistent with. Though since their form specifically is [region or people] creation myth, an argument might be made that Judeochristian creation myth or Abrahamic creation myth is more in line with them. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not start debating the title again here. This discussion is just about the moratorium. StAnselm (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...brown haired girl 'impossed' a moratorium? She can't do that. Seriously, this is bull(self edited).--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have imposed moratoriums in move request closes on occasion, most famously after the first major Chelsea Manning move discussion. I was asked at that time how much authority I had to do so, and I replied then (as I would contend now) that any administrator has as much authority to take such an action as the community is willing to recognize. This is informed by the reasoning behind the decision to impose one. I'm sure that an administrator who imposed, for example, a ten year moratorium on future discussion of a proposal would not be taken very seriously. A year-long moratorium is probably on the outside of what is feasible, but is entirely understandable given exceptional circumstances. I would imagine that such an imposition, like any other part of the close, is subject to consideration in a move review. I would definitely support having a single centralized page listing all move moratoriums in place at any given time. bd2412 T 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If any editor wants to open a move review, then the moratorium would of course be up for review too. If the community chooses to overturn it or alter it's length or whatever, that's fine by me.

My concern was simply to break the extraordinarily cycle of rapidly-repeated inconclusive discussions which rehash the same arguments at enormous length. If the community wants that cycle to continue, so be it; or if it wants to find some completely different way of resolving this dispute, that's even better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Had I known you imposed a moratorium with the Manning case I would never have accepted/supported you to be a part of the Clinton closure. This isn't an abuse of tools since you didn't use any, but no one has to recognize anything just because..."you say so". And I do not. This is not a consensus discussion. Any such discussion would take place on the article talk page. Unless arbcom has decided to make such a moratorium as part of official sanctions this is little more than bullying others and using your position as an admin to take advantage of a situation. there is no policy or guideline that allows this. Seriously.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mark Miller, I think you have misunderstood me. BrownHairedGirl did not impose a moratorium at Chelsea Manning; I did. She was not involved in that closure (and I was not involved in this one, or in the HRC closure). bd2412 T 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow...that was really hard to find this post after opening the editing window. Thanks for explaining that and sorry for the mix up. keeping who said what straight is becoming something of a headache now.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Endorse BrownHairedGirl's action per DISRUPT - always the same apples-to-oranges argument, nothing new the last several go's. We need to put apples (significantly widely held beliefs with extensive cited controversy about the genre) into the same labeling with oranges (nearly extinct beliefs with hardly any cited controversy about the genre), all for the sake of "consistency" - a slippery slope. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• comment if we are considering some sort of moratorium, then the debate should have been more structured and the close some more detailed discussion of numbers and policy rather than just "close as no consensus", which the last two do - this just emphasises a first move advantage in these type of situations. I'd suggest a more detailed rationale and structured discussion with broader input like some other closes - 12 Requested Moves suggests it is a topic which deserves a more detailed and structured close and then a moratorium. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree. Like: All such discussions on this page are temporarily suspended until further notice. Interested parties are to repair to WP:Mediation to in good faith explore compromises or the basis and wording (with respect to background of the dispute, counterpoints, policy and sources) for a fully laid out community wide RfC to be held on a neutral page and widely advertised." Or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the simple "close as no consensus" and the first move advantage. In something like this we need a much more detailed analysis. "No consensus" often seems like an easy out to me and can allow a minority to always have their way. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is a huge waste of time for the community to debate these things over and over. The Arbcom does similar, see for example the Infobox case. This used to be a standard type of closing comment for repetitious RMs, I don't know why BrownHairedGirl is suddenly get so much flack for it. If someone has a burning desire to discuss this yet again, or has new reasons to request a move, they can always bring their reasons to the talk page or WP:Move Review. —Neotarf (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: A separate discussion of the validity of the moratorium is being held at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Should we impose a community moratorium on moving this page title. It doesn't seem to be helpful to have two discussions at the same time, especially if they are surveys gauging community support. StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a discussion specific to that article. What I'd like to see here is someone pointing to a policy or discussion that gives any single user (with the possible exception of Jimbo) the right to unilaterally declare any discussion closed for 12 months. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this discussion is also specific to that article. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong endorse. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings, this issue has not been settled and we're here to build an encyclopedia, not fight for our personal viewpoints. These discussions that have been closed for a year have not been resolved in the previous 4 years and previous 12 discussions; it's time to move on. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• I can't actually endorse, as I clearly object to anyone imposing sanctions on their own, but now that the discussion on the article talk page has been closed by an uninvolved admin and this is now the centralized discussion (if this is actually where all these moratorium discussions take place we may need to move the Hillary discussion if it is still open) I would certainly !vote (as I did in the other discussion) to Support a moratorium. This is not about beliefs, at least it shouldn't be. It is about whether or not the community feels that there is enough consensus to ask that no further move requests be made for a period of time. I generally feel 6 months is a good period, but if 6 months...why not a year. I do, however hope this will be added as a dislaimer on the talk page so that other users not seeing this discussion or not around at this time will have the proper notifications to not start another move discussion.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse the actions by BHG and the moratorium itself. I strongly support a move to creation myth, but that's not the issue here. The issue is disruption of Wikipedia with continual going-in-circles move request which we can do without. The question whether an admin can/may unilaterally impose a moratorium are understandable, but in the end just rule-wonkery. If there were significant dispute over the moratorium itself (but there isn't) we would be in a different situation, but we aren't, which renders the meta-issue moot. Spare the discussion for when there is actually something to discuss. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. I noted on Jimbo's talk page that perhaps things like an RM moratorium should be discussed and allowed to gain consensus prior to implementation, but putting the cart before the horse in this case won't change the end result. The RMs have obviously long since stopped being productive, and it is time that the involved editors spend some time on other things. They can always reconvene in a year for another round of "all talk, no action". Resolute 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse At some point, enough is enough. BHG did the right thing. Reopening the same move proposal just 3 months after it had failed for the 11th time fits under the broad definition of disruptive editing, and fashioning a reasonable remedy for disruption should be within an uninvolved admins discretion. Maybe people could constructively spend the next 12 months trying to find a process that could lead to a compromise.--agr (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It seems seriously odd that an admin can impose a moratorium on the justification of "enough already" and then get community consensus. Not to mention that this basically kills off all chance of compromise for twelve months, since it can't even be discussed in any way until that time.Rwenonah (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently quite a few people would agree with you. One could look at it that way, or perhaps the alternative is to view it as a SNOW issue, especially in light of the overwhelming consensus we have here to create a moratorium. Perhaps outcomes so severe (don't even talk about it for a year) ought to be discussed first in any case, but at that point the only question is should that have happened first. I see very few people questioning if it (the moratorium) should have happened at all. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It sets a strange precedent. Could an administrator shut down this discussion on the basis that they felt it had gone on long enough and preclude all discussion of the topic for a year? I should hope not. Rwenonah (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I should hope not as well -- the first time. But we're not talking about the first time. We're talking about an argument that has gone on a dozen times, each time lasting weeks or months, over the course of the last 4 years. "No consensus" has been reached, nor is consensus likely to be reached in the near future without some form of structure being imposed on the discussion other than the freeform course that it always takes.

The same people who are voting "Oppose" for the moratorium would be the first people to vote to shutter a discussion per SNOW were someone to restart it, mere days after its unresolved closure. All the moratorium does is saves a step in that process: any such discussion has been preemptively SNOWed until it expires. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would just add that BHG promptly brought her moratorium here for review. Since, as you say, it would be completely inappropriate to restart the discussion this soon, were the moratorium to be rejected, no one would be inconvenienced in the slightest.--02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have previously seen admins who included such moratoriums in their closes say that they were advisory, rather than binding. That seems to me the correct understanding. There is nothing in the policy on Requested Moves or elsewhere, as far as I can see, that gives admins the power to unilaterally ban RMs for a specified. I would agree that people should take a break here before recurring to the issue, but a year seems an unreasonably long time to me - six months might be a reasonable suggestion. Neljack (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Regardless of the merits of the arguments to be made on either side, the behavior of repeatedly nominating something for a move request over and over becomes problematic. Such a moratorium frees up editors to use their skills improving other articles rather than rehashing the exact same stale arguments with the exact same group of combatants over and over again. This moratorium is a good idea. --Jayron32 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't disagree with the moratorium itself, the principles behind it and the precedents set by it are seriously flawed. Rwenonah (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse 12 move requests since 2010 is far too many. After reading the discussions, it seems to me that editors involved have better places to devote their time. So in place of topic bans, blocks or whatever for being disruptive, a moratorium is probably the best course. Moratoriums are placed by closers in various circumstances, and this one clearly fits the criteria. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. A dozen move requests since 2010 is disruptive, as is making the exact same request just three months after the previous one failed. BHG was correct in placing the moratorium and made the correct call to seek approval here. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 03:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse By bringing the matter here BHG is making it clear that the moratorium is community supported (if this discussion so chooses; otherwise there is no moratorium). Accordingly, objections based on the horror of an admin imposing a solution do not apply. Time spent debating whether BHG filled in the correct forms is time wasted—what counts is whether it would be desirable for move requests to be debated every few weeks until eternity (no, it wouldn't—any decision would be better than that). Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Perpetual debate tries one's patience. It drags people into a debate almost unwillingly. This becomes a matter of endurance. I agree that someone should put the brakes on the reopening of this debate with a frequency that seems unreasonable to me. I guess I endorse. Disclosure: I am one who opposes the proposed move. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse I recently closed one RfC endorsing a moratorium because it was clear that the same old arguments had been repeated ad infinitum, & nothing would be accomplished by hashing them over & again except to exhaust one or the other party & achieve a change as if the discussion were a competition. (I set it indefinite on the basis that if someone had a point or argument that hadn't been expressed, then the discussion could be reopened; so the moratorium could be permanent -- or a few days.) Yes, consensus does change -- sometimes for the better, sometimes the worse -- but repeated restating of the same points only serves to harden opposing viewpoints, not to create a new consensus. People need to remember that silence & reflection are also part of the process. -- llywrch (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - It may be uncertain whether individual admins can impose moratoria but a decision at WP:AN certainly can do so and that's where we are at now. A dozen move requests since 2010 certainly passes the barrier on whether a moratorium is reasonable. Would it seriously be beneficial to the encyclopedia to look forward to a new move proposal every three months from now on? There is some history of moratoria being imposed at WP:AE in contentious article naming disputes, for instance here though that was under Arbcom authority which is different from a community decision. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - No point in debating this over and over. Moratorium might be a good idea at Sarah Jane Brown as an alternative to arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - too much time is wasted on repeating the same request over and over. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - This does not set a precedent. Admins have often laid down conditions on articles. And there are a small number of articles that seem to have endless and unproductive move discussions. I support a 12-month ban on moves on this article, and a more general (but shorter) one on initiating repeated requests on all articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong endorse - Neither editors nor admins on this project are robots, and I thoroughly appreciate it when an admin takes what could be a controversial action in order to do the right thing and quell the problem. Sure, they take a risk when they do so, and since we're quick to jump on them when their judgment seems wrong, we should be equally quick to stand behind them and thank them when they are right. BMK (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Question This will sweep a difficult issue under the carpet nicely, for a while, and please those who support the status quo. But what will be different next time, whenever it happens? HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A convincing new argument, which gains community consensus should do it. A massive infusion of Non-involved input would be good. Both sides need time and space to muster new sources and approaches to argue this to a decisive conclusion. This is just attrition at the moment. A moratorium system would dovetail into this method. I do see a way through. Just not every 3 months or so. Its just groundhog day. Irondome (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • How about coming up with a different proposed name the next time a move is requested? Perhaps begin with a discussion of possible alternatives?--agr (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I can't see how that can be a solution. One of the arguments of those who want change is that all religious creation stories should be treated the same. (I know some will want to argue against that, but this isn't the place to do it. I am not presenting the argument. I am describing it.) There's no point asking someone who thinks that it should be called a myth, because other articles are, to propose a different name. That's not asking them to compromise. that's asking them to drop their case completely. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I have no doubt that many who support the move are so uncompromising, but perhaps some supporters might accept a different approach, and thereby build more of a consensus, rather than the present standoff. If it really is all or nothing, then perhaps a one year moratorium isn't long enough.--agr (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
          • This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. BMK (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFPP is once more flooded, mops to hand

Another week, another "oh right, RFPP is a thing" reminder. Currently we're at 52 requests pending so we're in need of a little attention over there and probably something else so we don't have to post something at AN every few weeks it happens. tutterMouse (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I took care of a bunch of them. FYI, admins being in short supply is hardly a problem unique to RFPP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The rest have also been taken care of so thanks to those mucking in. I know admins being in short supply isn't unique to RFPP but would be nice if we could get some admins who'd have a regular look see every 24 hours or so to prevent backlogs of requests for something I see as fairly crucial to the wiki. tutterMouse (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It [was|is|is going to be] finals week for most university students. I would expect some delay in admin tasks until mid-may. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done some - more to do. Gotta do stuff elsewhere so anyone wanna do a few..is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc

I would like an uninvolved admin to notify Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per WP:ARBPSCI. The user was minimallty active for some time then returned in 2013, since when they have been showing obsessive support of the agendas of Rupert Sheldrake and his supporter/apologist Deepak Chopra. The views of both are way out in the long grass. This user now purports to mediate in the "dispute" between SAS81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an openly declared media representative for Chopra) and world+dog. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive is interesting too. This user appears to have lost interest in Wikipedia then returned after a hiatus to right great wrongs.

SAS81 has engaged in forum shopping because he does not like the sound of the word "no". This is expected and normal under the circumstances. Several users in good standing are counselling him on the Wikipedia way of doing things, and this is ongoing. I mention this user only for completeness: I do not, at this time, advocate sanctions against him. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc has already been notified of discretionary sanctions, and indeed has already been sanctioned for harassing users from behind a sockpuppet and for wasting the community's time.[1]

There is a tabled request on him at AE, with "a low bar for reporting newer disruption". JzG, AE is likely a better place for this. I have evidence to submit about the recent continuation of his attacks against me (I was the one who exposed his sockpuppeting/harassing activities). vzaak 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the cause of this notification. I've been intermittently active (including long hiatuses during the discussion over Sheldrake) for many years and have always tried to keep a neutral, reasonable tone to my contributions. I've never shown support for the agenda of Rupert Sheldrake (I was arguing against the incivility of editors on the page, not for Sheldrake's views) or Deepak Chopra. If you disagree, please show a diff.

I have edited numerous other pages besides Sheldrake (which I haven't touched in months) and Chopra, and was introduced to the Chopra issue independently via the BLP board, where I'd offered to other editors the exact same referencing help as I did for user:SAS81. On Chopra I've been trying to work with other editors to establish a best practice to determine which sources would be most valid and applicable, namely focusing on independent secondary sources. Far from endorsing his agenda, I have argued that many of SAS81's sources should not take priority over existing secondaries. I have been mediating with editors from very different view points and we've been making excellent progress. All of my suggestions have been for a stronger emphasis on reliable sources, not a relaxing of WP:FRINGE.

I know we've had minor misunderstandings in the past, Guy, but I honestly don't see the issue here. Also, what do the SPI's Vzaak keeps pushing against me have to do with this? He got me warned once, then tried it again and was told by an admin that there was absolutely no connection. It's frustrating to try to contribute in good faith and be called "obsessed" over something I've never once spoken in favor of, let alone have editors repeatedly bring up this SPI issue. The Cap'n (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@user:Vzaak, see above about bringing up the SPI (over and over again), but otherwise what "continuing attacks" are you referring to? I've done nothing against you since bringing up my issues about you continually bringing cases against me (1, 2, 3) at AR. I honestly would like nothing more than to leave you alone and vice-versa. Voluntary IBAN?

And yet again, what disruption? I'm mediating a discussion on citing secondary sources, how is that disruptive in any way? Let it go, Vzaak, I don't want to fight with you. The Cap'n (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about what is happening here. What is the problem actually? All I can add is that the Capn came into help on the BLP noticeboard and chimed in on my COI noticeboard and offered to help mediate. I also do not agree with Guy's assesment that I have a hard time being told 'no'. I was not aware he was in charge I was under the impression that Wikipedia is collaborative and Capn appears like a collaborative editor while Guy seems very angry that I am here. Capn has been very helpful in a very difficult situation, I wish there were a few more like him. SAS81 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Askahrc responded to a request on the BLP notice board and has attempted to mediate what had become a contentious article. His actions and behaviour have been appropriate and neutral, and he has provided a somewhat even tone to a sometimes less than pleasant environment. I see no reason to have brought him here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

@Vzaak: I agree, but I am involved so someone else needs to do it.

@Littleolive oil: No they have not, because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area. Whoever should mediate (and actually mediation is not necessary, the iussue is just that the Chjopra media machine is trying to buff up the article), it should not and cannot be Askahrc. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that Askahrc (talk · contribs) has the basic level of WP:COMPETENCE required to mediate. This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Either way, a bizarre and ineffective mediation attempt that will inevitably follow unless he is stopped is just going to create WP:DRAMA for the sake of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: Like anyone, you can submit a case to AE if there is sufficient disruption, with the "low bar" in mind. I haven't followed the recent Chopra events enough to address that. I was alarmed, however, to see Askahrc casting an aspersion on the Chopra talk page. If someone submits an AE I will add to it, otherwise we give WP:ROPE.

However the issue with WP:ROPE is it is already getting long. Askahrc uses a sockpuppet to bully users, then brings an arbcom case about bullying. Askahrc promulgates battleground polemics on-wiki and off-wiki, then brings an arbcom case about battleground behavior. After being sanctioned for wasting the community's time with the first arbcom request, Askahrc submits a second time-wasting arbcom request. After arbitrators tell him to use AE in the first arbcom request, Askahrc brings another arbcom request without using AE (perhaps because there is a tabled AE request on him with a "low bar" for reporting future disruptions). After being caught harassing users with a sockpuppet, Askahrc uses AE and a formal arbcom request as a platform to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS against the person who caught him, and now after a hiatus Askahrc resumes it on the Chopra talk page. vzaak 14:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Guy. Askahrc had edited the Deepak Chopra article before he responded at the BLP NB? I don't believe so. I have no comment on what is happening on the Chopra article at this time but, I think we can agree to disagree.

I am differentiating between an editor who comes into an article as either an informal mediator or formal mediator per our DR system and one who is attempting to steer to a neutral ground, (Askharc) maintains civility and so far is not pushing an agenda on to the other editors. As an aside, I am always put off and become suspicious when an editor's past is dragged up in a dispute as is happening here as a means to support an attack on that editor. Such an action intended or not dirties the water so we can't see what if any the real issues are at this point in time, on this article. Whether the editor is successful at mediating a situation is not the issue. Mediation with even the most experienced mediators is often unsuccessful in my experience. What is at issue are the allegations made which I believe are unfounded.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Thank you, littleolive oil, I appreciate you weighing in. I've shown numerous diffs documenting what we're working on in Chopra, while I still haven't seen any showing supposed disruption. A few rejoinders:

• @vzaak I cast no aspersions on Chopra, I clarified an editors incongruous mention of SPI, and have backed it up with diffs. Speaking of aspersions, you are repeatedly misrepresenting events to suit your audience (and I think you could fit in your failed AE's "low bar for future disruptions" quote a few dozen more times, but be careful not to bring up "I'm interested in dated diffs of recent misconduct. No such diffs have been submitted here, and as such, I'd decline to act on the request as submitted."). You contradict yourself by saying that when the first arbreq was tabled I never sought the requested AE, then mention me harassing people with an an evidence-free AE. The truth is that I did file an AE as requested, it was filled with diffs of evidence and the admins agreed that the people it was brought against were acting inappropriately and needed to be sanctioned. Finally, you admit that you haven't actually read the progress on the Chopra page, but are apparently just endorsing this AN out of an assumption that anything I'm working on must be disruptive. You got me with one SPI and have been gunning for me since, even arguing with an admin when your second SPI got rejected. Please back off, Vzaak, this is inappropriate behavior.
• @Barney the barney barney, claiming that I have a mental disorder that is typified by gross incompetence, extreme ignorance and even brain damage is a clear violation of WP:NPA, something you've been sanctioned for before. Again, you claim that mediation will inevitably become "bizarre and ineffective" unless I am stopped, without showing any diffs, examples or evidence of my supposedly outlandish behavior, nor of being familiar with the Chopra talk page.
• @JzG, you said "because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area," which is factually incorrect. I've never worked on the Chopra page before the BLP, I've never been sanctioned for POV-pushing and despite people like Barney (who has misled you before) asserting otherwise, I have never seen a single diff showing any POV-pushing on my part. I chimed in briefly on the Sheldrake page, but pretty much all of my effort there was insisting editors needed to be more civil and stop issuing AN's, AE's and SPI's against the people who disagreed with them. The result was that I've been since hit with AN's, AE's and SPI's. Take what you will from that, but my participation on WP has always been to increase neutrality and sourcing, NOT to push a POV that I don't even agree with.

Basically, I feel like I'm being presented as the boogeyman, but no one has actually presented any evidence of these grave disruptions I'm supposedly involved in. Instead I'm looking at assertions, personal attacks and more assertions. I'm getting really tired of logging in to pursue a hobby and dealing with senseless hostility from the same exact people over and over again. With all due respect to those involved, spend your time making WP better instead of following people around and trying to get them banned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The only drama I see being caused is by a number of the editors commenting here who keep on pushing this battleground mentality and don't want to drop it. In my COIN, an uninvolved admin even weighed in on the activity of 'skeptics' on the page and mentioning directly that it makes the community look bad. Capn agreed to help mediate in that COI because this admin was asking if there was any uninvolved editors who could help bring a balance. Capn offered. Other editors have PM'd me telling me they don't want to get too involved because of this harassment. In the meantime I'm still getting pinged and one of the editors here (vzaak) who is not even involved in editing the article is bringing up some conspiracy plot they believe either I or capn is involved in. I'd like to offer a solution to this rather bizarre environment. Let's just focus on content. If we do that then problem is solved. SAS81 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I simply asked why you brought me into it, and the answer you proffered didn't make sense. I had a right to ask. I didn't say you were part of a conspiracy.

Regarding your concern about "skeptics" looking bad, the issue is that Askahrc had previously been sockpuppeting in the role of a "skeptic" harassing users and issuing threats in an effort to make "skeptics" look bad.[2] On the Deepak Chopra page, he has continued his effort to discredit me as retribution for catching him sockpuppeting. This behavior is not acceptable.

Incidentally, I have never called myself a "skeptic" and I don't associate with any such groups. The primary problem I see with the "Guerrilla Skeptics" is their stupid name. If a group of regular, non-misbehaving Wikipedia editors call themselves "The Misbehaving Wikipedia Editors", and then they roll their eyes when people accuse them of misbehaving, that is stupid. vzaak 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Barney's statement suggesting Askhahrc is suffering from a mental disorder is unacceptable and unconscionable and most especially in the context of this discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) has apparently taken askahrc (talk · contribs)'s bizarre accusations at face value without clearly reading what I originally wrote. To clarify, I have not, never have, and never will accuse anyone, especially askahrc (talk · contribs), of being mentally ill. I do not really care what illnesses askahrc (talk · contribs) has. What I do accuse askahrc (talk · contribs) of is rank incompetence, contrary to WP:COMPETENCE, and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent. This is what Dunning–Kruger effect says - read the article here!). This is with great justification as outlined by Vzaak (talk · contribs).

Actually, I believe I was being extremely generous in accusing askahrc (talk · contribs), and assuming good faith that he's not just a thoroughbred troll, just completely incompetent.

I believe this is the worst case I have ever seen of a user falsely whining "personal attacks" when confronted with basic damning evidence against his anti-consensus behaviour. In this I assume that in good faith Askahrc (talk · contribs) is not deliberately lying, but just not competent enough to distinguish fair commentary on his capabilities from personal attacks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm familiar with both the condition and what you wrote. You suggested here an editor may be suffering from what is a mental illness, "This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect." I assume now you did not mean to suggest mental illness. You might consider retracting the comment. I might add that suggesting another Wikipedia editor is completely incompetent is a lot to take on oneself. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Since no uninvolved admins have weighed in and this has become yet another tit-for-tat squabble among the usual suspects, I suggest this be closed. If there is evidence of misconduct, present the diffs at AN/I, I'm not sure why this dispute was brought to AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Little olive oil (talk · contribs) - the Dunning–Kruger effect is not a mental illness. Please stop displaying your ignorance by claiming that it is or might be construed as such.

It is also usually considered best if a "mediator" in a dispute has the confidence of all parties involved. Since Askahrc (talk · contribs) clearly doesn't have the confidence of those broadly as "sceptics", it is clear that he can't and shouldn't be getting involved. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Barney: Dunning-Kruger can overlap in some with or as anosognosia which can in turn overlap with psychosis. At any rate although I guess its better not to comment on the editor but stick to the edits. Askahrc has the right to be involved as any of us do. As I said above. I did not see him as a mediator (and I have struck the word since it was causing confusion) per our DR but simply as a neutral-toned editor. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Apparently Askahrc claims to be "uninvolved" because he has not edited the Chopra article. He has, however, been involved with the parallel article on Rupert Sheldrake: Sheldrake has been prominently supported by Chopra and the two reference each other, Chopra holding up Sheldrake as an example of trying to "bridge the gap between science and religion" (a little like trying to bridge the gap between Sakatchewan and sasquatch: a futile and meaningless exercise). The two are inextricably linked, and the common thread is extremely relevant in that in both cases the problem is the rejection of the subject's conjectures by the reality-based community. That plus a prior ArbCom sanction indicate that Askahrc is absolutely not a proper person to even offer to mediate, and definitely will not be accepted by a number of those with whom the purported mediation is required. In fact, no mediation is required, only patient explanation of why Wikipedia will never portray Chopra as a medical visionary until credible scientific evidence is produced to support his beliefs. It's taken medical science a century to slay the ghost of superstition, vitalism and magical thinking, Chopra basically represents the undead corpse of this unlamented triumvirate. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, beautifully written, but an opinion. While we can respect the opinion we don't have to base an article on it. You are right though in that Saskatchewan and Sasguatch are not related although there may be Sasquatch in Saskatchewan. They'd have to fight off the grizzlies, though.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Correction, Barney the barney barney, I don't have your confidence, the discussion on Chopra (of which I'm just one member) is progressing nicely toward a reasoned consensus. There have been no problems there, but you wouldn't know since you haven't been involved in the discussion. Do you have anything productive to add besides insults and calling users ignorant and incompetent?

And Guy, I've never tried to assert that Sheldrake or Chopra (btw, one mention of Sheldrake by Chopra does not make the two inextricably linked) are medical visionaries, medically mainstream or anything related to the unlamented ghosts of superstition you brought up in your WP:RGW speech. Also, the ArbCom you reference sanctioned me on the first round of SPI's vzaak brought against me, not on POV issues (he brought that too, but it was tabled for a complete lack of evidence).

I'm so tired of this nonsensical-talking-in-circles, I don't come on here to fight. You keep claiming I'm POV-pushing, then I ask for POV diffs, and then you bring up something completely unrelated, then I ask for POV diffs, then you go on about the grand scheme of things, then I ask for POV diffs, then your associates pop in with PA's, then I ask for POV diffs, then you claiming I'm POV-pushing again... For crying out loud, take a breath and look around! I've been working civilly and productively with editors who share our perspective (yes, ours, if you'd take a second to read my posts) to find consensus in organizing secondary sources by reliability in an objective method. It's preposterous that this is contentious! The Cap'n (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Askahrc (talk · contribs) - I don't present myself as some kind of spokesman, but I'm confident that most of the WP:FRINGE-fighters from WP:FRINGE/N basically agree with me that you shouldn't get involved in this. I don't want to name drop, it's terribly unbecoming. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! This is so juvenile and childish and disappointing to see Wikipedia operate this way. It's not hard to see what is going on here. If I never came to Dr. Chopra's article, I don't think anyone would be going after the capn. Considering that Guy, Barney the Barney and Vzaak all seem to want him to go once he started to help. Yet neither Guy, Barney or Vzaak are making any contributions in the discussion other than accusations, soapbox speeches and aspersions, they are simply NOT HERE to contribute!

Vzaak why you're involving yourself here when you claim to be so uninvolved is rather unscrupulous. No one mentioned anything about any skeptical groups, and I find the claim that you do not consider yourself a sceptic to be a very dubious considering your contribution history. At least Guy and Barney are upfront, I know where they stand. And I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting our discussion, you did accuse me on my talk page of withholding information which by definition would make me apart of this conspiracy your so convinced and excited about. Also, since you decided to single yourself out and bring your own actions to my attention, this conspiracy theory trip your on about Dr Chopra is over the top and bordering on something I would rather not mention. I noticed that you recently accused the capn somehow of being in cahoots with Dr Chopra regarding the Ralph Abrams issue???? are you serious? And I see you have a hard time letting that conspiracy theory go as well, plastering Wikipedia with this gibberish.ex1, ex 2 ex 3.

PLEASE STOP THIS ALL OF YOU! I am here to help diffuse a situation, I'm not naive to the environment here. When I see editors gang up on the one or two editors from the outside that are trying to help and the levels of effort they make to harm them sends chills up my spine and makes me question how Wikipedia could ever operate this way. Very sad to see this! SAS81 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin(s), please either weigh in or close this case. Otherwise, the bickering will continue which is not a profitable use of this space or your time. Accusations without evidence are just that, accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81: This is off the rails. Stop accusing me of this "conspiracy" stuff. You have seemingly misinterpreted effectively all of what I have said recently and in the past. You are linking to things that are manifestly not conspiracies, like the WMF server cache bug issue. It is not some "wild idea" that Askahrc engaged in deception by using a sockpuppet to harass editors. That is a formal finding logged at the arbcom page on pseudoscience.[3] vzaak 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81 I appreciate your support, but I'd recommend you keep your distance from this debacle. I'm happy to help you (or anyone who asks) with sourcing, but as a COI you're probably going to be held to a different standard and I'd feel bad if you got roped in and started getting slammed with vague accusations like I've been recently. They've repeatedly gotten hostile against Liz and all she did was comment that they were being uncivil.

I urge you to not give up on WP policies and continue operating openly and honestly. Be careful of getting involved in third party disputes like this as it will not help your case, even if what you read is outlandish. As a COI, it may not be helpful to my case, either. I have faith in WP procedures; this trio have no evidence, argument or position other than their personal dislike of me and I trust any given admin (aside from Guy, of course) to see that.

@Vzaak you aren't addressing the fact that after the SPI (which concluded with just "Fairly Convincing") you kept accusing me of socking, even accusing me of committing crimes until an admin told you to stop. Nor that your associate Barney was sanctioned on that board for WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I'm through contributing to this meaningless wall of back & forth. I've tried to answer questions, be civil and explain the situation, but it appears useless. If someone has a question, please ask me, otherwise I'll spend my time doing something useful. The Cap'n (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, it is not right for you to continue to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS. If you wish to disentangle yourself, stop casting aspersions. I never simply "accuse" anyone of socking, as you suggest. Rather, when there is evidence of socking, I file an SPI. Two administrators concluded that you were socking because of the evidence showing that you were socking. Regarding the second SPI, there was ample evidence for a checkuser request, and indeed a checkuser was run. You now claim that an admin told me to "stop". No administrator said any such thing (stop what?). You have been given many warnings: cease casting evidence-free aspersions. By contrast, the SPIs I have filed are backed up by solid evidence. If you have evidence of misconduct on my part, take it to WP:AE immediately. vzaak 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if it would be considered relevant, but a note on my talk page indicates that Askahrc is collaborating with Tunmbleman and suggest that this campaign is intentionally disruptive. Make of it what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reluctantly poking my head back in... @Guy, that note was left by an editor who was warned and sanctioned for misrepresentation, incivility and PA's about the very issue they're bringing up again. The Cap'n (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That conversation on Guy's talk page called "Cap’n McDouche" is disturbing as editor 76.107.171.90 is seeking collaborators and ideas for ways to get The Cap'n kicked off Wikipedia and s/he also badmouths Olive and myself. Publicly conspiring to drive editors one has differences with off Wikipedia is hounding and disruptive and should be discouraged. It also confirms what The Cap'n has been saying about a small group of editors persistently seeking ways to get him blocked for no other reason than they disagree with him. @76 has already received one block for his behavior towards The Cap'n but admins should be aware of this plotting. They admittedly want to get The Cap'n blocked, they are just looking for a reason...they have tried several times but have not succeeded. I don't think any editor should have to put up with this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but there is also an external problem related to Tumbleman and Askahrc's rather openly stated agenda to achieve more sympathetic coverage of Sheldrake (which of course relates directly to Chopra). I think we are seen on-wiki facets of an off-wiki dispute, which is further complicated by the existence of a long-term on-wiki dispute, use of sockpuppets (including by Askahrc) and meatpuppetry. In short, the whole thing is a hideous mess. Normally I'd just have nuked the anon comment but it does set the spidey-sense tingling. That siad, you are right, it is blatant trolling and I have now removed it. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ARE#76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney, 76.107.171.90 received a two week block and there is now a two month interaction ban between Barney the barney barney and Askahrc. I realize that it doesn't look like this post will lead to any admin action against any editor but I thought it should be updated to reflect the result of the related ARE case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed at Microsoft Windows

 Done The article is supposed to be about MS Windows, but the whole thing is currently reading (at least on my machine) as a thing related to WP:HATNOTE. Not sure what happened there, but it definitely needs a looksee, and one form an admin because the page is protected at the moment. 24.92.104.80 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks normal to me. Please try refreshing your cache or purging the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That was because of an edit to Template:Rellink, now fixed. As Diannaa says, purging should fix any articles that are still using the broken version. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Alexa Olvera

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. This article has been speedy delete in es-wiki and fr-wiki, as encyclopedic irrelevant and hoax. I notice that here was placed a template proposing deletion, but instead an IP replace it with a reference template. In my home wiki it´s not allowed to do that, but I'm not familiar with the processes in the english wiki, so I prefer to inform about here. Regards, —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) PS: Looking more close at the revision history, the page has already been propose several times for deletion and every time the template has been change or eliminated by the user who created the article or an IP. Please, an admin need to look at the article.

