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. 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 three 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 42 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	29	41
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	8	20	28
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 114 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 100 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 36 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 May 2024)

Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Community Authorized Discretionary Sanctions on all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Every editor who has ANI oh his watchlist must know this: articles about Indian castes are particularly sensitive. Unhelpful edits and general disruption (POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks etc.) permeate the entire topic area and it is difficult for admins to successfully keep all this in check. For this reason, I'm asking the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages (changed to "pages" from "all articles and templates" on 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)) about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Diffs of assorted disruption can be provided upon request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Edited to specify countries. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Castes are one thing, and political parties are another thing entirely. Can you explain your reasoning for including the latter in your proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has been chatting with me and others on my talk page. Many of the political parties are caste-based. The classes listed above have been taken from my suggestion. I've no idea how widely the "article" term applies, but I intended it to include related templates also. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just added templates to my proposal. The reason I included political parties is because Sitush suggested they should be, because they're often caste based, as he says here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics is very much linked to caste equations, and I think this sanction is needed there as well. Lynch7 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While I accept your points about the linkage between caste and political parties, I can't help feeling that this is nevertheless over-extending things a little. Effectively, you'll be putting all discussion of party politics within the subcontinent under discretionary sanctions, and I think we'd need to be certain that this is really necessary before proceeding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I've been leaning towards this for some time. I dislike the concept of such sanctions but "needs must". NB: I was involved in pre-proposal discussions, per my link above. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is a much needed sanction, regrettable as it is. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: It would make sense if you link to evidence of some disputes and tenacious editing, so that participants who are unaware of this can analyze the proposal appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the recent need for semi-pp at Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu_Vellalar); practically everything that has gone on at Ezhava, Nair and Yadav during the last 12 months. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar has a long history (along with the associated SPIs). Lynch7 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rajput, for a long time but just since Christmas will suffice for an example (includes socks). - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support.This is needed.Pernoctator (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - far too many petty disputes regarding this arise time & time again, and it's time we nipped it in the bud. GiantSnowman 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can we say "pages" instead "articles and templates", as well as "general sanctions" instead of "discretionary sanctions"? Minor bureaucratic wording for the latter (DS is generally limited to ArbCom sanctions), but the former is important, I think. NW (Talk) 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the former, go ahead, I have no objections. Regarding the latter, if they are basically the same thing, again I have no objections. I just had never heard about "general sanctions". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pages" is no big deal; WP:General sanctions seems to be rather more than WP:Discretionary sanctions, eg: 1RR. Am I misunderstanding? - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• General sanctions does not include 1RR unless an administrator specifically imposes it. The two are identical except for the process by which someone is sanctioned. There is a dedicated noticeboard for discretionary sanctions, but that is "owned" in a sense by the Arbitration Committee and community-based sanctions like the ones being proposed here generally are discussed elsewhere if it is not a unilateral decision. NW (Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fine by me, then. I was a bit concerned about 1RR because of the number of new users who edit this type of article, coupled with the availability of admins who take an interest. It doesn't matter how manner notices appear at the top of an edit box, newbies in my experience tend to dive right in there. I can see the day when 1RR might become necessary but it would be nice to feel our way forward here. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, I like the concept of "discretionary sanctions", meaning that any admin can unilaterally impose a sanction on someone disrupting Wikipedia after warnings have proven to be useless... And I believe that the community has the power to impose them just as much as the Arbitration Committee... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Woah, I am lost now. One person seems to be saying that the two are for all intents and purposes the same, barring a reporting issue, and another appear to be saying that there is more to it. This is above my (non-admin) pay grade but it seems clear to me that some sort of consensus-based clarification is required. I've read both pages and, as with my comment about 1RR above, there are substantive differences in the wording. Help! - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dumber than the average bear: I have remained blissfully ignorant of the whole area of discretionary sanctions, and having read the page linked above, I'm not reassured that I want to continue to work on restoring featured articles to status at the WP:FAR pages of articles like Kolkata until I understand what exactly the issue is. I've been questioning a lot of the text at Kolkata as part of the FAR and there are currently three Indian articles at FAR: would some kind person please explain on my talk page or here explicitly and directly what I have to be aware of and avoid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, is what you are talking directly related to castes? :) Lynch7 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  ummm, I don't think so, in the case of Kolkata text, but it could be in other cases, so generally, what is the issue I need to be aware of? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• POV-pushing, usually in an attempt either to glorify or denigrate a social group; edit-warring generally; repeated insertion of unsourced content/OR etc; repeated violations of BLP re: ethnicity/religion; absurd and extreme personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries ... that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's all I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Badly needed. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support; a glance at Talk:Burki should tell you about all you need to know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support but it would be even better if only bastards get the sanctions - I took a look at Burki as suggested by Northern Lights and that is disgusting. Yeah, NPOV and all that... but per my long standing opinion that wikipedia has to stand up for certain values, could admins please do yer best to work within the rules to cut a user who appears to be trying to get rid of the hate more slack than the primitive shits that cause this problem in the first place. Egg Centric 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• That would be me, then. Not the primitive shit, but the other fella.<g> - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you need to refactor this Egg Centric. It's pretty hard to convince users in these articles that we are dealing fairly with them when editors are calling them "primitive shits". Completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A fair treatment for bigots is far more than a block. The misery they create is enormous. I appreciate that a fair number, if not majority, of the peopel they are harming are also bigots, but this is a developing world problem. Of course they are not shits, they are merely primitive peopel acting like shits. The ones who are not primitive are in fact shits, for then they have no excuse. Egg Centric 22:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my levity. I think that AniMate does actually have a fair point. Caste is an extremely difficult concept to grasp if you are outside the system. To those who are then, sure, it has the appearance of bigotry etc but it is a way of life. I do occasionally boil over because (I think, and in the en-Wikipedia sense) I can see the wood for the trees but obviously if you are living in that situation then all you see are trees. My lighthearted comment was inappropriate. I had just had "one of those days" dealing with the fall-out. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that any discretionary sanctions need to be applied carefully, as we have some editors doing great work in that area against the POV pushers and we don't want them chased away. AniMate 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I avoid areas like those in question, yet I still see the fallout from the POV warriors. As mentioned by AniMate, admins should go to some extra trouble when confronted with an established editor who is supporting Wikipedia's principles—rather than a quick block, please tell them clearly on their talk page (without the official warning) that they must stop for a day or two to avoid sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support except that like AndytheGrump, I do not support putting political articles under the sanctions. Yes, some political parties in India are explicitly linked to caste groups, but many are not. To me, that would be like putting US political articles under sanctions because of the existence of the American Third Position Party. As for the general question of why...these articles are just a minefield. The primary problem comes from people in Group X, who want to assert that their Group is descended from high ranking castes, which are themselves descended from high ranking kings, who may very well be descended or related to Gods (this is not an exaggeration--much of the arguments on Yadav (modern group) is whether or not they are directly connected to the Yadava (ancient group) which was mythically founded by Yadu, from whom Krishna is said to be descended). Now, including mythical claims are fine (so long as the mythical connection is covered in reliable secondary sources, and the fact that it's a mythical claim is fine), but the problem is that many editors in these groups refuse to allow anything else in the article, including reliable sources attributing less glorious histories to these groups. Thus, Sitush in particular is often accused of very very heinous things, because he's insisting that our articles actually say what reliable sources say, as opposed to what people may have been taught since they were very young. And there's really nothing we can do in many cases to ease problem editors into Wikipedia's culture; some have, and have become great editors (or at least functional ones), but some are simply unwilling to adjust to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In many ways, the area is very similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in that one's fundamental world view may simply make one unable to interact comfortably with our rule set. Discretionary sanctions will help (if enforced) keep out the worst of the POV warriors, and allow us to more quickly say, "Please adjust, or please find another site to edit on". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as it's used with due diligence and caution. Anything that assists our productive editors in this sensitive and contentious area is a positive move. EyeSerene^talk 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Caste related articles have stirred up almost unbelievable amounts of shit, and I'm honestly kind of amazed that sitush and the other productive content editors we have in the area have stuck on through it. Discretionary sanctions would be a good way to cut down - somewhat - on the amount of drama involved with this article set. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support for goodness sake, yes. I too have observed issues in caste articles, which 99% of the time have editors citing 5000 year old texts and attempting to delete reliably sourced information on the basis of it. To quote another editor (I can't remember who said it), if all these caste claims were true, everyone in India would be a king or a warrior, with no one doing other stuff (like cooking, farming etc). Discretionary sanctions would hopefully bring some sanity to these articles. Steve Public (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you're referencing my comment about everyone being "kings" and nobody claiming to have been farmers. It's a riff on an American joke: "the reason we lost in Vietnam is because we didn't have any cooks or truck drivers because everyone's uncle was too busy being a sniper or a helicopter door gunner." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'd close this myself but I've gotten drawn into trying (and mostly becoming daunted) at wading in among clashing editors with the hope of NPOVing many caste-linked topics over the years. These can be the most "tendentious," sloppily-sourced and WP:OWNed/WP:SOAPBOXed articles on en.WP. Be aware, however, there are also deep language woes in this topic area: Broadly put, sub-continental English, written in the context of sub-continental cultures, is not the same as American or Commonwealth English, let alone trying to deal with translations from sundry old texts in dozens of dialects, the translations themselves sometimes being heavily spun (or "edited") one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have fairly extensive support, and I don't see any indication that it's going to trend any way other than support for the ban...but could an uninvolved admin decide if it's time to implement this, and, if so, make the necessary entry on the sanctions page? I don't think we need to go through and pre-emptively tag all of the target articles (there must be hundreds or more), but we may want to tag the ones with the worst history and leave info at the India-related topics noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Reduced block requested for Doncram

Per the discussion on User talk:Doncram and the positive casual support (17 votes: 11 yea vs. 3 nay, and 3 abstains), and that given the circumstances we request that the length of Doncram's block be reduced to time served, or to 6 weeks (unblock on Saturday, 11 February 2012) as the six month block is being used contrary to point #3 of Blocks should not be punitive: that it is a punishment not befitting the events which transpired. There is some concern among the dissenting vote regarding Blocks should be preventative, but is felt by the majority that this is being applied more against the user in question than this particular incident. In short, Doncram is in this case is similar to a parolee whom has served two sentences for grand theft auto, but is then caught stealing a pack of gum and is incarcerated for 20 years. Some say the point of escalating blocks is to change behavior. To which, I would respond: if there is no context in the doling out of "punishment", said punishment does not fulfill any purpose. Here the edit war was between two editors with a long adversarial history on article that was newly created. Both editors should have known better, and both were blocked, which is fine. What is not right is that Doncram's block is being applied without regard as to why the situation happened. Thank you & Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, mostly just restating here what I already posted on my talk page when I was asked about the block.