It is permitted to remove a BLP-prod template if a reference is provided that verifies what the article says. The reference added here does not. Rather than simply replace the BLP-prod, I will nominate this at WP:Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Olvera. Thank you, Frei sein. JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said there, this is borderline CSD#G3. Not sure what that says about the editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I reckon, let sleeping hoaxers lie, unless he makes a nuisance of himself by removing the AfD template or vandalising the discussion; then block as WP:NOTHERE. His Spanish block is a username block: Viola la política de nombres de usuario. His first name may be related to pedo = a fart, pedorrero = one given to farting, which my dictionary marks as tabu, but I can't make anything of his second. My wife thinks it may mean something rude in Basque. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Skookum1 again again

I've reverted the collapse at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Skookum1 again; closure may be appropriate, as we weren't getting anywhere, but the closure header is not a possible interpretation of what needs to be done, even by Skookum1, himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin. I have stricken the last part of the NAC closure. The admins in question were acting in their admin capacity and on the request of other users. They are to be commended for attempting to take on this messy and thankless chore. —Neotarf (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Point of Order: It is undesirable to alter the archived version of the discussion. Best practices would suggest unarchiving the discussion with a new subsection at the bottom of it disputing the closure. But if the thread is to remain in the archives, it is best to leave it in an unaltered state. Rgrds. --64.85.217.100 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is undesirable for such an absurd comment close a discussion, indicating there may be some support for it. If you want to reopen it, that's fine, although the probable consequence would be for Skookum1 to be banned, which I do not want. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgeten vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I found forgeten vandalism on this article. Some vandal with username Feezo removed category, links to other articles and he deleted part of article with informations about new series. I cannot edit this page because it protected.--Lisa Shertoon :-P (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandal? You're sure? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anjaan333

Hi, I'm reporting this user to ANI because they continue to be disruptive. I previously reported Anjaan333 for edit warring here. User kept trying to edit Drishyam to his/her preferred vision, failed to participate in discussions, failed to respond to warnings, failed to properly explain their edits, and was ultimately blocked for long-term edit warring. I also opened an SPI report after noting a suspicious new account Sajay the future of india, which was created 2 hours after Anjaan received his 48 block, making the same fundamental edits. Anjaan's block expired, and he's again submitted disputed content at Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). In this edit the user again submits their version of the article, which they had submitted multiple times before their block.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. From what I can tell, the user is randomly reordering names, changing references, making assertions about box office gross that isn't supported by the source (User asserts 50 crore total, source says "close to 49", and the community apparently disputes the reliability of the sources used), Anjaan333 fails to actually DISCUSS the edits per WP:BRD (see this deleted warning/note I placed on his talk page asking him to do just that) and his edit summaries are insufficient, tending to comprise confusing statements like "if you are a mohanlal fan then saw his films not distroy wiki", "Ok sir", "Sir", "Sock", "Socker", "Sorry", "Where is unsourced". Since there seems to be no getting through to this editor, I think this goes beyond edit-warring, and is just straight-up disruptive editing. User also didn't respond when he was notified of the edit warring report I filed, so I doubt he's going to let us reason with him. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The user's unwillingness or inability to use talk pages [12] [13] is troublesome and either a symptom of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:NOTHERE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's a sign that we really do need a discussion system that inexperienced people can navigate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Amen. The instructions on how to use talk pages sent out by OTRS result in a response of utter bafflement about half the time. And they are pretty clear. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Go to the article in question
2. Click "talk" at the top
3. Click "New section"
4. Enter a heading in the first box,and your message in the second. Put ~~~~ at the end to sign your message.
5. Click the "save page" button at the bottom.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Contested renaming of Đeneral Janković

Đeneral Janković article is renamed, contrary to the outcome of the last RM discussion. Will somebody restore its name prior to contested renaming. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back with a note that, as a controversial (to say the least) subject area, any renaming must be done through the WP:RM process. I'm about to drop a note on the mover's talk page pointing out the same thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI

WP:SPI has an enormous backlog with at least one case listed 9 days ago awaiting action. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The people that you should speak to about that are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Scratching my head

Ive come across a page that Im really not sure whats happening. User:Djgriffin7/Mark G. Frank has ~17+ editors editing it, most of these users its their only activity. Im not sure exactly what is going on. Is this some kind of sock issue or what? Werieth (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

School project? GiantSnowman 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That was my first guess, too. Note that Djgriffin7 previously did a lot of work on Steven A. Beebe (formerly a page in Djgriffin7's userspace), who like Frank is a communications professor. Also, a lot of the usernames editing this page end in "93" or "94", which would suggest a class of college students who are 20 or 21 years old. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A bunch of students working on their professor's article would be my random guess, but surely the easiest way to find out is probably to ask one of them on their talk page? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

...or to be more efficient ask @Djgriffin7: as he is likely the co-ordinator. GiantSnowman 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the IPs that have edited the page, I would say it is a project from State University of New York at Buffalo. GB fan 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely a class project at SUNY Buffalo. See [14]. Re Steven A. Beebe, see User talk:Djgriffin7/Steven A. Beebe. It would also be helpful to put him in touch with Wikipedia:Education program. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello - yes - these two pages are class projects for students who are enrolled in Communication Theory courses. Out of the approximately 75 students across two classes at two schools not one of them had ever edited Wikipedia in any fashion (until now). I hope that our activity was not too troublesome and was not so erratic or error filled as to cause any problems. I of course am a new Wikipedia editor and am open and welcome any tips or advice. Graciously. Djgriffin7 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Djgriffin7, we have a School and University Projects area that you would usually contact in advance of the project in order to help alleviate concerns like this, and coordinate the types of learning that are conducive to Wikipedia. This will help you to ensure your student success! the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for guiding me in this direction. I am dying to know what a "sock issue" is as referenced by User:Werieth above. I couldn't find it on Google or via Wikipedia. Can someone explain? Djgriffin7 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet. And for similar policy, see WP:Meatpuppet. Sperril (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Offensive rhetoric

IP user:24.135.50.156 comment, labeled Wikipedia all-time low, at Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, labels unspecified WP contributors as "neo-nazis." We don't need such invective in connection with such a potentially fraught topic. [15] Sca (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You can place a warning on their talk page. That's a start. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone (not I) already removed it. Sca (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ds/sanction move request

I have initiated a move request to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community Sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for Community Sanctions. The move request is at Template talk:Ds. —Neotarf (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality of article creations

As most of you are probably aware, I have a long-standing history with User:Rich Farmbrough. Some of you feel that I should leave him alone, either because my complaints are meritless (which is contradicted by the results of these discussions), or because there is no need in a wiki-environment for one person to follow the edits of another, no matter how many times they have found problems in them; the theory is that if it is bad enough, someone else will notice it. In reality, this make take quite a while though; once editors are established, their edits get very little scrutiny, as evidenced by the below.

In an effort to reduce the number of complaints and errors, Rich Farmbrough has received three editing restrictions, basically an attempt to improve the quality of his editing by reducing the quantity and repetitiveness of them. While the restrictions seem to be followed now, the wanted results are lacking. I have focused on the articles he created since his return, the ones listed here between George T. Lanigan and Aux Raus, i.e. (not counting the disambiguation pages) some 43 articles. I have not focused on his many redirect creations, although they have some of the same characteristics, like the self-referencing Template:South-Sudan-politician-stub or the dubious value of P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso, which seems to be a novel invention, not something really ever used by Picasso or in any serious work about him.

Not mentioning simply unsourced articles or articles with serious typos, and skipping those I was not able to quickly research (e.g. biographies of Japanese military personnel), I noticed among these 43 new, often very short articles the following problems (in reverse chronological order):

• George T. Lanigan
  • Wrong year of birth and death (article gives (1815-1874), correct would be either 1845 (10 December) or 1846 as year of birth, and 1886 as year of death, e.g. [16]
  • Wrong business (politician? Can't find any evidence for it)
  • Lanigan or Lannigan? Article was moved, but lead not corrected
  • No references
• St George Henry Rathbone
  • Merged an existing article with the right name to his newly created one with the wrong name (original was St George Rathborne, note the extra "R" in borne)
• Peter Irving
  • Only claim to fame is a book he wrote, Giovanni Sbogarro: A Venetian Tale. In reality, he didn’t write that book, but translated it from the French (original by Charles Nodier, Jean Sbogar, Histoire d’un Bandit Illyrien), which leaves us with a distinct lack of any notability in the article.
  • Originally claimed that the book was written in 1920 instead of 1820, corrected by someone else
• Josias von Rantzou
  • Title and first line don’t match; title is wrong, should be at Rantzau, not Rantzou
  • Unsourced
• John Russell (1838-1956)
  • 1838-1956: really? That’s quite a feat
  • We already had the article John Russell (screenwriter) on the same person…
  • Image is probably still copyrighted (uploaded to Commons as PD by Rich Farmbrough, but artist died in 1945, so not dead for 70 years yet)
• Olga de Kireef Novikoff
  • Born in 1842? No, born in 1840 (some sources give 1848, but none seem to give 1842)
  • Better known as Olga Novikoff or Olga Novikova, or especially Olga Alekseevna Novikova, but very rarely, if ever, as Olga de Kireef Novikoff (no Google books or regular google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors)
• Anne Lattin
  • Her real name is not "Louis Dwight Cole" but "Lois Dwight Cole", much better known than the rarely used pseudonym Anne Lattin. Important for playing a crucial role in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor, not for her few books, but that can't be learned from the article
  • Born c. 1910? Well, actually, born 1903, died 20 July 1979
• Custódio José de Melo
  • Almirante de Melo was a sailor? Well, yes, "almirante" is the Portuguese for "admiral", so he was an admiral, as someone else helpfully added as a category afterwards… Perhaps technically not wrong, but not helpful for our readers at all.
• José de León y Echales
  • Taking three days to die? No, some Sergeant-Major, the only one to survive the massacre and reach camp, survived for three days: the Governor was probably instantly dead. This can be seen here, the source used by Rich Farmbrough.

So, of these 43 articles, at least 9 have serious problems (certainly when taking into account the stubbiness of many of them), some more major than others of course. Many of the others are probably factually correct, and some errors undoubtedly escaped me, but is it really acceptable that an experienced editor (not some clueless newbie) is filling Wikipedia with this amount (or percentage) of really incorrect information? Creating duplicate articles, merging a correctly titled one to an incorrect title, getting dates of birth and death wrong, missing the important facts of someone's live completely, ...

All advice on how this can be prevented is welcome. Sofixit is a short term solution, but hardly something that one can expectr to be a continuous state for any editor. While we need prolific and enthusiastic editors in general, we don't need them no matter what, and at some point one has to consider whether many contributions outweigh this many errors. Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you and Rich Farmbrough make a great team - he tees up rough and stubby articles and you do the detail work. A tremendous amount of Wikipedia content is created through exactly such steps. bd2412 T 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind rough and stubby, I mind wrong (and unsourced as well, since that makes it much harder to check everything). I don't mind correcting someones errors, if it is a rare occurrence or if there is improvement. But neither applies here, and at some point enough is enough. The very least is requesting that all his articles (and major edits) are properly sourced, so that we don't get edit summaries like "Well I think he was on a council, possibly somewhere beginning with B."). Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• ...An edit in which he removed the reference to being a politician. He was fixing what you found him at fault for and you still find him at fault while fixing it. By the way, there was in fact a George T. Lanigan who served on a council in Boston, just not THIS Lanigan. Rich's edit summary is a mea culpa, nothing more, nothing less. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am not complaining about the edit, I am remarking on the edit summary, which is not a "mea culpa" at all, no matter how you read it. A mea culpa is "my mistake" (e.g. the copyright status I questioned above was my mistake), not "I'll remove it even though I think I was right". Your years-long defense of Rich's edits is admirable, but it would ne helpful if it was a bit more realistic sometimes. Fram (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sofixit is how Wikipedia works. Every single one of us makes errors. It's the body as a whole that works. WP:PERFECTION (which states that perfection is not required) is policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sofoxit is nice, but that doesn't mean that substandard editors are allowed free rein. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is the guideline that applies here (e.g. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #2, but also WP:IDHT: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.". Fram (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Fram, really, most of these are not "serious problems". They are minor, and easily rectified. Just a cursory review of the 9 you selected shows errors on your part. Examples; Peter Irving was a member of the New York State Assembly. It took me just a few seconds in a Google search to find that. Sufficient for notability (see WP:NPOL). You claim that File:Greattrainrobbery.jpg is "probably still copyrighted". You are wrong. The work was published in 1912 (which is noted in the article), making it clear of copyright as it was published prior to 1923 (See [17]). You claim Ms. Cole is famous for her role in "in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor". Well, since you attack Rich for copyediting errors, you should have typed "Gone with the Wind". Yes, almirantes are sailors, and the article was in need of improvement, a fact that Rich noted himself on the article. I also note that several of the issues that you raise have already been corrected by Rich. Perhaps you should have raised this at his talk page first? "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution" (WP:DR). Since you are making so many errors in posting to WP:AN, should we disallow such "substandard editors" the "free rein" to post here? You're focusing on 21% of the articles he created, finding problems that do not exist, and failing to recognize the 79% where you didn't find error. You failed to raise these issues to Rich to give him an opportunity to fix them (which he is now doing). This is agitating. Go back to Rich's talk page and work it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      • None of the issues that I raised were corrected by Rich Farmbrough before I raised them. None of these were minor either (three of the nine articles are or were at the wrong title, one is a duplicate of an existing article, and so on). Easily rectified? Yes, of course, once someone points out the problem and the solution, they are easily rectified. Until then, they remain for months or years. The problem is not that he didn't have an opportunity to fix them, the problem is that he created these errors, even though they were apparently "easily rectified". I don't blame him for copyediting errors (like writing Gorges for Georges, or itialicizing a title instead of bolding it in the first line of an article), that's the kind of thing that always happens and is indeed easily rectified by passing contributors; but I blame him for basic factual errors. The difference should be quite obvious. As for "go back to his talk page and work it out", earlier problems took years to work out and were only resolved by ArbCom. He is not some newbie who needs some initial guidance, these are basic errors that no experienced editor should be making with such a frequency. Fram (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • So instead just ramp it up and bring it here for sanctions against him? Much (all?) of this has been corrected since you started this thread. Had you given him the opportunity on his talk page, it's obvious he would have corrected it. Next time, don't assume bad faith. Give the man the benefit of a chance to fix it. So what's your end game here Fram? What's your ultimate goal with regards to Rich? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Much remains uncorrected, as can be easily seen by comparing the above comments with the actual articles. It's obvious he would have corrected it? That's not what happened some of the previous times, when I listed the problems and he halfheartedly corrected some of them, disregarding the others for no obvious reasons. Furthermore, like I said already a few times, the problem here is not "will he correct them or not", the problem is someone creating this many factual errors. Of course, some people will never agree that X is many (apparently more than 20% is not "many" for some). There is no ABF involved, he created these errors, I didn't assume he did. My end game? To have an editor with a basic sense of quality and fact checking. If you want to add facts to an encyclopedia, we should be reasonably sure that they will be correct. Not perfect, not typofree, not complete, that's not what anyone is asking; but normally, your edits should be factually correct (or at least backed up by a reliable source). Fram (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
            • But since you've already concluded that talking with him on his talk page is useless, then it would seem obvious your intention is having him banned from the project, no? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
              • No. I've concluded (rightly or wrongly) that it is useless for me to talk to him on his user talk page. My intention is to seriously reduce the number of errors he introduces into the mainspace. Any method that can achieve that is fine by me. For someone so concerned about ABF, you seem to be very quick at doing the same. Fram (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong agreement with bd2412 here. WP does not (rightly or wrongly, but that's how it is) have a minimum quality standard. WP:CSD is as close as it gets.

WP used to have a practice of collaborative editing, per IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. This has been increasingly eroded recently, a development that does nothing to improve quality and even less for breadth of coverage. The deletionist logjam that nothing can be created unless perfect in all aspects from the start is one of the most harmful problems today. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes there are issues, a lot of articles have issues. Thousands and thousands of articles are blatantly wrong on some level. Rich does need to be more careful, many seem to be simple typos at really key points, but he has come back to fix them when the error was pointed out.[18] Rich should develop some content to GA and FA standards, but that's a journey and I hope he'll make the jump to it. Rich, you should not be egging it on with edit summaries about "automation" and such. Though it seems bizarre that someone should have to worry about the Proveit citation template maker or something... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The argument from WP:SOFIXIT is incorrect. Yes, Wikipedia does indeed grow and get better by editors fixing other editors' mistakes, but that does not negate the obvious, that an editor who creates articles with many mistakes in them is a problem. When we fix problems in an article, we AGF that the problems got there accidentally, but if an editor is having a lot of accidents, it points to a lack of care, and that hurts Wikipedia. For the time before a mistake is fixed, our accuracy is less than it should be, and out credibility (such as it is) is reduced. For these reasons, an editor who habitually makes content mistake needs to be dealt with. Fram is right to bring this to our attention - although Fram should also have fixed the problems they found and not left them in the articles. BMK (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Normally, I would have fixed them. But in this case, I prefer to stay away from his articles, as fixing all his problems may be seen as harassment by some as well (and would be a nearly full-time job anyway). And the claims (not by BMK, by others here) that the problems are fixed after they have been pointed out is not really correct as well, many of the issues raised above still remain. The case remains that no experienced editor should be needing a nanny. Fram (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Note that I have corrected hundreds of errors he created in the past. I have little interest in repeating that experience, or in delegating it to someone else. My aim is to prevent more problems. Fram (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • The only way you're going to prevent him from making errors is to ban him from the project. Is that your goal? You made several errors in bringing this complaint here. Should we ban you? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Several errors? I said that a picture was probably still copyrighted, your link seems to indicate that it isn't. Fine, that's one worry less, talk page used like it should be. I believe that when people make too many factual errors in their article editing (not just typos and the like, but getting basic facts wrong), action should be taken. Mentoring, restrictions, whatever, up to and including bans when necessary. For most editors here, this will never be a problem, since their error rate is considerably lower. But some editors, who continue to be problematic in their main space editing (like Rich Farmbrough, but there are other examples like LauraHale and so on), will need to change if they want to stay around. Fram (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, several errors were made by you. That was just in a cursory review. If that many came out in a cursory review, I'm sure you've committed many more errors. So what should we do about all the errors you are committing? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Feel free to list the other factual errors I made. Then again, if they are of the same level as your "oh, you wrote Gone with the wind instead of Gone with the Wind" example, don't bother. Either you can't see the difference between the kind of errors I listed (and the namespace they were made) and the things you are complaining about, or you are deliberately trying to disrupt the discussion, but neither is helpful. If you don't produce anything new or more substantial, then I'll let you have the final word if you want it, and am done replying to you here. Fram (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The initial creation of George T. Lanigan seems to have been copied from Hugh Graham, 1st Baron Atholstan without attribution, which is also potentially a problem. Choess (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is easily fixed using the "copied" template and putting on the talk page of both articles. BMK (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia, the edit summary link is required, and {{Copied}}s are optional. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution mentions using dummy edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fram found 9 of 43 articles created by Rich to have "serious problems" (debatable; some of them are simply copyedit issues). I.e, 21%. I took at look at Fram's 10 most recent article creations. Of those, I found 4 with various issues:

1. Isabelle Errera was created by Fram with various categories commented out, thus no categorization.
2. Kilsyth Curling Club; created with part of edit summary reading "Create short article", yet Fram failed to add stub templates {{Scotland-sport-club-stub}} and {{curling-stub}}, which are present on 2 of 6 of the articles in the category he placed this article in. Also failed to use {{Infobox curling club}}, which is recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Curling/Article_Guidelines#Other.
3. Gruuthusemuseum created by Fram with commonscat and section title issues that had to be fixed by another editor [19].
4. Lepus cornutus was created by Fram with one of the categories being Category:Mammals of Europe ([20]). Fram knew the animal was fictional, but placed it in this category anyway. The category was later removed by another editor.

Granted, a small sample, but it appears 40% of Fram's article creations have issues. This is about twice as bad as Rich. Fram has been editing since 2005. He is a very experienced editor. He should know better, right? Should be invoke sanctions on Fram? Of course not. The point here is nobody is perfect, and being perfect is not expected. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you are comparing formatting issues with factual errors. I could have listed many formatting issues from Rich Farmbroughs creations, if I wanted to get a higher percentage, but then you would have (correctly) complained about me including all kinds of minor issues which have no impact on the correctness of the encyclopedia. Not using stub categories, infoboxes, and so on has no impact on the correctness of the article. The Gruuthusemuseum diff you give is one typo ("Links" instead of "links") and then some AWB replacements where the original is also accepted, these aren't errors. If you can't see the difference between those and e.g. having the wrong name, wrong dates of birth and death, and so on, then you have no business in this discussion. If you do see the difference, but choose to ignore it for the sake of making a ridiculous WP:POINT, then you have no business here at all, as you are simply being disruptive. Fram (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears that Rich Farmbrough has been informed about this thread. He appears to be staying out this discussion, which -- from what I've read up to this point -- appears to be the wisest thing to do. -- llywrch (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have history with both editors, and it should be noted that Rich's alleged errors are mostly errors of fact or of copyright violation, while Fram's are errors of formatting. Not at all similar. And I would say that someone who makes errors of fact in even 5% of article creations would be a problem. (I say that as someone who has not created articles, because I know I would make too many errors.) Still, I don't see quite enough here for Rich to be censured for it. If Fram finds more errors in the future, now that Rich has been informed, this is the place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin's point about the quality of the errors seen being just as important -- if not more so -- than the quantity is an important one. Factual errors and copyright violations are serious problems that need to be eliminated as much as possible, and do not compare with errors of formatting or other picayune mistakes.

  I believe that Fram's point is that RF's history is rife with making errors. Previously, his use of automation frequently resulted in formatting errors, and he is now banned from using automation. Now, the point is being made that his non-automated work may have errors as well, and of a wholly different and more serious kind. I'm not quite sure that the evidence here is conclusive, but it is worrisome, nonetheless, and should serve as a wake-up call to RF to be more careful in the future, or to have other editors vet his work whenever possible. BMK (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I doubt much has changed though. He hasn't created more articles, but yesterday, i.e. after this discussion had been going on for a while, he made his first edit to Heinrich Rantzau, but the information he added was wrong (and unsourced). I reverted[21] and explained why on his talk page, after which he added the probably correct but still unsourced information[22]. Similarly, he moved Olga de Kireef Novikoff to Olga Novikoff, but then changed her full name in the article to Olga Kireef de Novikoff. When challenged about this on his talk page, he pointed to a Spanish (or Portuguese?) translation of an old book on Madame Blavatsky; the original book did not contain the supposed full name (it mentioned once "Olga Novikoff, née Kiréef"), but somehow the web-only translation of this book[23] changed this to Olga Kireef de Novikoff, and that lonely and utterly unreliable source is the basis for Rich Farmbrough to determine the full name of this Russian lady in England, for whom there are plenty of fully reliable English language sources. It doesn't look like this thread has (so far) made any difference in his approach to fact checking. Fram (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

An informal RfC at Talk:Celibacy needs attention

• Talk:Celibacy#Requests for comment

Would like someone like to take a look at the discussion above and see what should be done. This originated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) which closed a few months ago as a merge to Celibacy, but what does one do when editors at the target do not want it? There seems to be a rough consensus to not include said material, but as it was never a formally-posted/templated RfC, not sure if we advertise for a wider audience or just run with what's there. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like the community's input on two matters:

1. Specifically, EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22
2. Generally, what are admins obligated to consider when blocking for edit-warring when two or three reverts have been made.

The article in question is Human sexuality history. Diffs supplied upon request but I don't think anyone is disputing the actual edits.

Flyer22 reverted twice in the span of five minutes this morning. After the second revert, she was warned by the other editor for edit warring. No more reverts occurred on her part and talk was ongoing [24]. After about forty minutes after her last revert, EatsShootsAndLeaves blocked her and the other editor (who had three reverts) for edit warring. There is some history between Flyer22 and EatsShootsAndLeaves as Alison will attest to [25]. Other editors including myself got involved on both talk pages [26], [27]. Rather than discussing lifting the block, EatsShootsAndLeaves chose to characterize my comments as "atrocious and incendiary" [28]

Whether he agrees or not, EatsShootsAndLeaves' actions gives the appearance he will impose WP:1RR as he sees fit. As I said on Alison's page, I'm just flabbergasted that an editor in good standing can be blocked for two reverts with no warning. Looking over the edit histories of the 20,000+ articles I have watchlisted, hundreds of veteran editors would have lengthy block records if this was applied across the board. There needs to be some other justification for blocking other than "two reverts". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the most disgusting show of ABF I've seen in ages. I'm currently in discussion with Writ Keeper on my talkpage regarding this issue, and have already advised that I would review. NeilN's incendiary and non-AGF comments so far today have been unfortunate, just like this filing - it's phrased as a question, but is instead an accusation. I will, however, make nomore comments here - and will continue the discussion on my talkpage where it's already underway the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that the word "incendiary" applies to both ESL and NeilN here. Rage and accusations aren't going to help outsiders understand what happened here, or decide what should happen going forward.

  It appears that ESL has said he's going to re-review the basis for the block; how about we give him a little time to do that and then see what might or might not need doing? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware, there are no discretionary sanctions on 'Human Sexuality' although there are on some specific areas that fall under it, so there is no real reason for any admin to start imposing a 1rr restriction without some form of discussion. While edit warring can be done with less than 3rr, if someone makes 2 reverts, is warned about edit warring, and starts discussing on the talk page. That is how editing is supposed to work. Any block at that point is just punitive and petty. So since EatsShootsAndLeaves wants a question, here is one - "What about your block was preventative?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very premature. I do see that User:NeilN is discussing with ESL, as we like to see, but while that discussion may not become a case study for how disputes ought to be discussed, it looks to me like it was abandoned a bit early. I'm sympathetic to the point that the block appears a bit hasty, but talk about it and come back here if that fails.(in other words agreeing with the sandwich)S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If a veteran editor labels your point of view "atrocious and incendiary" then that's a sign for me to break off and get other opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• For convenience, I've assembled a list of the relevant diffs, sorted by time made: User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper, as you know, topics surrounding human sexuality are the primary areas where Flyer22 tends to edit. They do a lot of good work there, across a swath of topics I wouldn't even begin to touch. However, human sexuality topics are also those that have gotten many editors in a lot of trouble - having just search ANI for both "Flyer22" and "human sexuality", you can see a lot of issues raised across the board - including a rather nasty situation between Flyer and a transgender editor that I believe ended horribly. It's an often poisonous set of topics where ownership has often been accused, and tempers have flared...often with very little provocation.

Flyer22 is a long-time editor, and while they have been knee-deep in some of these situations, have been provoked, and have also done some of the provoking. As a long-term editor, they also understand EW, its difference from 3RR, and the appearances. They know WP:BRD like the back of their hand.

From what I see of your list, it was almost 30 minutes between Flyer22's last revert on Human sexuality and when I blocked both editors. This delay is not at all questionable - after all, WP:AN/3RR reports often go hours without being touched, and blocks that come from those delayed reviews are not considered punitive.

Also, if one considered only those edits from today, then you're right, my actions might appear odd. Taking the poisonous history of that article into account, it does place the entire situation into a much wider context - a context that cannot be ignored - those 4 reverts cannot be taken in isolation.

Discussing on the article talkpage is also not a vaccination against being blocked for edit-warring or 3RR - discussion is vital to the project moving forward, after all, it's how we gain WP:CONSENSUS.

The edits being made by the other blocked party were perhaps inappropriate, but did not violate wP:BLP, WP:COPYRIGHT, nor any of the common exceptions to edit-warring. Following WP:BRD, or at least letting the discussion on the article talkpage continue instead of immediately reverting would have done no harm to the project or the subject.

As has already been said elsewhere and many many times, nobody is guaranteed 3 reverts - that's merely a bright line.

Flyer22 themself has admitted to having performed the second revert, and IIRC they acknowledged that it could be perceived as problematic. From what I recall from their talkpage this morning, they have not doubted the technicality of this block, but have merely expressed that I should not have been the one to perform it. I have not been to their talkpage in hours, and have already advised that I will not return - not even to re-read.

Based on the potential for escalation as per history on this article and with other editors on this and related articles, I perceived an extremely short edit-warring block as an immediate resolution to what I viewed as a rapidly-going-to-hell situation. Both parties were equally at fault, and as such, I issued 12hr blocks to both parties (even though Flyer22's past block history might have called for something longer, it was my clear desire to prevent what I perceived to be immediate issues, and most certainly not to punish anyone).

What was I to do instead?

Block neither and allow the possible escalation? No - not knowing the history of the wars on that and similar articles.

Block only Flyer? Hell no - they were equally at fault with the reverts.

Block only the other editor? I considered it - briefly. But then I considered the ethical dilemma with leaving one editor with the ability to keep control of the article, or to have the appearance of being favoured over the other.

It was a catch-22 situation, so I made the decision to make short, equal, project-protecting blocks. After all, both were warned, and both were very aware of the issues the panda ₯’ 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You didn't even consider placing a note on the article's talk page stating any further reverts would result in a block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would I do that - both editors were obviously aware of edit-warring; after all, ONE of the editors was throwing warnings around everywhere the panda ₯’ 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And again, Flyer22 had no more reverts after the other editor gave her a warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean the edit-war had stopped? Do you guarantee that? There's a reason that even WP:3RR is over 24 hours - nobody watches their keyboard 24/7, and for all anyone - including you - knows is that they might have gone back to make their next revert (note also the definition of WP:REVERT does not mean simply clicking UNDO) the panda ₯’ 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been quite loudly banging WP:AGF around my head today. Shouldn't you do the same? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm the only one who is :-) There's a reason I chose 12hrs, isn't there. the panda ₯’ 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll also notice no one else has said "Good block" or "Endorse block". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, and in the long run untrue. the panda ₯’ 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So feedback is irrelevant and you can see into the future. Okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Flyer22 after taking into account the relevant edit histories and EatsShootsAndLeaves's admission that he blocked without investigating all of the relevant facts fully ascertaining the entire timeline. Block logs are permanent things, people. We should not be blocking until we are absolutely, 100% certain we need to do so. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I made no such admission the panda ₯’ 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you only stated that "I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning" when presented with a chronological list of the edits that you blocked Flyer for. I'm not even taking any alleged previous history with the editor into account. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, "the alignment is very different" is obviously NOT the same as not "investigating all the facts" - as you can read above, it was extensively investigated. the panda ₯’ 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You and I are reading that very differently then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how. English might not be my first language, but there's no other possible way to have read my statement...and have you corrected your incorrect statement after having seen the truth above? There seems to be a disconnect now...oh, and now there's the matter of the ethical dilemma about the other editor remaining blocked because of a rash unblock of one of the parties the panda ₯’ 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no ethical dilemma here because the situation is not symmetric. Mdthree gave Flyer22 a warning before making another revert himself, which violates WP:GAME. Flyer22 did no such thing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

^What the king said. This wasn't a 'rash unblock' of only one party. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you'll still be correcting your wording, right User:The ed17? Bizarrely stating above and elsewhere that I said that I admitted that I had not investigated is false ... and I would normally expect better of you that to leave statements like that hanging around. You're a fan of the truth. the panda ₯’ 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've given a slight correction, though I'm not sure how 'bizarre' it was. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That one's even more false. Hell, did you even read my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English the panda ₯’ 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

On point 1: so even though WP:CONSENSUS was to wait until I had re-analyzed, one of my colleagues went ahead and unblocked one of the 2 editors without waiting. Of course, they did that without having read my analysis - and their unblock reasoning now doesn't stand up to my extensive statement. They have no desire to correct, and the block would have been almost over by now anyway, so meh. Oddly, there's been no useful comments since I showed the degree of analysis I went to. So, I'll consider mys statement to have been sufficient under WP:ADMINACCT, and therefore this situation closed.

On point 2, this isn't the place for philosophy, but I have shown all the things I took into account in instituting an edit-warring block before reaching 3RR, again, as per WP:ADMINACCT - there's been no statement that I missed any steps, so again, closed

Gonna take my kids to a movie the panda ₯’ 23:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree; it is not symmetric. I have been represented unfairly. I would appreciate an unblock as well. (1)User talk:NeilN makes the claim I made three reverts; I did not. (2) User: EatsShootsAndLeaves claims that because I know the rules about 3RR, I would have violated them. I would not, I know the rules. (3) User:King of Hearts said I was gaming the system; however the system advantages the first editor. The rule is structured that way and it is not gaming the system to follow the rules. As for symmetry, I think content needs to be considered. I was not asking for something inflammatory. The Human Sexuality opening paragraphs make no mention of the sexes either male, female, man, or woman. Its not possible to define sexuality without referencing sex; take a biologists point of view for a moment and look at the opening paragraph. Mrdthree (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrdthree, your comments about content are irrelevant. You made an edit and Flyer22 reverted it. As per WP:BRD, you should never re-add it until you have reached consensus to do so via discussion. However, you DID re-revert, and provoked another editor into an edit-war, while at the same time warning THEM for edit-warring. Obviously, if you knew EW/3RR well-enough to actually warn someone else about it, you knew it well-enough that you were also subject to it. Whether you hold the WP:TRUTH or not, you are still subject to the same article and editing rules as everyone else, and we're not going to discuss content here the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to game the system by inappropriately slapping me with a WP:3RR warning and telling me not to revert again so that you could then revert. You hardly waited for a reply before reverting. Also read WP:Don't template the regulars; never do I need such a template slapped on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've stated enough on this matter at my talk page. With regard to a few of Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments about me above: No, I did not acknowledge that my two reverts could be perceived as problematic; as the aforementioned discussion on my talk page shows, I was referring to my block log; I stated, "As far as I can see, you've screwed up my block log even further than it was already screwed up, even with all of clarifications that are in it, knowing very well that many editors here look at the block log and see 'problematic editor' when it has as many blocks/block descriptions as I now have...no matter what is clarified in the blocks." As for my not having doubted the technicality of this block, I have, which is also made clear in the aforementioned talk page discussion; I did not object solely because Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves was the one who blocked me. As for the transgender editor Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves is referring to, anyone can look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for details on that; that editor was topic-banned from human sexuality articles for very good reasons; I was not topic-banned. Nor will I ever be, and that's for very good reasons. As for Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's characterization of me, it leaves much to be desired. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Recall petition

Based on some of the comments, not just here but over the totality of User:DangerousPanda's admin career, I think that it'd be fruitful to have discussion of his status, and that an RfA (a "reconfirmation RfA" or "recall RfA") would be the best venue for this, mainly because that's a place where an actual decision one way or the other may be effected.

In this, I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on User:DangerousPanda's suitability as an admin, just that it may be something that people may wish to discuss. To that end I've initiated a recall petition (six signatures would be required) here: User talk:Herostratus#Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda (because a user talk page is the specified venue for such petitions).

Questions such as "how is it legitimate, or even allowed, to post a recall position on an editor who's not a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and who is not cooperating?" are best asked and answered there IMO (or here, whatever you like).

I assume that of course the following isn't necessary, but just to cover all my bases:

• If anyone feels the petition is not legitimate, please don't erase it (and please restore it someone does, thanks). The correct procedure would be to initiate a WP:MFD request on that section of my talk page. (Yes you can run an MfD on sections of pages.) I'd rather you didn't but it's your right.
• If anyone feels I'm out of line here, please don't block me (and please reinstate me if someone does, thanks). The correct procedure here would be to open an ANI thread, or an RFC:USER, or something along those lines. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Herostratus, what kind of request are you saying would be correct procedure for an opponent? WP:MFD? Our WP:MFA page is a redirect to Wikipedia:Your first article. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I restored Nyttend's comment after what seemed to be an accidental removal of the comment by Herostratus when tweaking his wording. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no, heaven forbid that your opening a recall attempt should be interpreted as expressing an opinion, no, you're just an innocent bystander here with no feelings one way or the other about the admin.

Yeah, I believe that.

Really

Here's what I think, innocent bystander-person: there really should be a community admin-recall procedure, but as of this time there isn't, which means that the only currently legitimate way to get an admin desysopped is to open a case at ArbCom, and make a case for removing the admin bit. So why don't you stop stirring unnecessary and unproductive drama at AN, and head on over to ArbCom. I'm sure they'll be receptive to your argument that an admin should be desysopped because he's been a bit cranky lately. Yeah, that'll really go over really well. BMK (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that seems a little uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, I can understand if you disagree with Herostratus, but does he really deserve to be castigated in such a vicious and sarcastic manner?

My interactions with DangerousPanda have been relatively limited, and the last time we spoke was sometime in 2013. He means well and does a lot of great work, but there have been a number of longstanding concerns about his temperament and judgment going back several years. If Herostratus feels that it is enough to petition for an administrator recall, then he can go ahead and initiate one. At the very least, it will help gauge whether or not he currently enjoys the support of the community, which is unclear at this point. I've called him an "admin's admin" on one occasion; I've also openly criticized several of his decisions in the past. I'll abstain from participation and leave it to the rest of the community to decide where to go from here. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? DangerousPanda isn't even open to recall? That changes things somewhat. Recall is not a standard community process, nor is it even binding — it's a prerogative espoused by certain administrators to uphold personal accountability for themselves. I'll second what Beyond My Ken wrote regarding the proper venue being ArbCom. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't the proper venue either - ArbCom only deals with cases of repeated abuse of admin tools specific egregious behaviour. There is actually no proper place for a general "Has this admin lost the confidence of the community?" process - and that's one of the big problems with Wikipedia governance. To have the bit forcibly removed, an admin must commit multiple specific and egregious offences, but there is no remedy for long-term passive-aggression. (Note these are general comments - I offer no opinion on this specific case) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (Corrected my "repeated abuse of admin tools" mistake -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

You're confusing the eventual success of the complaint with the proper venue for it to take place in. ArbCom is the only proper venue for desysopping DP, and that is true regardless of whether the complaint is viable or not, which this one isan't. BMK (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing anything of the sort. I agree that currently ArbCom is the only proper venue. But my view is that that is insufficient, as it does not encompass "loss of confidence" motions - for those, there is no proper venue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And, yes, that is why you are confusing results with venues. If the proper venue is ArbCom. which you agree, then it is irrelevant whether the appeal will be successful or not. The appeal can be "insufficient" or misstated or malformed or idiotic or stupid or half-bakaed, but ArbCom is still the proper venue for it. BMK (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think we actually agree on this - the proper venue is indeed ArbCom, purely because there's no other venue - but I don't see how ArbCom could (or even should) judge "loss of confidence" cases - and they won't. So yes, there is a designated venue - even if that venue won't get any results. (And in a practical sense, there's no useful venue). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been a couple of statements on this matter around and about which appear to be incorrect. As ArbCom is the only place that administrators can have their tools removed, misuse of the tools should result in cases taken to ArbCom. It's likely to be dismissed if it's a one off, but if there's a pattern which might lead to "loss of confidence", then that should be raised. There are times that an RfC/U are appropriate for an admin and times when they are not, it's certainly not a requirement to happen before an ArbCom case. At any rate, Herostratus' petition is not the way forward. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Boing, that's not entirely accurate. Removal of tools is not necessarily conditional on their abuse. Repeated misuse has historically been deemed enough to desysop an administrator; also, considering that admins are held to higher standards of conduct, a history of questionable conduct may warrant a desysopping as well – though this is uncharted territory, as far as I know. As said by others, if Herostatus thinks DangerousPanda's behaviour has been consistently poor, he should either open an RFC or bring a case to ArbCom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC is almost entirely useless for removal of the admin bit (When was the last time an admin had his bit removed as a result of an RfC? I'm willing to bet the answer is "never".) If Herostratus thinks that DP has abused the bit - and I don't believe for a second remonstrations that HS is just am neutral independent operator - he needs to present a case to ArbCom, which I'm willing to bet he never will, since this appears to be pure propaganda and nothing else. Put your money where your mouth is, Herostratus, and file an ArbCom case and see how quickly it's rejected. BMK (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity, Salvio, but history supports me. ArbCom does nothing about long-term low-level problems with admins - those who the community would not now support, but who have not committed sufficiently egregious misuse of tools. (I'd love to be proved wrong - but by actions not words). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I don't mean this as a criticism of ArbCom, just as a criticism of the governance structure itself. I don't think ArbCom should be expected to judge loss-of-confidence cases - the Community should be able to decide them, but currently cannot. RFC is not the venue, as it is not binding. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. There should be a community-based desysop procedure, but at the moment there ain't, so we've got what we've got.BMK (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sad, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Herostratus' page now violates WP:POLEMIC - interesting that he made it on his takpage directly where a) all his talkpage watchers could participate simply by seeing their watchlist changes, and b) it now cannot be properly MFD'd. the panda ₯’ 09:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not WP:AGF again, Panda. Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• • While I oppose this recall attempt, I don't see how it violates WP:POLEMIC, as it is explicitly used in a (flawed) attempt at dispute resolution. As for the "talkpage watchers" comment; he openly announced this at WP:AN, so the influence of his talk page watchers doesn't seem to be a genuine concern. Fram (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what is said above, it isn't necessary for an admin to abuse his tools before ArbCom can decide to desysop them. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Proposed decision is a relatively recent example: Ironholds was desysopped for his comments and incivility, not for any abuse of the tools (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds was desysopped for "conduct unbecoming an adminstrator" fot having "a history of making highly inappropriate remarks both on-wiki and off-wiki on the various IRC channels, where he has often used violent and sexual language (evidence for this has been submitted and discussed in private). Moreover, on at least two occasions, he also logged out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects." You see some sort of parallel here with DP's behavior? 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You're quire right, Fram. I don't know why I didn't think of that case – and I was one of the drafters... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• No. DPanda can be abrasive, a bit of a bull in a china shop at times, but that is very different than what Ironholds did, by a mile. I don't see the self serving element at all. I don't question DPanda's faith in his actions, although I do have to admit wincing from time to time by his words or approach. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of RFC/U, but maybe that is the best venue as the problem appears to be one of communications and style more than anything else. Knowing when to accept community opinion even if you strongly disagree with it, that kind of stuff. He is not the only admin around here that fits that description, he is just the target of the day. Arb is the wrong venue, and won't get any results: RFC/U just might. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No. As far as I have seen, DP has done nothing as outrageous as the things Ironholds was desysopped for. I didn't claim or imply this either. My post was a reply to the discussion above, where it was basically said that ArbCom would only desysop for tools abuse, which is not correct. If someone wants to make the case that DP has a history of "conduct unbecoming an admin" which is sufficient to warrant desysoping (or admonoishing or whatever), then it would be incorrect to claim that such a casse doesn't belong at ArbCom a priori. This has nothing to do with whether such a case would eventually result in any actions, or with whether there are in this case enough arguments to start such a case. Pointing out that the process allows this, and that there is precedent, doesn't mean that this case is truly comparable or would have any chance of success (with "success" defined as an action against the admin). Fram (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming Arbcom agrees there is some sort of issue, there are other outcomes that a case could have, including admonishment and reminders - which would carry more weight if similar behaviour were to re-occur. That then leaves the question of "do we want to improve the situation or do we want blood". This is where RfC/U also comes in - if people genuinely have an issue and want to see change, RfC/U is a useful tool - if they just want a desysop, the question would be "why didn't you do something sooner". Worm^TT(talk) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well of course I have an opinion. I'm just not expressing it since my role here is just to facilitate the process and so that wouldn't be helpful.

Here's what going on here: I'm making a stab at seeing if the community wants make a new thing, that being "recall of admins who are not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall". This is a test case. If you think that initiating recall of admins who are not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall is a bad idea generally, you probably don't want to sign the petition. If you think it's a good idea and you think that this case warrants one, you might want to consider signing. (Note that signing the petition is in no way a indication that you think the person shouldn't be an admin, just that you think that community ought to consider it.)

There's no question that this a stab at an organizational reform, I'm not being coy about that. Obviously if this were to go through, it would be a new thing. Since it' be a new thing, objections in the manner of "we haven't done this before" are not very germane. And objections in the manner of "this is not allowed" are not particularly satisfying. It's a wiki and community members are allowed to do whatever the community says they can, including make new things. We are not entirely bound to past procedures I hope, and that kind of thinking makes it hard for us to change and grow going forward.

My personal opinion is that recall of admins who are not in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall might very well be a good thing (of course I don't know this for sure), some of the reasons being:

• If there is going to be admin recall all, it seems silly to limit it to admins willing to place themselves in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, since it's possible that the admins who don't are exactly the ones that we are most likely to want to recall.
• It's much simpler and easier than going to ArbCom, when all you want is to consider adminship rather than bans and topic bans and so forth.
• It'd devolve some decisions down to the community rather than an elected board. All thing equal devolvement of decision-making downward is often functional.
• It allows the format of the conversations and procedures for recalling an admin to parallel the the format of the conversations and procedures for appointing an admin, which makes sense to me. (If ArbCom is much better than RfA at concluding who should or should be an admin, then probably ArbCom should appoint as well remove admins.)
• Might make the whole RfA thing less of a fraught thing and such a big deal -- easier out, easier in. Maybe. Not sure if this is true or would be a good thing though.
• And so forth. I'll bet you can come up with other reasons. Herostratus (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't create a new process by strongarming through a "test case" - especially one which has a direct effect on another editor. You propose it, perhaps by way of an RFC at the Village Pump, you allow discussion around the topic, and you abide by the community's decision on its validity or otherwise. You don't get to unilaterally decide that Wikipedia now has a brand-new admin recall system of your own devising and expect to try it out on the first admin unfortunate enough to get dragged to ANI. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what's really up?

Let's back the truck up here. Now, before I posted the analysis that led to the block above, there were some backroom discussions not only about the block, but discussions where some of my colleague admins (I won't say who) called me "a fucking prick". Some people - admins included - seemed to believe I'd gone completely off-the-rails or something over some isolated 4-edit sequence that on a normal day would lead to warnings and no more.

Oddly enough, after I posted the long thought process that went into the blocks, not a single admin has said "I disagree". In fact, it's been strangely quiet. Not a single admin has said "yeah, but...". Not a single admin has said anything about that because surprise, surprise, Brad did think before clicking on a tool. Brad did end up doing what was in his judgement the protection of a dangerous corner of the project. Brad did try to balance the needs of 2 editors and the project. Indeed, Brad did ask himself a whackload of pertinent questions before clicking on that tool. Brad did do exactly what the project expects an admin to do before acting. Nobody since my post has said "Brad, that was a bad block based on your explanation". Yeah, I made a difficult judgement call based on months of watchlisting an hazardous, contentious article. People sure seemed to question the judgement without knowing the full details - someone even unblocked without knwoing them, but not a peep since - and that's because we've all been hanging on that balance at one point or another - hell, there's 1 or 2 ANI reports yesterday alone that showed less-complex thought processes that spiralled out of control.

So what's the real issue here? Me? The fact that I blocked someone who claims I know everything about them (I'm sorry, my memory doesn't work that way)?

I may be a lot of things, but the one thing that EVERYONE on this project knows about me is that I tell the truth, AND that when I say I'm sincere, I'm sincere.

Yesterday was a painful day not because of this AN, but because I did some very deep soul-searching, and then painfully bared my soul on another editor's page. What makes it worse is that due to my promise to them, I will not revisit their talkpage to see if they replied. It just so happens that the editor in question is one of the 2 editors I blocked yesterday.

Indeed, I tried to go back and find out just why Flyer22 is so damned pissed off at me, and yeah, apparently it DOES go back a long time when I personally failed to AGF - I made a statement based on all the available evidence presented to me at the time. It was the only statement supported by the available evidence at the time - although I did take it one step too far. Turns out that there was more unknown evidence that turned the tables not long after. If that evidence was available at the time, I sure would have made a different statement - but I sure should not have made the level of non-AGF statement I made anyway - that was a long time ago, and it took a lot of digging to find it. I cannot go back and right my personal great wrongs. I have apologized, more than once to Flyer22. I have sincerely stated my regret to them. And no, I didn't recognize that one of the people was blocking yesterday just happened to be the one person who I feel I had truly wronged years ago.

So what, are we complaining about the block now? Are we complaining about my thought process/judgement in yesterdays blocks? Are we complaining that I'm an emotional, rational human? Or are we just throwing random "let's play shotgun with some shit and see what sticks"? After all, I would LOVE to see where my REAL analysis failed - but in >12hrs, nobody has shown that at all - they've simply tossed shit. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to avoid making personal attacks here, so let me just say that the thing everyone on this project supposedly knows about you is something I don't agree with. Apart from that, the posting of the long thought process was your 20:33, 6 May 2014 post? The one that was followed by an unblock which basically boiled down to "DP was wrong here"? A later statement by admin User:King of Hearts seems to agree. You then, on 23:18, 6 May 2014, posted a further "but I was right" reply, and now this. You may not agree with their analysis, but claiming that "Not a single admin has said anything about that" is rather strange and doesn't seem to match the above discussion. Fram (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed had something to say too. And I offered you an option you could have taken after your analysis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ed and KoH's comments were not related to my analysis - they were related to my question about unblocking the other party. Neil's opinion was noted, thanks. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My comments are not related to the block. I've not commented on it, nor do I have any desire to. I've never questioned your faith, honesty or sincerity. In fact, I've spoken out for them previously. Still, if people have a problem with your methods, the backwaters of RFC/U is the right venue, not Arb nor the drama pits of ANI/AN. If it isn't worth filing an RFC/U over, then dropping it would be the best solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, bad block, whatever. I don't care about rubbish like my reputation's been tarnished or "block log is permanent omg what will people think?". (Redacted) — lfdder 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to consider striking your comment, which is clearly in breach of WP:NPA. There just isn't any need for that and it isn't serving any higher purpose here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to consider blocking me for it. — lfdder 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Acting childish with me isn't solving anything. Acting dickish isn't either. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm done here anyway. — lfdder 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As the opener of this thread, I had two questions and none of them involved desysopping. Restated, they were if Flyer22's block was a good one and what admins should consider when the bright line of WP:3RR hasn't been breached. I think an RFC/U is premature but hope that DP keeps other alternatives to blocking in mind when faced with a similar situation in the future. Taking an extra step before blocking, however fruitless it may seem (or turn out to be), is not always a bad thing. That's all I want to say about the RFC/U matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Neil, that's exactly my point: you opened a thread with 2 key questions. Of course, it would have been ridiculous for anyone to comment on the first prior to seeing what analysis I went through to got to the 2 block blocks. So, last night, I posted the thought process that went behind them. Your second question is philosophical, and AN is really not the right place for that type of question. Through my thorough analysis, I provided very good reason why alternative methods were not possible at that time, at least in my judgement. However, nobody else seems to be responding to your questions - well, one person did unblock. That was your sole response. Torches and pitchforks were optional. Welcome to the world of AN/ANI :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So we're supposed to wait around while an editor is under what seems to be a bad block for you to chime in? No, sorry. Other editors can look at the exact same situation you did and give their independent opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the consensus from the beginning of the thread was exactly that wait 'til Panda re-reviews. The clear point here is that what appeared on the surface to be a "possibly bad block" actually wasn't necessarily a clearly bad block once the explanation was given. Funny how the heat:light ratio could have been avoided if the conversation had merely continued on my talkpage, eh? the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I read consensus as Flyer22 should not have been blocked. Something you still seem to disagree with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Re-read the first few comments. Again, the consensus that you're talking about came before anyone knew the rationale behind the blocks. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I think this is probably not the best place to be seeking clarification of the feedback (and/or the issues or supposed issues which are apparently being raised) in relation to your adminship as it is not a single action or comment or incident which has motivated this; I'm sure you realise that. I expect a lot of useful feedback and perspective can emerge from another venue (such as a RfC if its structured properly and the requirements are complied with); it's always better to take that type of option than to wait for a time when there are a greater number of "pitchforks", but ultimately it's your call if you choose to self-initiate an RfC/U or not, or consent to an RfC/U or not. It will depend on whether or not you're ready and willing to hear others thoughts on both the good bits and the bits which you could consider handling differently or improve on. On another note, there are a number of admins who jump into contentious issues, but not all of them feel this sort of backlash. I can even point to some, if they would let me, whom after taking up an RfC or similar route, modified just a few features of their approach and encounter this sort of trouble/outrage/scrutiny on a much smaller scale despite continuing to address those problems for the Community on an ongoing basis. To me, it shows they work even more effectively now handling the worst kind of editing or problems than if they did not heed the advice given to them or if they weren't ready to even consider acting carefully with another approach. That's my suggestion, but I realise that each person is different and it might equally be be something that you're not ready to do too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ding ding ding, you win! This thread is supposed to discuss the block. It's supposed to discuss my analysis that led to the block. Somebody else turned it personal. ALl attempts to steer it back on track so that I can potentially learn what was wrong with my analysis that led to this specific pair of blocks has failed miserably. My sole conclusion from that is therefore: nothing was actually wrong, now that we understand it. Which oddly enough, makes the whole "desysop" thing rather moot now...doesn't it. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that a winner has been declared, perhaps an uninvolved admin wouldn't mind closing this more-heat-than-light thread... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of your analysis is half the issue. Discussion of the actions you took after your analysis is the other half. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What actions were those? Please feel free to point them out. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

At the conclusion of your analysis the action you took was blocking. Your analysis told you there was edit-warring going on. There were a variety of actions you could have taken to stop it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly there were other possible solutions. But I made a judgement call based on the intelligence I had gathered that was well-within the realm of admin responsibility, and provided the rationale when requested untik WP:ADMINACCT. There are always multiple ways to resolve something - I chose one valid path, and other people would have taken other paths. That's both a good thing and bad thing. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:EatsShootsAndLeaves - Blocking the users was disruptive to the wikia (and not at all needed within wikia rules), as this chat and others such as on your chat page and the blocked users chat page clearly indicates and your actions continues to be disruptive due to your refusal to accept the obvious and walk away. Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mosfetfaser: Wikia? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10.68.16.31

10.68.16.31 is apparently User:ClueBot III editing logged out again. I informed Jayron32 (the admin that blocked it last time in April), and they told me to come here. Here are some diffs: [29] [30] [31]. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the bot has logged back in. I unblocked the IP after realizing the block could cause misdirected XFF blocks. However, what seems concerning is how the bot is still editing after the emergency shutoff has been activated. I'm not the most experienced with bots and would welcome the input of others. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After a quick chat with Deskana, I've blocked the bot. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the bot making bad edits? If not then it seems churlish to block it simply because the stop button doesn't work - especially as that stops it working logged in and not logged out - precisely the reverse of what we want. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Agreed - Is the bot making bad edits ? Then it should be blocked, but if it's doing what it's supposed to do, then there's no problem (even if it's logged out ) KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is twofold. First, the bot was performing edits while logged out. It's my understanding from the bot policy that this should not occur and that the use of extensions such as AssertEdit should be implemented. Second, the bot was performing edits logged in while the shut off was in place, which makes it noncompliant with its own emergency protocol. There's even a message on the bot's page that encourages admins to block it if it is malfunctioning. I'm not trying to be churlish or pedantic. It's simply a case of the bot not functioning as it is intended. Mike V • Talk 15:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the latter (emergency shutoff not working) would justify blocking the bot; however, the first wouldn't - if the only malfunction in the bot is that it would edit when not logged in, then blocking it would do no good to stop the trouble. Even in the case of bots, blocks should only be used to prevent malfunctionm edits or unapproved tasks - and merely editing while logged out some of the time doesn't constitute either of these the rest of the time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In short, if we can't trust that it will stop editing when told to, we can't trust that it will follow other instructions properly as well. The operators are good and reliable, so of course we're not accusing them of bad faith, but they've apparently made some mistake that temporarily makes the bot undependable. Nobody's going to object to an unblock once the operators say that the coding problems are fixed. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I take the reverse view, if anything. Editing logged out is bad, because 1. it gives the impression that we allow bot edits from IPs, 2. the edits are not accountable which bot edits should be. OK in this case we know it's CB III so we could let it slide if we thought that the downside from having it not functioning outweighs point 1.

But bots are not like HAL or te computer in the Forbin Project, they do not become "untrustworthy", if the "emergency stop" (which in many bots redirects to the admin block function anyway) doesn't work, the bot is not going to start trying to take over the encyclopaedia - it left this thread after all. (Or is it trying to lull us into a false sense of security?) The admin block is still there for a real malfunction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Untrustworthy in the sense that we can't trust the code. Someone accidentally removed from the bot's code the instruction (or part of the instruction) to stop editing when the shutoff is activated. Since we know that they made that mistake, we can't trust that they made no other mistakes, and we can't trust that this mistake won't have other unexpected effects. With that in mind, we can't let the bot edit until someone's confirmed that the mistake is resolved. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When an editor is as prolific as Cluebot, its activity is meaningful not only at the level of individual edits but also statistically. Letting it edit logged out results in a distorted picture of what's happening on the entire wiki. So it should be blocked until it logs back in. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem: As I understand it (which is doubtless an oversimplification), 10.68.xx.xx is the internal network, and therefore blocking anything in 10.68 risks collateral damage, possibly including break-the-whole-site network damage. It's not some IP from halfway across the globe that you're blocking from Wikipedia's servers; you'd be blocking the system from itself. Blocking the account is useless, because it's not using the account.

What we need is for people to figure out how this is happening and fix it, not to block stuff without regard for either the possible consequences of the block or the effectiveness of the block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate reason to allow anonymous editing from private IP addresses? What would be the downside to soft-blocking all of them indefinitely? Same question applies to the external IPs of toolservers. Bovlb (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for forgiveness

More than a year has passed since I was blocked for stupidily threatening User:Jayron32. I'm from Argentina and after an edit-war, I said the following: "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." or so I said. I well-deserved to be blocked because I was beyond immature and stupid. Then, I created another account to start anew as a respected user. Well, the sock-puppetry accusations began and I couldn't ever again work on Wikipedia. I deny sock-puppetry since I don't, I can't use blocked accounts and I'm not interested in having more than one account. So, I'm now asking to be forgiven and allowed to create another account and start anew. Thank you indeed. --190.178.156.205 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't even remember it, but if you're here to do good work, go do that. --Jayron32 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, I would support the editor coming back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron for giving me a second and last opportunity!, I've been working in the shadows and doing well with User:Japanesehelper but I'm afraid of going public (i.e. nominating candidates for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates) and getting blocked for the alleged "sock-puppetry" that never occurred since I never used two accounts at the same time. Who can guarantee me that "Japanesehelper", my only account, will not be blocked? Thank you.--190.178.183.38 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No one can guarantee anything, but the person you attacked has given his blessing for you to be back, one other person thinks that is the best unbureaucratic way to deal with the problem (me), and assuming you just edit and stay out of trouble and not war or get into fights, I don't see a problem. Assuming others don't argue against this solution, you could just point to this discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. You can see my record with "Japanesehelper", it's cleaner than a brand new t-shirt. I was immature when that happened. Promise it won't happen ever again. --Japanesehelper (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt sockpuppetry include using new accounts to evade blocks? Howunusual (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. We're not here to mete out perpetual punishment, we're here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a game. If Japanesehelper wished to be helpful, I am not going to get in their way. --Jayron32 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a legitimate question, but again I agree with Jayron. When someone appears to be very sincere, apologetic and sets a clear future path for their behavior, and the person who was on the receiving end last time (Jayron) gives their blessing, I think we owe it to ourselves and them to take a chance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Let's not prevent good work from being done. Probably a bad use of clean start, but WP:IAR - a productive editor need not be a perfect editor, both in content or character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth verifying whether this is an IP sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive, a racist ultranationalist extremist and sociopathic liar who in the spare time off wiki writes things like "fucking mohammedan apes and baby-killers", "Fuck you !! stupid Islamofascist terrorist ape dressed in rags. I hope you and all your family of monkeys shall receive what you deserve when Israel kick your coward ass. Asshole! ISRAEL WIN", "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim", "¡¡¡God bless Nakba!!! (Jewish victory over the war of extermination that the Arabs brought upon them 65 years ago). Never in history was a "catastrophe" so well deserved! God bless Israel. Keep strong, united, prepared and brave.", ""palestine" does not exist, never did and never will", "Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN". Sean.hoyland - talk 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that Japanesehelper does not look like AndresHerutJaim, but AndresHerutJaim's persistent socking via both accounts and Argentina based IPs has been such a major problem over the past few years in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and its suburbs that experienced editors will assume that any Buenos Aires based IP active in the ARBPIA topic area that appears to be advocating for Israel or against Palestine or Iran is a sock. Is there a diff for the comment "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree some idea of who this editor actually is would be helpful, at least if we are going to give any indication they may be allowed to stick around.

I don't know much about the editor Sean.hoyland mentions above, but Special:Contributions/Japanesehelper is looking a lot like Special:Contributions/Timothyhere who abused many sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothyhere + Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothyhere + many which were either blocked per WP:DENY or which unblocked but had their contributions deleted). While obviously it was never confirmed by a CU, they did sometimes edit under an Argentinian IP. Particularly in their later stages, they seemed to mostly troll the Reference Desk, Help Desk and Teahouse. But they did hang around ITN at various stages. Beyond simple trolling, they did seem to have a particular interest in Nazi Germany and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer similar to Japanesehelper.

They also claimed to be Japanese at least once Special:Contributions/Kotjap with a corresponding interest in Japanese related topics although I think they showed the same interest even with other identities. Kotjaps claims to be Japanese weren't particularly believable. IIRC they claimed to be living in Japan with some elaborate back story like being a 55 year old former hikikomori who's father beat them [32] yet never showed any actual evidence of understanding Japanese. (I can't recall if they ever explicitly said they spoke Japanese but I think they did repeatedly saying they were not a native English speaker, which may be true regardless, which combined with their claims about their identity lead to an obvious conclusion. And even IIRC when Japanese editors suggested they ask their question in Japanese they never said they didn't actually speak Japanese.) Or really any evidence of knowing that much about Japan you would expect from someone who lived there. (And of course, it's very likely they were editing from an Argentinian IP.)

As stated above, it seemed clear they were trolling. Over time, it became fairly obvious they already knew the answer to many of their 'questions' or otherwise didn't care. Furthermore, beyond the Japanese identity, they pretended to be from all over the world usually mentioning stuff in 'my country' or similar. In particular, in many of their later identities, they claimed to be from tiny island/s nations, or at least small poor places you wouldn't generally expect many wikipedians from.

I don't know if they ever said the stuff about "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian" to Jayron32, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the reason why the Timothyhere round of socks was blocked. It could be that the AndresHerutJaim and Timothyhere group are the same editor and no one noticed before. I would also note that if it's either editor, their indication their disruption stopped over a year ago isn't particularly believable. (I believe there were more recent Timothyhere socks than the late June ones but I'm lazy to look for them.)

I'm not suggesting an immediate block since I'm not seeing an obvious signs of disruption under the new account. And if it is Timothyhere they seem to have given up on pretending to be from places they clearly aren't. But if it's either or both editor/s, lying about their history and why they were blocked is not a good sign. And they should expect to be on a short leash not because of anything to do with forgiveness but because we have good reason to think they can't be trusted to continue to edit.

Edit: The most recent probably trolling from Timothyhere I can find is Special:Contributions/190.178.141.180. It's nothing particularly wrong but given the history it was hard to believe their claim they were "working for a psychology project on the case regarding Kato". Also looking a bit more, I think Timothyhere had an interest in terrorism and in particular Al Qaeda under their many identities, in particular in relation to Canada. But I don't recall much interest in the Israel-Palestinian issue or Iran.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct process for requesting an unblock. The editor says their account was blocked 1 year ago and they apparently set up a sock account to continue editing shortly afterwards. They have not even told us what the original account was, or how they were blocked. Furthermore, if they continue editing, they are not normally allowed to make a clean start but must keep the old account after it has been unblocked. My suggestion is to close this discussion thread, block the IP and Japanesehelper, and ask them to make the request on their talk page or, if that is blocked, through email. At that time, a CU can be conducted. TFD (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• • In a nutshell, it is easier to watch someone when they are in the open, and the liklihood of them becoming productive is higher as well. My opinion hasn't changed. I won't block and would oppose anyone else at this juncture. Wait and see, monitor, hope for the best. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Redlink category adder

I don't want to make a big deal about this, and I would take it somewhere else if I knew where that place was, but the user CmdrDan appears to believe that simply adding a category to an article creates the category, so he's added a number of redlinked categories to articles. Can someone who's more familiar with categories than I am have a talk with him? Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Left a note, HTH. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding Falun Gong 2 (User:Ohconfucius)

The Arbitration Committee has superseded the topic ban imposed on Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) in the Falun Gong 2 case by motion:

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Psst, bit of a backlog at WP:UAA

Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey admins, come on

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...and help a brother/sister out nextdoor, at WP:ANI, section "Undue retaliation, provocation and/or vandalism on Mitsubishi Magna article by User:OSX". You need to help me figure out what to do with these two editors, one of whom was at 27R, while the other kept their count low by way of sockage. I already did the heavy lifting. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive.is headache

Archive.is URLs were blacklisted. But the task was not properly done. As a result, it has become a big headache. Someone makes non-constructive edits/vandalism in an article, you try to revert it and find you can not do it, as the article contains archive.is URL.

I reported it here, where it was observed only "rollback" option is working here. But, we can not use rollback always.

This has become a big headache. I just had to manually remove 6-7 archive.is URLs just to make a reversion with an edit summary. Tito☸Dutta 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to remove them from the blacklist? The concern was that archive.is might (horror) use adverts, and might spam archive links to WP. The admin of archive.is replied that we could, if we wished, make archive.org backups of archive.is and use those. They do not appear to be out to take advantage of Wikipedia, and indeed are providing a valuable service. If their site became unacceptable to link to in the future we could remove the links very rapidly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

I have no idea why its on the blacklist and it seems to be shooting us in the foot. One bad person should not equate to wholesale blacklisting of a valid and important archival service. It seems like a knee-jerk decision was made and the damage done is creating quite a fuss and hurting our articles. I've seen plenty of issues with Archival services not picking up or losing access to Gamespot's new robots.txt (Archive.org in this case). I also note that a while back there was some discussion about funding and acquiring such a service - but I'm a bit out of the loop on that. We can very easily control our links at will from such sites, I don't see the need to have an entire beneficial service blacklisted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, part of the blacklisting was the archive.is folks using an unapproved bot account which was blocked (for being an unapproved bot). Then evading that block with IP addresses. Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive sites are akin to redirectors, though. Is there any content that is on archive.is and not archive.org? If not, we probably don't need it. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That kind of statement reduces a valid option and Archive.org has missed many key sources to 404 that I wish I could selectively archive. Now, an unapproved bot and socking is one thing, but it seems knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Would you do the same if and blacklist all of Archive.org because someone used an authorized bot to mass add links? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict Plenty, I'm afraid. We should discourage people from removing the links without replacement, as the archice.is URL is vital to being able to determine what the original was, and therefore finding a replacement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several differences between archive.is and archive.org. Archive.org is a crawler and gets everything when it visits a page but it does follow robots.txt. Archive.is claims they only archives pages they are told to archive but ignores robots.txt. Webcite is closer in functionality to archive.is, but they do follow robots.txt. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is is currently the best and seemingly only option for GameSpot archives at this time. They regularly 404 and are altered and now have Robots.txt which makes Archive.org not serve the page even if they HAD the archive previous. See discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned here, I haven't found any good alternatives to archive.is yet. For example, web.archive.org and webcitation.org failed to archive beyonce.com/credits properly – only archive.is renders the page's content correctly. Mayast (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Hawkeye7, what do you suggest to do if you want to revert a non-constructive edit, and want to add an edit summary too. Please see this edit. The editor, being a film production house member, was removing "negative reviews, reception" from the article.
  Either remove them from blacklist, if that is not possible, okay, I have not problem, then appoint a bot to remove all archive.is URLs from Wikipedia. Currently it is a big trouble.Tito☸Dutta 23:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• The reason archive.is was blacklisted was because the people running archive.is utterly destroyed any possible sense of good faith with their actions (spamming links, unapproved bot, block evasion, etc.) - the links were being added in a blatantly promotional fashion, instead of simply correcting broken links that were easily findable and fixable. It was indistinguishable from spam, and it was treated as such, and frankly after their display I, personally, cannot consider any archive.is link trustworthy - after the display of what they did here, who knows what they have on their site that might be lurking to infect my computer? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow:. Carefully parsing the above and rewriting for provable truth, we have: Someone acting on Archive.is's behalf employed block-evasion techniques to flood-add both Archive.is and Archive.org archive links preemptive to link failures (read: many, but not all, of the edits were needed yet). Optimistically, it was a technological partial proof-of-concept. Pessimistically, it was (weakly) promotional, and (strongly) unapproved behavior per our bot consensus guidelines. I found the edits to be 100% accurate, overall helpful though sometimes unnecessary, and in every case unharmful, though technically against bot policy and procedure. There's a tendency to throw the baby (bot-added edits which are helpful-but-against-procedure) right out with the bathwater, and I strongly object to this (insert religion-based decision process epithet here) bullshit. However, and be very clear about this: Archive.is was blacklisted because a narrow majority of easily-frightened RFC participants were led witless down a banhammer garden path by a couple of admins who scaremongered and nerdraged about a couple of hundred IP edits. Tempest, meet teapot. Seriously, this wasn't as bad as The Bushranger and Kww would have you all believe. That said, I support blocking addition of archive.is links by new editors, but I support allowing such links when added by editors with high edit counts and low deleted-edit counts in good standing (meaning: responsible, accountable additions). I have NO fear of archive.is or the site owners, anything The Bushranger says notwithstanding. --Lexein (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

...all I can say is "wow". (Well, I can also say I find your accusations of bad faith disturbing.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, pshaw. That's not counterargument, that's just garbage, and not appropriate admin behavior. You exaggerated the seriousness of the situation in order to get the zero-sum "win", with the actual effect of yeah, you "won", but Wikipedia lost, and archive.is was totally unaffected. Great job hurting Wikipedia worse than any possible spam did. I think it's called "friendly fire." The only (quite narrowminded and blinkered, in my opinion) reason which remains for blacklisting is the purely petty bureaucratic-minded outcry of "It was unapproved! He didn't follow procedure! We cannot allow that to stand, even if the links are valid!" I've always disliked this bent logic, but have extremely noisily begrudged its applicability in cases of causing other editors extra work, which is not the case here. Each and every one of those archive.org and archive.is links would have been allowed to stand if added slowly by editors in good standing. --Lexein (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is all from memory of reading about it after the fact, so I could be mistaken: The only things I saw indicating that the WP account, User:Rotlink, was actually controlled by the owner of archive.is were statements made by that account on a couple of talk pages. I did not see anything that indicated there was outside confirmation of ownership, nor that there was a statement like: I'm going to make changes X to archive.is and then changes X happened. I only saw statements similar to: I have made changes (i.e. mentioning them after the fact). To me there is no indication that the accounts User:Rotlink and User:RotlinkBot were, in fact, owned by the person running archive.is. It was certain that the person controlling the account wanted it to be believed that User:Rotlink was controlled by the owner of archive.is.

On the other hand there was no statement by owner of either archive.is denying ownership of those accounts. In addition, there was no statement by the owner of archive.is nor those accounts as to explaining the issues brought up at the Archive.is RFC.

The RfC proceeded on the assumption that the owner of archive.is was the person controlling the bot and the actions of whatever was making the similar edits from multiple IPs.

The owner of the account, with respect to the bot, went out of their way to perform actions which were significant violations of policy when easy alternatives were available within policy to accomplish nearly the identical goals, but with something of a delay. Specifically, the whole issue developed out of the use use of an unapproved bot which was in the approvals process and likely to be approved and its edits welcomed, if the process had been followed.