I've noticed that Doncram (talk · contribs) hasn't even posted to their own user talk page since Jan 21st - and their edits at the time seemed more focused on justifying their violation of WP:EW. Before I can support an unblock request (with or without conditions), I need to see evidence that the user is willing to take ownership for their own actions and that they have a plan for how to disengage in the future before their editing might again escalate to the same conclusion in a content dispute. I wouldn't have escalated to the 6 month block myself ... I probably would have placed a 3 month block. However, once the block is in place, any question of unblocking or reduction of a block begins to hinge around the question of if the behavior is likely to recur. If I see evidence that they are taking ownership for their own actions and can demonstrate their respect for site policies by suggesting behavior changes or even unblock conditions that would reduce the likelihood of their disrupting Wikipedia again in the future - then I would support reducing the block, possibly even removing it. The problem is that, as yet, I'm not seeing that on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All of which is fair. Doncram just posted on his talk that he will reply in the next couple of days. Thank you again, Markvs88 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily

Probably many of you admins have heard of me since I have been around for quite a while and have done a lot of stuff. Although my main responsibilities are a bit out of the way (WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS) and, generally, I don't like to spend a lot of time in lengthy discussions, I am pretty experienced at them. My two most recent WP:TFD nominations have ended with closures that were surprising to me based on my experience. In January, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10#Template:OlivierAward_DanceAchievement was closed one opinion to delete (plus the nominator) and three opinions to keep as a consensus to delete. I spent several days seeking an explanation at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_... and the long and the short of it was that after a few days of ignoring my queries, he claimed to be happy to explain his decision and felt the proper way to explain such a decision was to delegate the responsibility of explaining it to the nominator. Eventually, the nominator and I agreed that these should be restored with minor modifications based on discussions now located in three places:

• User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:Frietjes#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_66#Templates

Today, I found another odd closure decision at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population when a discussion with four deletes and three keeps was closed as consensus to delete. In my experience at various WP:XFD, even if you count the nominator if 3-5 out of 8 people are on one side of and issue and 3-5 out of 8 are on the other, generally, this is regarded as a no consensus. This particular decision may effect a total of 35 similar templates (most of which are listed at Category:United States mayors templates by state) in the near future. My alternatives are to pursue a WP:DRV. However, since the first step in a DRV is to talk to the discussion-closing editor, I would be back on Fastily (talk · contribs)'s page. He has already expressed a belief that the proper way to explain your decision is to ask the nominator to do so, I feel pursuing that would be fruitless.

I am curious about the closure because there is a possibility that no consensus is no longer considered a discussion resolution. I see my options as follows:

1. Accept the decision
2. Pursue a WP:DRV
3. Find a place to discuss
   1. whether no consensus is still used in TFD resolutions
   2. whether Fastily's understanding that the nominator is responsible for explaining a TFD closure for DRV purposes
   3. whether Fastily may be too aggressive in closing TFD discussions I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember that the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter. Number 57 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.) Powers ^T 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of templates is that they're useful. WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, but it's the only valid reason for having templates such as {{Pp-meta}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:USEFUL again, Nyttend. It says that being useful can be a valid reason for keeping (whether article or not), but it has to be explained rather than simply asserted. Powers ^T 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, navboxes are pretty much always useful for navigating from article to article within related topics, which these are. It's definitely on those advocating deletion to explain why a specific example of such a common type of template is an aberration from the common pattern. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make a simple declaration of "it's useful" in any way a valid argument for keeping. Powers ^T 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with what the closer says take it to DRV. I think you are reading way too much into Fastily asking the nominator to comment. To me it looks like he was fed up of you badgering him, so asked someone else who might be able to explain without getting annoyed at you. I could be wrong of course. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find no-consensus closes by fastily (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Template:Closed_down). Polequant (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 5#Closing rationales - optional or not?. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dare I suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Fastily may be in order? If this is a long term, widespread problem then that would seem the next logical step. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• AFAIK, this is appears to be a personal vendetta of Tony's. Awhile back, he contested one of my TfD closes on my talk page. I informed him that I would userfy the templates and that I was busy in RL and would provide my reasoning shortly, but he immediately dismissed it as fallacious. Annoyed by the lack of collegiality and respect I was being shown, I asked a participant in the TfD to comment in the meantime. Somehow, Tony perceived this as an attack, and literally accused me of canvassing and conspiracy. At any rate, User:Frietjes was able to work out a compromise, and the templates were moved back to the mainspace. I had believed the matter to be resolved, and so did not feel it necessary to provide rationale, granted that the concern was moot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I will always provide rationale for my closures when they involve contentious and/or complicated matters. I do not provide rationales when the result of the discussion is, IMO, unambiguous; nonetheless, I have never had any issues with explaining my closes/correcting errors (with and without publicly stated reasons) when requested. If that approach is so wrong, my god, we'd better start RfCs on some 20 other-odd admins who follow similar procedures. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You are in some twisted universe where when I note your consistent efforts to close discussions regarding templates I have created as delete, when normal closing procedure would be to either keep or no consensus close them as my personal vendetta. All I am doing is noting your apparent vendetta to close my TFDs as delete even when to do so is non-sensical. You sound like someone explaining to the police officer that the victim's face was in front of my fist as I innocently moved my arm forward repeatedly at high velocity. Then, he went on a vendetta of screaming about how I was abusing him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Lol, if you're determined to resort to personal attacks, my job is done here. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Is that a personal attack? I was making an analogy. You have no reason to be running around deleting my templates in contravention of procedures and then claiming I am on a vendetta for pointing out your actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, because I hold Fastily in high esteem, but his talk page has been on my watchlist for a couple of years, and Beeblebrox is right. This is a regular issue—whether it's files, articles, or templates, somebody seems to dispute Fastily's deletion of something every few days.

  Fastily, don't get yourself dragged into a nasty RfC—you need to slow down a little and properly explain your rationale when closing a deletion debate and when people come to your talk page disagreeing with your close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Not only deletions, keeps as well of course. I haven't asked for an explanation of his close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata, but a TfD with that many comments, and with rather divided and lengthy opinions, could do with an argued close (e.g. indicating why it isn't closed as a no consensus instead of a keep, and what the opinion, if any, was about the other elements in the nomination) instead of a simple "keep". I'm planning to start an RfC on this template anyway, so it won't make a huge difference probably, but I felt that the close of that TfD was rather disappointing, not because of the actual result, but the manner it was presented. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell, I agree with this sentiment. Just yesterday I had an unclear deletion of an image and Fastily gave an unsatisfactory explanation of the deletion reason and the process followed. I asked for further clarification and I'm still waiting. We can't require everybody to devote time to Wikipedia, but administrators should be held to a higher standard since their actions can't be reversed by us entry-level editors. Great power, great responsibility; if Fastily is not willing to explain his actions in detail then s/he should refrain from closing controversial discussions. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I cannot comment on any long-term trends, but in this specific case, I think it's clear Tony was being unreasonable in demanding immediate explanations, to the point of checking Fastily's contributions log to see when Fastily had been editing most recently. Can we agree, at least, that if better explanations are required, that they at least be requested in a calm and civil manner? Powers ^T 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Did I say anything uncivil? I was using the contributions log to get an understanding of the likelihood that he was ducking me. He has yet to give any explanation why he considered three keep votes and one delete vote consensus to delete. I continue to await an explanation by anyone who might be able to expalain that one. We may never know since we worked out a compromise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The discussion on Fastily's talk page looked to me like you were badgering Fastily (due, apparently to your own admitted "impatience"). Furthermore, you jumped immediately to the conclusion that Fastily was "ducking" you rather than acknowledging that Fastily might be busy and is volunteering his/her time to this project. Powers ^T 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment I'm noticing a trend here. But as it is, I've repeatedly seen Fastily's name come up over disputed deletions and other related matters, and it's beginning to give me a sense of deja vu. There comes a point where we have to stop saying "it's every body else" maybe there is a problem with the way this user is going about things and their process should be improved. I've found him a little quick on the trigger when a cursory examination of something might solve the problem. This comes across as a binary mindset that has gotten other editors in conflicts in the past, often over similar issues.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • [1], [2], [3] here he seems to jump into a situation he just isn't really informed on and revert a bunch of stuff that doesn't need it, [4] while old, this is simply to show that it's an on-going and long-term issue for him, etc. I don't have time right now to paw through the AN/I archives for all the times I've seen his name come up over questionable behaviour, or deletions just my opinion based on the interactions I've had with him and the discussions I've seen come up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, all of these are extremely old, resolved, and irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not fair, we won't get our dose of wikidrama now. Diego (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