After the bot was blocked there was then the issue of the apparent use of a large number of IPs from multiple countries to run the unapproved and account-blocked bot. It was considered by many to very likely that the use of the IPs was not authorized by the owners of the IPs and probably illegal. — Makyen (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow... this is a bit stunning. I see allegations thrown around left and right and a single user making very broad legal allegations without substantiating them or providing evidence. This is all heresay and the situation is completely without merit. The issue has long been "resolved". First of all, the edit filter is hidden, but why? Secondly and more important, the edit filter has long not worked on the ".today" links. Example If there was any valid attack or ongoing need for this filter it would have been apparent. By all means, it is time to get rid of this edit filter. We are damaging our own articles and I see absolutely no threat from the site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what's "stunning" here. There's no doubt that there was an attack, and no doubt that someone was using techniques that violated both Wikipedia policy and actual law to insert the links. Thank you for pointing out that people have been bypassing the blocklist with an alternate id: it no longer works.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I do, however, agree that we do need to run a bot that removes the links. I keep trying to find the time to do so, but the task of remaining employed keeps interfering.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

But the attack has long since halted and its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability and not to mention thousands of articles actually being used. There seems to be a growing consensus here that this matter needs to be revisited and I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles, including ones that are already Good or Featured content. This applies greatly to the WP:VG project and at least many other news sites. As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Wikipedia just in the daily operation of this blacklist that should have been revisited months ago. I'm all for defending against malicious attacks, but it seems its outlived its usefulness and is purely punitive. You closed a hole on something that was already known, but unexploited. Since the "attack" has stopped, the blacklist's continued implementation provides no demonstrable benefit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It stopped because it was blacklisted. its causing a great amount of degradation to article verifiability...I frankly feel that this blacklist endangers the verifiability of thousands of articles...As it stands, we are actually losing verifiability and damaging Wikipedia. How? In what way is it causing "degration to article verifiability"? How is it "damaging Wikipedia"? If archive.is didn't exist, would there be any problem with following WP:DEADLINK/WP:V: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online"? So why is there a problem now? Why is there a "growing consensus" that we should reward someone who attempted to use Wikipedia to promote their archive service, then used a bot attack to push it when caught, by promoting the use of said service? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing, Chris, is that having tens of thousands of links to a site operated by someone that uses botnets leaves us open to further trouble. Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?—Kww(talk) 06:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it stopped back in November because it was blacklisted, but the identity of the attacker doesn't seem to have been proven. I'm sure someone can check Archive.is and see its malwarefree and that is more than I can say for some other references. I've seen many a reference be turned to hardcore pornography and/or go to a site filled with malicious scripts. Unless proven otherwise, the issue with Archive.is is non-existent. Also, a demonstrable workaround has been present for nearly two months (at least April 14, 2014) and all without "attack". The circumstances merit a revisiting and perhaps even a lifting of the blacklist, and it would be trivial to reinstate if such an attack was done. The Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC was controversial and not a clear consensus, but I also think its too late to decide to remove 20,000+ valid working archival links now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that, to date, only the English Wikipedia gives a damn about archive.is shenanigans. No other Wikipedia project blacklists archive.is, or finds any fault with it. These archives are used throughout the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias, as an alternative to WebCite and Wayback. In fact, I literally just posted an archive.is link on zhwiki just to check whether it was blacklisted or not. If other projects don't find problems with archive.is, then why are we? --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, so you're saying that Albanaian Wikimedia (with more than 10,000 articles) doesn't blacklist it, nor does Icelandic Wikpedia or Old Church Slavonic Wikipedia? Well, then certainly we should follow suit.

Despite this specious argument (we are English Wikipedia, and are sui generis), I do think that archive.is should probably be unblacklisted, despite their earlier misbehavior. We don't want to hurt the encyclopedia just because some outsiders have acted like assholes. BMK (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You just made an informal fallacy there - nowhere did I mention any sub-10,000 Wikipedia projects, you made that implication on your own. I pointed out that multiple Wikipedia projects of significant size didn't have any qualms with archive.is, and even still to this day allow links to it - this probably suggests that here on enwiki, we think too much about morality instead of actually getting the job done. As has been mentioned above, "Why link to someone that is known to be dishonest?" - I assure you that nobody would even think about asking such a question on zhwiki; if the tool gets the job done, it doesn't matter if a murderer or a saint created the tool. At least, that's the sentiment that exists outside of enwiki.

Just because Hans Reiser murdered his wife, that doesn't make ReiserFS a bad file system (in fact, in theory it works much better than NTFS), but it's often the case that people make such arguments, and this archive.is case is quite similar. Look at archive.is as a tool to get things done, and not the creation of someone who did bad things in the past. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not use a bot to remove links. Per Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC: the removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation. The only way we have of replacing links is to examine the ones that are there. The title of the page and the publisher allows us to use a search engine to find if the page has moved elsewhere. The text of the page can also be used in this way. Given the original URL, it may be possible to find the site on archive using the accessdate. It is very, very difficult to repair references without the original. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I can not always manually clean-up archive.is links just to revert vandalism. If I see I can not revert edits because of archive.is URLs, I'll leave it, unless the article is very important to me. Tito☸Dutta 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Just a note. As closer, it wasn't my intent to prevent bots from removing the links. I did suggest that any removal should be explained--ideally including a link in the edit summary. But that can be done automatically. Also, I've certainly no objection to seeing if consensus has changed on this. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor was it my intent to say that a bot could not be used. If you had one that replaced the links with ones from another archive, that would be okay. I only meant one that removed links without replacement, which I would treat as a rogue bot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll disagree here. The intent was to remove the links--there was no requirement that they be replaced (though I agree it would be ideal). Hobit (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have a question about the ignoring of robots.txt files. Is this in any way equivalent to a copyvio? Perhaps not if the archiving is always in response to a specific request, but an authoritative answer here to that effect would be helpful. Perhaps User:Moonriddengirl could comment? --Mirokado (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is an authoritative answer. It's the lawyer/legal-opinion problem. There are other problems. Robots.txt has no defined purpose. Oh, it has a use, and an effect when applied, but the reason for using it is not required to be stated, so the reason is never stated. Helpful stated reasons might include: "Original author-publisher contract did not include archives", "Publication rights to article content expired", "Owner wishes to monetize archives", "New domain owner does not wish his new brand to be associated with the old domain's content", "New domain-squatting owner wishes to extort money from prior domain owners to lift robots.txt". Two of these are arguably copyright related with a corresponding best-practice Wikipedia answer, three are definitely not. --Lexein (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's right; there are many reasons why Robots.txt is used. The most common is on archive sites themselves, to prevent recursive archiving. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I will say that all the protestations that "it must have been somebody else, you can't prove it was the site owner" are nothing but hopeful nonsense. The edits matched Rotlink's. They came from a swarm of international IPs at a speed and breadth that couldn't have been anything but a botnet of compromised computers. Lexein, an editor that was fighting desperately to keep the archive.is links, communicated with the site owner and received nothing but evasiveness: never a denial. Whatever the utility of the site may be, it's run by someone that has no qualms about invading computers that belong to other people. That's not a place to link to, because clicking the link provides a known bad actor access to the client machine. As for benlisquare's argument: no, murdering your wife doesn't make you a bad filesystem designer or compromise the quality of your filesystem. It does mean that only a foolish woman would marry you.—Kww(talk) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that first of all, Wikipedia should have it's own archive like Archive.is. Archive.is is much much better than WebCite or Archive.org - first of all because it automatically archives all the articles the Wikipedia is quoting. Secondly - because it's versatile and has an easy interface. So, Archive.is should be set the standard for such an archiving website. From a previous conversation I understood that Archive.is storage capacity will be exceeded in maximum two years, and then - no more free archiving for Wikipedia. Verifiability of Wikipedia's articles is quite important for humanity, it might sound inflated to some, but I think it's a safety net against re-writing history, against becoming a dystopian world. How much it costs for Wikipedia to have it's own archive by the way? Maybe we can raise funds, or we should start a Kickstarter project for it. I am ready to offer some support, maybe there are others like me too. Or maybe Wikipedia can pay to Archive.is (or to some other company) for keeping the archive, maybe it will cost less than Wikipedia having it's own archiving servers to take care of - in other words, to outsource the job. To this is such an important matter that, if I would be the head of Wikipedia, I would try to convince masons (I understand they rule the world and they are shaping the world's future) to finance such an important task - money are not a problem for them :). I really hope Wikipedia will have it's own archive but until that happens, Wikipedia should take advantage of such a great and free offer like Archive.is. I am ready to be part of a future lobby group for solving the archiving issue on Wikipedia. There can't be copyright problems, since Wikipedia is not trying to make profit from this, but it's just trying to preserve history, I think any judge with minimum common sense would understand that. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww your argument and stance are not being dismissed, but it is unproven and condemning an entire resource because of some past circumstance. There is no threat and that past issue is resolved, but what would it take for you (personally) to allow Archive.is links again? Until Wikipedia has its own archival system, we should not be cutting off a key site (which is irreplaceable at this point) simply because of an unauthorized bot that "spammed" links on a bunch of open proxies. And I keep seeing that if the bot was approved, and it likely would have been, would have been a non-issue. The blacklist can be reinstated easily, but I see more users making compelling arguments to lift it and see what happens. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww's argument is, however, compelling. We have been here before. I am surprised this is not blacklisted at Meta, actually. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a malicious botnet and there is no evidence any illegal act has been committed, these are extremely serious allegations and the issue should have been passed immediately to the foundation's team if there was evidence otherwise. By absolutely no measurement can I attribute the word "botnet" to this action, by volume or action, and I must dismiss it as just plain alarmist. And still, that portion of the debate is irrelevant to lifting the blacklist now that the "attack" has stopped. There is no threat, so why are discussing it like it is ongoing and that it was "malicious" in nature. The claims are unsubstantiated and are a gross exaggeration of the incident. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of an illegal botnet? Are you serious? And no, discussion of the fact that botnets were used to push links into Wikipedia is not irrelevant and will never be irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at the massive list of IP's used to push these links in to Wikipedia after the unauthorized bot was blocked? They're from all over the place! Yeah, no evidence of a botnet. Sorry, there is absolutely no reason to trust the people behind archive.is. They don't care or respect others. There are copyright issues when they archive material blocked by a robots.txt file. Ravensfire (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting beyond the point, but the use of proxies and such are not "botnets". This alarmist stance has no concrete evidence to connect it to the owners of Archive.is, its conjecture and heresay. Secondly, you are making personal attacks on the site owners and pile on accusations of copyright infringement and such when Wikipedia has no control or interest in it. We gladly and willingly supply links to an illicit drug marketplace and link to 4chan which is just as notorious. The issue is months old and there has been no threat or continued attack - by all means, we should consider the issue resolved and lift the blacklist. Objectively - upon what grounds would you agree to lift the blacklist? Let's try to come to some common ground to resolve this issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Without taking any stance on this subject, no WP:AN discussion is going to affect current policy. Your arguments might have merit, Chris, but this is a larger discussion that has to occur elsewhere, say in an RfC or at the Village Pump, not here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We gladly and willingly supply links to an illicit drug marketplace and link to 4chan which is just as notorious - If you believe this WP:OTHERSTUFF should be blacklisted, then propose that they be added to the blacklist. accusations of copyright infringement and such when Wikipedia has no control or interest in it. - We do, for the same reason we don't use blatant copyvio websites for references: contributory copyright infringement. While assuming good faith on the part of the site's operators is all well and good, AGF is not a suicide pact, and the behavior of the people representing the site utterly destroyed any and all good faith the community had regarding archive.is; the reason "there is no threat or continued attack" is because the site was blacklisted. We cannot, based on their past behavior, assume that lifing the blacklist will not result in a resumption of the spamming. It's as simple as that, I'm afraid; after the display that led to the blacklisting, I cannot trust any link to archive.is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference between using a botnet to spam links, and the use of proxies to evade blocks in order to spam links, is a difference without a distinction. The main argument for use of archive.is appears to be that it did not honour robots.txt so archived many pages that legitimate archives did not. Anyone else see the issue here? From my experience as a spam blacklist regular here and on meta in the past, much much less blatant spamming has resulted in global blacklisting before now. This is really very simple: someone came to Wikipedia to drive traffic to their ad-supported site, and continued to do this after it was made clear to them that it was inappropriate, including using an unapproved bot. Ideally we need a bot run to clean up their droppings, there are over 22,000 links at present. But if we have to clean them up by hand, then so be it. I just removed a couple of dozen from one article. Nuke 'em as you find 'em I reckon. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that everyone should peaceably engage in discussion and civilly discuss it without all the rhetoric. The claims over "ads" and "malware" are utterly baseless and unsubstantiated. There is surprisingly bad faith expressed here and the owner has never stated it was his own doing, but was aware that it was blocked.[33] Above, it was stated that no mass-purging should be done. Revisiting an issue half a year later is by all means warranted, and without labeling some unknown person an international criminal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We have been discussing this peacfully. You have provided no plausible non-criminal explanation that would explain a network that included residential IP addresses in third-world countries. Trying to conflate that with a legitimate proxy network is simply wishful thinking, and trying to describe people's well-founded suspicions as "baseless" is (dare I say it?) rhetoric, as is your apparent claim that people have to confess to misbehaviour before people can recognize it as misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you tell that an IP is a "residential IP address" as opposed to a commercial one? I can't tell you that for this country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I said the claims over some ads and malware were baseless and unsubstantiated. There has not been any mass-hijacking, malware or any ad issue to speak of - in the past and now. Much of your argument hinged on the site possibly being used to openly attack users with an active bot net and such. That's a big if. A more mundane explanation than an "illicit botnet" exists in the form of archival requests served via a proxy or script. A few of your RFC "problem IPs" even in the first post did not even make an edit either. Why did you repeatedly name many of these non-editors as "evidence" and from how did they identify with this "bot net"? Examples: 117.223.161.182 - 188.251.236.114 - 85.66.241.59 - 89.228.46.37 - 60.50.51.210 - 122.178.159.163 - 109.175.88.133 You are sticking to the vast unknowns and possibilities some 6 months later. It seems more obvious that these archival requests were being fed (albeit improperly) via some script and accessed by "people" on demand. The whole "botnet" attack thing doesn't seem plausible given the jumps in time and topic as a breaching move. Despite the whole Archive.is blacklist not working for months and the multitude of ways around it, are you still going to say that its because of your blacklist that the problem is resolved? Given all the information we should be able to come to a de-escalation of the blacklist or a temporary lifting and see how this goes. I don't fault you for being cautious, but I do have big concerns about the thousands of articles which are being impacted by this blacklist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, by examining the DNS records and routing groups associated with the IP address. ChrisGualtieri, several of the IP addresses were prevented from making the edits by filters, so the contributions do not show in the contribution history. For example

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/9321724 (India)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/9205305 (Hungary)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=94.155.181.118 (Bulgaria)

IP addresses in multiple countries making exactly the same edit, hammering away on one article day after day. It was the repeated attempts to insert the link in Empire State of Mind that first drew my attention.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Like the others commenting above, I frequently come across changes I cannot revert because there exists links that I cannot resave, and I'm sure others may be frustrated if they came across it and could not understand why. I dealt with the one archive.is link I came across yesterday by commenting it out without the "http://" – not the best or a long-term solution, but I felt it would do the least damage. I felt that removing it outright would be to damage the project. We really ought not to get too overcome by continued paranoia and metaphysical angst. It was a very little but great man who said it matters not that the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. Damage is being done to this encyclopaedia every day this blacklisting is in place, so we need to be a much stronger dose of pragmatism. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that the same people who claim the blacklisting was some sort of hysterical knee-jerk are the ones saying things like "damage is being done to Wikipedia every day the blacklist is in place". It's not. We have a procedure for dealing with dead URLs. And if you're concerned about a link with a robots.txt strangling the Internet Archive's archive, there's WebCite for that. I frankly find it downright disturbing that there are so many people who are urging we reward the bad behavior of the people who spammed and, when caught spamming, attacked Wikipedia to push their website. Yes, "the crisis has passed and the attacks are not continuing". The reason for this is because the site was blacklisted. IF someone is willing to make contact with the people who run archive.is, if they are willing to accept and apologise for their prior conduct, if they are willing to provide a good-faith assurance that they have changed so that such conduct will not occur again, and if we can be certain that their running an end-around sites' robots.txt files would not make Wikipedia a party to contributory copyright infringement, then we can open a RfC on removing archive.is from the blacklist (and, heck, in that case I'd support it). Otherwise, just as a blocked editor who is unrepentant stays blocked, a website that engaged in decidedly shady practices to push themselves on Wikipedia stays blacklisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This can be summed up simply as: Webcite doesn't work with it - Archive.is is the only known one that properly captures pages and avoids robots.txt. And you are demanding that someone, who may not have anything to do with it, take the blame and apologize for it and act as some legal shield. We link to some of the worst sites in the internet, prominently, but the matter of Archive.is "copyright infringement" status would be for Foundation's legal team - not us. I understand that at the time there was a real and pressing need for it, given the circumstances, but that's past now and real editors are being affected. This is far from punishing one bad editor - its punishing everyone long after the problem stopped. Its easy to be a naysayer, but if everyone is so confident in their claims, surely WP:ROPE would be appropriate. And that's all I ask. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger:You say all we need to do is follow procedure to replace duff links. It's fine if it's one or two links, but it isn't always possible if the link is already dead. I'd just ask you to please be a part of the solution instead of part of the continuing problem – the easiest would be removing archive.is from the blacklist and see if the problem re-emerges. If it doesn't, we need to look no further, and are able to get on with normal life. Alternatively, someone can set up a bot to systematically replace existing archive.is urls with valid webcitation or wayback captures. Would you be prepared to undertake either?? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So your solution would be to have hundreds of thousands of links to someone that abuses people's computers and then apologize afterwards if those connections are used illicitly? And no, WP:ROPE isn't appropriate: it's reasonable to take a risk when all we have to do is clean up this site, because that's well within our power. It's irresponsible to put others at risk.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Show us proof that the Archive.is website is a malicious attack website. There is no concrete proof that the owner of the website conducted any attack against Wikipedia - its all conjecture. I support what was done at the time, but there has been no evidence raised to support the continuation of the blacklist. Serious allegations call for serious evidence and I am not convinced that Archive.is conducted a massive "illicit botnet" to attack Wikipedia with malware and trojans, especially since there has never been any malware associated with the site - or ads. I'm left to the conclusion that someone did something wrong, but that party is unknown, and the Archive.is website never has been a threat to Wikipedia or our users. If you can show proof that the owner was behind it few people would question the continuation of the blacklist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Very few people question the evidence or the continuance of the blacklist today, nor is concrete proof required before taking defensive steps.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Should we not replace the (potential copyright violation) archive.is links by a link to the original (dead) web site and an archive date? Does that not preserve all the relevant information against the possibility that (1) archive.is might be unblacklisted or (2) a legitimate archive or personal copy can be found? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There are over 20,000 links (in itself circumstantial evidence of systemic abuse), so I think we need to find a botmaster to strip them. Most are additive, not replacements. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that 20,000 links to an archiving site is "evidence of systemic abuse". How many links are there to WebCite, or archive.org? — Makyen (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember this well because of the backdrop. With the perennial scary donation request at the top with donation totals that never changed, Webcite made it look like it was about to close down, and the options for similar features to it were few if you want pre-emptive archiving. Fearing its demise, I myself added probably in excess of a hundred archive links to archive.is instead of webcitation, and this was before the alleged spamming incident. The Icelandic site is well thought out, user-friendly, with a one-click tool to archive a page from the toolbar of the browser. Beats Webcite by more than a short head, because with the latter you are still wondering if it is still working 3 minutes and three archive screens later. This advanced functionality is what I believe contributed to the large number of links to that archive and not the spamming, as I believe most of those were blocked and reversed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Just FYI: I created/modified a few bookmarklets to make archiving easier. Bookmarklets for one click archiving to WebCite and archive.org of a page you are viewing are listed at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Archiving bookmarklets. [NOTE: the WebCite one has to be changed to reflect your email address as WebCite does require an email address be sent with the request.]

Bookmarklets for one click searching for archives of a page which you have found to be dead are available at WP:LINKROT#Internet archives for archive.org, WebCite and Mementos.

All of the bookmarklets will open in new tabs instead of disturbing the tab you are wanting to archive or for which you want to find archives. — Makyen (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, this is not the appropriate forum to have a discussion about implementing the removal of archive.is from the blacklist. There was a consensus formed that archive.is should be blacklisted with the knowledge that it would cause the issues which are being experienced now. Administrators are implementing that consensus. It would be inappropriate for them to decide here to go against that consensus by removing archive.is from the blacklist. If it is desired that archive.is be removed from the blacklist then a new RfC needs to be held with at least as wide participation as the last one to demonstrate a consensus for removal. — Makyen (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The administrators are not bound to a flawed consensus, one resulting from an RFC that was neither promoted to the wider community nor neutrally opened. As a wide user of archive.is I didn't know about the discussion until I found I could no longer add links. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconding the above. If I had known about the RfC, I would have participated in it. Only a close circle of participants were aware of it, and got involved in it, and these people happened to be those who already had prior knowledge about the issue, and thus already had an opinion over it. The RfC was conducted without the overall community being informed, despite being an important decision which covers many, many articles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

By "without the overall community being informed", do you mean "listed for more than a month on centralized discussions"? T. Canens (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, looks like I missed that. My mistake, carry on. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• 2 and a half possibilities and a question: Considering those bot/accounts were manage by Archive.is owners (yes, I have read, it has not been proven still), I thought there might be three possibilities of their arhive.is link flooding, 1) Web Archive clearly states that they will not use ad unless it is absolutely necessary (ref: latest Meta discussion), but I have not seen any such claim or commercial scope details for Archive.is. Who may say, they may start adding Adsense ads in their pages. 2) the second possibility— they were unaware that wikipedia uses "nowfollow" links for external links, most probably they were trying to get thousands of "dofollow" links or they were trying to improve their page ranks. This way or that so many links from Wikipedia SURELY makes BIG impact on both Alexa rank and Google PR, and if they start using ads, there will be $$$$. 3) the third reason, they were actually trying to help Wikipedia, but I don't think it is a valid reason, so, it is a "half" reason, "Two and a half possibilities" in total.
  Although in the main post of this thread, I mentioned only "reversion problem" we have been facing, if I see suggestion to unblacklist Archive.is, the first thing I would like to know, "Why?" "Why were they doing so?" — it is still not clear to me. Tito☸Dutta 07:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I also would have participated in the RfC, had I known about it. I only found out about it months later. After the fact, there appeared to be little or no information anywhere other than at the RfC itself that there was a problem with archive.is, or that archive.is was not permitted to be used on enwiki. There was nothing that I saw at any of the help pages dealing with citations and archiving until mid/late March. I know this because I added most of the brief mentions of the situation after I found out about it in this thread on VPPT.

There appears to be a significant disconnect between the level of concern that people are expressing here and how slowly action occurred after the RfC was closed. The RfC was closed at the end of October.

• No large scale effort has yet occurred to remove links from articles. Yes, individual editors have removed them, but nothing on the order that is needed to get 20,000 links.
• Until 10 February 2014 archive.is was listed as one of the services to use for preemptive archiving (although not highly recommended).
• Archive.is was not blacklisted until 4.5 months after the RfC was closed.

• As best I can tell blacklisting was sometime between 18 March 2014 and 20 March 2014. It was not blacklisted at the start of this thread on VPPT and I encountered the new blacklisting of archive.is with these two edits.
• There appears to be a bit of a problem with confused semantics here. It is not possible that it was the blacklisting of archive.is that stopped the editing by the IPs. The IPs stopped (early October) 5.5 months prior to archive.is being blacklisted (late March). It was the blocking of the IPs that stopped them from editing, not the blacklisting of archive.is.

I don't have a problem with there being a significant delay between the RfC closure and actions. I am not trying to take anyone to task for not moving forward. I'm just trying to say that the sky did not fall down during the 4.5 months between the close of the RfC and putting archive.is on the blacklist. It is probably not falling down now. We can remain calm and talk this out, even have another RfC, if that is warranted.

If I had been aware of the RfC, I honestly don't know how I would have voted at the time. I'm not certain how I would vote now, as I want more information prior to deciding. The actions that were performed were definitely ones which lead to grave concerns about continued dealings with the responsible party. The fact that it has been reported the owner of archive.is did not deny he controlled the bot nor that he was responsible for the anonymous IP edits is of great concern. However, I do believe there are questions which remain unanswered.

@Titodutta: As to why they continued to press on once the bot was initially blocked: I have no idea and I can't come up with a good reason that takes into account the response from WP (blocking/removal) which was obvious and expected in advance of the precipitating actions. With the assumption that the desire was to have more links on Wikipedia for a longer time, I see no good reason for acting the way the person controlling the bot did. What it appears they wanted to accomplish (having the bot add links) could have been accomplished, even then, by coming back, taking responsibility, taking some lumps and finishing the approvals process. The links would have been welcomed and in 10x larger quantities which would have stayed for years. Proceeding in the way they did was near certain to result in a much worse outcome with respect to the number and longevity of the links. The fact that this is the case, and that it was easily foreseeable, leads me to wonder about other possible motives rather than the obvious ones (adding links).

If adding links was the real goal, only someone very short-sighted, or self-oriented in perspective would have continued the way that it happened. Continuing at that point to add links via anonymous IPs, etc. has clear and obvious consequences that should have been able to be seen by the person doing it. Only someone who did not believe the consequences would happen to them, could not or did not see the high probability consequences, or wanted the consequences would have continued. — Makyen (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Its clear the edit filter was not working, nor had it been, for quite some time, but I cannot actually view the history because it is hidden. As a result, it seems that there is far more to this blacklist issue because Kww seems to have hinted to reinstated the blacklist in February in what seems to be an apparent admission of wheel warring.Diff Again... I can't see it, so someone needs to look into this. Kww may not have made a neutral RFC, but there is no question that Wikipedia had a clear problem with this bot - but it seems that this issue will need either a community RFC or Arbitration if this is to be resolved. I well understand and appreciate the work done by those who work in this technical area, but this thread continues to bring up more questions than answers... In short, the argument that the attack was/is halted by the blacklist seems to be unsupported. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2013#archive.is shows that the blacklist was not in place by December - long after the supposed close and without further attack. Hobit, the non-admin closer stated, "Per the RFC, the blacklist shouldn't be implemented until most/all of those links are removed. Doing so would, as I understand it, make it nearly impossible to edit these articles. I've not been tracking bot issue, but I think User:Kww is on it." And issues with it were raised by @Wbm1058: and @Lukeno94:, but again the blacklist post removal was affirmed as that was not the place to fight it. However, I think its fairly clear that the blacklist was not done on schedule and that the closer's request was not followed. Surely, if the "attack" was halted by the blacklist and not the blocks, it would have been apparent. I think we need transparency - can someone please provide the history of that edit filter? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What edit filter are you talking about? I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but the only edit filter I've seen anyone mention is 526, which is already public. You're not mistaking the spam blacklist for an edit filter, are you? They're two different things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Special:AbuseFilter/559 is referred to via Special:AbuseFilter/593 to prevent Archive.is links, but Archive.is was said still not to be on a blacklist in this discussion: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Now_what_to_do.3F. According to the RFC, a blacklist was supposed to be made following the removal of the links - this was never done and I can't view the edit filter or see the "blacklisting". Why is filter 559 private anyways? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, several weekends later, Kww, the initiator of that RfC, has finally filed a bot request for approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a really disappointing comment in that bot request. "and its alias, archive.today, which was put in place to bypass the blacklist" really drives home that archive.is doesn't give a damn about anyone else and will not work with Wikipedia. Until that attitude changes, archive.is (and any other alias they come up with) should not be welcomed on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the alias was put in place to bypass the blacklist? Did you confirm with the webmaster? Let's not jump to conclusions here: as of present, all archive.is URLs redirect to archive.today, they might have just had a domain name problem or something. "archive.today" is not an alias, it is the actual domain where the site is hosted, since archive.is is no longer the main domain. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How you know it wasn't? There is zero AGF left related to archive.is. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The accusation that Archive.today is to bypass the edit filter - and coincidentally without any attack or mass additions - is disgraceful and naked fearmongering. Its been redirecting for weeks all without a single attack and the edit filter is still by-passable and ineffective in the face of a minimally competent spammer. If there was any threat, it would have been apparent in the last half year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the webmaster himself (see http://blog.archive.today/): "ISNIC (the .is domains registry) is being attacked by social hackers so I am about to lose the domain archive.is". --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And there we have it, the owner gave a reason three weeks ago. The mundane explanation over the fanciful is usually the correct one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative

After seeing, and agreeing with Ark25's comment that there should be an archiving tool more closely tied to wikipedia. I created a small hack, http://archive.grok.se - anyone interested in giving it a try? Sample output: http://archive.grok.se/G-3dP4Gc-NQmeZ4JSnCzuVZkdB6pBUSKPS2Xh_lvP_M. One key point is that it should not be possible to alter the contents of an archived link without it being detectable. It's only about 24 hours old at this point, so there's bound to be a few rough edges. henrik•talk 10:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant work User:Henrik, Looks like it is taking snapshot of the webpage and dividing it into pages, even if the actual article do not have pages. The text is unclear as well, most probably for the snapshot image resolution.
  Good or bad, a work has been started at least to create an archiving system.
  I strongly recommend to take this initiative forward, "our Wikipedia, our archiving system" Do you mean it can't be used in WP articles now? --Tito☸Dutta 11:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Instead of just saving the source of web pages as archive.org does, this tool pretty much prints it - hence the pages. So the output is close to what you get if you hit the print button in your browser (some good sites will have print css that help this). This has some good and some bad aspects; the good is that dynamic content is stored without any dependencies and that it, akin to the low resolution images we store under fair use, is created in such a manner that is not likely to replace the market role of the original copyrighted material. It is also why links and text selection doesn't work - it's meant to be a viewer of a snapshot and not a replacement for the original site. The same things also make it not very useful as a proxy or to browse anonymously. Most pages can be somewhat reasonably printed, even though the formatting often leaves something to be desired the contents is nearly always readable. Which I personally think is good enough for a tool such as this.

A hint: I think the text will be more clear if you open the pdf file (the download link under archival date) in a separate pdf viewer. It will also allow you to select/copy text. PDF.js is still a bit rough, but hopefully it will improve over time. I can always add better navigation, zoom tools and look into the text rendering if people find http://archive.grok.se interesting and start using it :) henrik•talk 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi User:Henrik I did not try the PDF link, I just checked the webpage and that's what we'll need here. Devanagari script (Devanagari script is a kind of Indian script used for Hindi, Sanskrit etc) is not being displayed properly, if you see my link above, you'll find boxes.
  Has WMF given any indication that they'll start their own web page archiving service? I mean WMF's official webpage archiving service? If not, then, a user initiative will be superb.
  I am not sure, for a large project you may need finance, I am not much experienced, but you may keep meta:Grants:IEG in mind. Tito☸Dutta 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, good of you to spot that! I didn't have very many fonts installed on the machine it runs on. I installed Devanagari fonts - tried with your example, and it appears to render correctly now: http://archive.grok.se/OhhlFC8pbJ_O-OZObkjGz5_4w_oJMBSm17H1yXPt9Vo. The latin glyphs should also be a little bit less ugly. My view is that if and when it turns out to be a large enough project that it needs funding, we'll cross that bridge then. Hopefully it can run on spare cycles and storage for a while. I've gotten help from the WMF to run my other Wikipedia related service, http://stats.grok.se, so it's not inconceivable they would be willing to help out with this as well. :) henrik•talk 12:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should start a project for promoting the idea of Wikipedia having it's own archive. It will take some time until it will take off, but we should provide a location for people who want to support the idea. In time, we'll find out how much it costs and other important details, and in the end, one day we'll probably make it happen. —  Ark25  (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I repeated myself in the message above. We need a page like Project:Wikipedia's own news archive. Thanks Henrik for the good job! Such works should be part of the project. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bulk removals without replacement

See these too: User_talk:Werieth#Joker, User_talk:Werieth#archive.is_in_Tintin_article Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not just bulk removing, in most cases I'm replacing with either an archive.org or webcite replacement. --Werieth (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to ban JOttawa16 from political articles

User:JOttawa16 has proven not to be able to be neutral when editing political articles. He has created "Decade of Darkness" twice and "Harper Derangement Syndrome" both of which were basically attack articles against liberals. Since the deletion of decade of darkness he attempted to add it to several articles, despite being told not to. It seems to be clear that he cannot edit political articles without being bias. JDDJS (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was an eye-opener for me because it was such a blatant, even laughably biased attack article, from an editor who has been around long enough to know better. He knows full well about WP:NPOV. But I'd say he's demonstrated most recently that he doesn't really care much about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• My only other comment is that we'd also need to watch out for more WP:COATRACK articles like "Decade of Darkness," which was ostensibly a military article, even as it was clearly another anti-Liberal Party of Canada attack page, at least when I saw it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I really can't understand how any user could possibly create such a biased attack article. You don't have to be a long-time user, overly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or even particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia decorum. Common sense would seem to indicate that this kind of disruptive trolling would be unwelcome anywhere. It shows an inability to edit political articles and a complete disdain for NPOV. To me, his behavior with respect to the "Decade of Darkness" is secondary, but it shows how determined he is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. He seems to see nothing disruptive about his behavior and quotes "the truth" as his justification (see the discussion at the recent AfD). I don't think he's going to change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Interacting with this user and the many pro-Conservative Party of Canada and anti-Liberal Party of Canada articles he has created and then which had to be deleted, it has become very clear that WP:NOTHERE applies. From his edit history this editor is clearly using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote his own political agenda and in a very blatant and unsophisticated manner as well. His user talk page has a list of these articles. The Canadian news media has carried stories discussing how the Conservative Party of Canada pays its members to flood forums, news and discussion groups, news site comments and other user-created content websites with pro-party propaganda and the behaviour of this user is consistent with such practices. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see your evidence that I'm a paid person of any political party. Otherwise, I suggest you retract your ridiculous statement immediately. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - If you actually read what I actually wrote I didn't say you were a paid political contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable to me. That is quite a blatant attack. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment While I think it is good to be concise, I also think some evidence should be submitted in the form of diffs/links to support the proposal being sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Both Decade of Darkness and Harper Deragment Syndrome have been deleted, so I could not provide links to them. JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I looked at Harper Deragment Syndrome here, courtesy of google and it doesn't appear to be an attack page. He's writing about what has already been written, in fact, his sources show that it's a neologism covered by more than one source source 1 [ http://princearthurherald.com/en/uncategorized/james-the-harper-derangement-syndrome source 2 ] [ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/24/peter-foster-get-stephen-harper-duffy-affair-has-exposed-a-pandemic-of-harper-derangement-syndrome/ source 3 - and yes this is an opinion , written by a staff writer ] passing mention occurs here where another politician is described as having harper derangment syndrome and finally this one - this one might not be reliable

His first link is broken to be sure , but it's easily fixed or replaced with this one . The article itself says what the sources themselves said, no coatrack, no syn nor any or. Now, I wasn't able to find the second article, but the first article appears to be ok and not an attack. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I disagree with you. Just because it is sourced, does not mean it's not an attack article. He wrote the article as if it was an actual mental illness. If saying that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is not an attack, then what is? JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you shitting me? "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." isn't an attack page? It goes on and on like this, in just that tone. As I said at the Afd, yes, "foo derangement syndrome" is a widely used term. Plug in Bush, or Obama or yes, even Trudeau, and you get Ghits. But this article was written as a pure attack page. It wasn't about the term, it was using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP for the term, in it's most extreme POV way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Shawn I assure you I'm not. However, just so you know, I'm not a Harper hater, nor a supporter, I hadn't heard of him until this report. Howervr, a description of Harper's Derangment appears here and he didn't quote it word for word. He paraphrased it. Could that description be worded better ? Sure! However, it's not an attack page. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 19:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't badger on this point. IMO it could not be more clearly a textbook Wikipedia:Attack page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't know what KV is talking about, clearly an attack page. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