December 2011 is "extremely" old? You have a rather interesting definition of "extremely". The concerns were not just about closing discussions. [5] This is talking about deletions, so I can't see how this makes anything moot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• There may be an issue here that goes beyond closing deletion discussions. I have no particular memory of previously interacting with Fastily, but for what it's worth, I am semi-regularly editing DRV and I remember closing (or commenting in) an uncommonly high number of review requests that concerned an clearly mistaken speedy deletion by Fastily.  Sandstein  07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Is it appropriate to ask that Fastily explain his reasoning for the two closes that caused me to initiate this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U closer needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ has been running since 26 January (for the record I am not involved in it in any way). There is no consensus on any proposal and no prospect of a consensus forming. It's got seriously out of hand, with the posting today of a discussion about the alleged sex life of the target of the RfC/U - possibly the most inappropriate and intrusive discussion I've ever seen on Wikipedia, which is saying something. It has clearly degenerated into an unproductive and pointless slanging match between different editors. A majority of editors on the talk page has supported a motion by H.J. Mitchell to close the RfC/U (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Motion to close). It badly needs to be closed, so could someone please do the job? Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• - I don't see this as being correct. I am sure any admin will weigh up the discussions but - There are 12 supports for closing on the talk thread and eleven opposes - clearly as I can see A majority of editors on the talk page has supported a motion by H.J. Mitchell to close the RfC/U - a majority of one? Also - the numbers of editors opining on that talkpage thread are a small percentage of the users that have opined in the rfc user - imo - it needs a proper resolving close and not a no consensus for anything type close. Youreallycan 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since the issue of closing was brought up here, and because the community is highly divided on the underlying issues, I'd like to request that a panel of three experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians be appointed to close that dramafest. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Having a hard time seeing the good faith in the close request. The motion to close, with a recent position switch, is at 12 support, 10 close. A numerical advantage, yes, but for all intents and purposes of gauging consensus, an even split. It is also more aimed at the sniping at the talk page; the rfC itself is relatively straight-forward so far. If someone wishes to put a halt to the talk page antics, then that is a separate issue that should not short-circuit the rfC. Second, while "not involved" may technically apply to the RfC, Prioryman has been very involved in the Fae/Ash topic overall, i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your last point is misleading. I have been involved in the narrow issue of the campaign of harassment and outing that Delicious Carbuncle has mounted on Wikipedia Review but have had no other involvement in "the Fae/Ash topic", nor have I passed any judgements on that topic. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your post just above is a perfect illustration while a single person claiming uninvolvement cannot be trusted to close this RfC/U fairly. WP:GAME. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• re: the ASCIIn2Bme post (of 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)). Not all that long ago, there was an RfC closed in exactly that manner. (the topic escapes my memory at the moment). My point being, it would not be entirely unprecedented. No opinion on the Fae matter, at least not one I'd share other than the fact that I very much agreed with Balloonman's assessment of the situation in many cases. — Ched :  ?  21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be unprecedented but why would three closers be needed in this instance? ASCIIn2Bme acknowledges that "the community is highly divided" so there clearly is no consensus in the RfC. That would be still true with one closer - it doesn't need three to recognise that fact. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)My assessment being that the RfC is winding down and unlikely to invoke any sanctions against Fae and that the discussion is rapidly degenerating. I personally do not see the need to keep this open as it has simply become a place to cast dispersions and tie Fae's name to a heap of deep seated bitterness---which at this point is no longer about Fae, but rather about specific individuals involved in the RfC. It is turning into a discord about why specific users were or were not justified in saying/doing certain things here and elsewhere. (now that summary is a little more than what Ched endorsed, but the point is that the RfC has lost its focus and is now turning south.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I understand it - RFC users are not about sanctions at all - they are more about, urging of the community that the user do this or that a bit better and are better resolved if the users makes some kind of comment that they understand the communities issues and will do this or that a bit differently, and from the other side a closing comment from the community that they appreciated this and that good aspects and so on - good faith agreements and urgings rather than sanctions is the RFC user dish of the day. Youreallycan 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And the only issues that have garnered a significant amount of support are 1) Themfromspaces/ReverendWayne which simply says that Fae's RfA would not have passed if his prior account had been known (but neither makes a call to relinquish the bit) and 2) Hobit's view which explicitly says not to relinquish the bit. 3) We also have Russivia and HJs views questioning the motives/substane of the RfC. Beyond that, not much support for anything.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Themfromspace - forty three editors support this view - those opines sure seem worthy of some kind of decent resolving closure to me. Any closure should focus on the RFCuserpage and not the talkpage. Youreallycan 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 43 users support the view that if the facts were known when the RfA occured that he wouldn't have passed. 4 of those users explicitly state the view is not contradictory with Hobits view (supported by 31 users) or that they are not calling for the bit. So the closer can simply say, "There was a strong sense that had his identity been known during his RfA he would not have passed, but there is no consensus that he should be forced step down or undergo another rfa." Themfromspaces view is a statement of fact, not a call to action.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Although you are too involved to assert closure, you make some good points worthy of inclusion in the close. I do not think user fae would stand down or take another RFA if one hundred or two hundred users opposed the issues surrounding his first RFA - that is not included in his recall standard. Please lets not derail this now - the RFC is open a couple of weeks and there are attempts to discuss and get consensus for a positional close. -Users that have contributed and opined in good faith need a decent close, attempting to force closure at this stage will create a poor resolution. - wait, relax, the fat lady has still to sing, as they say. Youreallycan 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks ;-)
      • That being said, I had explicitly not commented in the call for closure because I agreed with you. Unfortunately, the tone in the RfC has taken a decidedly downward turn over the past 24 hours. It's turning into more bickering and bellyaching than anything material. Unless that changes, the RfC will lose all semblance of credibility and as the RfC spirals out of control, Fae's name is now being attached to the whining. I'm also not saying Fae gets a free ride or is without guilt. I just don't see anything happening when the 3 major areas of agreement are: 1) Fae would not have passed if his past was known 2) that being said he shouldn't be forced to stepdown/undergo a recall and 3) questions exist about the motives of the rfc. And I don't think anything will change in the next two weeks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes - your probably correct - Youreallycan 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Wow, were starting to agree to something, see the RfC has had at least one potential synthesis ;-)
          • My final argument for early closure, again stemming from the downward turn in the RfC over the past 24 hours, as the bickering continues, the issues are moving more and more away from Fae and more and more onto 2 or 3 specific users involved in the RfC (representing both supporters and detractors). This makes it harder to identify the real issues surrounding Fae. It also becomes a barrier for any meaningful new input into the discussion. If a person isn't already involved, I doubt they are going to dredge through the crap that is accumulating on the talk page and proposals page. This might make it easier for special interest groups to game the system. In other words, I don't think keeping it open for 2 more weeks will result in new productive input from people not already involved.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
            • While some obviously inflammatory material has been posted (and WP:REVDELeted), I think, as a rule, we should not allow such a tactic to derail RfCs. Some substantive and civilly expressed views on the community's expectations with respect to ArbCom involvement in such cases has been posted not so long ago by User:Tryptofish. I'd like to see more editors weigh in on that rather than the WP:BADSITES drama that seems to capture the lion's share of attention. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking that it was a discussion at WP:V regarding V vs. Truth, I think this] is what I was thinking of. — Ched :  ?  21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale here. The RFC/U has not been running for the standard 30 days, yet Prioryman is arguing it should be closed because it there seems to be no consensus yet? Surely that is an argument for leaving the RFC/U open, not one for closing it...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC has taken a nasty turn away from Fae and towards others. You've made a "view" relative to your motives and a sense of being attacked by Wnt/Rich. Wnt/Rich have made allegations against you and WR. You've made allegations against them. Cla's made allegations against them. Wikipedia Review is now under discussion. Cla has his list of non-personal "personal attacks". If the discourse was on Fae and his behavior, I would have no problem leaving it open... but over the past 36 hours, the dialog has moved away from Fae and onto you and several other editors... and has turned nastier. Constructive dialog seems to have disappeared under the weight of inuendo and allegations. It's turned into a drhama fest and I can't see anything changing between now and the next 2 weeks. If I thought something beneficial might come out of it or if I thought the bickering and bellyaching would disappear, then I might support keeping it open. As is, I don't see much value in the RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Things have gotten out of hand on the talk page, but that could have (and still can be) handled by judicious application of guidelines like WP:NPA. Additionally, people who have already expressed their opinions, such as yourself, would be well advised not to belabour discussions by repeating those same opinions. I think many of the people involved in discussions have intractable views and no amount of discussion will be productive. It would be far more useful to hear from editors who are undecided or who have legitimate questions about what has been presented in the RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by the above that the RfC should stay open. My rush to close was prompted by the appalling talk page. There is so much off-topic comment there, about the motives of editors and their off-wiki behaviour, that incidentally "necessitates" detailed discussion about an editor's sex life, that I just wanted to shut it up. But the right step would be for a genuinely uninvolved editor to strip all such inappropriate filling out of the talk page. Revdel or suppression of some comments would be in order. What is and isn't appropriate for a discussion about Fae's editing of BLPs and arbitrators' treatment of clean start and arbitrators' behaviour at RfAs is pretty bloody obvious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't close it prematurely. The good news is that there continue to be productive views that are being offered. The bad news is that the talk page has become a morass of claims and counterclaims about WR that may well end up with some users finding themselves at ArbCom, but that's not a reason to close the RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close was properly posted (and failed) on the RFC/U talk page -- requesting a close here seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING Nobody Ent 00:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ent, I wouldn't call it forumshopping---I think Priory was hoping to get somebody to go to the section and close it based upon the section which was still open and the degregation of the discussion on the talk page. It would be forum shopping if this had been opened after that was closed down. But coming here to get an admin to review the section and close, is standard protocol. But I agree, if that section is closed, then this one should similarly be closed as this was a call to action based upon that one.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple "Would an uninvolved admin please review Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Motion to close." would have accomplished that goal -- the fact the editor is continuing to argue to point here is why I characterized it as shopping. Nobody Ent 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Ent here. The motion to close was effectively a no consensus; that much is clear. I also agree, to a point, with the following statement, though gramatically misworded: "There is no consensus on any proposal and no prospect of a consensus forming. It's got seriously out of hand." People are so sensitive in that talk page, as well, that my attempt to archive some of the older discussions to a second page was quickly reversed because someone thought that those discussions might actually be used in the closure of the project page itself. Rolling eyes CycloneGU (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

An idea in lab

I've posted an idea which would significantly impact the admin corps so I presume there might be interest in commenting.[6] - My76Strat (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What position of trust is that about? Do you mean you're on the mailing list for account creation requests? That would mean you're seeing personal info of the email senders, which might explain the ID request. I could see having the same requirement for admins on that list (if it's not already in force), but admins who don't ask to be on the list shouldn't be affected. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Strat is talking about WP:ORTS, which requires volunteers to provide proof of age and identity. I'm a member of the account creation team, and I've never provided ID. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I just logged into the account creation tool and saw a new message about providing ID to the foundation. Guess I better scan my driver's licence... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Block Review

I'm asking for a block review. Yesterday, Balloonman asked for some attention at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ. He requested a neutral admin review a long list of "personal attacks" that User:Cla68 had posted. To be clear, these were "personal attacks" by others and Cla68 had collected the diffs from about a dozen people. I hatted the discussion because the "attacks" were not attacks at all or so weak that a reasonable person would not constitute them as attacks. Cla68 didn't unhat the discussion, but felt it necessary to summarize what was in the hat and repeated his attacks. I hated the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

Cla68 alledged that although I am "previously uninvolved, that I have now taken a side and so my action was dishonest. I pointed him to WP:INVOLVED. I then suggested several times that if he has a problem with it then he come here and seek wider review of my actions. Cla68 summarized again, I undid. I left a final warning not to return the attacks. This morning he sumarized again, and I wrapped the hat around it. I then blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. Please review.--v/r - TP 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Given that you edit-warred with Cla68 over his leaving a summary of the discussion you hatted [7][8][9][10][11], I would say it wasn't your call to block Cla68. --JN466 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So you suggest that next time I should block at the first incident rather than WP:AGF that the editor will heed warnings from an uninvolved admin?--v/r - TP 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't ask for a review of your actions if you're going to be snarky with people who respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No. (edit conflict)What I mean is that you're not the only admin able to assess and deal with the situation. Once you'd engaged in an edit war – you reverted Cla68's summary three times, I think – you had become involved IMO, and would have been better off at that point taking a step back and letting another admin look at it. Just my two cents; perhaps others will see it differently. --JN466 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was considering just waiting to let someone else respond but suggested an uninvolved admin cannot block because they took admin actions to enforce a policy and gave the user ample opportunity to stop their behavior before a block just seems completely unreasonable. But maybe I've completely mistook WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - TP 14:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was collecting those diffs in good faith from what I can see - it is a personal attack to allege someone is a homophobe and there was plenty of that going on - there is no way that user Delicious Carbunkle is homophobic or he should be called a homophobe by people here. User:Cla68 should be proud for being blocked for pointing that out and presenting the diffs of it happening and for asking the users that did it to retract. Youreallycan 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me how the following are personal attacks:

• Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable.
• The "only way out" is to support Fae here. If you "compromise" and leave him under a cloud, you're not ending anything. The exact same Inquisition will be in session tomorrow, with someone else in its sights. Besides, what kind of jury works on the basis that you compromise and say "guilty" on some counts just to get along?
• I hate that I'm signing on to this view, but I think I must. The focus on Fæ and his past incarnations does in fact feel a little homophobic
• The stated context for this RfC is disingenuous, the primary motivation is harassment.
• This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing
• I have not verified everything in this statement, but I verified enough to confirm that Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues.

These are just some of the shorter edits being cited. The point is that according to Cla, if you disagree with Cla/DC, if you think the dispute feels a "little homophobic", if you question the motives of the rfc---then it is a personal attack. According to Cla's reasoning, we have to fully accept the motives of the people who brought forth the RfC and to do otherwise is a violation of civil. In 5 years of editing WP, I've never seen the bar for civility set so low as to what Cla is claiming it should be here. Per Cla's reasoning, my opening the ANI report yesterday is a breach of civility.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Really, really bad block (disclaimer: I'm involved in the RfC, though I have not expressed any opinions regarding the thread or the personal attacks against Cla or others). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am not a big fan of civility blocks, but when the civility issue in question appears to have the effect of squelching discussion or intimidation, then that changes matters. Cla started a list of people who have made "personal attacks during the RfC" and used examples consisting of the flimsiest examples I've seen labelled as personal attacks and violations of civility in a long time. The list was strictly those people who disagreed with Cla or DC. Most of them were not attacks at all, but rather comments and opinions. I don't want to accuse Cla of intentionally attempting to squelch dialog, but by compiling a list of trivial complaints it had that perception. So I brought it to ANI. Two admins reviewed it and both agreed, it was inappropriate---TP and Atama. TParis appropriately hatted the section. Cla unhatted. TParis, as an uninvolved admin, gave Cla a final warning. Tryptofish warned him that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responded, "There is a method to my madness." User_talk:Cla68#Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ. Cla's collection of edits are not personal attacks. For example, this is one of the so-called violaitons Cla cites, "Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." If that is a personal attack violation of civil then we are doomed. By claiming that that edit and similar edits by other users is a personal attack, Cla's edits have the effect of squelching discourse. (I will note that as of the last time I checked I have not been included in his list of people who have made personal attacks.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just so I understand: if I want to, I could come to this thread right here, say "as an uninvolved admin, I declare this thread is a personal attack" and close it, and if someone disagrees with me I can then edit war with them, warn them, and block them myself because I was previously uninvolved? See, that's why the idea of having admins more vigorously patrol ANI is a well-intentioned but bad idea. There are too many admins who think they have good judgement, when they don't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - well said - this block was not a resolving solution, it was and still is a punitive part of the problem. Youreallycan 15:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think the point of being uninvolved is that I don't know Fae or DC or Cla68 at all and the turnout of the RFC has no impact on me. I'm as unbiased as it comes. I reviewed the diffs, could not see how many of them were personal attacks at all and others were so weak that the term attack couldn't convey their actual meaning, and hated the discussion. Cla68, directly involved, felt differently. Do the involved see things more clearly than the uninvolved? If you, reasonably, feel this thread is a personal attack, then I strongly encourage you to do what you must to enforce WP:NPA. (After conflict) Youreallycan: If stopping the unhatting of those attacks is not preventative, then I missed the redefinition of the word.--v/r - TP 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If an uninvolved admin takes action as an admin that you disagree with, you don't edit war with them. You bring it to AN/ANI for review. You appeal the situation--especially when people on WP:AN, your talk page, and the admin's talk page all agree with the admins actions.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support <non-admin> editing warring with someone when they are taking an admin action is certainly blockable. I personally don't think hatting was needed, but that's a different issue. If Cla68 felt the hatting was inappropriate, they could have come to AN for a discussion. 24 hours feels about right to me. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm involved in the RfC too. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support If an editor is given a "last warning" by an admin and they respond by immediately repeating the exact action that they've been warned about then they should be blocked. Exok (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hated[sic] the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