When are we going to delete Campaign for "santorum" neologism and War on Women as an attack pages, then?--v/r - TP 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Never? The lead to the second one begins quite neutrally "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe..." This is not at all what we have here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"...certain Republican Party policies..." All article start out neutral, at least until they get to the "..is.." or "...used to..." And the Santorum page? Wikipedia should not be writing articles about all the crap that gets created and spread on election years to smear others.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the lead on War on Women to include "perceived" to clarify that it is opinion. As for Campaign for "santorum" neologism, it's well sourced and simply documents the facts that happen. It is very significant. The article is the first result when you google Santorum. JDDJS (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't neccessarily have done that. I'd just look at focusing "War on Women" to the feminist movement and remove the political coatracking. Then I'd delete Santorum altogether. Although I very much doubt it'll get deleted, my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Our policies fully support this.--v/r - TP 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It might be useful if an admin could copy these deleted pages to a temporary space so that people can see them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - this is an editor who, alas, seems unable or unwilling to drop the stick regarding the particular point of view that he's been pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - per Bushranger et al. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban HDS was a clear attack on the opposition parties and their supporters. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support block or topic ban Wikipedia is not a political toy for bashing others. It's bad enough when new editors think it is, but when established editors demonstrate clear abuse of this project while knowing better, they need to be removed from areas where they can not display proper judgement.--v/r - TP 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Laurentian consensus seems to be the latest example. The user seems intent to make articles where they can put forward their bias. If you make an article on a term used only by people with your bias, you know that all the "sources" will agree with your bias, and you can pretend that you're just following the sources. This problem can't be dealt with by just AFD'ing each case. Because, the user still gets to put out their bias for as long as the article lasts, and then a new one is created after that. Editing an established article means an instant revert, but that's not possible with new articles, where all the content is bias, and there's no neutral version to revert to. At a minimum, there should be a limit imposed on creating new political articles. --Rob (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Seems obvious this editor is not cut out to edit in this area. --John (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is ridiculous. I have a Masters degree in political science and I love helping my community however possible. I have only ever written non-partisan articles that are well-researched and supported by ample evidence. At the same time as this individual nominated me for a topic ban, he also nominated several of my articles for deletion, clearly as a form of harassment and attempting to silence the truth. This is obviously a violation of WP:PA and WP:HA. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, qualified. If the material is reliably sourced, then the wording may need to be changed to make clear that it is a section or article about ideas that are held by particular individuals. The narrower the segment holding them, the narrower the media and public interest, the less space should be given, but no one should be banned from a topic because they wish to report on unsavory perspectives. Specific sets of American attitudes in the South regarding slavery were abhorrent; no one would ever suggest we should not allow coverage of them. If, however, other interested editors provide necessary balance, and Mr Ottawa reverts or wars, then that would change matters. Bottom line, if reputable sources are talking about these subject, however ludicrous or offensive we might find them, it deserves mention here, with space allocated on the basis of the importance and magnitude of the discussion. (We need people to relay—not champion, but relay—reputable reports about Lars von Trier words at Cannes in 2011.) To not allow such perspectives to be voiced, or to slay the messengers (which, at times, will agree with the message, other time not) is a frightening course for Wikipedia. Rather than ever put this forward in the affirmative, I would elevate this. To topic ban for an editor's for choice of material alone is very troubling. There are things that each of us might wish silenced, for unsavoriness, at WP. Don't do it. Silencing dissent is a pernicious temptation. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The main issue was neutrality in the articles, rather than whether they should have been written. One article for example began, "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." In fact, the "disease" is not listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We do not begin the article on Von Trier by saying he is the best director in the world, just because he said so. TFD (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What you're proposing is that it's okay for politicians to use Wikipedia to gain coverage for whatever kind of foul sewage they spew as long as they can get the media to report on it. No need to worry about facts or truth, we're just going to be a gossip blog from henceforth - a reliably sourced gossip blog. The solution isn't to write "the crap stinks" in neutral words, the solution is to not allow the project to be used to bring attention to mudslinging in the first place. The BS that comes out of election years ins't at all notable. New BS will come out 2 - 4 years later that will get just as much "ooo" and "awe". WP:NOTPOLITICALTOOL.--v/r - TP 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem here, Prof, is that the articles are not written as netural analyses of the subjects. They're written as attack-and-slander POV-pushing pieces, and the editor in question continues doing this, repeatedly, despite having been told in no uncertan terms that it's unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this is obvious and the editor will get off lightly if this is all that we do. Anyone who can create articles saying the Harper thing is a mental illness is probably shouldn't be here at all, but perhaps this will turn him into an acceptable editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or site ban. I wasn't familiar with any of this, so I read some of the deleted articles, and was appalled. Harper Derangement Syndrome was a no-holds-barred piece of political much-spreading. The sheer dishonesty of it was staggering, claiming that HDS "is a mental illness" without any attempt to offer any evidence of any medical support for the term, let alone evidence of a clinical consensus in support of it. Decade of Darkness did it at least start by acknowledging that it "was a term coined", rather than presenting it as a fact, but it used the term as a coatrack for a highly partisan analysis of Canada's defence budget. In some ways this was worse, because it had better chance of sneaking under the radar. Some of the material might have been have usable in a broad article on military spending in Canada, but this was a blatant POV fork.
  The reason that I support a site ban is that an editor who does sort of thing in one topic area is quite capable of doing it elsewhere, and I see no benefit to the community in simply displacing this activity to other topics. JOttawa16 claims above to have a Masters degree in political science, and if it's true that they are educated to that level, then they will know perfectly well that what they have been doing is unacceptable. This is an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and the project should take an unequivocal stand against editors who abuse Wikipedia's purpose in this way.
  However, if there isn't consensus for a full site ban, I will support the proposed topic ban as a lesser but important step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• User's edit here[34] shows that he cannot understand consensus. Six votes for deletion (two of them suggesting speedy), two weak keeps (one from an IP) and a keep from the creator. And yet, he can't see the clear consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TParis I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such.

Wrong. Completely wrong. Look at the list of references. The Washington Post, ABC News, Time magazine, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, ricksantorum.com, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, PC Magazine, MSBNC, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The New York Times, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, .... — goethean 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Yes, we know there are sources. Any politician who opens their mouth will get repeated in reliable sources. That's a weakness and loophole in our policy.--v/r - TP 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? That may be an issue with the media, but Wikipedia can't fix the media. — goethean 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was replying to you, and yes I know. Which is why I don't normally bother arguing the point. But a fix in policy specifically aimed at election years would go a long way toward these 'fully sanctioned attack articles' and the editors who battle in political topics to create and bias them.--v/r - TP 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What's interesting is that even the media which wants and intends to be neutral (i.e. they aren't running with the story because it supports their intrinsic POV) will repeat the story because it's "out there", and failing to report it would leave them open to charges of bias from the ideological media. The end result is that there's no longer any real barrier that prevents those kinds of stories from running pretty much everywhere. That is a systemic flaw created by the contemporary re-introduction of ideological mass media outlets (something which had almost disappeared), the 24 hour news cycle (which creates the need to fill time) and instanteneous reporting from practically anywhere on earth (which puts a premium on delivering stories and doesn't allow time for them to be checked before airing) - and we suffer from the fallout. BMK (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there are huge problems with the contemporary mass media, and BMK rightly notes some of the big ones.
But Wikipedia is not just another mass media outlet struggling for market share, nor is it like journalism the first draft of history; it is an encyclopedia, striving to document topics of long-term significance from an NPOV perspective. That means, for example, that we approach a topic from an NPOV perspective, rather than doing what JOttawa16 did, which is to take a soundbite and use it as a coatrack for a POV-fork of an encyclopedic topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me of a programming principle: Garbage in, garbage out. If the media is producing the crap and that is what we use the develop articles, then are we really producing a high quality encyclopedia or a one-stop-shop archival service of crappy news? We have to have some kind of editorial filter, as we do for every other topic (notability guidelines), for election/politics related neologisms and political attack platforms. WP:Political Platforms (notability) would be a start.--v/r - TP 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK covers a lot of this already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:LCcritic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LCcritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has made clear that they are solely here to promote a fringe theory regarding the theory of relativity, and in over half a year they have made no edits outside of this topic area. Jason Quinn, among several other editors, has asked them to stop using their talk page as a forum to promote their theories. In response, LCcritic has made clear that they have no intention of stopping voluntarily.

Beyond their user talk page, LCcritic has attempted to promote their views at VP/P, in three different help desk requests in which they argued against the mainstream answers provided, and in an extended discussion at Talk:Length contraction.

I suggest that this editor has drawn enough community resources, and propose a one year topic ban from discussion related to relativity, broadly construed, including their user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support User talk:LCcritic is an affirmation of WP:NOTHERE and stuff like this WP:VPP archive is just wasting community energy. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) Wow! That contribution list is pure unadulterated monomania! The editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to push one very particular and specific WP:Fringe theory. He or she is very clearly the type of editor the loss of which would not damage the project in the least, and would, in fact, improve things a tiny bit, so I would go farther than VQ and suggest that the correct response here is not a topic ban, but an indef block. BMK (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So, my first choice is Support indef block, but if other members of the community are less bloodthirsty than I am (they usually are), then I also Support topic ban if that's want people want. I still feel it's a mistake to take half-measures, but something is better than nothing. BMK (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I did a little searching (forgive me if I've missed anything) and found that LCcritic has never been taken to ANI, AN, or Arb and has no previous blocks. I checked the talk page and saw someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given. I haven't checked all the edits to articles, but I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template. I didn't check all his edits, although I noticed that a large share were on his talk page and Wiki related, where we normally give editors a lot of leeway. He has 8 article contribs and no edit warring, and he is responsive when asked questions. I'm open minded but not entirely convinced that all other options have been exhausted, as this is the first formal complaint ever filed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say "devil's advocate" is a misnomer here, Dennis Brown. Everyone deserves due consideration when a ban has been proposed and I appreciate your open mindedness. To address your point, though - I do see a number of Twinkle warnings that are at least peripherally relevant to WP:FORUM here. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• LCcritic has provided abundant evidence that there is no hope of getting any positive contribution despite having been repeatedly told that her/his behavior is inappropriate, and not just by me. I'm all for editor retention when there is hope, but this is an utterly lost cause. Paradoctor (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  someone mentioning discretionary sanctions regarding FRINGE, but no formal warning has been given.... I didn't even see a Twinkle warning template.
  Um, hooray? We shouldn't be "warning" people about the consequences of past problems, since those past problems aren't their fault; we should just be "telling" them. We have some evidence that canned warnings are less effective at creating good editors than personalized messages. The situation you describe is a cause for rejoicing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, we are not LCcritic's first choice of forum. Paradoctor (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't an administrative board. This is the first time someone has asked for sanctions against them formally, and the sanctions they are asking for is an indef block, for all intent and purposes (as topic bans for SPAs have the same result). Before blocking someone, I need to be sure that it really is the only option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The diff is intended to show that LCcritic already had a history of spamming this "theory" outside of Wikipedia: "Wherever I raise the question" [...] "I am either called a crank (and banned from science forums) or told that challenging mainstream length contraction is inappropriate" (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, I can't really use offwiki information as evidence, as I don't have a way to verify it, and because we hold people responsible only for what they do here, with exceptions only for when those actions affect Wikipedia. Just like SPhilbrick, I don't hold a lot of faith that this won't eventually end up badly, but I think this might be just a little premature. If he had a week or two of mentoring on POLICY (without debating the merits of his edits), then it would be an easier sell to just indef block him. IMHO, a topic ban is a bit passive aggressive when dealing with an SPA, and being an SPA isn't against policy. What I don't want to see is someone get indef blocked purely out of convenience, particularly when most of his edits are to his easy to avoid talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"offwiki information" Those are LCcritic's words, not mine or anybody else's.

"mentoring" I think I speak pretty much for everyone acquainted with LCcritic when I say that he had more than his fair share of being pointed out relevant policy. OTOH, if that is what it takes to convince you, I'm all for it.

"SPA" I have no problem with SPAs, I have a problem with disruptive editors.

"easy to avoid talk page" We're not a web host, there is tons of free webspace out there. Paradoctor (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, talk page stuff doesn't bother me as long as it is related to articles in some way. Many admin are that way. That said, I do see the problem, and I agree something needs to be done. I just think we need at least one solid effort to rehabilitate before we banish someone. I'm not sure what that one effort should be, but under no circumstance am I recommending doing nothing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support (I am an involved editor, not an admin.) LCcritic keeps returning to arguments which have long since been addressed, instead of countering the points raised against them. It's like talking to a deaf brick. While I don't expect LCcritic to beat any live horses in the future, his style of debate is an argument for an indef block. If LCcritic ever feels like contributing constructively, the burden of proof should be on him/her. I don't want to see another saga like this on a psychological topic. Paradoctor (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support (involved editor) — User had 4 formal warnings for addition of unsourced content in articles: 1st for this on Tests of special relativity, 2nd for this on Philosophy of science, 3rd for this on Criticism of the theory of relativity, 4th for this on Length contraction.
  In addition they had 3 formal warnings for article talk page abuse: 1st for this and 2nd for this at Talk:Length contraction, 3rd for this at Talk:Relativity of simultaneity.
  A little overview of (not already mentioned) shopped forums and user talk pages where informal warnings about reliable sources, fringe, consensus, and failing to get the point, have been given:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Non-mainstream views of relativity.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Criticism of relativity not allowed.
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#No_evidence_for_length_contraction
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 85#Criticisms of the theory of relativity. Entry was closed by as failed WP:SYN by user Mdann52.
• Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#Critics of relativity... "viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community.", dismissed as wp:FRINGE by 11 contributors. Finally closed as wrong forum by Jayron32
• User talk:LCcritic (removed)
• User talk:WikiDan61 User talk:WikiDan61#DVdm's removal of my "talk" comments on length contraction
• User talk:WikiDan61#no access to message DVdm
• User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#Removal of content at Talk:Length contraction
• User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#I am very lame navigating
• User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#Article leads allowed philosophical bias
• User talk:Modocc/Archive 1
• User talk:Modocc#Contractions
• User talk:Robert McClenon#Content issue; criticisms of relativity; dispute resolution: "...though Paradoctor and DVdm insisted on making it about me, as a full-on ad hominem attack full of insults about my supposed ignorance." and reply

- DVdm (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (largely epr Dennis) I've read enough to predict that this editor will not be a productive contributor, but I see a clean block log. I see some warnings about sources, but I see active engagement on the user talk page. What I do not see is an RfC on the user. My guess is that the editor realizes that the views are not gaining traction, but where is the clear statement that editing style must change or the editor will be banned? I can easily imagine a magazine interview where LCcritic agrees there was some pushback on views, but believes the ban request came from nowhere. We can point to warnings that certain action could lead to a block, but if there is a warning that LCcritic could be banned, I do not see it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Provisional Oppose (uninvolved). I think this is a bit of a dilemma either way. On the one hand, I agree with Sphilbrick and Dennis Brown, but on the other, I think doing nothing can also be taken to implicitly encourage this for as long as possible, and in the absence of seeing how the user reacts to even a shorter block, an RfC/U has a chance of killing more contributor time than anything. I think the only real option is for an administrator to attempt to engage with the user, and if that fails to produce results, go to the short block stage first. If there is some joy from that route, then RfC/U is the way to go. If nothing changes, then progressive blocks. Need more evidence of dispute resolution to support a topic ban - if that is what is being sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I modified my opposition to provisional, pending what he does now having received the DS alert. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  Having reviewed his responses so far ([35] [36]) to the alert and warning, and given that I also largely agree with Fut.Perf. below, I'm no longer formally opposing any measure which can possibly emerge from this discussion. For the same reason, I have also struck my comment about progressive/escalating blocks. That said, if he still doesn't get it when he comments next, I continue to prefer a short block of no less than 48 hours and no more than 1 week under the DS regime in the first instance, as it may lead to him disengaging or acting in a fashion which would be sufficient to shortcircuit the need for this. But if after the short block he returns without heeding what he has been told or reconsidering what he is doing here, I would be prepared to formally support a ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm also not an admin but I, too, believe in escalating blocks for editors seen as disruptive to see if a warning or short-duration block can affect their behavior and move them in a more constructive, collaborative direction. This view applies to disputes over content, if this was a conduct dispute (like socking, vandalism, outing, etc.), I can see moving swiftly but not in this case. But then, I believe that editors should only be disciplined for their behavior, not for their beliefs or ideas. As long as an editor abides by Wikipedia policies and guidelines (like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV), I don't see disagreement over content as inherently destructive or damaging to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. Everything proposed by LCcritic has been unanimously rejected by every single involved editor, and LCcritic has been repeatedly given the reasons and pointed to applicable policy and guidelines. There has not been a single voice in support of his edits and edit proposals, and all pertaining arguments have concluded months ago. This is about an editor who is simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I don't see Dennis' argument as compelling – it doesn't matter if he has been at administrative boards before; he clearly has been told sufficiently often, by multiple parties, that what he's doing is disruptive; he's deliberately and systematically refused to take that on board. I also don't see the benefit of first handing out shorter blocks – his sanctions can be lifted any time if and when he changes his mind about why he thinks he's here, but there is nothing that would make me expect he'd do that specifically in, say, one week, or two weeks, or a month. Finally, as for Sphilbrick's point about bans versus warnings, I don't really see the difference. A warning would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else [you will be banned]". A topic ban would mean: "stop doing what you're doing, or else [you will be blocked]". They boil down to the same thing, because there is only one single thing he has ever done on this project, and that is the very thing we want him to stop doing. Finally, I also don't see the benefit of a user RfC. User RfCs are for unclear or disputed situations, where community consensus about how to judge a pattern of behaviour needs to be gauged. There is no such need here. Where things are obvious, RfCs are a waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Meh. I completely agree that any attempt to steer this user towards productive engagement, is almost certainly futile. However, there were no formal warnings (until I added a DS alert forWP:FRINGE just now). I suggest a short leash: pointed comments on talk, and if he continues advocating this twaddle anywhere else then a block. I am undecided on the merit of topic-banning a WP:SPA, per some perceptive comments made hereabouts in recent weeks. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to admit being very underwhelmed by his attitude and understanding since posting my first reservations. Not sure if it is willful ignorance or what. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per original sense of Dennis Brown. Wikipedia is profoundly uncivil too quickly too often too pervasively to too many. --doncram 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like you want to discuss it at WP:VP/P. LCcritic has been given much more than due consideration. Paradoctor (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, which, as noted, amounts to a ban, because the user is a single-purpose account. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked editor's subpage

Can they edit it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If they're blocked, their own user talkpage is generally the only page they can edit. I've known of clever filtering processes that have been used in the past to allow blocked users to edit other pages, but generally their userpage and subpages are out-of-bounds. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I learned something new today. Thank you kindly, Yunshui. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Panel to close CFD on Category:Pseudoscientists

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists has now been open for more than the minimum 7 days, and is eligible for closure.

The debate has been lengthy and involved, with a lot of policies at play. (Disclosure: I have taken a strong stand one side).

It seems to me that this discussion would benefit from a 3-admin panel of closers, to help give confidence that the closure has been fully-weighed by non-partisans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. There is no obvious single result, but a consensus may be teased out of the comments, and whatever the result there may well be rucktions. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The main thing about a discussion such as this is that it shouldn't simply be closed as a count of heads. It does require an analysis of how well-founded the arguments are in policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and there are decent policy argument for each of the three possible outcomes (delete, rename and keep), which are themselves independent of the merits of the template's use in any particular article. Also remember that BLP, one policy cited for delete, does not cover Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, who can be legitimately and unambiguously characterised as a pseudoscientist - but is this more or less useful than characterising him as an advocate of pseudoscience? And is that helpful at all in the first place? Guy (Help!) 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it is going to be hard for an individual to sort through this alone. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if it were procedurally closed now? I'm imagining someone closing it with the rationale of "A group of administrators will be assessing consensus; in the mean time, please don't add anything". It's complex enough now, and it will be a lot more complex if the closers have to account for things added during the closing process. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Nyttend. There are already plenty of comments to sort through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone object if I do it? I participated in it (at least twice, if I remember rightly), but it doesn't seem like a WP:INVOLVED violation, since I'm not attempting to assess consensus one bit, and everybody's equally affected (and nobody really loses) if we end discussion in order to simplify consensus-determination by people who haven't participated. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, fine with that. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Regards Gaba ^(talk) 22:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done; sorry for the delay, but I was on the road all day. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Nyttend. Discussion had mostly stalled anyway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Who chooses the panel? Cardamon (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest conscriptingvolunteering User:BD2412, an uninvolved admin whose work on the closure of the first Chelsea Manning RM discussion earned a lot of respect. Any more suggestions for admins who might be volunteered? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Challenge accepted. I'll be glad to help. bd2412 T 14:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Having briefly reviewed the discussion, I believe that it will take several days to write the close in collaboration with other admins. I don't want to set about suggesting other panel members, to avoid any appearance of bias in the close, but it would be helpful if two more uninvolved admins would step forward fairly quickly. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have wikitime to unravel this myself per WP:SOFIXIT (I'm not particularly category savvy), but when James Randi, Joe Nickell, and Benjamin Radford et. al. are listed in the Category:Pseudoscientists subcategory Category:Paranormal investigators -- which makes them allegedly "Pseudoscientists," right? -- we have a some significant WP:BLP issues going on. NE Ent 11:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's more of a "WTF?" issue. There should probably be separate categories for paranormal investigators and paranormalists. Dean Radin and Joe Nickell might both call themselves paranormal investigators, but they embody two completely different fields of investigation, one seeks to describe and support claims of paranormal activity, the other seeks to test whether a more parsimonious explanation exists. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I will volunteer to help clos ethe discussion, if desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @ThaddeusB: Thanks, please ping me when we have a third closer, and please do not hesitate to recruit any admin you trust to be impartial. I have begun to assemble my thoughts at User:BD2412/Pseudoscience category discussion notes. bd2412 T 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

    Given that your rough count of supporters and opposers doesn't indicate that there is a numerical consensus, perhaps following the model of WP:Requested moves this should be relisted. Your preliminary analysis might make for good "relister's comments" that could help steer the discussion towards more of a consensus. I just became aware of this and would like the opportunity to participate in the discussion. Please also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pseudoscientists, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 28#Category:Pseudoscientists and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 12#Category:Pseudoscientists. There was never a consensus for creation of this category, and it has remained in place over the years only because there was no consensus to delete it either. Seems that the ability to create a category without consensus has given the "creationists" the upper hand here. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

    • If numbers of voters were all that mattered, these discussions could be closed by a bot. Policies also matter, particularly policies like WP:BLP and WP:V. bd2412 T 12:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

      • There is also a significant NPOV issue in that debate, particularly around WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And for categories, WP:OC#SUJECTIVE is important, with many precedents.
        No bot could weigh all that! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the one point of agreement is that there were plenty of comments. I don't think relisting the CFD and soliciting more feedback would clarify matters. The closers are just going to have to weigh the merits of the arguments put forward. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there have been plenty of comments, but this was held open for just 10 days, and there were still new opinions coming in from editors who had not previously commented just hours before the discussion was shut down. I think that the defenders of this category are more likely to watch it and be prompt in defending it. Note the ID of the first to comment, "QuackGuru" – that ID screams of an editor with an agenda: to label certain people as "quacks". You even said: "It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard." Having put that on my watchlist, I see how much chatter goes on at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, although I rarely bother to read it. Keeping this open might allow more time for more disinterested editors to bring some common sense to the matter. But perhaps that's not necessary. I think the preliminary closing analysis is good. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the regulars at the Fringe noticeboard are united in their attitude regarding pseudoscience and there was a notice about this CfD posted there so I'm not surprised to see all of their names, coming over to CFD and supporting this category. They are openly hostile towards anything they believe is pseudoscience and they see themselves as protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. So, this category is useful and valid for them.

But I believe a panel of three uninvolved admins can weigh all of the arguments and come to a fair decision with the comments that have been posted. Whichever side of this discussion you are on, it's important to remember that consensus can change over time and every article, category and page can come up for review periodically. Category:Pseudoscientists has been up for deletion before and, if it is retained, it can be proposed for renaming or deletion in the future. There have been categories that have been created, later deleted and then recreated. Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, that's why there will always be a need for these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I would like to add another point for consideration that doesn't seem to have been fully developed in the debate before it was closed. My argument is based on my experience with defending a category I created, Category:Facebook groups from deletion. Per the {{category explanation}}:
  This category is for organizations which are defined by their use of Facebook. Note: this should not be used for organizations that just happen to have a Facebook group.

So this category is limited to a very small number of members by WP:DEFINING. Picking a member of category:Pseudoscientists at random, Heinz Kurschildgen (a man I had never heard of before), and searching the article for the term "pseudoscientist", I find the only use of this word in the article is in the categorization itself. Therefore this article should be removed from the category. To be included, we should see a lead sentence such as, "Heinz Kurschildgen was a pseudoscientist...", and this should be backed up by a reliable source saying that Heinz Kurschildgen was a pseudoscientist. If such articles can be found, then perhaps this category could be kept, albeit with a very limited number of members. Thanks for your consideration. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: That example is a straightforward WP:V issue. If the categorisation is not supported by a referenced assertion in the article, then the page should be removed from the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just blocked Adikhajuria (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for advertising. Looking closer, it looks like part of a Wikimania thing, but I'm not sure how to handle it. I'm fine with whatever the community decides, but I can't help but to think that the types of edits that this editor is doing is, well, spam. I had started reverted them but stopped after a few and decided that I needed to bring it here instead. Spam or not, this seems very inappropriate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This is part of an outreach effort for Wikimania. It's not spam - We're looking for people from Wikimedia Projects who are interested in trying to recruit new contributors. EdSaperia (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To absolutely remove any doubt: we are not selling anything here. We're offering to create marketing materials FOR projects, for free, so that they can be more visible at Wikimania, which has an outreach component this year. EdSaperia (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More information about creating flyers for WikiProjects for distribution at Wikimania can be found at here at WikiMedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is notifications for something for the WMF is doing so I wouldn't call it spam at all. Notifying WikiProjects of something that may be beneficial to them isn't wrong when it is something that is part of a WMF initiative. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably the message should have some kind of method of opting out of future messages. –xeno^talk 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked. This is basically someone notifying Wikiprojects of a potentially useful free resource they can use at Wikimania, which is completely different from spam. I'm not completely sure it is the best way to approach WikiProjects but banning without warning seems a bit heavy-handed!

I would definitely recommend that Adikhajuria fill in their userpage and mention their connection to Wikimania in the talk page notices though, to avoid confusion. The Land (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(And for clarity, I'm also somewhat involved in Wikimania!) The Land (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

They weren't banned, they were blocked as a preventative to what looked like spam. The name gave no indication, they were an SPA, redlink user page, the actual post looked spammy with no opt out and didn't indicate it was "official" in any way. They didn't even know to post at the bottom of the page, and were posting at the top before being told otherwise. No price for the service was given. Link was off enwp etc etc. The combination of all this looked very fishy and similar to some other spammers we have had. Anyway, glad that is cleared up, sorry about the confusion but that is why I brought it here, as I would any block where I have any doubts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I'll get him to fill out his profile a bit more and be more verbose in the offer. EdSaperia (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand why he looked fishy! And thanks for thinking and posting here. :) The Land (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block, please watch

I blocked McTimoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one of at least half a dozen possible reasons. This user is trying to whitewash McTimoney College of Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a questionable institution that trains "straight" chiropractors in the UK. I suspect that this will not go away. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Category pages will be movable soon

Effective May 22nd, category pages will become movable. Although members of the category will still have to be fixed manually, the revision history of the description page can be preserved when renaming categories. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Is there more info on this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There's bugzilla:5451, bugzilla:28569, and gerrit:111096. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if the new right move-categorypages was restricted to admins; the linked page says it will be available to all users. Currently, categories are moved only through WP:CFD, and the page which instructs the bots to do this (WP:Categories for discussion/Working) has been full-protected since 2007. Allowing any editor to move the category pages (without a corresponding ability to fix the category entries) risks causing havoc :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree - should be restricted to admins. DexDor (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that all editors can already cut-and-pasmove category pages. All this would do is let them bring the category page's history with it. It wouldn't let them perform mass recategorizations. Because of this, I don't see a need to restrict the right, but if there's consensus to, I will prepare a configuration change request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, they can cut-and-paste, but not many do, because experienced editors know that cut-and-paste is deprecated. Removing that barrier will increase the number of c+p moves of categories. I do think it should be admin-only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So at the moment only inexperienced editors get the "right" (through taboo) to move categories? Extending to experiecned editors sounds good. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Maybe a separate group for this; it wouldn't be suitable for inexperienced editors, or for all administrators, but could be useful for editors involved in categorisation but not interested in adminship, or who would fail RFA for reasons such as lack of article writing or AFD experience (similarly, "suppressredirect" could be useful for experienced editors involved in reviewing articles for creation or new page patrol). Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. We'd need broad consensus for that though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's "assigned to user and sysop by default" - will that be the default here or will it not be assigned to any group here without consensus? Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It will be assigned to user and sysop here unless we get consensus to change it. (The move right is still needed as well, so you'll need to be autoconfirmed to move categories even though the "user" group has the move-categorypages right.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

gerrit:111096 mentions a category-move-redirect-override option. Will it be implemented here? - Eureka Lott 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's already set up at MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to add {{R from move}} there? - Eureka Lott 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. We don't do that for category redirects now, and it's not a "real" redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No reason not to - maybe display or categorise them differently with a new template "Category redirect from move" or added parameters based on namespace detection. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a move=1 parameter to Template:Category redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's probably better, if it will only be used on pages containing that template. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with BHG: this needs to either be an 'Admins Only' right, or something along the lines of the 'Template Editor' special right - and if it's the latter it needs to be the former until the "broad consensus for that" is achieved. As it is, this is going to allow the sockvandtrolls to willy-nilly move categories about; we shouldn't wait until we see Category:Presidents of the Royal Statistical Society renamed to Category:Crap to acknowledge that is is otherwise going to happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How is this any different than what the (autoconfirmed) sockvandtrolls can do to articles, templates, user pages, and anything except categories and files today? Also, the damage would be no worse than if they copied and pasted the description to the "new" name and replaced the old description with a redirect, which they can do anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jackmcbarn different from what they can do today, because editors know that copy-paste moves are not accepted, so most are reluctant to do it. Adding a move button makes it appear legit.
      Different from articles in several ways: a) categories pages are rarely edited, so they are on very few watchlists; b) moving an article affects that article, but moving a category page can wreck the navigation system for many articles.
      Different from templates, because high-visibility templates are routinely protected, whereas categories are not.
      Please, Jack, there are probably only a dozen or two editors who routinely monitor large swathes of the category system. Bushranger and I are both amongst that number, and we are both alarmed about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've submitted bugzilla:65221 and gerrit:132947. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jackmcbarn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Note that it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change. See the bug for more details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants to play with this to see exactly how it works, it's live now at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ (note that accounts aren't shared between here and there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the new right should be admin only - instead it would probably make sense to be admins & trusted users. That is, admins should have it by default, and admins should then be able to turn it on for trusted users who ask for it, and take it away upon misuse or complaint. That scheme seems to work OK for other rights. If moving cats is a particularly sensitive area, then the bar for who gets it should be set fairly high. BMK (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Going to agree with BMK because this opens to more issues and some really difficult headaches if anyone wanted to be malicious. A minimal dose of caution until the ramifications, exploitation and countermeasures are better understood is not a bad thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Going to disagree here. Moving categories is essentially bypassing WP:CFD where renaming categories is discussed. Moving categories should only occur after a CFD discussion has been closed. The reason why this step is essential is, unlike articles, categories do not stand alone, they exist in a hierarchy, with parent categories and child categories. Changing a category name might seem like a good idea but if there is already a category system where the categories are named "X of Y", it doesn't make sense to change one category's name to "Y's X". In a CFD discussion, the context of the proposed renames, mergers and deletions is looked at as no categories exist in isolation (or if they do, they shouldn't be!).

What I'm unclear of is how "moving" is different from "renaming", both of which change the title of a category and retain the edit history. And with a rename, it is not necessary to go and change the category names on all of the category contents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

When CfD renames a category, they move the description page (today by cut-and-paste), and then use bots to recategorize all members of the old category into the new one. The only difference is that the move (of the description page) will be normal. The bots will still have to do the recategorization to finish the rename. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Are the bots programmed to handle this configuration? –xeno^talk 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Right - but if someone renames a category and neglects to kick off the bots, then hundreds or maybe thousands of articles could have redlinks and/or soft-redirects (which require an extra click) at the bottom of the page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Xeno: It looks like the bots will need to be updated. I've posted a link to here on their operators' talk pages. @Obiwankenobi: The redlinks are a legitimate concern, but the soft-redirect issue could happen anyway, so I'm not as worried about it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, can you give an example of what would happen if I were to move Category:Living people to Category:Dying people? What would we see on all of the 600,000 biographies in this category immediately after it was moved? Would there be a redlink, or a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category? Also, what happens if you attempt to rename it to a category name that already exists? I love the idea of saving history of a category instead of copy/paste renames, but I'm just not sure it's a tool random editors should have - making it a permission one could apply for would make more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: On the articles, nothing would change at all. It would be a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category (which looks exactly the same from articles). The soft-redirected category would still retain all of its members, so readers would just see a confusing message in place of the description, and everything else would be normal (and a vandal could cause that even without this functionality). If you tried to move a category over an already-existing one, it would fail just like trying to move an article over an already-existing one would. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I think that's problematic - as BHG points out, there are categories that are applied to hundreds or thousands of articles, whereas the category itself may only be watched by a few editors. This provides too much opportunity for large-scale troublesome moves - or even incorrect/undiscussed moves of categories. I believe that bots regularly clean up soft-redirected categories and move articles automatically, correct - that means someone could do an incorrect category move and then a bot would actually move the articles, which editors may ignore since they usually trust bot edits more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In light of the way the bots (and category move system in general) are currently setup, I think it would be best if a staged approach were used to roll out this new functionality. –xeno^talk 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The rollout won't break anything. The bots can be updated at any time to use the new move method, and until they are, everything will keep working as it always has. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is one effect of leaving soft redirects that hasn't been mentioned yet - normal users won't be able to revert category moves. If we left a normal redirect then it could be reverted by any autoconfirmed user - providing no-one else edits the page in the meantime - but moves leaving behind a soft redirect will only be revertable by admins. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(Of course, this won't matter if/when Jackmcbarn's patch goes through, as then only admins will be able move categories anyway.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'll also agree with BHG that this should be restricted to admins. Once the tool is in place and understood, then there may be a need to review the CFD guidelines to see what if anything needs to be changed. It would also be nice to create a permission list so the bots can do the moves. This should at some point be expanded to additional users. But that would require an approval process. Not even sure where to start on that. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  It would probably be fine to include the permission with 'administrator', 'bot', 'bureaucrat'. at the outset. And then expand to other userrights as necessary. –xeno^talk 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about this, even if this tool is restricted to admins or permissions granted to a few experienced editors. Right now, we have two processes, a) speedy renames and b) CFD. If ANYONE objects to a speedy rename, the editor proposing the rename is directed to file a CFD proposal. Let's say, it's a category call "U.S. Interstate Highways in Virginia". If it goes to a CFD discussion, the creator of the category is notified, the relevant WikiProject is notified, there are notices sorted to other, interested WikiProjects so they can all participate in the discussion over whether the rename is a good idea. This might be a cumbersome process, but it allows ordinary editors who are experienced in editing in the category area to weigh in with their opinions. Some of these discussions get heated (like the one concerning Category:Pseudoscientists) and the result is "no consensus".
The idea that any admin could bypass this discussion process and move any category they choose, is very disruptive to the system that exists. As BHG states, there are a small number of editors who focus on categories and the chances that these moves would be seen by others is very small so there would be, in effect, no oversight. This isn't meant to be a judgment of administrators, just that the structure of categories on Wikipedia is quite different from other areas (like main space, talk pages, user pages, Wikipages, FAs, etc.). Editors have received blocks because of their lack of competency in creating or editing categories because bad edits to a category have a potentially greater impact than an edit to an article.
The only way I can see this tool being effectively used is after the outcome of a CFD, if the decision is to rename, a move can be done instead. Otherwise, editors can simply ask an admin or editor with the permission to make the move and skip over the discussion part. The admin may be uninvolved but it is very likely that the editor requesting the move is involved and there could be even more editors who would contest the move.
I really understand that this tool was created to make editors/admins lives easier, not more complicated, but I see an uptick in activity at Wikipedia:Move review unless this tool is thoughtfully and carefully rolled out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Alternate userright proposal I propose renaming "templateeditor" into "trusted maintainer" and merge this userright into that bundle. Could also merge reviewer and account creator into it as well, just throwing the options out there. A trusted maintainer would be a perfect userright for gnoming work.--v/r - TP 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think if it was this simple for "trusted maintainer" to move a category, they will just do so without checking to see how their move impacts related categories. I think when an editor has a right, they might be cautious using it at first, but soon are likely to trust their instinct or judgment instead of actually checking to see if the move makes sense from the category hierarchical structure that exists for that subject. It's crucial not to consider a category in isolation from other categories, they are part of a system. But I've had my say and will let others weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of bundling, personally, especially with the userrights that don't have much process attached for requesting them. We lose any ability to differentiate between them, as far as requirements go; someone who just wants to be able to review pending changes to articles isn't going to necessarily have the skills to be a template editor, but because we've (hypothetically) bundled them, we can't just give one without the other, and so we have to deny them for no real reason.

As far as the actual catmover right itself goes, I don't really see any reason to restrict it; while it's certainly true that maliciously moving a cat description page can affect many articles, it will only affect them by proxy (i.e. the cleanup is still limited to just that one cat description page; you don't need to go through and fix it for each of those thousands of articles), and it only affects them in an extremely minor way; most likely, no readers would even notice. On the whole, I don't think the potential for damage is particularly higher than pagemover, which might only affect one article, but will do it in a much more visible way (and there are articles that are just as unwatched as categories, of course). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's also the question of norms. Pages can be moved by anyone in most cases, but it would be rather daft to move Ireland to Ireland (island) unless you have a death wish - a norm, and indeed a set of community agreed sanctions, has made individual editors moving such pages verboten. We could do the same with category moves - unless the category was created by yourself, or the move is to correct a typographical error, no matter what your role you should not move it, but rather seek consensus for the move at CFD or speedy CFD. A log of category moves could be reviewed to ensure that people weren't abusing this. Thus, in spite of what userrights we attach, we may also create a community norm that says, in general, categories should only rarely be moved without discussion - which would be a more restrictive rule than that which covers articles currently.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that moving category pages will be useful for multiple reasons – keeping the category history visible, and being able to trace the new name more easily given the old one – but IMHO it should be restricted to admins. I can't think of any gain from making it available to others. (Writing as an editor who became an admin mainly to help with closing CFDs.) – Fayenatic London 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  So yet another user "right" that administrators want to keep to themselves? Soon it will only be admins who are allowed to edit anything. Eric Corbett 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Eric Corbett: No, Eric, it's a new tools which is not initially being rolled out to non-admins. No editor is losing any ability to do anything they can do now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Not yet, no. But my fundamental objection is to the accretion of user rights to admins without any assessment of whether they have any idea of how to edit templates, for instance. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about this self-evident truth here however, in the camp of the enemy. Eric Corbett 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, users currently do not have this right. There is already a process to move categories and that is in place for several reasons. So the comments here simply are saying we need to install this feature in a way that supports the existing guidelines. If and when that process is changed, then the rights could be extended. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Kind of misses the point. While WMF is trying "make it as easy as possible to contribute knowledge" -- as evidenced by the fact by default the right goes to users -- the admin community is trying to decide a priori, without any evidence, that it should be restricted. Meanwhile, in the thread above I pointed out about 36 hours ago that our existing categorization of Pseudoscientists / Paranormal investigators -> James Randi is a WP:BLP, but admins here seem more interesting in haggling about this, and the Cfd and the blah blah blah whatever, than actually fixing the encyclopedia. (I've attempted to do so at Category:Paranormal investigators‎). NE Ent 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  @NE Ent: Same question for you as for Green Giant below. Why do you want to give editors a tool to perform a task which they are not supposed to perform anyway?
  How would this help anyone? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, this is why non-admins need to be on WP:AN -- there's zero justification for admins deciding something like without getting input from the rest of the community. NE Ent 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a wider group for this right. The best venue for this would have been the Village Pump, but seeing as the discussion is already underway there is no point moving it now. I can see two camps forming, one side would like to restrict this to a small number of trusted users, the other to keep it open to a wider group. Personally I think it is a significant new right and it will see many simmering disputes spill over, particularly real world issues like the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, the current Russia-Ukraine problems etc. If we open this new right to a wide group of editors, it will cause chaos because people will engage in POVish edit wars just like they do with article names and content. However, it isn't beneficial to Wikipedia if the right is resticted to just admins, because then it will be no different to the existing mechanism at WP:CFD/WP:CFDS i.e. you propose a rename and if approved it gets done by an admin/bot. The above idea of merging it into template editors and renaming that group has some merit but it begs the question of "why limit it to just that group?". I think the most beneficial route will be to add it to the widest possible group of trusted users i.e. admins, autopatrolled, file mover, reviewer, rollback and template editor groups. That would help build more confidence in each others abilities compared to the snarl-match taking place here. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

While it could be a useful tool for users other than admins to have, I am opposed to adding the right to groups like Autopatrolled, file mover etc. as Green Giant suggested. Rollbackers (such as myself) often will have no clue about category maintenance, and it should neither be assigned to thousands of users who could misuse it (in good or bad faith) nor should category knowledge be a requirement to attain rollback. I would support a user group such as category mover, to be assigned like file mover to users experienced in category maintenance who can demonstrate their need for the tool by having demonstrated understanding and activity at WP:CFD. BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BethNaught, I would support a new user group just for this right but my point was that all of these groups are effectively trusted users until they give a reason not to be trusted. It makes no sense to reserve it just for admins when really categories are a content-building activity. The obvious solution to vandalism would be protection in the same way articles can be protected. Green Giant (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and on further consideration I don't believe there would be any danger in assigning the right to already trusted user groups. I guess I'm just the sort of person who likes to keep unrelated things separate. Given that categories are content building, I would therefore be happy for the right to be assigned to autopatrolled users (and perhaps template editors), but the other groups you mentioned are more about maintenance, which makes them a bit distant for me. BethNaught (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Moving categories is not a WP:BOLD issue, and has never been in the 8 years I have edited Wikipedia. They should be moved only after a discussion at WP:CFD, or (for a few speedy criteria) after listing at WP:CFD/S. That's not because of any technical restrictions; it's because changes to categories affect many articles, so prior consensus is required before renaming or depopulating any existing category.

Giving this tool to admins will not allow them to go moving categories around without prior consensus. It will merely allow them to implement CFD decisions; but the vast majority of CFD decisions are implemented by bots, so in practice this is a tool which will be used 95% of the time by bots.

Please can you explain why exactly you want a wider group of editors to be given a tool to do something which they aren't supposed to do anyway, because of its ramifications? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, the essence of this debate is whether the right should be just for admins (which is unlikely to gain consensus) or should anyone else be allowed it. The sheer fact that the issue is being discussed here rather than at the village pump is perhaps a sign of the times. I disagree with just giving it to admins and template editors, because it has precious little to do with just templates and affects everything we do. You mentioned WP:BOLD as not involving moving categories but in fact it encourages caution for all non-article namespaces, not just categories. [[WP::BOLD#Category_namespace]] in particular says "if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion". That doesn't mean that every category change needs to go to CFD, just the controversial ones. Like you yourself say further down, what if someone creates a category with a spelling error? It has happened to me sometimes. Wouldn't it be easier to just be able to move the category in a matter of seconds, rather than listing it at Categories for discussion/Speedy, where requests sometimes take days depending on the admins workload. Certainly I agree that this right shouldn't be handed out like candy to just any auto-confirmed editor, but equally let's not restrict this solely to admins. Beth's idea of a separate user group is the best way to go. The two most trusted groups after admins would be filemovers (373) and template editors (75 excluding two bots) (although at least 23 are also file movers), so why not have a third similar group? Let it be granted by an admin at requests for permissions if an applicant meets reasonably stringent criteria. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I am not implacably opposed to the idea of a special group like the one you mentioned, tho I do question whether its utility for the very small number of legitimate uses outweighs the risk that it becomes a way of bypassing the consensus-forming process at CFD. I think it would be great to have a wider discussion about this.
But the immediate issue facing us is that the categ-move facility will be rolled out on 22 May, only 8 days. As set up, it will be available to all auto-confirmed users; as patched by Jack, it would be available to admins only. So we have a choice about what happens next: roll it out to a more limited set than you would like, and discuss extending it, or roll it out to a much wider set. The option of holding off pending consensus is not on the table.
Woukdn't it be much better to start with the more limited change, and then consider the wider change? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that initially it should be just admins because of the absurdly short notice (or lack of) by the developers. However, call me a pessimist but where would we raise the issue of extending the right to non-admins? Certainly not here and the village pump proposals board is just a talking shop where any decent idea winds up in the archives somewhere. Once the dust settles, it is highly unlikely any proposals to extend the right will be successful. As an aside, I note that apart from Jack, very little effort seems to have gone into raising the issue over at Meta, because this affects every project, not just en-wiki. Having had a quick look through several other village pumps/cafes, I don't think I've seen any discussions outside of en-wiki and commons. Additionally, is there any chance of someone archiving some of the older posts because this board is absurdly large right now (getting close to 500k). Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like my words of caution aren't having an impact on the discussion. So, my final comment is a straight-forward request:If you make this tool available, whether just to admins or to a wider group, please maintain a log of category moves so that there can be some record. Right now, we have CFD that acts as an archive one can refer to but if any admin can move a category, without providing any reason at all, there should at least be a log of these moves so that the community is aware of these changes. As BHG has stated, few editors have category pages on their Watchlist, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist and it is likely that category moves will go unnoticed if there isn't a log recording them. It should also record the name of the editor making the move so that any questions can be directed to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

They will be logged. See [37]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Category moves: this is looking bad

A reply above by @Jackmcbarn: says "it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change". The bug link is bugzilla:65221.

So it seems that what is now happening is that the new feature will be rolled out on 22 May, with no restrictions on its use. For all the reasons set out above, that is very bad news, because this new tool could be used to create serious damage to the category system, which could be enormously time-consuming to repair. A moved article affects one article; but a moved category can affect hundreds of articles. If an editor moves Category:French people to Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, a soft redirect will be left behind, and the bots will then recategorise all the articles. This is wide open to exploitation, and it the vulnerability it causes should be fully assessed before such wide deployment.

I think it's a mistake to read the discussion above as no consensus for restricting this to admins only ... but there is also no consensus to roll this out without a restriction in place.

There are only 9 days until the planned rollout, which is too soon for an RFC to conclude. So it seems that the technical people are just going to impose this new tool as a fait accompli, without giving the community time to assess whether it wants it, and whether access to it should be restricted. Is that correct?

I it is correct, then the techies are about to impose a huge vulnerability, despite the warnings :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What's to stop a vandal today from creating Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys with some random text, and replacing the contents of Category:French people with {{Category redirect|Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys}}? That would also cause the bots to miscategorize everything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that Parent5446 questioned including the option to restrict this functionality at all ("Just wondering: why would you need a separate permission to move category pages? I mean it's not an expensive or destructive operation or anything like that.") Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree fully with BHG, this potentially powerful tool should be restricted to admins only. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Jack: the potential destructive power of this tool doesn't actually lie in any function of the tool itself; it lies in the naivety of the bots that handle category redirects. restricting the use of the tool would be treating the symptom, not the cause, and as a general principle, we shouldn't be restricting permissions any more than is necessary. Perhaps we should think about a better way for the bots to work, instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the solution(s), they should be discussed before the tool is deployed. What we face now is its imposition before the community has fully assessed its impact, despite a significant number of experienced editors expressing concerns. That's appalling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely required more, detailed discussion before being thrust upon us. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Think of this, please: The editors who put their hours into WP:CFD are saying that this is a bad idea to implement without restrictions and this whole process is being rushed. This tool has not been created because those involved in category renaming asked for it. Editors who know the ramifications of sloppy or whimsical category moves, made without consensus, are saying, "This will not work out well." Why is their experience being discounted? Can you imagine telling the folks who work on the main page that any admin could make an article a featured article? Or, say, let's just eliminate WP:AFD discussions and let's just let admins delete whatever articles they feel don't "fit" within Wikipedia? Of course, there would be objections from the editors who know these areas well and work on maintaining some standards and fairness about the process. This tool would bypass all discussion by regular editors on whether these moves are a wise idea. The impact of this on WikiProjects alone could involve a massive clean-up.

I don't mean to sound alarmist, it's just that this tool throws out a long-standing consensus process at Wikipedia in one swift move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: notes the bugzilla post ("Just wondering: why would you need a separate permission to move category pages? I mean it's not an expensive or destructive operation or anything like that.") That has been answered repeatedly in this thread, but it seems that some editors prefer to keep this as a technical discussion on bugzilla, rather than joining in the community discussion here.

This discussion-forking is no way to reach consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't discussion-forking. That was an old post (posted February 3rd), while I was writing the code for the functionality. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Jack. But we still need this functionality to held back until there is a consensus on how to deploy it. Please can you or someone else with access to bugzilla make that request? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The sysadmins definitely won't go for that. The best thing that there's chance of consensus of in time is to make it admin-only, but even that doesn't look likely. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean no chance that the sysadmins will agree to holding it back? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How can this be true? How can the introduction of a new tool be forced on the Wikipedia community without considering the impact it will have or listening to the community's concerns? This is really crazy, Jackmcbarn! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If there were consensus here to make it admin-only, they'd be fine with that. Since we're divided, they're not going to change anything yet. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• No need to rush Jack, I think you make a fair point - it is possible that someone could replicate the move functionality through a copy/paste + creation of a redirect, and then the bots will stupidly comply and categorize everyone as a cheese-eating surrender monkey. However, there is a certain element of security-through-obscurity here - most rookie spammers may not know about the full mechanics of a successful category move, whereas now it will become accessible in one click. As a developer, I'm sure you know the difference between one click and three in an interface can be massive. Nothing prevents people from doing copy/paste moves in article space, but we still restrict page moves for some users and even have the ability to lock page moves, with good reason - as such moves can be disruptive. More importantly, you have to understand the context of categories - which those of us who work in this space are well familiar with - if category moves were permitted by anyone, or even by people who had demonstrated X or Y, I'm still not convinced they should be using such powers - indeed if someone did this today, and tried to rename a category from Category:Bill Clinton to Category:William Jefferson Clinton using the redirect trick, it would be rejected and reverted and that person would be told to go to CFD. We have only one case right now where a regular editor can determine the name of a category, and that is at creation time - once that category is created, any changes need to be discussed. It's a bit burdensome, but it also avoids a lot of trouble - we already have a great difficulty in managing the flood of new categories - if we also had to be worried that users were changing existing category names willy nilly in the same way they move articles around - especially given that so few people watch categories - that could cause potential chaos and massive inconsistency that may only be discovered years after the fact. At CFD we regularly come across categories that are so brain dead it is painful, and sometimes these have been laying around for years before anyone noticed them. I think if this is rolled out, even just to admins, the admins should NOT use this tool unless there is an obvious typo, or unless there is consensus at a discussion somewhere. As a different example, Brownhairedgirl as admin has the right to delete categories right now, she could go and ice Category:Living people if she felt up to it, but she *won't*, she won't even delete obviously bad categories (unless they are blatant spam or violating of BLP), instead she will bring them to discussion and let the community decide. It's just the way CFD works, and by putting this tool in the hands of everyone, you are bypassing the whole CFD process. There's a certain stability that comes with categories and a need for consistency; knowing that a given tree won't be gutted or destroyed or renamed without some oversight and more than one pair of eyes is key. Categorization is tricky and category names are quite different beasts than article names, so we shouldn't treat them the same. I'm saying this as a user, not an admin, and while I think it's reasonable to consider adding permissions for certain non-admins to do such moves, there need to be strong norms around when any such moves can be performed, and I can think of very few cases where even an admin should move a category without discussion (unlike article titles, which can be moved much more freely). If it needs to roll out right away, fine, but restrict it to admins, and let the community discuss greater permissions and attendant norms in the meantime.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with all that Obi has written. The only situation in which I as an admin move a category without discussion is when it is one that I have newly created, per WP:C2E. As an admin, I would use this new tool in only three situations: 1) to implement a speedy move of a categ I had newly created; 2) to implement a speedy move after unopposed listing at WP:CFD/S, 3) to implement the result of a full WP:CFD discussion. In practice, I would very rarely do either of the 2 or 3, because in nearly all cases it is much easier an to let the bot do the work; the bot also makes fewer mistakes and logs its actions consistently.
    So if it is used properly, this new tool will overwhelmingly be used by the bots. That raises the option of making it a bot-only right. I would be quite happy with that, it might allay some concerns about accretion of admin powers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that having a discussion proposing limiting something to admins should be on WP:VPP not in the admin secret hidey-hole club treehouse basement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

these actions are already limited to admins by longstanding consensus. Editors, nor admins, are not allowed to rename a category except in a very small set of circumstances, and if someone did rename through copy/paste they would be reverted. This tool simply makes it easier. I want to address a point Liz made above, which is that no-one asked for this feature - on that I disagree, the ability to move categories and thus keep their history has long been requested and I'm very glad we'll have it as we'll be able to see the whole history of a category including renames which previously we couldn't, so thanks to the devs for making this happen - however we have existing norms that any such moves happen at CFD or CFD/S, and giving users permissions to do this while skipping those venues throws out longstanding consensus. Since there seems to be a push to roll this out we must remember en wiki is not the only one affected, and there may be other patches that need to roll at the same time so I see no reason to block the rollout, just a suggestion that permissions be limited - for now- and then we can in parallel have a deeper discussion about who else should have these permissions and when, if ever, users should be allowed to use them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: What you're suggesting is basically what they said no to. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Who exactly is "they"?

Why is the default assumption that a powerful new tool should be handed to everyone, without a consensus to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"They" are probably the sysadmins, and the default assumption was that category moving is no more powerful than page moving, so it should be distributed to the same users that pagemove is. And to be fair, they're not wrong from their perspective; it's only the bots that make it powerful here, not the tool itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct on both accounts, Writ Keeper. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: @Jackmcbarn: I disagree strongly with that default assumption, because a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different.

But I am even more concerned about the apparent determination to ignore the huge weight of evidence in this discussion that those who do the greatest amount of work with categories foresee huge problems arising from wide deployment of this tool. When a theoretical perspective about a tool discounts the practical effects of its deployment, we are in trouble. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now?

The bots do valuable job of fixing the minor errors in categorisation which would otherwise leave category entries pointing to redirects. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: "a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different." The only reason that's the case is because of our bots. From the developers' perspective, our bots aren't a reason to change the software. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now? The reason category pages were immovable for a long time is because they wanted to avoid confusing users by letting them think they were moving the category when they were in fact only moving its description page. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. As I pointed out before, vandals can abuse the bots by cut-and-paste moving a category, and the bots will do just as much damage that way. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a great new possibility. I am not an admin, and one time I was very active on Cfd and many times wanted to be able to move categories.

Nevertheless, I am strongly convinced it is a really bad idea to implement this feature and not restrict it to a small group of users. I foresee a big mess and serious disruption from all kinds of impetuous and/or tendentious editors, as well as vandals. I think that either this should not be implemented at this time, or restricted to admins until such time as a broader discussion establishes which other users may be allowed access to this feature.

I strongly agree with BrownHairedGirl and disagree with Jackmcbarn: developers have no right to implement a feature while there is no consensus who should have access to it, unless it is restricted to the largest cross-section everybody agrees upon, which in this case is admins. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Debresser: Actually, they do. Developers aren't bound by community consensus. If we establish a consensus to restrict the tool, they'll restrict it, but they don't have to do anything now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the scene in Raiders of the Lost ark - "our top men are on it?" "Who?" "Top... Men." The arrival of a new permission implicitly indicates to the user that this is an acceptable action to take - but we have no policy around user-led category moves. It's almost as if 'delete' were added to all editors toolboxes without the attendant training and infrastructure for its use. As has already been noted, on en.wp, no regular user has ever had the right to move a category, and now it will show up their menu as a new toy to play with. This is a bad idea, and I disagree that the sysadmin's position is reasonable since rollout of an IT system change must take account of the local technological (eg bots) and social (eg norms) context. That wasn't done here. I'm sure they are acting in good faith but I would also be surprised if this was the only wiki where regular users weren't permitted to muck about renaming categories, etc. we don't need to establish a new consensus here that only admins can move categories, this is LONG standing precedent and we have policy documentation and years of evidence to prove it, so if this must roll plz restrict to admins as that aligns with the current consensus of who can actually move categories today. The fact that a few editors here are grumbling does nothing to upend that long standing consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of actions that are technically permitted but aren't allowed by our rules, like sticking editors on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions unilaterally. Any misuse of this tool is a social problem, not a technological one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello,

There is some sort of problem at The Teahouse that is hiding recent threads. Can someone with better programming skills than mine (in other words, almost anyone) try to fix it? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fixed. Thanks! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

Due to an inappropriate re-listing, and then a mistake in the un-re-listing, the Afd for "Kenneth Brander" is still open. Could someone take a look and close? BMK (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, by TParis. BMK (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock-plagued Afd needing close

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akinwunmi_Ambode has been open for eght days now, with only delete !votes left after a whole farm full of confirmed socks have been struck. So could we please have an uninvolved admin close the AfD and delete and salt (see !votes and comment on the AfD) the article? He has been using WP as free advertising/promotion space long enough. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 12:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the sockpuppets in the debacle explicitly said that they were using Wikipedia as free advertising or some sort of means to legitimize the subject to the people of Lagos in what appears to be an upcoming gubernatorial election.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like promoting Ambode on WP is part of the build-up for his election campaign, which is one of the reasons I want the purely promotional article off the air. Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by the panda. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Help would be useful

• Please, is there any chance of help with about 65 bird species name decapitalization move requests which have been dumped in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Some of these requests have been obeyed by someone else but not deleted by him from the list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Now all  Done and deleted by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems with a user.

I am having some problems with User:Beyond My Ken and would like some help calming the issue down. I was editing on The Rules of the Game and found this users edits and reverts of my edits to be unreasonable and rude. Eventually this user became abusive in their language and refuses to apologize: [38]. Normally I would just ignore this type of thing but I am planning to do a lot of editing on this particular page in the near future and, in my opinion, this editor is attempting to claim ownership of this page. So, I simply want to calm this situation down and know that I can edit on this page without bruising this users ego and causing a headache for myself.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor was working on The Rules of the Game with no {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} tag on it. I jumped in to fix the mistakes, and was told (in an edit summary) "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear". I don't take that kind of condescending bullshit from anyone, but I continued editing the article until I got another condescending note on my talk page: "Does somebody need a wikihug". Posted the editor's talk page, told the editor to learn how to use the proper tags, called them a "condecending asshole" and banned them from my talk page. Minutes later the editor posted to my talk page, demanding an apology. There will be no apology. Next thing I know is this (which should be on AN/I and not here, BTW).

I don't "own" The Rules of the Game, I don't even have much invested in it. I fixed the mistakes the editor made, added an English translation to the French quotation, cleaned up the refs and some of the formatting, and that's it. The claim that I want to "own" it is bullshit, as is the condescension I don't need and don't deserve.

This is my comment on this matter, and there will be no other. Don't post on my talk page about it unless you're an admin giving me a formal warning or block, because I'm not interested in your opinion. BMK (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC

When did it become a policy requirement that we don't edit articles without first tagging them as "in use"?

We don't do this, or need to. because there is generally some recognition that overlaps happen, occasionally the forethought to see that sizable edits might not stop in moments after the last one that's visible, and (most importantly) the recognition that if you do overlap with another editor in action, then an appropriate action is to back off and let them get on with it. This isn't about ownership, it's about basic politeness on a shared project. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's also not a requirement to wait until someone is done to start editing, especially if one is not actually reverting them. BMK's edits were not commented, which isn't awesome, but it's not against any rules, and Deoliveirafan's weren't, either. To respond to someone else editing the same article with an edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear" here, which really is condescending, and follow it up with this post--the first two actual communications of any type between the two--is just not cool, and while BMK overreacted, he overreacted to actual provocation. So yeah, I'm not sure either editor is better than the other in this situation; both could've handled things much, much better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair I was also provoked into being condescending (reverting perfectly acceptable edits within minutes does not seem reasonable to me), nevertheless will acknowledge that I was indeed being condescending (in response to rudeness) and will be the bigger user and apologize to Beyond my Ken here and now. However to be condescending is to be humorous, and so I will not apologize for the act of combating hostility with humor. It would be a sad day for the world if that became outlawed. I admit that I do not know the official rules (if there are any), but I would request that in the future if I or any user are clearly working on a specific page and have several edits within minutes of each other, it would be courteous to not immediately revert them, especially since the only justification seems to be "I don't like". I assure you that I have already taken pages and pages of handwritten notes for this page (that's just how I edit) and would like to see it improved. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that that is what actually matters.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, ok now that I've actually read some other posts by both Beyond my Ken AND Writ Keeper, it seems I'm being dragged into some completely different issues that have nothing at all to do with me and that I am not at all the problem here. Beyond My Ken, your language was unacceptable, please apologize right now. Writ Keeper, if you clearly have a conflict of interest please do not comment.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself to have a conflict of interest whith respect to BMK. I've interacted with BMK a lot, but always in an administrative role (which isn't usually thought to create a COI, as far as WP:INVOLVED is concerned), and not always in the way BMK would've liked. There are some other issues that got dragged into the conversation on my talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't think it has affected anything I've said here. Certainly I need to avoid even the appearance of being involved, and so I certainly wouldn't act as an admin in this situation, but I don't think there's anything that would prevent me from simply commenting. Nevertheless, to avoid all doubt, I won't comment further about this issue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on the validity of any of the edits made to the actual article, I think Writ Keeper's initial appraisal of the system is spot-on. Deo, you have to remember that humor doesn't translate well without visual and tone cues (basically, doesn't translate well on the internet). I ripped this quote, without associated links, from WP:HUMOR: Humor tends to be very subjective. One should remain aware that what one finds hilarious, another may be offended by. The use of humor does not override such core policies as Civility and No Personal Attacks. Learn this lesson: humor rarely works in response to online arguments. There will always be someone who takes your words at face value, or worse. And besides, I don't know why you think condescension is funny in the first place, from wiktionary condescending is awfully close to patronizing, which is defined as "offensively condescending"...well, thanks, wiktionary, that helped a lot...anyways, I'd say a vast majority of people would consider a "condescending" comment insulting, not funny. In any case, good on you for apologizing, though hopefully that was a sincere apology. I personally think BMK should offer up an equally sincere apology, as what they did was a severe and rather uncivil overreaction, but I don't know if that'll ever get across to that one. Hope it all ends well, 206.117.89.5 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (Former User:Ansh666 - oh, and, just so you know, I don't think I've had any interaction with either user before, either on the account or IPs)

Category:Mechanical reproductions of original works in need of additional detail

Some effort to reduce the backlog and hopefully get most of these to an 'acceptable' standard for Commons would be appreciated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what is wanted for the images in this category. Some of them already have high resolution and reasonable or good quality. Presumably you can use help from non-admins in technical work or finding better source images. Is there some project page or similar that provides additional information? --Amble (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Amble, I'm confused what you would like others to do. How are we to get them to an "acceptable" standard for Commons, for example? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:24.185.206.250

This IP has been going around to various New Jersey road articles and making poor formatting changes and reducing the accuracy of mileposts. The NJDOT SLDs give the mileposts out to 2 decimal places but the IP changes them to one decimal place. For example [39]. The IP has been warned [40] but continues to make the edits. Dough4872 01:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record User:69.125.102.140 has similar edits. Dough4872 01:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Hi. There is currently a backlog at the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've actionned a whackload of them one way or another. What's left is primarily AFC G13's, with a mere handful of others the panda ₯’ 12:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

G13's what? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the usage was in the sense of "a contested form of the English plural ending, written after single letters and in some other instances". Once again, just the Panda being controversial and trying to push the envelope. I suggest insist upon desysopping. Rgrds. --72.251.77.231 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your comment is highly inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts: When I finished going through what was then all of the entries in the CSD category, I had pretty much taken care of all of them except the ones that had been nominated under WP:CSD#G13 - those that were abandoned Articles for Creation. There were about 25 of them, and were easy-peasy for any admin to handle as they were uncontroversial. In other words, I handled most of the tough ones, leaving the easy ones for someone else the panda ₯’ 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Farah Pahlavi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, User:Diako1971 say Azerbaijani is somebody, who was born and raised in Azerbaijan means (Iranian Azerbaijan or Republic of Azerbaijan) and his/her first language is turkish. because Farah Pahlavi was born in Tehran, He says so she isnot Azerbaijani people[41]. In the event that his father is Azerbaijani ethnicity and Tehran have 25% to 1/3 Azerbaijani people– So Azerbaijanis in Tehran due to being born in Tehran, arenot Azeris? Plz see Revision history Iranian Azerbaijanis and List of Iranian Azerbaijanis--Serzhik (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to raise the dispute. First, try discussing the matter on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, try another venue like WP:DRN. This board does not solve your disputes for you. --Jayron32 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright problems

Is this edit legal per Wikipedia:Plagiarism? It looks like a direct translation of a copyrighted text.

PS I hope this is the right noticeboard for this kind of issues. Avpop (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You might get a good response here, but you can also try posting the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which is specifically tailored to deal with copyright things. --Jayron32 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Avpop. I agree with Jayron, but since I saw this, and would answer the same thing Wikipedia:Copyright problems... It's not plagiarism, because the source is credited and the quotes are clearly marked. But it is still a copyright infringement. The amount of copyright text quoted far exceeds what is acceptable per Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The quoted segments need to be shortened to at most one or two sentences, and the rest of the content should be appropriately summarised. See also this section of Wikipedia:Quotations. Voceditenore (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore I see. Maybe you could send a message to User:Maghasito to instruct him what to do. Avpop (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Avpop, I've left message about this issue at Talk:Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867#Excessive quotation/copyright infringement and directed the editor to that talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OTRS issue

Moving to the OTRS noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for 2 editors

The article Jews and Communism is currently going through a second nomination for deletion. After several ANI incidents and lots of discussion, two editors stand out as being extremely disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Instead of rehashing the arguments here, I would like to nominate two editors for a topic ban. WP:TBAN I'm asking for community consensus from involved editors to determine whether a topic ban for one or both editors is appropriate action. Comments from the community are welcome. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Background. Recent threads at AN/I: [42] and [43]. Discussion at Jimbo: [44].

• More examples: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#General disruption, personal attacks, and sock puppet accusations
• Ownership issues [45]

Proposed bans for topics on Jews and Communism

First nominee

User:Potočnik - Previously named Producer. Original creator of the article Jews and Communism

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support for the decision to reproduce a vitriolic article on Wikipedia, and for the disruptive protection of it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support (Judaism solely) for creating an antisemitic article that relies heavily on Neo-Nazi sources [46], such an editor should be prevented in any way possible from editing further articles relating to Judaism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support based on the fact that this editor copied over to Wikipedia[47], in substantial part, an article that ran on a notorious anti-Semitic website. See analysis at [48]. There may well be other reasons to topic-ban this editor, but this is enough. No, more than enough, to topic-ban this editor from any subject even remotely related to Judaism or Communism. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a block for Potočnik if it can be established that he copied non-free content into the project. This is sufficient reason for an indefinite general block, in my opinion, actually, given the context. However, if it cannot be established that non-free content was copied, then the case is a bit muddier. Certainly Producer showed tendentious behaviour at many points during the discussion, but whether it raises to the level of a topic ban, especially given that he has been quiet for some time now, is uncertain. I'd certainly like to see him blocked for bringing this garbage into the project, but having an objectionable stance on an issue is not sufficient policy reason, so I think this all hinges on the nature of the content copied (in terms of ownership, not odiousness) and how close the material added conformed to it. Snow talk 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Creating an article that presented an anti-Semitic view is disruptive. Even if the article itself was justified, beginning it in such a POV tone makes it much harder to improve it, thereby wasting the time of dozens of editors at various noticeboards, including an RfC and two AfDs. TFD (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Not only was the article creation immensely disruptive, but the persistent, unrelenting and determined defense of that article against any change or improvement, or any lessening of its anti-Semitism or attempt to balance its neutrality, was terrible damaging to the project. Indefinite site ban. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

He was warned on his talk page with examples of diffs [49][50][51][52][53][54] USchick (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and block if this is shown to be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence that Potočnik plagiarised an antisemitic source without attribution is indisputable. This is about as gross a violation of WP:NPOV policy as one could imagine, and I find it difficult to believe that Potočnik could do so without being aware that it would be seen as such. Frankly, I am having difficulty understanding why this was done in the first place, given that the article was plainly going to be controversial, and accordingly subject to close scrutiny. One has to conclude that Potočnik either lacks the competence and understanding of elementary policy required to edit in such sensitive areas, or understands policy full well, but chooses to ignore it. Either way, we can manage well enough without such 'contributions' on these topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support an indefinite block for from editing altogether, copying content from extremist websites without attribution should not be tolerated.Smeat75 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support -(of a topic ban, for Producer only). This user CREATED the article, an embarrassment to wikipedia, and has demonstrated a heavy ownership of it since. For him to claim that he had no knowledge of the content of the article's origins is outrageous. He refused to listen to any and all outside criticism of an obviously troubled article. He obviously is incapable of providing NPOV on any subjects related to Judaism.. he (supposedly) copied content from a strictly anti-Semitic website, and then continued to edit war and initiate massive conflicts when editors tried to neutralize or, god forbid, actually remove the inaccurate content, as proven per what USchick provided above. Even if he didn't copy the content (I'm at odds as to who would have, if not), his ignorance of the concepts of consensus and the 3RR demonstrate the need for a topic ban. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. [55].--Atlantictire (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There's already been an SPI filed concerning the pair, deriving from problematic editing on an older article; the conclusion was that they are not the same person. Meatpuppetry remains a strong possibility, of course, but having reviewed the evidence, I'm doubtful of the strength of the case to be made, beyond suspicion. Snow talk 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Snow, I'd really appreciate your participation in the discussion of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support for POV-pushing, pure and simple. Miniapolis 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Given his almost certain knowing creation of an article based on anti-Jewish sources, and consistent intellectual dishonesty, I cannot see any future edits by him edits in these areas that would be productive. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. POV pushing, tendentious editing, dishonesty about sources, and other disruptive behavior. He would be lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. A block or site ban would also be appropriate for someone with this history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - the formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"spat" ?? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per warnings by User Jehochman (talk · contribs) [56] [57] [58] to PRODUCER (as he was known at that time)/Potocnik: 1 "Do you have a connection with User:DIREKTOR? I find it odd that both of you show up with the same Jews and Communism dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" [59]; 2 "In any case, your account is blocked indefinitely, not for the sock or meat puppetry which is a strong possibility and also good grounds to block, but for tendentious POV pushing. The account will remain blocked until there is a discussion about how to prevent further recurrences...Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" [60]; 3 "...The following diffs show inappropriate editing. [61][62][63][64][65][66] Should you accumulate more examples of a similar nature, you may be subject to a sanction...Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" [67]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a ban on anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or anti-semitism for reasons given by many editors above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. The admin Jehochman acted prematurely and excessively, and their conduct should be examined closely to determine whether they should continue to wield the mop. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support As per obvious anti-semitic POV, evident on the creation of a WP:FRINGE article copied from an anti-semitic source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally as one-sided. There has been ugly, nasty behavior around this article and related AfDs over the months and it would take the Arbitration Committee to look into everyones behavior to determine who is at fault and who needs to be pried out of the topic area. Atlantictire "I will continue to be so and have no interest in being polite or editing Wikipedia until the community figures out how to deal with editors like Director who abuse Wikietiquette in order to advance a racist agenda", is one from the "other side" that come to mind. This is not the type of thing where one's wiki-enemies should be able to propose and vote on topic bans. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Second nominee

User:Director - Blindly supported Producer and now changed his mind. Has a history of disruptive editing.