  "hatting" a discussion is not an admin action. Admin actions are blocks, bans, deletions and undeletions. Any neutral person could have been asked to give an opinion of the links. Admins are no more special than other users, except for a (rebuttable) presumption that they are level-headed and sensible. You got into a pissing contest with Cla68 because he disagreed with your "admin action". Cla68 was also being a bit of a dick, as far as I can tell on short examination. The real question is, what was Cla trying to prove by posting that collection of links. He doesn't state a motive but he must have had one. Is it that there is a double standard regarding personal attacks and enforcement? Or something else? That's what you need to focus on, not a pissing contest over a collection of third party statements.Thatcher 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to JN466, hatting is in the toolbox. I could've taken a more direct admin action such as blocking right away but I opted to WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What "toolbox"? Hatting is a function available to every editor. Are you referring to some automated script? If so, realize any editor can "hat" an article manually. The biggest source of unforced errors by admins is admins who think they have more power than they do, deciding to prove it on some "upstart" who doesn't respect authority. If you even have 2 seconds of consideration that blocking Cla68 outright before discussing the issue might have been reasonable, then you have no business being an admin, at least not on the Wikipedia that I originally joined. The first thing to do is to find out why he posted the links, what he was really up to, and seeing if there wasn't some better place to have that discussion. Thatcher 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you aware of the discussion at WP:AN/I#unnecessary section in an RFC? Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The admin also opened threads on Cla68's user talk page, and it continued to the admin's talk page. The block didn't occur out-of-the-blue without prior discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • For the record the extensive discussion before the block, in which Cla68 was involved, is at User talk:TParis#Hatting.
• Overturn. Inappropriate block. Everyking (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wholly appropriate. Balloonman's comments are spot on; this is not the first time that Cla68 has compiled lists of this sort. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - I'm starting to become really concerned that in this case as well as couple of other recent controversies, a person who is the subject of personal attacks or slurs or who brings these to the attention of the community is quickly silenced through one means or another under the excuse that pointing out the errors in the behavior of others is a "personal attack" itself. And of course, all of this takes place in an environment where advocacy, grudges, and "involvedness" are rampant, which is why none of these have much support. And yes, hatting other people's comments is neither an admin-exclusive privilege-that-must-not-be-messed-with, nor is it a particularly collegial thing to do (in most cases, one's own talk page aside, it's simply obnoxious and overbearing).VolunteerMarek 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm way, way too involved to express an opinion here, but as I said at the RfC, it is not a "personal attack" to say that somebody has been subjected to homophobia or harassment. It would be a personal attack to make an unfounded allegation of such homophobia or harassment against a particular editor or group of editors, but very little of that is evidenced in Cla68's diffs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oy come on, while nobody was stupid enough (most of these folks have been around long enough, under one username or another, to know how to make personal attacks without "making personal attacks") to come right out and say "so-and-so is a homophobe", the insinuation that DC and others are homophobic is pervasive in some of the comments. Particularly Prioryman's. I do think Cla included some folks in there that probably were not making personal attacks, but that's farther down the list.VolunteerMarek 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

VM---I will ask you again to explain to me how those examples I cited above are personal attacks? How are we to have reasonable discourse if people can't express what they think/feel? I mean the entirety of an edit that is deemed a personal attack is, "This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing" Or another one where a person says that it "does in fact feel a little homophobic"---not that it is. Or the person who says that they don't buy the anti-gay agenda, but finds the "harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." Sorry, if the examples used by Cla are personal attacks, then 90% of the posts on ANI are personal attacks. Citing differences of opinion as personal attacks is a personal attack which appears designed to quell dissent--to which I'm more concerned about than the actual civility issues of making such allegations.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• • HJ Mitchell, for better or worse accusations without evidence are prohibited by WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." The alleged evidence in this case was REVDELETED by functionary Fred Bauer. I think that perhaps something akin to OTRS tickets should be developed for these situations. E.g., someone should be able to say on-wiki "I have off-wiki evidence that Editor:XXX has engaged in homophobic attacks against YYY. Evidence is available in ArbCom ticket 123." I'm actually going to float this ticket proposal to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. These edits are typical of the battleground behavior for which Cla68 has been guilty of in the past.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. With all due respect to TParis (who is a good admin), my concerns are more about the general notion that admins can hat discussions and remove posts when it suits them, and no one else can challenge those decisions. I'm not speaking of this case specifically, but all too often we see abusive admins close off discussions that shouldn't be closed off-- in ways that escalate disputes-- and the hatting or closure often should be challenged and reversed. I don't want to see the idea that admins can control the flow of information in the form of evidence take hold (I've been on the short end of that stick many times at ANI, where abusive admins can prevent the accused from speaking, even in their own defense, even when the accuser gives no diffs, even when the accused responds with a query and with diffs). If TParis closed, Cla re-opened, then TParis hatted again, he is reverting to his own preferred version, hence is involved, and should not block. And please, let's stop this notion that admins can stifle evidence that is taking over ANI. Yes, it's a circus and some controls are needed there, but the accused have the right to speak. I don't think Cla's block is right. I realize this occurred at an RFC-- not ANI-- but it's the idea that admins can control the presentation of evidence at either place that is worrying me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sandy, did you actually look at the "personal attacks" Cla has cited? The personal attacks that Cla has cited are along the lines of "I think this RfC is harrassment." While I am not a big fan of Civility/NPA blocks, Cla's allegations of NPA appears to be nothing more than an attempt to stiffle discussion at the RfC by accusing anybody who has called out Cla/DC as making a personal attack. Cla's level of civility would have every editor involved in the civility case cited for NPA/Civil attacks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of it is indeed like you say, but other stuff is far more direct, e.g. 2nd diff in Cla's list:

    • == Harrassment by Delicious Carbuncle == This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already.
      — User:Russavia 23:36, 26 January 2012

    • Apropos of nothing (if I may lead with a phrase favored by Arbitrators): Some people have become experts at poisoning the well with insinuations while introducing just enough conditionals in their phrasing so that it can be technically disqualified as an attack on a specific person. One such expert has recently received a one year enforced vacation from Wikipedia, thanks to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • IF Cla had listed Russivia and possibly even Prioryman, then this would never have reached this point. Whether you agree or disagree with their edits being personal attacks, one can see that there is animosity there that predates this rfc. (Just as one can see animosity between Cla/DC and Fae that predates this rfc.) The problem is that Cla didn't leave it at the low hanging fruit or the people with whom there is a history, instead he decided to attack everybody who questions the motives or perspectives provided by Cla/DC/the RfC. By casting such a broad net with such a low bar for inclusion, it shifts from a reasonable discussion to what appears to be an effort to squelch disagreement. "Can't say that it feels like homophobia because then Cla will include me in his NPA violation lists." By only highlighting those people who disagree with him, he is not listing people who have made personal attacks. Hell, reading the RfC, you can find a lot more vicious and straight forward attacks against Fae---but Cla doesn't include those. As for the people who are questioning the motives of the RfC... that is common practice. I suspect that 4 out 5 RfCs which generate discussion have people challenging the motives of the people who are engaged in them. Standard rhethoric seen on every level from RfC to presidential debate. (Again, I'm not that worried about Cla's personal attacks as I am about the apparent affect of trying ot stiffle dialog.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It's worth pointing out that I've not even participated in the RfC, so listing me under "personal attacks during this RfC" is complete bullshit. I also have to point out that Fae has unquestionably been the target of homophobic attacks prompted by the discussions of him on WR - you have only to look at the top of his user talk page for evidence of that (much more has been revdel'ed). DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes. So in short, Russavia's comments are entirely factual. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm not neutral here, because apparently I've been accused of making personal attacks. At no point did Cla68 approach me to discuss this, and frankly reading over what I wrote at the RfC, I don't see any personal attacks either. I've never even interacted with Cla68, except for agreeing with several other editors above that he should stop his crusade to get Will Beback to answer three questions whose answers were obvious. AniMate 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If this block was intended to show that "the admins" will indeed circle the wagons to protect "whatever it is admins are protecting", it does a darn good job of it. OTOH the wording of the unblock request completes the circle of silliness. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Noting that accumulation of evidence is a protected activity on Wikipedia for use in dispute resolution, that claims without sourcing about other editors is found in abundance from other editors on that RFC/U and that there is a reasonable likelihood that such evidence might be used in a future ArbCom proceding, the block is improper. Improper blocks do not gain propriety by being supported by BATTLEGROUND protagonists against the person blocked. Collect (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong meh. I wish people voluntarily stopped making a drama out of a genuine Catch 22 policy issue involving accusations that cannot be backed up by evidence without violating Wikipedia policies like BLP and WP:PRIVACY. I was so annoyed by the feud around that issue that I even added a view to the RfC/U about it. I don't know what else to say besides repeating my sincere request that everyone involved in that drop the WP:STICK on-wiki and pursue whatever needs pursuing in that respect through the private ArbCom channels set out in policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn for the reasons set out by Flo, Sandy, and Collect. Totally agree with ASCII. Appreciate that the admin brought this here, it must be said. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've submitted a proposal to ArbCom for introducing a system of tickets for private evidence that they may be referred to on wiki without violating BLP/PRIVACY policies, while allowing precise references to concrete evidence instead of vague remarks which are sometimes perceived as mere insinuations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk)
• Although not a clear consensus, the majority of responders here appear to agree that the block was incorrect. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 has resumed his "naming and shaming" campaign.[12] Mathsci (talk)

• So let's summarise. He posts a list of so-called "personal attacks" which uninvolved admins say are clearly nothing of the sort. The list includes comments which have nothing to do with the RfC - as in my case, since I've not participated in it. He posts them to the RfC, even though it contributes nothing to the discussion. Predictable drama ensures - in fact, I would suggest that Cla68 is aiming to provoke drama. Uninvolved admins review and hat it. He unhats it. It's hatted again. He reposts a summary outside the hat. It's hatted yet again and he's warned. He's advised by someone else to drop it but replies "There is a method to my madness" - in other words, I think he wanted to get blocked so that he could cause more drama. He reposts it again and he's blocked. Drama ensues on AN/I and AN. As soon as he's unblocked, he reposts it again. And so the drama continues. In short, drama and disruption isn't a byproduct, it's being caused deliberately. It speaks volumes about what kind of editor he is. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, you might should check the diffs again. I didn't unhat the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Ballonman implicitly requested admin intervention, so in a sense Cla was edit warring against an Admin action. More than 1 day would have been heavy handed, Tparis got it just right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that that is more tenable in retrospect than it would have been at the time. Barring an existing consensus that "hatting" was (or could be) an admin action, it's not reasonable to have expected Cla to have seen it as such. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - In trying to prove that the first diff of mine he cited was unfounded, I blundered into violating WP:Linking to external harassment. There wasn't really any way I could have disputed what he said without adding fuel to the fire, but I regret distressing Fae by taking the bait. While it is true that this is just one of a variety of policy-based ad hominem impeachments flying back and forth among RfC/U participants, this one was particularly irrelevant to Fae's situation. Hatting the thread (more importantly, formally discounting its relevance) was justified. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors