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on subjects related to Judaism or Communism. While it may be true that he was not aware of the origins of this article, the fact is that he blindly and unreasonably supported the article after it was created by Producer. That is evident by simply reviewing his actions after the article was created. See[68] and in particular his rollback of 14:01, 3 March 2014‎[69] with the edit summary "standard USChick nonsense.." Eh, no. It was not USChick's nonsense or anyone's nonsense. It was an effort to reverse some of the damage that Producer was causing to the project by copying over text from an anti-Semitic website and creating an article that quickly passed muster with Metapedia and was reproduced there. Producer put in motion this effort to make Wikipedia a part of this daisy chain of drivel-producers, and Director became his right-hand man, fighting alongside him in the article and, on the talk page. But you don't have to wade through all the verbiage on the talk page, all the nastiness, all the threats, all the boorish behavior, all the saber-rattling. This is enough. I appreciate that he now favors deletion of the article, but his behavior in this article is such that it cannot be ignored, and a topic ban is necessary to protect the project from further such behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The case is presently unclear for Director as well. More so than anyone, Producer included, his behaviour reflected battleground mentality and a lack of appreciation for our non-negotiable civility policies and had I been asked to respond to this proposal a few days ago, I would have given unequivocal support for not just a topic ban, but probably a general block. However, I question the wisdom of blocking a user just as they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter (albeit only by a lightning bolt revelation), and have backed off from their combative behaviour some, even expressing mortification over the whole affair. I know it's a risk, given past patterns of behaviour, but I wonder that maybe the best approach, and the one suggested to us by policy, is to give this user a chance to assimilate the obvious lesson here, rather than assuming he can't, given his change in position. I said it in the AfD already, but it bears repeating here: it's easier to change a person's approach to a situation than it is their motive and while Director exhibited considerable problems in his approach, it is clear his motive was not antisemitism. I think I (narrowly) support leaving Director's editing privileges intact, as per WP:Rope; if he exhibits the same problematic approach to contentious issues in the future as he did in the present article (and apparently in the past on others) then I would whole-heartedly support a general and indefinite block and will participate with vigor in the process to see it done. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support at least a broad topic ban. Director's dropping of his determined opposition in the face of conclusive evidence of the article's toxic sourcing is commendable, but comes after months of vitriolic posts and even more vitriolic disputation and incessant edit-warring. If Director and Producer were not in fact sock puppets, observers may be forgiven the assumption for they frequently acted in close concert, dominating the page and effectively shutting out alternative voices while threatening to "report" almost everyone who ventured the slightest disagreement. Even after his recantation, for example, Director asserts on the AfD page that my own précis of WP:FRINGE makes it impossible for him to WP:AGF [70]. Director has burnt countless hours of time and irreplaceable reservoirs of good will; had this received broader publicity, the damage could well have been much worse.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Also, accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many diffs are posted if no one is interested in looking at them. At one point, he was blocked indefinitely. USchick (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, no, the position expressed in that latter statement is not at all reflected in policy, that I know of anyway; failure to provide a diff is at most an inadvisable oversight. Knowingly constructing a specious claim for which absolutely no evidence exists at all could arguably be considered a personal attack, but even then, it would be be better described as just general bad-faith behaviour. Let's be careful about misrepresentation of policy to suggest inappropriate behaviour here, in a situation which already has enough fuel. Regardless of how each of us feels about the advisability of the posting, and regardless of how many diffs USChick put into her initial comments, there is a significant issue of ongoing disruption being discussed here that has been agreed to be an issue by dozens of involved editors. Suggesting that there is bad-faith at work in attempting review of the issues is not going to help. Snow talk 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I have yet to see any evidence. Diffs or otherwise. It is a personal attack without evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, accusations that lack evidence altogether, not accusations for which the evidence was not immediately proffered at the arbitrary point at which you happened to enter the discussion. In order for it to be a personal attack, the claim has to have no basis in fact and be made as part of bad-faith activity. Failing to provide that evidence is an oversight, one that can be (and should, and has been) corrected, but it is not a personal attack if it was based on an informed perspective of the matter, least of all when there is massive support for the position amongst involved editors also familiar with the circumstances. You specifically implied that failing to provide diffs made any comment they would have supported a personal attack, and that is simply not true. Besides, it's not just diffs alone which make that case, but, as the very section you quoted shows, and linking to relevant discussion. There are a variety of links and diffs in this thread which direct to voluminous discussion across a variety of venues. These are not spurious claims being made by parties on a whim and without any substantial reason for concern, which is the only situation in which the policy you quote would apply. There is no bad-faith activity at work amongst those who brought this topic for discussion - your argument in that direction has no merit. Snow talk 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not what the policy says. You could make an argument not providing evidence at the point of asking for the ban was an oversight, but that is not an excuse given it was three hours before I asked for it and multiple people had voted support already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way does my interpretation depart from policy? Please be specific. You made the very precise claim that "accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack." and I called you on that. No one is saying either A) that diffs and other solid evidence aren't recommended if you want your claims of bad-faith behaviour on the part of another contributor to be taken seriously, nor B) that it wouldn't be a personal attack if one manufactured non-existent complaints for which they never will be capable of giving evidence. But you've synthesized these two principles into one notion that if an editor makes an accusation of impropriety and they don't immediately make their case with evidence, that is a personal attack, regardless of whether they are in fact correct about the purported behaviour and acting in good faith. That idea is just not supported in policy. Anywhere. But to an extent it's a moot point, since this diff demonstrates there were in fact a dozen-plus diffs and links in this thread supplied as evidence of the behaviour and circumstances being discussed supplied by parties to the discussion, previous to your first post. Mind you, I don't want to get into an endlessly recursive discussion here with you, as it would serve little use to the broader issues here. And I have misgivings about how things have been handled too. But the statement you made was categorically false, and not in a trivial way, since through it you implied that another contributor was engaged in personal attacks. I didn't see that as particularly helpful to the current circumstances, whatever your feelings about whether or not the instigation of this process was well-advised. Snow talk 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, Director's behaviour was very bad, however he has apologised. I would suggest keeping tabs on his activities in related articles and putting him "on probation", as it were, rather than a ban right now.Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Smeat75's proposal. Director has apologized and admitted his fault in the article. Support (for Director only) the figurative "probation", if not that, then a temporary Topic Ban.. oppose anything else as Director's involvement is unclear at the moment. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Snow Rise wrote "they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter". I can't agree. Director collaborated on this polemic before Producer uploaded it.[71][72] The lede was not the beginning of a neutral encylopedic article; it was recognisably hate literature. It began "A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions", the entire lede continued that litany, and the rest of the article followed in that vein.[73] In discussion, he insisted it was neutral, that it was American bias against communism that rendered his opponents unable to see the true neutrality of the piece. He insisted that oppression of Jews under communism was outside the scope of an article called "Jews and Communism", but would not describe the scope except as "an article that lays out the association between "Jews and Communism""[74]. He only recoiled when he was busted, and not from the language, not from the framing, not from the purpose, not from the sourcing even now, just from it becoming publicly known that the creators of the Wikipedia article - Producer and Director together, that we know of - had taken this polemic from an article written by a known Holocaust denier and defended it to the hilt. Is it "clear his motive was not antisemitism" because he expressed mortification for being deceived, mortification that's already been succeeded by resentment at being taken to task for fighting so bitterly for such malicious trash? No, it's not clear. NebY (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director doesn't strike me as the type of contributor who changes his perspective based upon the general community consensus of his character and behaviour, no matter how overwhelming. Of course, if your assertion that he and Producer collaborated on the page before it was introduced into article space, or more specifically, that he knew the material was being plagiarized from the source from which it came, can be supported with evidence, that would be a different situation entirely and would generate an instant change in position on my part. However, the diffs you provide are only for a previous implication of this fact on your part and his denial of said claim, which is not really evidence of any sort either way. On a side note, though, I never saw a version the article that far back until now; I had thought the current version was problematic, but that version is truly hideous. As if the obviously fringe and distasteful wording of the prose aside, the use of images to create the implication of a rogue's gallery is itself unsettling, as if meant to say "Look how Jewish all of these communists are." Still, nothing I see screams out as proof that Director wasn't just blind to rampant synthesis at work. While it may seem inconceivable to you or I to not be able to appreciate the hate-mongering that must have been at work in the ultimate source of those claims, it's entirely feasible Director did not. My view of him is that he is simply a problematic editor in general who does not like be disagreed with, and once the situation on the page reached a certain level of heatedness, he was lost to discussion on the matter and inclined to view opposing views as nonsense by default, until incontrovetable evidence as the source of the content snapped him out of it. That's a serious issue in itself, but one not well addressed by a topic ban. Which is why I've advocated giving him a chance to learn a lesson here, but with very little tolerance for anything approaching that kind of behaviour again, which should be met by a general indefinite ban from the project. Snow talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What would your opinion be if it was proven that Director knowingly added a source from an anti-semitic "hate group" onto the article (not that I suggest he has, I only mirror what previous editors have said). Would you support a topic ban then? My position of current, based upon the evidence provided, is that Director is just adamant and stubborn, and perhaps a bit offensive in general. I haven't seen any specific links to a personal attack he made, or to unacceptable contents/sources he uploaded.. although I highly suspect he has done one of the two, that's just speculation.. as much as I would like him to be blocked, and as much as I disagree with his ethics, we're not in a position to do much yet.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, my perspective on that matter would depend highly upon the nature of the source and the manner in which it was added. After-all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that a source used in some context by a hate group could be used for quite a different purpose as a reliable source on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Director quoted a source from the same hate group from which Producer plagiarized his content, then it would suggest he was fully aware of Producer's activities, but I've yet to see any evidence of such. If the source came from a different locale entirely, but was not an appropriate source, then that would also raise the spectre of his inability to edit in the topic area in a way consistent with NPOV; but once again, I must stress this is a response to the hypothetical -- all evidence suggests to me that, as you said, he is simply stubborn and determined to get his own way, once he's determined that it's the way. Though I would add "arrogant, dismissive, and combative" to the list of applicable descriptors. Snow talk 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just briefly, because it's late: I found Director's "to all intents and purposes" phrasing curious and so I tried to make my question precise, asking "whether you were involved in writing or reviewing any of this material before it appeared as an article in mainspace on the English-language Wikipedia?". He didn't say if he reviewed it but he did say that "I think I maybe wrote one sentence, and added three or four images." so yes, Director worked on it before Producer uploaded it. We now know that much was adapted from the original Weber piece or some intermediate version. I can't tell you if Director was slyly alluding to that when he said he maybe wrote one sentence, whether Producer prepared the adaptation and hid its origins from Director (which I don't think Director has offered as an explanation), or whether they collaborated in the adaptation just as they collaborated in the defence (which seems the simplest explanation). As for the images, that collection was not the synthesis of another hand. There are just five in the article, of which Director admits to "three or four" - most of the work. He also says the sources "checked out"; someone did put in the effort of adding ISBNs as the references in Weber's piece don't have them.[75] NebY (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it does seem to raise the question of how much they collaborate which is germane to other areas of this discussion, but still is not a smoking gun as regards Director knowing the work was plagiarized from an antisemitic source. And lack of foreknowledge of this aspect would explain why he would later say he felt like he needed to take a shower when he learned the true source of the material; that is, he lent his support and collaboration to Producer from the start without knowing of this fact and was disturbed to learn he had been used to further an antisemitic agenda. Snow talk 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. [76].--Atlantictire (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support (Judaism solely) After reading through both the Jews and Communism talk page [77] and its archives [78], [79], [80], [81] and [82] I have changed my mind on the matter. The users attitude was incessant and unwavering. It definitely constitutes disruptive editing --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support While I commend Director for his change in view on the article, bans are meant to be preventive. There is nothing that he has to offer to this subject area and his track record shows that disruption could continue. This is certainly a more favorable decision for him than a block, which is probably warranted by his comments on other editors which he continues in this discussion. TFD (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose How did he "blindly" follow the other editor when he even reversed his position completely? Please, provide diffs for comments that you feel were inappropriate and worthy of a topic ban. There just isn't any evidence here. Just because you disagreed with him in the AfD is not a reason for a topic ban. The discussion at the talk page and the first AfD did become lousier at points, but especially with this dicussion the blame could be equally put upon this ANI topic ban nominator USchick who kept insisting communism doesn't have anything to do with socialism or the Soviet Union with some no-true-scotsman argument that became very tedious. Director kept replying and atleast that following conversation was rather low-quality. Actually, in every "bad" discussion I can find from the archives Drowninglimbo linked above USchick is the other party, both engage with similar style. And USchick is the one suggesting a topic ban for Director? Objectionable. --Pudeo' 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

He blindly followed the other editor by not having his own opinion about the content as POV, FRINGE and SYNTH. To the point that no one was allowed to fix a math error except Producer. No one else can count? [83] Then he cried crocodile tears when he was exposed. Read through other people's comments please and feel free to nominate me for a topic ban as well if you feel it's warranted. USchick (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I don't think you should get a topic ban. I just think that the most disruptive process in this, if any, was discussion between you and Director. --Pudeo' 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I was stooping to his level in order to even have a discussion with him at all. I was reprimanded by an admin for doing that. Neither one of us took it personally and we continue to joke around about that. Like we do here for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions USchick (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keep an eye on him, as Smeat said above: "probation". I'm sure he knows what's happened, and he has even evidenced disgust on the matter. Let him start fresh, and if problems arise, then action should be taken. At yet, I think he deserves the chance to make a fresh start. I think I can tell, personally, that he knows what happened, and how he got caught up in it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Note that an old version of his user page had the text: This user is not a racist, but does support James D. Watson's statement on racial scientific facts. This user does not believe scientific facts can be "improper", or "morally unacceptable" Agreeing with scientific racism or being a racist is not a reason to topic ban someone. But when they have a history of tendentious editing in articles based on racist sources, this is a good reason for a topic ban. I don't think we can trust this user to edit articles that are sensitive to race issues without POV pushing and other disruptive behaviors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I repeat the comment I made about the proposed ban on PRODUCER. The formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per User Jehochman (talk · contribs)'s prior warning to Director [84]: "I am alarmed by this edit [85]. You should never reference another editor's religion, race or nationality to challenge their edits or worse to suggest excluding them. This diff is ground to ban you from Wikipedia. Please remove it swiftly. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban for any content relating to Jews, Judaism and anti-semitism, user contributed to and supported the initial wildly anti-semitic article as documented by NebY above, then defended it at all costs. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TAGTEAM also seem relevant. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support because of the user having defended anti-semitic content for so long and so fiercely, that it's impossible to believe that there is no personal POV involved, even after the user claimed to have changed his mind. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion

First, I think you should be looking for feedback from uninvolved editors. Secondly, if you want to hear from the Wikipedia community, WP:AN/I is a better forum for this than WP:AN. You will also need to present diffs outlining specific acts of disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for ban proposals. ANI is for specific incidents. This proposal spans lots of incidents over a long period of time. USchick (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, it's patently obvious that Director and Producer need to be banned, and maybe not just from this article. But they're really symptoms of a bigger issue: how admins enforce the rules. Both Director and Producer are counting on admins who don't really investigate an issue before acting, and who become indignant at suggestions that they've made an ill-informed decision or acted defensively/impulsively.

I'd be in favor of a checklist of inquiries that ought to be made before punishing someone in response to a complaint. Maybe blocking shouldn't be at the discretion of just one admin.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Either is allowable (to be fair to both of you, the guidelines in the headers have a bit of an identity crisis, between the version on the viewable page and the one on edit page), but I daresay you'd get more involvement if this were on ANI. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note for admins: An in depth discussion of the behaviour of these two has already been discussed at a controversial afD page in which these two were VERY involved (and, in my opinion, overly controlling of). The discussion led to a near-consensus there calling for a topic ban to be made on Director and Producer/Potocnik. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary: Jews and Communism was adapted in late February 2014 by User:Potočnik, then known as Producer, from an article found on the site of a Holocaust denier. Producer and Director worked tirelessly and in concert to avoid changes to the article, almost invariably adopting a combative and threatening tone in Talk and edit comments. Despite its very evident problems, its rancid anti-Semitism, and the discussion at Jimbo, the article survived a March 2014 AfD as No Consensus. The article is again at AfD, where many thousands of words have been expended and where the article has attracted negligible support after the revelation of its roots. Director changed his position from Strong Keep to Delete; Potocnik has been silent.

The Problem: Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volunteer hours have been spent, and tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of words have been written, in order to keep a vitriolically anti-Semitic attack page off Wikipedia, or at least to reduce the worst aspects of that page. This is a terrible waste. It is clear that two or three dedicated and sophisticated editors, working together and cooperating closely, can tie the project in knots. This page would have been terribly embarrassing to the project if it had received wider media attention but it was also a comparatively easy call; we may not be as lucky in the future. The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. There will always be anti-Semites and zealots and conspiracy theorists and fanatics eager to spread The Word and capable of "following the sources" to cram racism, anti-semitism, fringe science, and fanaticism into Wikipedia, and where just two or three are gathered together they are extremely difficult or impossible to oppose. We have strong policies against socks, but two or three coordinated ideologues can assume ownership of a page and do nearly anything provided they take care to cherry-pick sources and avoid concerted opposition. If Wikipedia does not address this problem, it will have no future. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's not panic here. Wikipedia does have processes for handling these situations, processes that have not even been exhausted in this case; ArbCom, for example, was never brought in on matters though I think a number of us anticipated it heading in that direction. For that matter, no manner of formal mediation was requested, though postings were made to ANI. It strikes me as a bit histrionic to prophesy the doom of the project over this scenario. You're of course more than welcome (encouraged even) to take any proposals or discussion about new guidelines to WP:Village Pump (policy), but I suspect you'll get mostly comments along the lines of what I have to say here -- that is to say, this situation is well-covered in existing policy and this situation became the chore that it did because those policies were not applied as elegantly as they could have been (venues that could have been explored weren't and administrator involvement was not what it could have been, both of which happen from time to time). Let's also remember that, meatpuppetry (for which we also have policies) aside, two or three editors working ardently against prevailing consensus is not in and of itself problem behaviour -- it's just the reality of Wikipedia and something we depend upon really. That said, clearly there was problematic behaviour involved here, but again, that can all be addressed through existing process (as is being done in this very thread for example), and it makes little sense to me to try to reinvent the wheel when only a portion of the possible solutions we have at our disposal have been tapped. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I personally think that article is appalling, as was the behavior of these two editors. During the brief time I was involved in that article, I was attacked by the two of them, and threatened by one. I didn't like some of the talk page comments I saw; I felt that some of them were ugly, raising, in one instance, the religious background of an editor in a gratuitous fashion. Even so, I'd like to see some diffs. Who did what. There is new evidence that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Whoever did the copying should be topic-banned. Whoever abetted that action, ditto. Other specific evidence of bad behavior should also be introduced. Similarly, I'm not sure the timing is correct, though I admit that it is easier to engage in this discussion now, while the article and its talk page still exist. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The demonstration of the original version's reliance on an article from the Institute for Historical Research is [86]. The talk page's numerous archives -- all since February 2014 -- speak for themselves, as does the outcry at AfD. I'm very concerned by the amount of volunteer time and energy this is requiring, with seemingly unbounded demands for further demonstrations of diffs, evidence, argumentation, surely to come. What is to be done? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of diffs listed in the ANI examples. For anyone interested, they can see them there. My concern is with the attitude of the two editors and their tag team effort to shut down any discussion on the talk page and block other editors from participating. This is also documented in the archived talk pages of Jews and Communism and Jewish Bolshevism. USchick (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It didn't require that much of a deep-dive into the evidence to see the justification for topic bans for both editors. See my comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, can you elaborate? Was it producer or director that threatened you? Also, can you provide diffs to the talk page comments you speak of? My current opinion is that of a topic ban for Producer, and a 'temporary topic ban' for the likes of Director, but I could easily have their roles the wrong way around.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director. See the repeated "warnings" and threats to "report" me at [87], especially the "Please consider yourself formally warned" at 07:27, 27 April 2014. These are the kind of bullying tactics that I found especially dismaying from Director. I don't recall if they came from the other chap too, but to be frank I found their tactics interchangeable. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I could write an entire essay here about the highly inappropriate behavior of a large number of editors on that article, the flaming, the accusations of antisemitism, the incessant use of edit-warring as a substitute for discussion, the accusations of sockpuppetry, etc, etc.. But I won't. #1 because the article is being deleted and this is a dead issue, #2 because I just now went away on business and hace nothing but my phone, and #3 because I don't care, tbh. To single out Producer and me for sanctions, imo, defies all logic. The article did turn out to be based in part on some IHR essay - but nobody knew that at that time. I didn't; and the sources checked out. When the IHR thing was revealed, I immediately supported deletion and repeatedly apologized to everyone. If someone wishes to "take revenge" for my defending the article, fine, I won't offer any kind of detailed defense. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect that you may not have known but it is highly unlikely that the Producer, who created the article, did not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, I deeply appreciate your change of heart on the article. But the fact remains that the article that Producer created was, on its face, an act of anti-Semitic propaganda. One did not have to know chapter and verse or its precise origins to see that. But you dove right in and acted as his trusty right hand, Robin to his Batman, or perhaps the second Batman. I don't think that you should be punished. But I do think that you need to be separated from articles on this subject for the good of the project. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, and this is why we're here, it is not a dead issue. If indeed this article is deleted, as is entirely possible as it seems to be a WP:SNOW situation, I am sure Son of Jews and Communism will rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, has it not occurred to you that the recurrent suggestion of antisemitism at work in the motives of those defending the content might be related to the fact that the content itself was perceived to be indicative of the type of synthesis of facts consistent with an antisemitic view, a fact that was borne out once we discovered the origins of the content? Other contributors saw that at once. You interpreted the content differently and did not detect that underlying motive at work. That's fine, and nobody expects every editor to catch something along those lines, and I for one take it on faith you were operating as to what you thought was the approrpiate approach to the content. But is unreasonable in this context to not understand the suspicion of others, when there was promotion of obviously antisemitic material at work and when you would like, presumably, for others to be understanding of your good faith support of that material. You may notice that, despite having considerable reservations about your behaviour on that article and it's talk page, I've gone out of my way to advise restraint in regards to sanctions against you, on the hope that your change of position reflects that you're capable of reforming your approach a little. But you're not helping the case for that approach when you don't own up to how you contributed to the mess that became of that situation. And here I'm not longer talking about the antisemitic issue at all, but rather your tendency to see everyone else as the problem and you as the besieged party. You went into full-on battle-mode on that page. You were unreceptive to opposing arguments and frequently uncivil, both in terms of denigrating your opposition's perspectives and, most especially, ignoring WP:AGF, the very principle to which you would now like to appeal, constantly. Having seen this situation play out many, many times on the noticeboards, I'm telling you that you have a very limited window here to get out ahead of things, but it requires owning up to your mistakes in full (that is, not just as regards being duped by material), and commiting to another approach. If editing on Wikipedia and in these areas is important to you, I'd do it fast, before the votes stack, even if your circumstances allow only a small message. Snow talk 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To justify a topic ban from 'Jews' and 'Communism' evidence needs to be presented of significant disruption in the topic area. One spat over a single contentious article is not enough to justify a topic ban from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruption spans across Jews and Communism, Jewish Bolshevism, and Leon Trotsky with many discussions about What is Communism, [88] Who killed the tzar [89], Who is a Jew [90]. I would say a broad range of topics has already been covered. USchick (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, while Only in Death's perspective (that disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban) is valid personal position on what is appropriate here, it is not a bar which is required by policy or the block process itself; many topic bans have been instituted for editors whose contentious behaviour was linked to a particular inflexible perspective deemed likely to spill over into other articles. I will say though that OiD's point as to the breadth of topics that would be banned is worth taking under advisement; between those two topics, a significant number of articles would be barred to the editors. That's part of the reason I have reservations in Director's case. With regard to Producer, I dare say it's obvious his issues with NPOV on the Jewish people are problematic beyond repair. Director, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have come into conflict with other editors because of a devotion to the subject matter; rather that conflict stemmed from what he perceived as a matter of editing principle. His issues are more with general civility and the ability to collaborate harmoniously with other editor's and are not tied up with any one particular topic. Which makes a topic ban a dubious solution for dealing with him. I think what is called for in his case is outreach as regards general behaviour and, if that fails in the long-run, a more general sanction/block. Snow talk 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely for this reason I nominated them separately, for individual consideration. Thank your for putting it so eloquently. USchick (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Snow, my opinion is practically a mirror of yours. I concur with Snow's stance on Director precisely. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything in Director's editing history that makes you believe that his future contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the risk episodes like this one pose to the project? Yes, Director was staunch in defending policy and standing by his sources -- but only his sources were permitted throughout the article's regrettable life. Only two days ago, he prepared a spirited defense of the page, stating that the entire nomination was deceitful: "Folks, you're being lied to regarding what the article is and what its about. The deletion rationale is an appeal to emotion, and is aimed to gather WP:VOTES on such a basis. Nothing in it is accurate nor factual…. Furthermore: such ridiculous accusations push forward a right-wing, practically Reaganite political agenda.[91]. I particularly draw attention to the dog-whistle allegation about vote-gathering, but more generally to the tone and incivility. This is not the language of an editor who is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, the problem I have with the whole situation is that it IS largely unclear who did what. I'm not saying I agree with Director's ethic, but he has a right to say what he said on the afD discussion (no matter how mislead it may be) - we can't punish him in that regard. It's his opinion, and it may be blunt, but it isn't so far as being a personal attack. If you were to provide diffs and references proving that only his sources were permitted through the article's agreeably regrettable life, my opinion could easily sway.. but from an NPOV, I don't think we can judge his behaviour unless more raw proof is provided. Then again, if Director had been making these edits behind an IP rather than a fancy account, he may well already have been banned entirely by now.. all in all, I just don't want to judge pre-emptively.Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And, much as I like to avoid using an essay in circumstances where a very fine policy determination needs to be made, it's rather hard to imagine a situation to which WP:Rope would better apply. I'll be clear on this -- I stuck to the ANI discussion and avoided the talk page and even a firm position in the AfD outside of behavioural arguments until the eleventh hour for the very specific reason that I was more concerned with the constant breaks with general civility than anything else and I anticipated that an uninvolved editor would be required to take the matter before another administrator or even ArbCom. I fully expected to have to take that action within a few days. Director's reversal in the AfD backed me away from that perspective, ever so slightly -- just enough that I felt it warranted to give him another opportunity to digest the situation and learn better of boring full steam ahead, deflecting the concerns of large numbers of editors and viewing such contributors as obstinate obstacles rather than collaborators with whom he must work. I am not in any way yet convinced he has taken that lesson to heart, but I think policy and the circumstances compel us to give him one very limited opportunity to prove that he can before we condemn him outright. If he can't do that, then the topic ban proposed here in insufficient and not well-targeted at his style of disruption, and a general block of at least six months to a year, if not indefinite, is what I would view as the recommendable course of action, though course, if it comes to that, the exact sanction will be at the discretion of the reviewing admin or committee. Snow talk 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Spat" - seriously? You're characterising antisemitism as "a quarrel about an unimportant matter"? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Two editors who edited wikipedia for many years are faced with very serious accusations for travelling circus and all kind of disruptive behavior. Editors who made such accusations (and maybe administrator (Jehochman) who indeffed them) should present evidence (in form of diffs) for their accusations within reasonable period of time.
  1. I agree with opinion that "disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban". That is why it would be good, if accusations would be proven, to check if there are more members of their travelling circus (this should not be difficult because there are efficient tools for interaction analysis) and to define what topic areas they covered. Based on this it would be possible to determine who should be banned and from what topic areas.
  2. If accusations remain unjustified within reasonable period of time, something should be done to prevent unjustified accusations against those two editors in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional examples:

• In this lively debate [92] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion.
• In a discussion about Secret Police there was a math error. [93] Director claimed that no one was allowed to make any edits until Producer showed up. Like no one else can count?
• Atlantictire was blocked over a dispute that was content related. And then he lost it. I tried to console him and Producer took me to ANI over this statement on his talk page [94]. I don't know how to find the ANI discussion. Really, there are plenty of diffs linked in this discussion already if anyone is interested in following them. USchick (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Trotsky poster discussion [95] went to ANI [96] and showed up again in an unrelated article. [97].

Director had a right to disagree with the AfD nomination, but he did not have a right to call it a lie. It was not. He did not have a right to claim that nothing in the nomination was accurate or factual; that claim was untrue. He did not have a right to call them ridiculous, or to characterize them as a right-wing; that's both untrue and a personal attack. Read the whole sorry talk page -- it's only two or three months, and you can read it all in a few hours. Director and Producer are counting on you not to bother. They can and will issue, just as they have repeatedly issued, personal attacks without sanction against any and all editors trying to improve their articles, and it seems people will continue to ask for more evidence and more WP:ROPE. Please turn out the lights when you leave, OK? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ROPE can be better applied in case of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If your accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally believe such a cabal of editors exists. Frankly, I think that the collaboration between Director and Producer alone has been overemphasized, a determination I make from my own observations of the present article as well as procedural discussion of their past behaviours. An SPI failed to find an geolocative link between them, and though this does not rule out meatpuppetry, neither have we firm evidence along these lines that I have been able to turn up. There's also this discussion, in which the link is explored and users DeCausa and TParis imply that the two have frequently been at eachother's throats in other discussions pertaining to Eastern European articles. There were past issues referenced by FkpCascais concerning Director and Producer in this discussion on Jimbo's page, surrounding a past discussion surrounding Chetniks and collaborative behaviour between the two, but he references no other parties and I never dug up the discussion to observe the nature of their interaction there.. I don't know what to make of the ultimate likelihood that meatpuppetry is at work here. I rather get the feeling that what we are talking about is two very tenacious and combative editors who work in similar areas and that sometimes butt heads, but when their interests converge, they have no qualms with combining their considerably dogged (and frequently vitriolic) efforts to try to tear down any dissent to their preferred approach. They could be collaborating off-wiki, or these combined efforts could be the result of entirely incidental cross over in interests, but I think their motives at the very least could be said to be very different in most cases. In any event, I don't think a link needs to be established to prove that their behaviour has been collectively disruptive and generally inappropriate, but their violations of policy are not identical in form or context, so I'm doubtful of the "traveling circus" hypothesis or that it can inform significantly on how to deal with them. Snow talk 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Many, maybe most, of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans I have never seen at AN befroe, which worries me. How did they get here? Were they canvassed? Was the canvassing of all' participants in the various discussions, or only those on one side? If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court? BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The only place this discussion was announced is here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions. Everyone commenting was personally involved in some way. USchick (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that almost everyone -- or let's says a large percentage of everyone -- who has commented here is on the opposite side of the issue from Producer and Direktor. yes? Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic? BMK (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To make matters worse, they are proposed for topic ban from Jews and Communism although the most important point at related AfD was that it is wrong to connect Jews and Communism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors. USchick (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I had no association with Director or Producer before the AfD. Most people who have voted thus far first met the likes of Director and Producer at the AfD page, with a few exceptions. After making judgement there, as seen on the AfD page, we decided the best thing to do next was to pursue a topic ban. No "personal biases" against Producer nor Director existed for the vast majority of us, as most of us (I'd think) stumbled upon this whole fiasco via the Articles for Deletion page.. our initial judgement was made there and then was carried here. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, but I see a lot of personal animosity and groupthink in your statement above ("the likes of...", "we decided", "our initial judgment"). I agree with Liz that we need the opinions of uninvolved editors in this matter. BMK (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

By "we", and "our", I meant those who came here from the AfD page by the means of consensus, not the entire group, although I do recognize your point.. from your perspective it's understandable. As you can see by the intense debate above, there isn't really any 'groupthink' amongst those who came here from AfD. I'm relatively uninvolved in the whole fiasco, and in fact I came in to contribute to the AfD as someone who was precisely that; uninvolved. Obviously, it would be better for more uninvolved users to come and contribute.. but just because a user has contributed to a discussion on an AfD page doesn't render them illegitimate in the regard of offering their opinion about related topic bans.. my choice of the word "we" held the meaning of "those who came from the AfD page", not "We, the group of collaborators". Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Animosities are not valid arguments for a ban. Not all editors here agree about the ban. At least not such widely defined, unless evidence is presented about members of the circus and all topic areas they covered. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, "the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are" certainly not "those who strongly disagree with them on that topic". That's not how Wikipedia works and I suspect everyone here knows that - yourself included. NebY (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be clearer? BMK (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try. You asked "If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court?" and "Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic?" I'm answering that your premise is wrong: the editors who are making a case for bans or other measures know full well that they will not get to decide, that they will not have the opportunity to be the judges in a kangaroo court. They are making a case - or rather several cases, as usual - and discussing the matter. This is normal, this is how the process works. You've been around a long time and I think I've seen you participating in ban discussions before, so you know this already. Or am I wrong? NebY (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah - I see I was. One editor didn't quite grasp the need for uninvolved editors to participate. Sorry. NebY (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What bothers me is that Director emphatically stated that the article was neutral and impugned the motives of editors who said it was anti-Semitic. Even now he suggests that there was no way of knowing this without seeing the comparison with the IHR article, and that editors who recognized this weakness in the article before the comparison was presented were acting in bad faith. He stubbornly defended the article instead of doing basic research to see whether this presentation was consistent with academic literature. I commend him for finally backing down in the second AfD.

But I think a break from this topic is in order. If any editors plan to revisit the topic and create new articles, I think his participation would continue to be disruptive. Furthermore, he has no particular expertise in the area and has not done any in-depth research. His participation was mostly fighting to maintain the status quo in the article.

TFD (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused - what is being asked for here, a topic ban from the intersection of the subjects "Jews" and "Communism", i.e. everything to do with the relationship between Jews and Communism; or a ban from the combination of those two subjects, i.e. everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism? BMK (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Both subjects. Everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism. As stated in the original proposal. USchick (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't submit the report, but I think a topic ban for Judaism is more appropriate than Judaism and Communism, due to the main issue being the promotion of antisemitic views on the website --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that antisemitism is a problem in this case. Just like not everyone here agrees on the topic of Jews and Communism. However, everyone agrees that Director and Producer should be banned form these topics (Director to a lesser extent). USchick (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone agrees" - So, you're ignoring the one oppose !vote? BMK (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The one "oppose" vote is a non involved party. As the nominator, i specifically asked for involved parties on both sides of the Jewish/Communist argument (yes there are both sides) to comment. Maybe that's the wrong approach? Maybe only non involved parties should comment? The problem with that, is Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation. Some people have been banned and are not here. My intention is to see if there is any community consensus for a topic ban and to do it while the evidence is still here. (Pending AfD) What's funny, is that early on, people were worried that no one would find this discussion to participate in it. USchick (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you've just proved me wrong - I told BMK everyone here seemed to understand the process. Everyone can comment but no decision to ban will be made without the participation of uninvolved members of the community. NebY (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Non involved members voted here as well. But the one "oppose" vote is from a non involved party. To see who is involved or not is very easy. Anyone not voting on the AfD is not involved in any way. Here's a link of people voting in the AfD [98] USchick (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be massively oversimplifying if I said that the closing administrator will look for consensus among the uninvolved editors and ignore the involved ones. But you might do well to continue as if that was true. NebY (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I made the nomination, but I honestly didn't expect this much support. I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do. USchick (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a number of editors who responded to the AfD had no previous involvement in the article or the caustic situation on its talk page. Still others came to be involved through the ANI postings and did not contribute opinions to the content of the article itself so much as the behaviour of certain parties already operating there. A look at the talk page suggests that involvement in the discussion here does not seem to rely exclusively upon those who were already in conflict over the article, though of course those parties are welcome to have their say and their knowledge of specific incidents of disruption is necessary to make heads or tails of this situation. Snow talk 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that with a topic ban discussion which appears, from the nominator's comments here, to have been set up in a deliberately partisan fashion, it's likely that the closing admin will note the lack of !votes from uninvolved editors and close it without action -- especially when there's a distinct lack of evidence presented. BMK (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate. Instructions at WP:TBAN don't explain that only non involved editors are allowed to comment. No where does it say how to nominate someone for a topic ban or what will be considered, only that it takes community consensus. So basically, you have to be an experienced admin to understand the process. Producer and Director are allowed to get away with terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies. I don't know how many more diffs I could possibly provide as examples because no one seems to care about the examples already provided. I hope admins will consider the volumes already written in previous ANI complaints and the time required to babysit these 2 editors on complaint boards, not to mention wasted electricity by the combined effort of all involved. This is a recurring complaint, and if I knew how to link to all the other similar complaints, I would, but seriously, unlike the 2 editors nominated, who have lots and lots of Wikipedia edits, I have a life. Unless questions are directed at me personally, I don't plan to contribute anything else to this discussion. I trust that the Wikipedia community will do the right thing, whatever you decide that to be. I hope by bringing this to light, enough people are aware now of the Producer/Director duo. Save this link, because someone will want to link to it again in the near future. USchick (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Some of the complaints can't be found because they happened at The Jewish Bolshevism article which has since been deleted along with the edit history. This is why this nomination is taking place now, before the AfD for Jews and Communism is finished. USchick (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that in my decade on Wikipedia, I've rarely or never seen any discussion which was primarily lead by "uninvolved" editors, at least not if one uses such a narrow definition of "involved" as "voted a particular way on deletion of an article". I've been at the article in question since April 28th, in response to an ANI discussion asking for more eyes back then. I've seen Director (mostly) and Producer (a little) in action, and that enables me to have an informed opinion about their behaviour in this topic. Does that make me "involved" or merely "informed"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the nom's original posting may not have made the case it might have, lacking diffs, but there are now dozens of diffs and links to discussions above which supply a pretty cohesive picture of the behaviours being weighed here; I'd say there's as much evidence as you're ever likely to find for such a proposal, whatever one's disposition to that evidence. Mind you, I'm one of the few editors who has commented so far who doesn't feel that the case is an open-and-shut one for both editors, but even I don't contest that the behaviours of both have been disruptive in the extreme -- one need only look at the one talk page to establish that much. I'm simply uncertain as to whether the solution being proposed here is the ideal one under the circumstances. With regard to Producer, my hesitation hinges on the fact that I have not seen the side-by-side of the source which the article was apparently lifted from and the article itself, but if blatant plagiarism is involved (from an antisemitic fringe source, no less) then it's unlikely the responding administrator will find reason to stop and count !votes as they aren't particularly necessary or relevant in that context. Director is a more nuanced case, and though I would have preferred to have waited to see whether he would continue to operate in the same manner as he has before launching such a discussion as this with regard to him, it's hard to fault those who wanted to curtail his combative behaviour.

In any event, I must, with respect, also disagree with your characterization that there is a dearth of uninvolved editors voting, as a number of those who have commented here were not involved in any form of content dispute with either editor, and commented here seemingly as a result of coming to a dim view, through the prism of one of the ANIs or AfDs, of the pair's tactics. Editors who were not involved in said content disputes, or who gave only an opinion within the narrow context of the most recent AfD without having had any opportunity to come into conflict with either party, can generally be said to be about as uninvolved as anyone who came across this matter just by checking the noticeboards. Administrators operating in this venue are familiar enough with this song and dance to know how to review the pertinent discussions in enough detail to see which editors have a truly neutral disposition to the matter, and which might have been biased by the ongoing arguments surrounding the article, and weight their perspectives accordingly in determining the broader consensus. Unless unduly influenced by our very conversation here on the matter, this is not an example of a situation where I anticipate the responding editor would be likely to dismiss the concerns raised as not backed by sufficient neutral voices or as generally lacking in evidence. I still don't favour a topic ban for Director at this time, not under the circumstances, but at the same time, I hope your concerns as to the prospect of a non-committal close prove unfounded, as process has already failed to arrest this situation at several points where it might have and I am concerned the situation will only renew itself without some form of finding, whatever the sanctions or lack there-of. Snow talk 06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I find the call for involved editors to reach a determination on this strange and unusual. A TBAN needs to be determined by the community at large whether involved or univolved. Sure, AN discussions are typically led by the involved, but that's something different. I tend to agree with BMK that it sounds like a partisan call to their enemies at the AfD. I doubt it's so bad that it invalidates the apparent consensus - most likely, in this case, uninvolved would have appeared here as much if the involved call had not been made - but, IMO, any closing admin should make it clear it was incorrect to launch the discussion in that way. DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am highly suspicious given I have looked over the diffs that have been presented as evidence. At the worst they consist of multiple people edit-warring to add/remove reliably-sourced information. The repeated bandying about of that ridiculous indef block is certainly interesting given the strong consensus it was ill-thought out in the first place (see why it was removed), but also in the sheer amount of editing that went on while it was in place. Unsurprisingly more than a few of the support voters above are represented there. A good sign of tendentious editing is seeing what happens when one party to a dispute is unable to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to think the same. I've just been looking through many of the diffs, having not been involved before, and a big "so what?" is growing in my mind. I've had tangles with Direktor before (not on this) and yes he can be dogmatic and a pain in the rear sometimes, but frankly in the diffs presented I'm seeing similar from his opponents. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A few points. I am uninvolved in this case, but have edited alongside both editors for over two years in the Yugoslavia in WWII space. They are neither socks nor meat, they regularly disagree, sometimes vehemently (as do I with them on occasion). I recently watchlisted PRODUCER's talk page because I had left a comment there about an unrelated issue, and that is how I come to be here. I have made a comment above on my view about the scope of the proposed bans. IMO there is insufficient basis for a ban on the topic of communism, regardless of the success or otherwise of a push for a ban on the subject of Jews. This is a similar concern to that expressed by Drowninginlimbo above.

• I note that Antidiskriminator pops in now and again to try to get some interest in other areas that these editors edit in the apparent hope of expanding any bans to other topics and other editors. So far, unsuccessfully, although I note that he has now opposed a ban unless his "travelling circus" allegation is properly explored. All I will say is that this is a blatant attempt to "pile on" and stick the boot in to two editors he has sparred with over a number of years, and the attempt does not paint him in a good light. His allusions to a "travelling circus" is an allegation he has made in the past when disputes have arisen. He has significant history with both editors, and his comments about them should be assessed with that in mind.
• I have edited alongside both of these editors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, and while I occasionally find Director's approach to certain matters frustrating, I have found PRODUCER and Director to be meticulous about using reliable sources, and was very surprised to read the allegation that PRODUCER had used an unreliable source and that Director had defended it (at least until he became aware of its origin).
• PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FAs and MILHIST A-Class articles, and he has always been a stickler for reliable sources in what is also a controversial area.
• I agree with many of the comments made by Liz, Snow Rise, Flipandflopped, DeCausa and BMK, and urge caution here. I will observe that USchick comes across (rightly or wrongly) as harbouring quite a bit of personal animosity, despite saying that "I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do". Descriptions like "terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies", "Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation" and "Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors". There is a level of personal attack that I consider unwarranted, and it was continued with dubious accusations about Director's apparent admiration for Watson and "scientific racism".
• I am also very concerned that the only place this ban proposal was advertised (by the nominator, I understand) was on the talk page of the article about which the dispute arose. This was problematic, because it drew editors that were already involved, with the fairly predictable result above. There do not seem to be many really uninvolved editors here, to me at least. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that last bullet point - and have struck my comment that the call for "involved editors" wouldn't affect the outcome. The avalanche of "supports" is, I think, the grinding of axe's from that article talk page. (Btw, I too have seen Producer and Direktor squabble - I assumed that sock/meat allegation had been burried. If not, it is ridiculous to anyone who's been around Eastern european articles for the last few years.) DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That comes close to dismissing everyone who's contributed to the article or discussions on it as axe-grinders, bearers of long-standing grudges and the like. I only came to the article a week ago and the last time I looked at contribution histories I was struck by how many had also arrived quite recently - long after the first AfD and the ANI discussions and so on. Again without running checks with wikitools, I think I've never interacted with Director or Producer before and I suspect that's true of others here. (I had seen the names on the drama-boards before, true, and had a vague impression that they often squabbled.) NebY (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to long-standing grudges (although that may be present in some cases) but to the preponderance of opponents of Direktor and Producer on the article talk page appearing here and the lack of signifificant univolved comment, until recently. In other words, the axe to be ground originated at that article. That's not to say that every post in support is grinding an axe, but, taken overall, this AN thread supposedly about behaviour is largely (but not entirely) a mirror of the content dispute with the content majority on one side and the content minority (a very small minority) on the other. There are editors within the content majority whose behaviour at the article talk page is at least as problematic as the content minority's behaviour, but there appears no interest in holding that up to scrutiny. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that Director expressed below far more succinctly what I meant by axe grinding: "The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute". DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that USchick's involvement is problematic. One of the relatively few diffs prsented by them is this: "In this lively debate [99] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion." But I would characterise that diff as Direktor rightly ddismissing an off-point and tendentious response to him by USchick. In fact, much of the disruption around this article seems to be generated by USchicj - see this. DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, Thank you for pointing to the collaboration between you, Director and Potočnik in ARBMAC topic area which paint all of you in a good light. You somehow overlooked to say that you were blocked at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link to your block log). Three of you are top three active contributors of this article (link) whose title remained unchanged because three of you opposed on the talkpage, where you and Director alone made 1649 comments.link. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is barely worth responding to. All I will point out is that Antidiskriminator was ARBMAC-banned from an article for tendentious and disruptive editing. He comes here with unclean hands, and should be pointedly ignored in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute. If the community wishes to impose sanctions I would appreciate it if the decision was made by uninvolved editors, objectively evaluating the exchanges in question - not a collection of biased, angry editors quite possibly out for revenge after my having dared to oppose their positions on an article talkpage.

If the community considers user conduct on that article worthy of review, then I suggest the whole mess be brought before ArbCom for an objective overall assessment of everyone's conduct, rather than singling anyone out like this. -- Director (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some support for this notion. There's no guarantee they will take the case, but if they did, there'd be some genuine resolution. You should bear in mind though, Director, there is an outside chance this approach could end with more significant actions than just a topic ban. As an observer to that page, I'll be blunt with you -- you didn't come off well, especially in the civility department -- to my assessment anyway. Utilizing this solution may serve to spread the blame around a little, but if it's pure vindication you are looking for, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Right now, in the present discussion, a lot of energy is being wasted on the debate concerning whether the fight to introduce and maintain antisemitic material disqualifies you and Producer from contributing in certain related areas. ArbCom is unlikely to be distracted for long by such red herrings; they'll focus very quickly on the substantive policy matters, and I should be not at all surprised if WP:Civility becomes the chief issue in that discussion, whereas it has been severely underrepresented so far in discussions about what went wrong on that talk page. That being said, you will at least be afforded every opportunity to defend your position on equal footing with your detractors. In that respect, I think it may be the best way forward for all parties. Snow talk 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I said "if". I don't care about "spreading the blame", I just care that we do this fairly, objectivity is kind of "my thing". I don't care if I'm the only one who gets sanctioned, but I don't want it to happen because biased users with a specific interest gathered and posted a lot of "Support" votes. Input by new, uninvolved editors should be what matters here. The term "kangaroo court" does come to mind. -- Director (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel I need to state a few things: This pdf that is being persistently pushed is by some individual named "Valdas Anelauskas" and titled "Zionism and Russia" and readily available on Archive.org alongside thousands of other works by various authors. In any event I did not know that reliable sources are absolutely off limits if they've happened to have been quoted elsewhere by less reputable sources. For what it's worth my interest on the subject was piqued by Stanford University's "Jews and Communism" publication (hence the article name), later Slezkine, and more later by other sources. All that being said this article and this area of Wikipedia has put out such a toxic environment with its nonstop drama that, regardless of the outcome above, I'm willfully barring myself from editing in it ever again. I had been contemplating retiring from Wikipedia for a while now even prior to this whole ordeal and have chosen to follow through with it and do so. Therefore I am retiring indefinitely and am ceasing all further editing on any portion of Wikipedia. This my final and only comment on the matter and on Wikipedia. --Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is sad, because en WP has lost a productive editor who contributed to featured content of which en WP should be proud. Editors bringing such matters to this or similar fora should remember that throwing a WP:BOOMERANG can result in your being hit in the back of the head when you least expect it. Some of the above has not been done in good faith, but in pursuit of personal agendas. This discussion has only included a very narrow and largely involved slice of the en WP community, and this should be taken into account by closing administrators. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean Valdas Anelauskas, member of the white nationalist Pacifica Forum? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If we can hold Producer/Potočnik to his self imposed exile, I think that in itself will make many people very happy. No further action will be necessary. USchick (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't care about the exile either way, I still think the user should receive a topic ban for Judaism to prevent them spreading further ideas about the Jewish people at their discretion. It would otherwise be a good thing if they were able to edit other parts of the website. I think the very least administrators should do is show initiative and prevent the potential circulation of further anti-Semitic propaganda on the website? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true. A person who retires can unretire. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Systemic failure to provide oversight in this case

The article "Jews and Communism" was created, as we know now, using material from an extremist anti-Semitic website as a source without attribution. Two days after its creation, it was nominated for deletion but the result was "no consensus"[100]. I find it disturbing that closing admin RoySmith says in his closure that one of the charges against the article is that it is "Attack page (anti-semetic)" but does not address that in his remarks, saying "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism?" and the answer is that there is no consensus, so he allowed this very clearly anti-Semitic attack page to continue to be promulgated on this site. Then there was a deletion review, closed by Sandstein as "no consensus" [101], again, the very clear anti-Semitic content did not seem to be disturbing any admins or oversighters on this site. A long AN/I started by Director [[102] with the stated aim of removing "those folks who hang around being disruptive obstructions" from the article and which developed into a discussion of his behaviour, was eventually closed by v/r as "no consensus". "No consensus, no consensus, no consensus, not to become an anti-Semitic website, go away and leave us alone, and don't edit war or call each other names or you will be expelled from school for a day or two." I must say I was very disappointed that Jimbo Wales, in the discussion on his talk page, said he would look at the article and give his opinion, but he never did, and the discussion was archived with no further comment from him [103]. All this did attract the attention of two admins who honourably did try to intervene and improved things a little,Jehochman and Stephan Schulz, but what were all the rest of you doing? Another AN/I I started about edit-warring [[104] was also just ignored by admins for days and days until it was closed by Spike Wilbury as, guess what, "no consensus" [105], but at least he did then step into the article talk page and try to do something. Maybe because I know a little about early 20th century Russia, that stuff in the article about Jews killing the Tsar immediately indicated to me that this was as clearly pushing extreme anti-Semitism as if there were an article on WP about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" saying that it shows a Jewish plot to take over the world. I said so over and over but no one in authority seemed to take any notice, you would have hoped that someone might have looked into it. I am the person who found the connection between the article on the white supremacist website and the original WP article, and it really wasn't that hard,all I had to do was google the quote about "Jewish violins" killing the Tsar and there it was. All these bureaucratic procedures, lists of rules, blah blah blah, should not have prevented somebody doing something to remove poisonous racist crap from this website but the people who could have done that seem to be timid and afraid of doing anything and wait for someone else to deal with it or for it to "go to ArbCom", oh yes, spend five months collecting "evidence" and going through infinite quasi-legal hoops. The article is still onsite, though at least without the horrible "Jews killed the Tsar" stuff. Please excuse the rant, I needed to get that off my chest, it can be hatted if someone wants to do that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from JzG and DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves

JzG's response to this request. In its entirety. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already attempted to discuss the situation with JzG (first attempt, first refusal, second attempt, second refusal), but he has refused to do so, contrary to WP:ADMINACCT. Because of the strong wording of DangerousPanda's attack (including comments made as EatsShootsAndLeaves) and his or her subsequent messages after being questioned by another user, I believed it would not have been productive to respond to the attack through full conversation.

Here are a selection of upsetting personal attacks made against me and my edits: diff, diff, diff. The contents of these attacks are completely untrue, including the unfounded accusations of 'endless querulous demands', 'abusing process and people' and 'trolling'. I am more than happy to address any aspect of my previous editing history to convince you of this. There are still, of course, the stronger accusations of being 'sexist', 'abusive' and 'on a single-minded crusade', to give just a few examples of the comments made.

The issue from which this has arisen is rather complicated, so I shall condense it into just a few sentences. I am more than happy to explain any aspect of it in as much detail as required, if necessary. I saw a discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown and believed there to be a reasonable possibility for a successful move request based on the existing comments of editors. I consulted guidelines and found that the move request was also supported there. The problem, however, is that some users disagreed with the request, some very strongly, in an 'ignore all rules' kind of way. This meant that there were some strong feelings, especially aimed towards me, the user who made the request. Without any warning or discussion, I was blocked by JzG for one week. The personal attacks were made on various Wikipedia pages during this week.

I fully admit I made two mistakes during the move request, albeit where I had good intentions. I have included an explanation below should it be relevant. As far as I am concerned, it is the only aspect of my editing that has been problematic and, even then, it could have been resolved immediately by a simple notification from any other user.

Explanation

JzG closed the request prematurely based on incorrect information, showing he had misinterpreted the situation. I left a note on his talk page for discussion (he later told me to 'talk to the hand') and reverted the close. Not long later, Drmies closed the request again. I was not aware Drmies was an administrator; I believed he was an ordinary user who closed the discussion because of his own feelings about the request. I maintain this was a reasonable assumption given the strong personal feelings that were present, how the close seemed contrary to WP:RMCI (it was 'ignore all rules' with no clear consensus) and how Tarc blanked a discussion on the page he or she did not like a few days earlier. I reverted the close and was blocked by JzG, without explanation or discussion, before I had any chance to communicate with Drmies. My mistake was that I thought I was entitled to make a revert three times, especially when reverting what was an apparent mistake or non-neutral and unsupported close. Now that I have been directed to more accurate guidelines, I recognise that I should not have reverted, even had my intuition been correct. I have already apologised for this and stated that I would not have reverted had I known the relevant guidance, no matter what I thought of the edits.

At least three other experienced users, including an arbitrator, have raised concerns at the conduct of JzG and DangerousPanda (Salvio giuliano, Obiwankenobi, Arkon, Arkon). I do not know where it can be addressed, though. I thought WP:ARBCOM would be appropriate because it concerns the actions of administrators, but the request was declined. The committee seemed to suggest that I should post here, even though some of the attacks made by JzG were made to this page. Ultimately, I would like to know whether administrators are entitled to make these attacks against editors with whom they disagree or whether this behaviour is entirely acceptable. As always, if there is anything that needs explaining, let me know and I shall do so. I want to help. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is not aware of this, This same user recent made an ArbCom case request for these same issues which was declined, so the user is trying to forum shop for some double jeopardy trials imo. I suggest this be speedily closed and if the ip persists in his disruptive accusations he should be blocked. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote about the WP:ARBCOM case above and why I have made a post it here. The arbitrators who declined it suggested that it was not serious enough for arbitration and that it should resolved elsewhere, such as here. Gaijin42, are you trying to say that complaining about these attacks constitutes making dusruptive accusations and that I could be blocked for making such complaints? If you have not done so already, please look through what I wrote above. I can promise you that I am anything but a disruptive user and you will see this if you look carefully. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

131, the Brown issue is closed, so you are not going to get any traction on that point. If people were uncivil or even if they made personal attacks, it is now quite stale with many of your diffs being from almost a month ago and the most recent from quite a ways back. Any action here is to be preventative, not punitive and AN has been notoriously reluctant to address incivility, especially in a case where there is disruptive action on the other side of the coin. So yes, continuing to try and press for some kind of sanction, when there is no ongoing dispute, is disruptive. You have been warned and guided by many many users now to drop the stick. I join in that suggestion. When everything is going against you, sometimes you are actually the one going in the wrong direction. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't see my involvement here. My statement to 131.x well over a week ago was clearly not a personal attack - stating it to ArbCom does not make it so. Nobody at the attempted ArbCom case even mentioned it. On top of that, 131.x has by their own admission refused to attempt to clarify my meaning directly with me, but instead is acting in a very disingenuous manner by trying to link 2 things that clearly don't belong together, hoping to make something stick. The three big U's are at play here: untrue, unethical, and unacceptable the panda ₯’ 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• One can only maintain so much cheek-turning in the face of this IP editor's continued disruption and refusal-to-drop-the-stick, I don't fault anyone for giving a "talk to the hand" response in this situation. Both the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Jane Brown articles have been disrupted for several years now by IP editors trying to ram in their preferred, idiosyncratic article title, and have run into opposition again and again and again. We're at the point with both these articles that the trite "consensus can change" has to be set aside in the best interests of the project. Continuously proposing title changes that have no chance of being adopted has to be stopped, and if an admin stops it with some terse language, then that's an acceptable payment. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my response up there ↑ Guy (Help!) 22:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending the OP but it's inaccurate to lump all IP editors together as if they are a loosely coordinated group of vandals. I edited as an IP editor for a lot longer than I've edited as a registered account. His status as an IP editor shouldn't affect the outcome of this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, there's nobody above lumping all IP editors together. Tarc's saying the articles in question have been full of issue-laden IP's, and this one simply picked up the mantle - nobody suggests there any loose alliance of vandals. Hell, I don't even think this one is a "vandal", and to prove it I worked darned hard to show them what they needed to address in their unblock request ... and the above is simply more proof that no good deed goes unpunished :-) the panda ₯’ 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The last 2 RMs for Sarah Brown and the last 4 for HRC have all been initiated by IP editors. Are they the same person or related persons? My Jethroian gut says it is quite likely, but even if they are 100% separate persons, the repeated nominate-and-lie-low-for-a-time is extremely disruptive. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Collaborative editing is sometimes ugly. We sometimes get a bit rude or question each other's motives. As long as it isn't a pattern, I've always been a fan of "let boys be boys" (pardon my sexism, I don't know a gender neutral version). Warnings are fine for singular comments, but admin action seldom is. Some of our best work is forged from sweat, arguments and some spirited debate, so it is and should be tolerated in small doses. What is unhelpful is spending more time on process than on content. While JzG and Panda can both be rather blunt at times, so can I, and the IP, and just about everyone else who actually cares enough to have an opinion. Escalating these little things to Arb then WP:AN is a tremendous waste of time and resources. While I personally strive to make Wikipedia a nicer place, I would warn anyone that if you can't take a low blow every now and then, editing at Wikipedia isn't for you. With that in mind, I find little merit in the case. Tying up the time of so many people with unnecessary process is disruptive, so I strongly suggest the IP pick his battles more carefully as not to develop a reputation for disruption through gaming. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• comment Panda's comments to the IP which were cynically couched in the language of 'I'm trying to help you' were offensive personal attacks -he accused the IP of making sexist and misogynist statements (no diffs of such statements provided, obviously, since they didn't exist) being a troll and having 1930s thinking. This is ridiculous, and both myself and the IP were offended by these comments but panda continues to believe he was just doing his utmost to help. If one of our admin corp helps by calling someone a misogynist then thanks but no thanks. Guy's block was completely unjustified and would never have been accepted if done against an established editor, the move request for which the IP was blocked was incredibly well formed, policy based and completely innocent - indeed so innocent that 4 years of previous move requests had agreed with the title the IP was proposing, and within 2 hours 6 other editors had agreed with the proposed title! now maybe CCC, but CCC again!! That said it's highly unlikely anything will be done as it's water under the bridge but I personally give a citizen trout to both guy and panda for conduct unbecoming an admin, so enjoy the fish gentlemen. I recall First they came ... here. Guy gets an additional side of fries for threatening good faith editors with blocks for brainstorming on possible compromise titles after the SJB move discussion was forcibly shut down per 'admins are righter than others' - even though no consensus for such had formed and the oppose side in the move request had a strong serving of JDLi and nothing else to base their opposition on. The discussion Guy continually threatened was one that Our god-king Jimbo actually complimented, but permission to discuss had not been granted to the populace so Guy brought out his stick and threatened blocks. Enjoy the fries. Otherwise I agree with DB above, let's move on, nothing will be done here, obviously.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And thus is Godwin's Law invoked, time since OP: 6.5 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Those were not threats but warnings. Move request 8 was started two minutes after move request 7 closed as no consensus. Bear in mind that most articles are still at their original title. When move request 8 was closed after discussion here, with agreement that there should be a moratorium on further requests for at least a month, the small group of users obsessed with moving the article immediately started debating what title their next request should be, a clear end-run around that. So you and a coupe of others got warned that this behaviour is disruptive, and disruptive behaviour can and does lead to blocks.

As to "good faith editors", that wears thin when one of the things you have become known for is obsessing over moving an article from a title Jimbo says is "neutral and uncontroversial" to one which is likely to be assessed by other editors, on past evidence, as neither, simply because (horror!) it does not have parentheses. This is not just disruptive, it's downright bizarre. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, Guy, as suggested by one of the admins who closed the response early, a number of editors, not just myself, continued to brainstorm alternative titles, a discussion that Jimbo complimented while you were issuing 'warnings'... You are the only one who didn't like it since it seemed we were defying your authority, which I reject, especially since you were WP:Involved. I'm not obsessed either, I have filed no RM requests and have participated in only 3 move requests at that article, fewer than several other editors. If anyone is obsessed it is you, who can't fathom that editors decline to obey your directives, which have no merit and were rejected by all other editors at that discussion, indeed your actions were the very definition of disruptive in that you impeded useful brainstorming by good faith editors. The first move to Sarah Brown, which I voted for per IAR wasn't likely to gain consensus so it was closed by the IP early- a move no-one opposed, thus that close had consensus - and a new request started, there's no problem with that a priori. You keep forgetting that the current title was the result of many years of failed move requests by an 'obsessed' crew of editors who see sexism in a title that the Guardian, BBc, nytimes, and hundreds of other reliable sources use regularly. on the other hand, attempts to close the second move discussion early were resisted by several different editors, but you edit-warred nonetheless to get your way - even though several editors has opposed early closure at the page and at ANI. Thus, you earned a healthy serving of trout for conduct unbecoming. To bushranger, I didn't intend a direct comparison with the nazis and I'm sorry if it came off that way, I don't think anyone here is being nazi-like, rather I intended to state that no-one was defending the IP so I felt I had to stand up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So why are you still posting long comments about it? Do you want the article title to be Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)? Do you think further discussions on that topic would help the encyclopedia? What benefit might follow from prolonging this discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

the title of the article is irrelevant here, we're talking about admin behavior, and I'm far from the only one who complained about Guy's bullying on this matter- just go to the SJB page to see other editors complaining about his actions. Nothing will happen here but people should not gang up on the IP without knowing the context and the other side of the story. And Pandas comments, diffed above, were a clear personal attack. Maybe not worthy of an arbcom case but inappropriate nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can parse the English gramatical structure, you'll know they are not a personal attack. You continually rearranging the words to make it look like I said something 180 degrees different than what I said is not convincing to me. I don't stoop to personal attacks, and I find your continual fucking with my words to make it suit your needs to be more of an attack, so stop. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's try some analysis, I've put some excerpts of Panda's statement here for all to see: I hate to say it, but everything you have done related to that article meets the definition of a WP:TROLL, and that's not a good thing. - so here, you accuse the IP of being a troll. For what? For creating a single well formed, detailed, meticulously argued move request based on application to policy. If only all of our trolls behaved like this one! Then we have You're on a one-IP single-minded crusade, and abusing process and people in the process. Accusing the IP of being on a crusade for what, exactly? Oh, right, nominating a page to be moved, once. For this the IP is accused of "abusing people." - which people, exactly? Finally, Yes, your statements were indeed sexist, misogynist (yeah, pretty much synonyms), pointy, and yanking our collective chain. I personally couldn't believe in 2014 that there were still people with 1930's-type thinking. Now the IP is accused of making sexist, misogynist, pointy statements, yanking-of-collective-chains, and of having 1930's thinking - yet Panda declines to even provide diffs of such "sexist" statements! Did the IP say "Sarah Brown is the property of her husband"? No, the IP simply formulated a move request to a title that had long standing consensus behind it, with years of previous move requests agreeing with it, and a great number of editors in good standing who also saw NO PROBLEM with said title,a title which was only recently overturned. Panda thinks we're all misinterpreting this - maybe the claim is "I didn't call the IP sexist, I said the IP made sexist statements" - Panda, where I come from, it's basically the same thing, and you're trying to weasel your way out of it instead of simply apologizing. Otherwise, we could sneakily couch all personal attacks like that, and say things like "Bill made racist comments" and "Bill's last post was blatantly homophobic" or "Bill's move request was sexist", "Bill's thinking is from the 1930s" etc. WP:NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.", and Panda's statements were both insulting and were disparaging of the editor's person, motives, and behavior on wiki. Panda, if you actually want to be helpful next time, here is a tip - don't call someone's statements "sexist" as if you hold the truth of "sexism" and everyone else who disagrees is simply wrong, instead try it like this: "While I assume good faith and you clearly spent time in framing a very reasonable and policy based move request, SOME people here now believe that the proposed title is sexist, so it may be better to brainstorm other options rather than pursuing this one"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One further point - I really wonder if Panda knows what misogynist means (he apparently thinks it's a synonym of sexist). In my dictionary, misogyny is hatred of women. Let that sink in. HATRED OF WOMEN. The Independent ran an article 18 months ago whose title was "Sarah Brown, wife of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, appointed director of Harrods" [106]. I did a further search of around 35 reliable sources, all from the past 3 years, and at least 17 described or disambiguated her in EXACTLY the same way - e.g. as the wife of Gordon Brown - either in the title or the lede. We have here an IP who simply proposed the title be Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and this is equated with hatred of women. How is that is perfectly acceptable, not even commented upon, usage in dozens of reliable source that demonstrates how Sarah Brown is disambiguated - see Talk:Sarah_Jane_Brown#Reliable_source_mentions_of_Sarah_Brown_-_how_do_they_describe_her.3F, becomes "misogyny" here? I think the abuse of this word misogyny itself is the real problem, as it trivializes REAL misogyny, including misogyny that can be found right here on the wiki. I'm not trying to argue the move here, I'm simply pointing out that especially admins should know better than to throw around hateful, insulting words without thinking about the reaction that might cause.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, the old "pull it out of context to make it read the way I want". Anyone who reads the entire exchange in its entirety will see exactly what was said and meant. I was clearly advising him of how his edits came across, and how to amend his unblock request to match them because he clearly was not putting 1+1 together. The core concept of WP:CIVIL is to discuss the edits not the editor - and I discussed the appearance of the edits. Your efforts to pull new meaning from what I said is appalling the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Panda, I simply focused on the most offensive parts of your statement, which can be read in its entirety here: [107]. No context was lost in the quotes I pulled above, and those are your exact words. You didn't discuss "appearance" of edits, you said the edits were sexist and misogynist, tout court. You also accused the IP of being a troll, of being on crusade, of abusing people, and of having 1930s thinking. You're just trying to wikilawyer your way out of it. A simpler path would be to say "I could have framed those comments in a more appropriate manner, and I'm sorry". Also to be clear, I'm perfectly willing to accept per AGF that you DONT believe those were personal attacks, and that you HONESTLY believe you were trying to be helpful. However, they were seen as personal attacks by both the recipient and myself as an observer, so that may cause you to question whether you were really able to skate around the icy lake of NPA, or perhaps you dipped your toe in a wee bit. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Small Comment: It's funny to see you here defending somebody from accusations of misogyny after our recent discussions --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"I simply focused on the most offensive parts of your statement" kinda means "I cherry-picked the part I didn't like and made a big deal about it" to most of the rest of us, I'd wager. Your observations regarding the IP and its interactions are not exactly unbiased either, as you share the same point-of-view on the naming matter. This "I'm just an observer" stuff is bupkis. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan, I realize that you are defending @131 who you believe was treated unfairly. But no sanctions will result from this complaint, it clearly has no support from admins here at WP:AN. Also, repeating your arguments about the RM will not affect the title of Sarah Jane Brown, that subject is, for the moment, closed. I think you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK here because nothing positive will come from this discussion which has become the airing of grievances which has already occurred in the ARBCOM request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I never believed any sanctions would result from this thread. I just didn't think it fair to present only one side of the story. Anyway I've presented my case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The OP didn't present even 1 side of a story, but combined 2 unrelated stories. You dropped by and presented your partially complete side of one of the 2 stories, including your own spin. 2 incomplete stories does not a story make. The reality is and always has been that my comments on their talkpage were INTENDED to help them to address their unblock comments. They were not framed as a violation of WP:NPA - they were framed as a guide to help them meet WP:GAB. I appreciate your defense of them, but your defense was an attack on an ally in that case, and you've simply continued the attacks above. IMHO, that's never been helpful to the OP, but merely gave them tools to go down the wrong path...which is actually what has happened, as is evidenced by this thread and others. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)