Following the expiry of his block, Cla68 is continuing the disruption by posting "warnings" to various editors relating to his bogus claims of personal attacks (see e.g. [13], [14], [15]). This is a rather obvious escalation of what Balloonman has rightly described as intimidatory tactics aimed at stifling discussion. This can only cause further drama and disruption. Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's actions seem comical but their underlying intent is divisive and intimidatory. She clearly has little interest in the ideas or opinions of her fellow editors and has openly flouted the guidance and sanctions of an administrator. It's time for a clear line to be drawn. Exok (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 is not and never has been an administrator. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the three editors Cla68 have warned have enough sense to just ignore it.--v/r - TP 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 warned 8 editors at one time (10 if you count Russavia and Prioryman), out of 13 people who he attacked in his enemies list. These "warnings", spammed across multiple namespaces, are nothing but intimidatory tactics designed to stifle dissent at the RfC/U. I stand by my comments, and I stand against intimidation. To any user on the fence about the allegations against Fae: this is what happens when the community allows a user to be harassed by an external website. They are only emboldened and expand their targets. Shrigley (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, are you trying to disrupt attempts by an editor to engage in the dispute resolution process? Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, why didn't you notify me of this discussion on my talk page? I haven't banned you from my talk page as you have me from yours. You are free to post there whenever you like. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Not too bothered about Cla, they're no worse than the other WR accounts. Wouldnt want them blocked as have a feeling they honestly believe they're doing whats best the encylopedia. Do wish someone would delete the RfC. Everytime a reasonable editor makes a point the accounts seem to treat it as an excuse to say even more hurtful things about the subject. As they often repeat his real name, the inevtiable result of prolonging the discussion seems to be even more real world damage to one of our most productive volunteers. Doesnt seem to be a plus side either. The common sense free walls of text from the swarming WR accounts make it useless as a consensus forming exercise, has to be the worst RfC/U ever, which is saying something. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think that either WP:CANVASS should be repealed in its entirety, or else it should be applied to the recruitment from WR. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 posted on my talk page. I responded to him there. I have nothing to add to this discussion which has not already been said. Thanks everyone for participating in this talk; I am satisfied with the things I see. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is utterly ridiculous, Blue's edit for which he is getting a warning is for declaring in an RfC on Fae, that ""Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues". That is it. Cla's bar for personal attacks is so utterly ridiculous (and self selective) that it litterally stiffles discussion. Cla cited another user for saying that while he didn't buy the anti-gay agenda, that the attacks "feel a little homophobic", another editor for saying Fae was being "harrassed", and other editor for calling the RfC "cyber poofery". Most of the "attacks" are not "personal attacks" but rather perspectives on what is going on---he just doesn't like the idea that people are questioning the motives. Cla was recently blocked (in a disputable block) but his actions appear to be nothing more than acts of intimidation. (Note, I haven't been cited as making personal attacks. But I am surprised that I haven't because I'm calling his actions acts of intimidation.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To be completely honest, as an editor who has expressed his opinion on Fae's handling of his clean start and RfA, I find claims that the RfC is just "cyber poofter bashing" slightly annoying. That too is an attempt at stifling the discussion. Granted, it's nothing particularly serious; after reading, I logged out and forgot all about it, but other editors have been singled out in a more insidious way. I don't think that what Cla is doing is useful in any way and is only likely to generate drama, as we're seeing here, and not every diff he has collected actually contained personal attacks, but it is undeniable that people who have criticised Fae have been described as a bunch of homofobes. That should not be overlooked when reprehending Cla's reaction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyber Poofery---Annoying? Yes. Childish? Yes. A violation of civil/npa warranting an warning or to be highlighted as such? No. There are sooooooo many other comments made here and there that are much more deserving of being labelled violations that if we kowtow to accepting this as such, then we are in trouble as a community. And BTW, you should now be getting a warning from Cla for making a personal attack, because this is the exact type of comment that Cla targets.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see that saying something seems "a little bit homophobic" differs significantly from saying something seems "a little bit racist" or a "little bit sexist". Conversations in to which such phrases are dropped tend to degenerate into shouting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA no longer protect editors from serious unsubstantiated allegations?

Among the things that WP:NPA lists as personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It notes "Serious accusations require serious evidence". I have been accused of many things lately from harassment to homophobia, all without the evidence that should be required for such charges. How can I possibly respond to allegations such as "DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes"? It is true in one sense, since an editor here was able to interpret comments I made there to mean almost the exact opposite of what I said and labelled them as "anti-gay" despite the fact that they had nothing to do with homosexuality. To make it worse, the specific comment they found to be "anti-gay" wasn't even expressing my opinion, it was putting forth what someone might say. It may be useful to remember that the narrative that my actions are motivated by homophobia was started by the user involved in the RFC/U when they edited along side User:Benjiboi as User:Ash. I recall insinuations that I was homophobic even while I was suggesting that Ash create stubs for gay porn performers (to address the issue of links on lists of gay porn performers and award winners pointing to the wrong people). Apparently advocating having more articles about gay porn performers is something a homophobe does. I hope that reasonable people will see it for what it was - a smokescreen to deflect criticism.

Prioryman's latest comment are much more nuanced than the misleading and inflammatory comments they made when they were attempting to have me banned (one example of many). Despite the fact that they knew their statements were false, they refused to retract or strike them. (This thread on Atama's talk page contains a discussion of the specific details.) Nor were they blocked, and now here they are making more comments in the same vein on the administrator's noticeboard where they are read and ignored by the very people who ought to be enforcing WP:NPA. I understand that some here are angry with me at the moment, but history shows that selective enforcement of policies generally leads to more problems. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The section TParis hatted is clearly in violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:Attack page and should be deleted and/or revdeleted. Unfortunately the conversation has become so rancorous and undisciplined it appears the community has just thrown it's hands up on managing it, and the discussion of DCs alleged off-wiki conduct (there and ANI) is farcical Star Chamber stuff:

• "DC said bad things somewhere, ban him!"
• "Do you have evidence?"
• "No, we can't link to bad things, just trust me and block him." Nobody Ent 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Amen Ent---which is why I think the discussion has degernated enough that the RfC should be closed. It is no longer about Fae, it is now about Wikipedia Review, Editors from WR, Civility between WR editors and the rest of the community, etc. The RfC is no longer about Fae's actions... and the vehemence and side issues that have arisen over the past 72 hours pretty much ensure that no new independent voices will join in. And it's happening on both sides.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I saw that happening several days ago, which is why I suggested that the RfC should be closed... Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with placing a page at: (A)mid(st) Toil and Tribulation pages??

Hello, I wanted to put in a "placeholder" (for lack of a better word) at the following two pages:

• Midst Toil and Tribulation (novel)
• Amid Toil and Tribulation (novel)

In both cases, I was only going to enter a redirect to this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safehold#Plot.

Can one of you inform me as to WHY these two pages have been put on some sort of a restriction?
and/or
Could you place the redirect at these pages for me?
LP-mn (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you couldn't create them yourself, but redirects created to [[Safehold#(A)mid{st} Toil and Tribulation]]. GiantSnowman 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do this: #REDIRECT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safehold#Plot]

...instead of this: #REDIRECT [[Safehold#Plot]], the edit filter will prevent it, as external-link style redirects don't work. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking to one's Pie chart

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but can an administrator link me to my pie chart & have the link on my talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Um...your pie chart? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit thingy - Xl's pie chart with edit percentages - I think has issues - http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=GiantSnowman&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia - Youreallycan 18:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that was what was meant ... but it's an external link, re-generated when you click it. Some templates include it as a link for contribs (I think there's one on my User page) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Its seems to be inactive - See https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/~soxred93/ec - Youreallycan 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all of the Soxred tools are offline now that X! has retired. It's being discussed over at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#X!'s bots. 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta for the link to the discussion - lets hope someone takes the tool on. Its a useful one. - Youreallycan 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also being discussed here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#.22Edit count.22 and .22Articles created.22 links and probably several other places. I add this one as it has links to a couple other edit counters - although none with pie (mmmm pie) charts. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, it's good to know it's not just my pie that went offline. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was told there would be punch and pie. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:TParis has obtained a copy of the edit counter's source code. (See User talk:TParis#User:X!'s Stuff.) He has a version of the tool set up here. With that now done, could an admin please go around the project, updating all of the templates/gadgets/pages that use the script? (i.e. the edit count link at the bottom of Special:Contributions, ect.) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have updated many templates and userboxes and one mediawiki gadget script page. But there are still quite a few more tools: ec, pages editsummary rfa etc that need conversion/activation, so still more work after tparis get the other things going. So if things have gone wrong you know who's contributions to check! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting reappraisal of a block

• Edgeform (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel/Archive

• Notifications: [16], [17], [18].

User:Edgeform was blocked a while back as a result of the above SPI. I have become concerned that there are some contradictions in the behavioral evidence of socking, and that a good faith user may, perhaps, have been blocked in error. I've discussed this with HelloAnnyong, the blocking admin, and he thinks that I'm mistaken, which I might well be, but I would be more comfortable if some more eyes would take a look at this. I'm also notifying the two checkusers who have been involved in the SPI. This gets rather complicated, sorry, but please bear with me.

The case centers around the BLP of a San Diego-based neuroscientist, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and some of the pages about topics of his research. These topics include autism, which (in ways unrelated to the BLP subject himself) is something that sometimes attracts editing agendas. I originally raised the SPI that led to the block (the second in the archive linked above), based upon an IP edit, [19], that has a now-hidden edit summary, claiming to be an "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". At the time, it appeared to be a blatant admission of socking, and the checkuser data indicated that the accounts, including the IP, all geolocated to the San Diego area, with the two named accounts having a shared history of interest in editing in these topics.

I have also been editing the BLP, because my attention was drawn at my talk to content disagreements in which the two named accounts were among those involved. I don't always agree with either Neurorel or Edgeform, but I don't see them editing in bad faith. Their edits tend to have the same point of view, but not necessarily the same writing style. Other editors, who self-identify as being in the BLP subject's San Diego lab, tend to be very sensitive about what they perceive as criticisms of the BLP subject, and these concerns led to an earlier SPI, the first in the archive linked above, and also led to the request in my talk to look at the BLP in the first place.

After the block, an IP claiming to be Edgeform contacted me at my talk, based on my own history of editing in the BLP, and sought my help in overturning the block: here. The edits by the "outing" IP had been rather clumsy, whereas the IP claiming to be Edgeform was reasonably articulate. I discussed it with HA here, and we agreed then that there would have to be a request for block review, which never happened, perhaps because Edgeform gave up.

Since that time, there have repetitively been troll-ish edits from various IPs using public computers in the San Diego area, repeating the "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform" edit summary, see: 1, 2, and 3. However, that third incident, the most recent, was different, in that only Neurorel, and not Edgeform, was named in the edit summary. Googling the supposed real life "[name]", gives two possibly related results: a professional baseball player based in San Diego, and a young boy who has autism and whose mother writes a blog about him. I doubt that either of these persons is actually doing the editing; it could be a third person who just happens to have that name also, or it could be a sarcastic use of the name by a troll. What bothers me is that there seems to be a pattern of repeatedly trying to get both Neurorel and Edgeform blocked, by making these "look at me!" edits that are really just about the edit summary, and that, with Edgeform blocked, the edit summaries have started only naming Neurorel, who is not blocked. It does not make sense to me that a single person would be behind both the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts and also be making these accusatory/boastful edit summaries. It's plausible that the IP is someone else who actually knows of genuine socking, but it is awfully strange that they would be so persistent after the person they are accusing has been limited to a single account. Behaviorally, it seems more like someone else in the San Diego area (perhaps associated with the lab?? – but not the editor who contacted me at my talk, I'm quite sure) who just wants some editors removed from editing the subject area.

I know it's complicated and ambiguous, but I'd appreciate some additional opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking purely at their use of edit summaries the two are very similar but there are also subtle differences. Both like to use caps and finish sentences/sentence fragments will full stops, Neurorel slightly more consistently. Both prefer double speech marks for quotations. Neurorel makes a few more typos and likes the word "reorganize", whereas Edgeform never uses it. If I was forced at gunpoint to make a decision I'd say perhaps meatpuppetry or some other form of collusion rather than socking, but since the effect is the same I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong). EyeSerene^talk 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neurorel is not currently blocked, fyi, although the template on their userpage says they are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dance Moms! Woohoo!

Hey dancers, did any of you recently block an editor who had an interest in that show? If so, I may have a socky for you... Drmies (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How about User:TheSimsBadGirlsClub (11 edits to the article), who is a sock puppet of User:Shannon9077 (39 edits to the article)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm not bad--but Shannon was mostly editing Bad Girls Club, and I didn't see them adding the fan sites to Dance Moms. It's possible that they started the fan sites plugged also at http://twitter.com/DanceMomsFanWeb. I made this post in reference to my block at User_talk:Dancemomsfanweb, but didn't want to give it away too quickly. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but SimsBadGirlsClub mostly edited Dance Moms, with only 2 edits to Bad Girls Club. I think this is the person you want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam attack

I hae encountered three brand new Users advertising an external link on their Talk pages. I've removed the spam on all of them, but I imagine there are more I've missed and more will be coming.

Aureliorosal615 (talk · contribs), Ashleymerrit511 (talk · contribs), Earlemcknigh112 (talk · contribs)

The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Robtillman716 (talk · contribs) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Santiagoaver410 (talk · contribs) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the spammers' usernames are a regular name followed by 3 numbers. →Στc. 07:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stop now, there's no point in my continuing this fight without a spam filter. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I created a spam filter for this link, if you found any other with different link, please let me know Petrb (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All accounts above are indef'd. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Analytics ID: UA-25833520 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

• fincamietenmallorca.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Also:

• Barthoover513 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Rodgerking24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

FYI, the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is more suited to blocking spam than the AbuseFilter. Adding \bfincamietenmallorca\.com\b will do the trick. MER-C 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is something I am definitely not sure with, because the abuse filter has several advantages, for instance it allows us to track the activity of spammers. It's more sophisticated tool, and I think it would make sense to use that instead of spam-blacklist, it is easier to maintain, faster, more secure (you can test the expression before making it live) and it's friendlier for newbies who see a template with warning rather than a system message related to action-exception. However if there is a consensus to use the blacklist for this, I am willing to move the definition there. Petrb (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, I acted here as a holder of abusefilter permission, I am not a sysop on english wiki and even if I have the technical ability to update blacklist, I think it should be rather done by some admin, so I will leave it up to them for now. Petrb (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam site blacklisted, further accounts blocked, filter disabled (it uses up resources), and {{checkuser needed}} to block the underlying IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What uses up resources means? The abuse filter entry should eat less resources than spamblacklist. Petrb (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. The marginal cost of spamblacklist entries is approximately zero, since the regex of 1000+ URLs was going to be run (nor not run) anyway. The marginal cost of abuse filter entries is far higher, since each edit gets run through an additional filter. Unless I misunderstand? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know the details of both extensions, but I hope the regular expressions are run separately in blacklist, anyway if they were or not, the cost of run the definition I made, which contains only one strpos call and check if user isn't confirmed, is surely lower than cost of run of any regular expression. But you may be right that the blacklist is somehow cached or optimized. Petrb (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit filter has a limit of 1000 conditions that can be run on any given edit, so when an edit uses up those conditions, it is automatically allowed. The spam blacklist has no such limitations. Additionally, the edit filter has to be run on the entire specified variable rather than only on the links. You could easily use the 'added_links' variable, but then you might as well just keep things organized and move it into the spam blacklist. The regex code you used, (new_wikitext contains "link #1" | new_wikitext contains "link #2") is extremely resource-intensive and slow due to two string searches being run on the entire edit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed explanation. This string you copied from my definition, is not a regex. Actually it should be significantly faster than a regex search, given to how the regex library used by php works. Question is, how is that implemented in abuse filter, I will check it soon. I assume that search for a string as it is, uses strpos or something like that, or that's how I would implement it. I will definitely take care next time, and leave this up to you guys. Petrb (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that—I wrote the wrong word. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is, yeah: URLs are clumped into big /(...|...|...|...|...)/ sections. Besides, you have to remember that *all* edits get filtered, whereas only those that add URLs (a tiny proportion) end up being checked against the SpamBlacklist, giving the latter a natural performance advantage. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I took care of the checkuser actions.. I blocked two additional accounts with similar behavior & the underlying IP. --Versageek 14:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting review of block

I blocked Nflfacts2k2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for purporting that her account had a "team" of individuals behind it (here) in violation of WP:NOSHARE. The user had opened up a Wikiquette case against me after I reverted her addition of copyrighted text to Stanford Routt. After blocking the user, she posted on her talk page that she "runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt." An editor has asserted that I am involved (to which I disagree), and requested that I open this thread to review my actions. Nflfacts2k2 has since said that only her personal assistant has taken a look at her edits to see if they are copyright-free. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Endorse - Looks like a good block to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• The user has clarified that only one person is operating the account, and I'm willing to accept their explanation for what they meant by "we" in the diff above, so I've unblocked. There are still some issues about conflict of interest here, but nothing requiring a block at this point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ban discussion from ANI

Moved from ANI Nobody Ent 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of the Beatles IP Copyvio Vandal

I would like to propose a formal and official community ban of User:Crazy1980 (which was, as far as can be determined, the first named account created by this chronic copyvio offender) and all IP socks therof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support don't know if it's really necessary but to avoid the possibility of future dispute I'm willing to support. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support til I'm 64. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - also a 'lol' at Sarek. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fervent support - this is the worst case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU I've ever encountered that was not linked to a cult (religious or ideological). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've dealt with this yahoo before as well. There is no sense in ever engaging in conversation with this person, a complete case for WP:RBI has never been more plain. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know what practical difference this ban makes since even contributory copyright violations are to be removed regardless of who adds them, but it never hurts to reaffirm the community's stand on this matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Of course. Block all socks on sight and revert all their additions on sight. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - is good to have it as a formal decision (though a ban is not a solution to a problem). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - rather obvious at this point. Calabe1992 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I already voted support above but from User talk:Mike Linksvayer, I think the user should be banned due to overusage of colour alone :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A massive net negative to Wikipedia, the project is better off without this person. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A user whose sole purpose is spamming links that the community has overwhelmingly determined to be not appropriate for the project. A site-ban isn't a solution for the problem, but it does give us another tool for dealing with the disruption more efficiently. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we can sick [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - user who has spammed links and WP:IDHT issues, unfortunately, has no place on Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed community ban

For clarification, is the proposed ban on if the user adds links, or also for when the user makes demands or any other comment regarding the links? The reason I ask is that 95.29.70.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has only one edit, which was not adding the link ... but is obviously the same user. Note: regardless of any outcome here, I wouldn't take action myself in blocking this IP as it would be a COI given the IPs comments directed at me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, given the same COI reasoning, I shouldn't have earlier placed a block on 78.106.94.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm mentioning it here now in an effort to be fully transparent in my actions regarding the user. If anyone feels that block should be discussed/reviewed, feel free to start a new thread so as to not muddy the discussion here with the secondary topic). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Being threatened by a user does not make you involved. That would be too easy, make sure I first threaten all admins and then start vandalising, good call if s.o. dares to block that user. That is not what WP:INVOLVED reads, Barek, that block was a good call. Please continue making them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's appreciated. Although, it still leaves the original question: is the above proposed ban on any disruption related to their demands/comments/etc related to the addition of the links, or only a ban on adding the links themselves. It appears to be on any disruption, but I just want to be sure that I'm clear on the scope of the proposed ban before supporting it (although, I will be supporting it regardless ... just want clarification before I added it in the section above). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The ban is for anything. Banned means banned. Anything and everything the vandal does should be reverted on sight and all of their accounts should be blocked on sight. See WP:BAN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear now that the intent is a project-wide ban on anything identified as being the same user.

However, just to point out a minor bit of semantics in the meaning of a ban - while ban means ban,the scope of a ban can vary. Per WP:BAN, "Though a Wikipedia ban may extend to the entire project, it is usually limited to an article ban or a topic ban." ... which is the reason for my question regarding scope. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly this should have just been called a "site ban" because that's what it is. The term "site ban" only has one meaning... Banned from all of Wikipedia. There are many kinds of bans... Interaction bans, page bans, topic bans, but "site ban" is pretty specific and only refers to one kind of a ban, a ban from any activity anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, our policy here states, "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") but that's not really accurate. A "community ban" usually means that the editor was banned by community consensus, as opposed to a ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee, or through discretionary sanctions, from WMF or from Jimbo Wales. You can be community banned from a page or topic. The policy should probably be corrected but I know how fussy people can get about editing even a single word in a policy (let alone the policy on bans). -- Atama頭 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I assumed community ban made it clear it was a site ban, but yes, a full "ban ban" is what's being called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CBAN links to a section that states, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." That in no way makes it clear that it's a site ban. :p I figured it out in context, though, based on the discussion preceding the ban, which is why I supported the ban. -- Atama頭 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these very long-term blocks on shared IPs really necessary?

I'm beginning to see a big increase in long-term blocks on shared IPs, especially those belonging to schools, colleges, and libraries, but also on other shared IPs. For example, this IP was blocked for three years. Three years! Think about it, high school in the United States lasts for four years; anyone that was a freshman at that school in 2010 will be a senior before they can touch the edit button from that network! This one was blocked for two years in 2011. I understand as much as anyone that administrators and vandal fighters are tired of the bullsh*t that some of these people keep dumping on us, but some of these IPs represent many, many individuals, and anybody accessing our wiki from these IPs are barred from improving our project because of a handful of troublemakers, unless of course they have an account. To be honest, this is beginning to remind me of TK's rangeblocks on Conservapedia, don't get me wrong, I liked TK and I'm proud to be a member of Conservapedia myself, but most agree that the ruthless mass rangeblocks were just too much, and most of those blocks have been lifted because of their potential to negatively impact the project. We're supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yet some people are unable to edit because their IPs are blocked.

Abuse reports could potentially be a good alternative to these long blocks, I know a lot of people here will say that abuse reports don't work, but I've had great successes with them at Conservapedia and Wikipedia. For example, no vandalism has come from this IP since I contacted the school about some vandalism referencing several students' names. The school was very cooperative, and was apparently able to trace down the vandal and punish her/him. Keep in mind that was a small school, so I'm guessing everybody heard about what happened and will not want to follow in that vandals shoes. An abuse report might not stop all vandalism at a larger school, but it can stun it. This IP stopped vandalizing for a month at least after an abuse report. The problem is of course that it probably wasn't the same users vandalizing each time. Enough abuse reports and word might make it around that Wikipedia is not to be messed with. Another thing that has been brought up is what if filing abuse report causes problems for someone in real life. Why should we care if John Doe can't go to prom or Jane Doe gets kicked off the cheerleading squad because they vandalized Wikipedia? Obviously the vandal doesn't, because (s)he wouldn't be breaking the rules if (s)he did. Unless we're talking about someone in Cuba or North Korea, I would guess that someone would usually get a warning and perhaps something like detention unless they've been in trouble before for internet abuse.

I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one month except where networks outright refuse to cooperate or actively encourage vandalism. But that's just my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one year, and require ISP/School/Employer/Etc contact before issuing blocks for longer than one month. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing them from creating accounts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• My first thought is that I don't like this idea. However, I'm curious: have you ever made an abuse report for an IP, and the vandalism stopped, and productive edits started coming from there? If not, then why in the world would your labor intensive solution be better than a long block? If so, then I'll think about it some more. Three years does seem like a long time, but I routinely make {{schoolblock}}s of one year, and if those switched to 1 month, you would dramatically increase the amount of crap we'd have to deal with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen some of these IPs that have had productive contributions in addition to the malicious ones while unblocked, particularly college and university IPs. For example, this one, although never reported for abuse, was blocked for a whole year after a vandalism spree, and it has had a mixture of malicious and constructive edits. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot, this one, belonging to West Franklin High School, has been to abuse reports and has a mixture of malicious and productive contributions. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• If three years is far too long, then one month is far too short. It is great to imagine the isolated cases where a new editor might first contribute from one of the problem IPs (positive: more editors), however we should also remember the draining effect on established editors of continuously dealing with the same crap (big negative: known good editors despair and depart). There have been several cases where an obviously mature individual from a school IP has requested that the IP be blocked because the individual is dismayed that their colleagues are damaging the encyclopedia—such potentially excellent editors understand the reason for long blocks and can work around them (make an account; edit from elsewhere). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  On the contrary. I am quite sure that a large proportion of the "please block my IP, there are many bad people here!" anonymous IPs are just trolls. However, you are right that three years is too long and one month is too short. Thirteen months is a sensible maximum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • e/c I imagine there are times when long blocks are the best solution, and yes, filing ARs is tedious, but I think slapping another long, one year (or longer) block on a shared IP not long after another one has expired is the wrong approach; I think it might be more appropriate to start over with a shorter block and escalate back up to a year. As Johnuniq has described, abuse can cause established users anguish, and if an IP is harassing established users, then we need to do anything reasonable to stop the harassment. Something that disturbs me is when I see IPs that were once blocked, and didn't vandalize immediately after the block expired, but when an isolated incident of vandalism occurred, an administrator escalated to a longer block length. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open project, and we're supposed to assume good faith, but I can see it getting to a point where most schools and a significant number of universities and libraries are unable to edit Wikipedia. That's sad, to me any way. I also have to wonder about the effectiveness of blocking these shared IPs, since it seems to me that if someone wants to vandalize and can't do it at school that they would just do it elsewhere, unless they have no internet access elsewhere. I remember, when I was in high school, I would sometimes correct errors in pages (mainly typos and unnoticed vandalism) without logging into my account because I didn't want to get distracted from what I was doing (usually researching a topic). I imagine a lot of people would be bothered going home or registering an account to fix such things if they don't already have an account here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also note, I never thought that we shouldn't use one year blocks, I just think that we should at least contact the network administrators to let them know that we've blocked the IP due to abuse and can lift the block if they'll cooperate. Some schools would probably just assume it remain blocked, but it should be our goal to minimize the need for long-term blocks. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the question in the header: yes. Absolutely. We frequently get multiple people vandalising from school IPs over a period of time, so reporting to the school and getting one kid detention (if the school bothers to do anything at all) isn't going to solve the problem—there'll be another one, and another one. So we block them, and no matter how long the block is, it's usually not long after it expires that somebody is vandalising from that address again, so it gets blocked again. Renewing the block every few days or weeks instead of every few years would massively increase admins' workload.

  By way of a possible counter-proposal, we could allow account creation from schools we block, since it's easy to just indefinitely block any vandalism-only accounts that spring up. But the autoblock on those accounts would still catch anybody who tried to edit from that IP for the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• That is a good idea, except the autoblocks are hardblocks (if I'm not mistaken) and could potentially create more havoc for legitimate registered users than the soft-blocks with account creation disabled. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• As a rebuttal to the notion that abuse reports do nothing as different people would keep vandalizing, we should encourage the IT departments to monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism. Assuming they don't have a ton of IPs that they don't even need, it should take about a minute to pull up the contributions page every couple of days and pop every single one of the vandals for policy violations. Sooner or later, all of the users would figure out that vandalizing Wikipedia results in the vandal getting in trouble. Personally, if I was director of IT at an educational institution, I would do this and recommend to the principal that their computer access is revoked for the remainder of the school year as most of the ones that vandalize probably engage in other policy violations as well, especially the one's that engage in cyberbullying on here, and the OCD ones that keep coming back for more. It's their job to monitor for such policy violations. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have any real-life examples in mind where school authorities have done anything to "monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism", to your knowledge? Remember we need a few thousand such instances, for it to be worthwhile... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone, supposedly a cheerleader from what I've heard, got caught vandalizing Wikipedia in another high school in the local school district in '06, seemingly without Wikipedia even contacting them (and I'm still not sure if it was someone at the district or that school that caught them). This is what she did the next day, and the district blocked all of Wikipedia as a result. Obviously that's something we should stress that they do not need to do to stop the vandalism, and that we can manage the vandalism at our level without them needing to block all access. Additionally, when I was on the phone with an IT department for a school district in Illinois regarding Conservapedia vandalism, the IT person mentioned that they had similar problems with Wikipedia and dealt with it; apparently that school district would revoke the vandals' internet access for the entire school year over it. Also, I've seen evidence of action taken when vandals have sent me harassing messages from somewhere else after I reported them, in one case when I reported them to their DSL provider at home, and in one case when I reported them to their cellular provider. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• (Per your notice on my talk), PCHS-NJROTC, I would love to stop blocking those schools and restart my writing. The current reality is that we don't have enough admin-hours even to amply warn and block, let alone contact the schools - i.e. we never know how many good editors do we scare away by blocks (surely we do), but we do know how many vandal edits come out from there. Further, more and more single-purpose accounts are being created recently for vandalism only (i.e. they are prepared to spend time on registration). A solution is more than welcome, but it needs proper thinking and a wide community discussion. Reaching out to IT departments is certainly a good idea, but I and most other admins simply do not have time for that (can WMF/ambassadors help there? - it is a top priority after all). I did have first-hand experience teaming with a college sysop to catch local Napster spam - he was a dedicated sysop and managed to identify real people with IPs in real time, but I saw how tricky that was. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to see some openness to my idea, and I do understand that ISP is a cumbersome task; I do a lot ISP contacting for Conservapedia and it does take time to research everything and try to get them to work with you, and trying to work that in along with a job can seem damn near impossible at times. I also know that persistant vandals are annoying; I've been here since 2007 and have seen plenty of them. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only once contacted anybody over vandalism: it was for this edit (note that it's been revdeleted; sorry, non-admins), and I got cooperative responses from a school admin, a police officer, and the kid that was responsible. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually make contact whenever someone goes bashing other people, like that girl (I assume that it was a girl based on the edit) in Indiana that's rev deleted, but that's not the only times. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Something else I'd like to add is that it's not always schools that end up in this situation; I recall coming across an IP belonging to the United States Department of Homeland Security that was producing very childish and vulgar edits like the ones we see from schools, and it was on the fast track to getting blocked like the schools do. The sad thing is that it was obviously one person doing it and there were many other contributions that were legitimate from the IP, but I sent a report to Sprint's abuse contact (since it was through Sprint) and the vandalism ceased. This was sometime between '07 and '09. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Then why not continue blocking IP's the way we have been doing all along, but if someone wants to contact the school, and it results in a satisfactory response, we can just lift the block? If it works, it's almost the same effect as contacting the school first. If it doesn't, then there's no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Students in schools will vandalize on the internet, and most schools do have a policy about this, but unless they actually censor outgoing traffic, it is very hard to stop them; bored students in a computer lab will try anything. Some schools I've known sometimes try to ignore the problem, some try to come down much too hard. I am reluctant to involve school administrators except in truly exceptional cases, because all too few of them are likely to take a reasonable course of action. I think long-term blocks on schools are inhibiting good faith would-be contributors as well as the others, and we need those contributors. A short term block to stop a major campaign of harassment makes sense, but long term inhibits sensible participation also. We can deal with vandalism much better than when the practice of school blocks began: we have the edit filters, which has reduced vandalism in general very considerably, and the response of anti-vandalism patrol for the ones that get through is usually very fast. We just don't need this. I suggest we end all such blocka at the end of the current school year, and see again what happens in September. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most school IPs that I've warned or blocked have never contributed a single productive edit, so there's no loss to Wikipedia when they are blocked. Furthermore, I figure that with most long-term school blocks, Wikipedia is doing the school's faculty a favor, as the kids are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia while in the computer lab, and once editing is blocked from an IP, editing Wikipedia becomes one less distraction available to the bored kids in the computer lab. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on appropriate enforcement/handling of WP:NFCC policy #9

NFCC policy #9 says that non-free images aren't allowed outside content pages and specific limited administrative pages dealing with them. It doesn't say anything about how they should be handled or best practice. Sometimes deletion might be needed, perhaps sometimes it isn't and just removing (via editing) is enough. This RFC is to ask for users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File-related help and guideline pages

Am I the only one who finds our current set of file-related help and guideline pages extremely confusing? Currently we have as many as eleven different pages that all compete for the role of a first-step guidance page about images and other files, plus multiple redirects that lead to any one of them in more or less unpredictable ways. Many of these are outdated, redundant with each other, or deal with stuff quite different from what their titles say. New uploaders will often be led round in circles between all these pages until they find what we want them to find:

General file-related guidance

• Help:Contents/Images and media (redirect from Help:Image tutorial)

mainly a link list. First overview link ("Overview of Images") goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images

• Help:Files (H:IOUF):

short page, links to Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial through section headnotes

• Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

extensive technical guidance on positioning images on pages

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (redirect from Wikipedia:Images and WP:FILE)

contrary to its name, this also contains extensive technical and copyright policy advice

• Wikipedia:Image use policy (WP:IUP)

contrary to its name, this also contains technical and style advice that's not "policy" by any standard

• Wikipedia:Uploading images

duplicates much material also in Wikipedia:Image use policy

• Help:Viewing media (redirect from Help:Images)

brief page, almost entirely redundant to others above

• Wikipedia:Extended image syntax

technical, largely duplicating Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

• Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files

deals largely with non-image media

• mw:Help:Images and other uploaded files

central help page on MediaWiki

• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Adding Images

yet another page that attempts to cover everything at once

Copyright-related guidance

• Wikipedia:Copyrights

mostly deals with text copyright and licensing issues, external re-using etc., but is also linked to as the central policy explanation from many image-related templates

• Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:NFC, including WP:NFCC)
• Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline

Specialized pages

• Wikipedia:File copyright tags
• Wikipedia:Gallery tag
• Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload
• Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission
• Help:File page (redirect from Help:Image page

(also duplicates much material from Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images)

This stuff should be consolidated into probably no more than five main pages:

• WP:NFC
• one page dealing with all other file copyright and related policy issues (including the core contents of WP:IUP, WP:FUR and Help:File page and an overview of related CSDs), with Wikipedia:File copyright tags as a sub-page
• one page dealing with technical matters of file formats, resolution etc. (Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files, portions of Wikipedia:Uploading images)
• one page dealing with technical guidance on how to display files (merging Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, reduced to that core content that is really style guidance and nothing else

Thoughts? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal

moved from ANI Nobody Ent 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see m:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale, history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale&action=history. Meta wiki is not a place to appeal disputes from en-Wikipedia. ArbCom is the final level of dispute resolution. Two editors are carrying a dispute way beyond it's logical end, and have created an attack page on Meta for the sole purpose of defaming a Wikipedia contributor.

I would like the community to confirm that the following indef blocked editors are community banned from en-Wikipedia. This will help put an end to their activities on Meta.

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [20] (NOTE: Already community banned and logged at the WP:List of banned users).) (stricken as redundant - jeh)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled why the folks over at meta are allowing that RfC to proceed there. It seems like a really bad precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• About filing the request on meta.It states Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed. So according to this description, it looks as I submitted it in the right place. I also provided on wiki differences for every statement I made. Thanks --Mbz1 02:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Above statement copied from m:User talk:Mbz1. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • This is a misinterpretation of policy. Meta wiki is a place for users from the smaller wikia with few to no dispute resolution processes to have their disputes resolved. English Wikipedia has robust dispute resolution processes. ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution. Users, especially banned users, may not carry a dispute from here to meta. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an official response from a m:global sysop [21]. Basically, it's allowed. I think the next logical step is to go on meta and start a RfC on the purpose of [meta] RfCs. Any single editor apparently can start a RfC on meta. Not even a co-certifier is needed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That global sysop needs to have their bit removed by WMF. Meta is not a place for defamation of character. ArbCom is the final appeal on en-Wikipedia, not meta. A banned user may not carry a gripe from here to there. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

RFCs should not be defamatory, regardless of where they're located.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A user's global sysop-flag has no bearing on the import of his/er statements, either way. So there's no flag to be removed. (I also removed the section-header, as this is no "official" response.)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so global sysops are not meta sysops? How can we get a meta sysop to respond? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they are not. Meta-sysops are few, list is here. But they hardly ever do anything about the RfC's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The place to contact Meta sysops is m:WM:RFH, although they're certainly aware of the RfC since Mbz1 has linked to it themself on that page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact a number of them have made comments in the RFC. E.g. Billinghurst, Philippe (WMF), WizardOfOz all 3 of which have some experience here. However I'm pretty sure there as here, the meta sysops speak for themselves and don't represent the community or make 'official' statements so it's largely a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Before you start a new Votes for Banning, consider this. Our collective inability to ignore silliness probably causes more "drama" on Wikipedia than anything else, by an order of magnitude. A meta RFC is completely meaningless; it will have zero effect here. Let anyone who wants to waste their time on it do so. Creating a similarly powerless section about it here was 100% the wrong tack to take. See Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We need to take a stand against the harassment of our editors. Anybody thinking of copying Mbz1's tactics needs to understand, clearly, that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Ignoring such harassment is not a good idea. Jehochman ^Talk 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ignoring such harassment hasn't exactly had good results for the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support community ban for Mbz1. An editor whose positive contributions were warmly appreciated here and all over the world, but, sadly, also an editor who does not fit into en.wiki's model of working together to build an encyclopedia. The negative contributions - in terms of disruption - were repeated and overwhelming. The involvement in the off-wiki email canvassing ring and the DYK fraud was the last straw as far as I was concerned, but the off-wiki (and on-wiki?) hate campaigns have continued unabated since then. It's time to draw it all to a close, I hope.

I have never encountered the other named editor. If it's the same person, a community ban applies to both of them and any futher accounts they may make, so it's irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Full siteban for both Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha. I vaguely recall the latter has been a part of other offiste harrassment and threat campaigns in the past, and in spite of this it looks like someone was nice to him, renamed his account and added noindex tags to his userpages. (UPDATE: I see Malcolm Schocha is already community banned from Wikipedia via his User:Kwork account. Of course, nobody realizes this because someone went around and hid all the evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm undoing this. Night Ranger (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless they are handed a m:global ban from all WMF sites, this won't make any difference in their activities on meta. But I suppose a local en.wiki ban is a necessary first step in that direction. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That's what I meant, I don't think a ban from en-wiki extends to meta, but that's for them to figure out over there. Night Ranger (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Night Ranger, when you say "someone went around and hid all the evidence", do you mean on English Wikipedia? I remember being told that I would likely be banned if I posted the evidence about the canvassing ring and DYK fraud, but were administrative actions taken on this wiki to hide that sort of thing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it sure appears someone went out of their way to hide his identity and connection to the Kwork account. I'm not provy to what happened, but as far as I can tell from looking back through the block log and userpage histories: (1) The account Kwork was banned in 2009. (2) The editor later came back with the Malcolm Schocha account and proceeded to get involved in the I-P areas, apparently taking part in some off site harassment of administrators (this last part I also read about on WR of all places, where Schocha briefly participated). Anyway, the MS account was blocked, then it was later apparently renamed to Kwork2, and the MS account was recreated and blocked. I also vaguely recall him lobbing some legal threats around to try and get the MS account renamed... who knows why. This is all going back a couple years or so and I wasn't really active here at the time. Anyway I tagged the sockmaster and sock accounts appropriately so people can see the connection. If you look back through the edit histories you can see what was done and who did it. Night Ranger (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• • (ec) That's right. This discussion won't have any effect. So you need to go to meta and institute a global ban. As far as en.wiki, they are already dead, but you can't make anyone "deader". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Mbz1 is stating that they are not banned.[22] I want to make it absolutely clear that they are, to terminate that avenue of wiki lawyering. Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh. — ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban for Mbz1. It's clear that when an editor continues a dispute after all en.wp DR means have been exhausted, and this includes our ArbCom, [23] they effectively place themselves outside of the English Wikipedia community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Request. Can someone provide more information on the User:Malcolm Schosha situation? Did he do something similar? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the WP:List of banned users he was banned in 2009 for abusive sockpuppetry. Seems he came back with a new account Malcolm Schosha, which was then blocked and at some point it was renamed to Kwork2 and then someone went and added noindex tags to the userpages. Anyway, I added the sock tags so now people can actually see the connection between these accounts instead of staggering around blind. Night Ranger (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Schosha, aka Kwork and Kwork2, was just a run-of-the-mill I-P topic area troll/warrior and frequent enabler of Mbz1, little more. He showed up at Meta just to assist. Honestly the entire site there is like some bizarre Dances With Wolves-esque outpost that pretty much everyone's forgotten except for the loyal ones left behind. I tried to make use of their deletion process to bring and end to the harassment but it lasted all of 6 minutes. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Users are a net negative to the WMF as a whole, not just en.wiki. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I will support a ban for Mbz1 since I remember their time-sinking, unhelpful, and beyond-tedious battles, but a quick look around has failed to find the pages I recall. If anyone has some links (particularly for the other editor), please post them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks to someone for finally informing me of this discussion. While I am a global sysop, my opinion nor the opinion of any Meta administrator is important. One of the primary reasons that RfCs exist is to resolve unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, and I personally believe this to be one of them. While I do not necessarily agree with the comments being made (or more correctly their relevance), I do see this as an issue which is being dismissed here off of hand. I don't edit here so I could easily be mistaken, but either way, surely a simple refuting of the evidence presented there would solve the problem. On a related note, quite a few Meta sysops also agree with me as seen here. On aside, this has nothing to do with my gs flag which is only used to fight vandalism and maintain small wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are seriously uninformed and mistaken. This is not an unresolved dispute. It is an obsessive, harassing, banned user going after a good faith volunteer beyond all reason and fair process. This dispute has no reason at all to be heard on meta. As a sysop, you should not take a decision without first fully informing yourself of the facts. In this matter you have enabled serious harassment. Please correct your error. Jehochman ^Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No, s/he has not enabled anything, it's not in Ajraddatz's scope as I pointed out before. So drop that "sysop"-talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If folks can be sanctioned for what they do on other websites then there are a bunch of WR contributors who'll have a lot to answer for. I think that might be a good idea, but I just want to make sure that folks know the proposed action here would set a precedent.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Users can be sanctioned for serious off-wiki harassment. Moreover, I dispute the idea that en-wiki must ignore harassment occurring on a sister WMF project. Jehochman ^Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Carrying disputes across Wikis does seem to be a problem here; just recently Mbz1 badgered me on Commons about a past grievance related to this project.  Sandstein  08:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Draconian solutions do not work, and, in the case at ahand, all it does is indicate a spitting contest between meta and here. Since it will not solve anything, and since it may well cause more problems, it simply is not a wise action. Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban for Mbz1 - I have seen enough of this persons off-wiki harassment and comments to indicate to me that they are not able to edit positively in a collaborative environment, and are therefore an overall negative on this project. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support ban - seems like highly inappropriate behaviour to engage in - and the concerns raised here seem quite legitimate (and therefore the thread is appropriate). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia. (This comment should be taken as a neutral when weighing consensus)--v/r - TP 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban on Mbz1. This endless crybaby crap has gone on way too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban of Mbz1 per ASCIIn2Bme. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban also per ASCIIn2Bme. Kcowolf (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the systemic concern

• I have started m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: The above discussion contains a quote that was taken from a comment I made about the origins of Meta. Few Wikipedians would know that Meta was originally set up to handle all policy, policy discussions, noticeboards, disputes, etc for Wikipedia. This was around October 2001, several months before we had the Wikipedia namespace. When the Wikipedia namespace was created in 2002 there were a few of us (eg. Larry Sanger, myself) who actively campaigned for keeping all non-article-related material on Meta. Obviously we lost that debate, all policies moved into the WP namespace, Larry left the project (for unrelated reasons) shortly afterwards in mid-2002, and it's never been an issue since (so much so that most people don't even know that was ever the case). I was quoted as if I was currently agitating for a fundamental change to how WP works, whereas in reality I was simply relating a bit of ancient history. Manning (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is all of this kerfluffle-promotion now of any actual benefit to anything? Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing our productive volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That meta-meta-RfC seems to have caused quite a few users banned from en.wp to come out of the woodwork over there to oppose the demise of their soapbox. Meta gives Wikipedia Review a good run for the money in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it a place to go around attacking and harassing our unproductive volunteers? Nobody Ent 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you one of them? Them who created the page are to blame for the ruckus. It is not okay to stand around and watch when an innocent person is attacked by thugs. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing anyone; your unnecessary "productive" qualifier implies some category of users (IPs? Socks? Trolls?) are fair game. Nobody Ent 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing a logical fallacy. I mentioned "productive" to highlight the different between "banned" and "productive" as this is an exacerbating circumstance. One "productive" editor harassing another is also not good, and even a "productive" editor harassing a banned user is also not good because that sort of goading can create negative results. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anything in the allegations worth looking at?

Checking this out. My personal opinion is that there was nothing biased or outrageous about Gwen Gale's actions. There's never been an RfC on Gwen Gale, which would seem to suggest that she's not a problematic admin. But I know some sections of the community are keen that admin conduct is examined. Having said that, Mbz1's allegations are way over the top, and from my long experience in dealing with complaints, once things have got to this stage nothing will satisfy the complainant except someone's head on a pole, so looking at it here probably wouldn't resolve anything. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider this mess to be a systemic failure. Meta needs to understand that they do not have the power to review ArbCom decisions. At times I've been very critical of ArbCom, but the way to address that problem is to vote for different members at the next election. We need to have a process to globally ban users who engage in cross-wiki harassment. I'm not sure how to go about that. We should not allow grudges to be carried from one wiki to another. Any advice would be appreciated. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A m:global ban is possible for a user banned from at least two projects. However, given the self-righteous mission of meta admins to review en.wp ArbCom decisions, I doubt that's going to happen in this case or ever. Meta-wiki is basically a WMF-sponsored Wikipedia Review in that respect. Whether they'd ever have the balls to do anything overriding en.wp decisions is another matter though. Right now they seem content to enable banned users to soapbox endlessly over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to change that situation, if necessary by WMF office action. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we hold an RFC to tell Meta that they can do whatever they want, we don't really care what they come up with on there and they're wasting their time? (You see that? I used all three).--v/r - TP 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta could have a useful role in evaluating whether dispute resolution processes work correctly on WMF projects, and advising WMF with well-considered opinions when it is necessary to reform or reset their administration. There is always a chance that any wiki will fall under the control of some clique that abuses its power, even en.wiki. (On the other hand, the same could happen to WMF...) But arguing RfC/U cases about specific users on other wikis seems unreasonable. As with an appellate court, the question should be whether the process was flawed, not what the verdict should be. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta does not have any power to overrule a local decision, not even with global bans. When it comes to problems with one user on one project, RfCs really won't accomplish anything other than raise awareness. We do get quite a few banned enwiki editors on Meta, although this is the first RfC I've seen made by one of them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The war of rhetoric is building up [24]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we put the feud with Meta aside for a minute Assume they are just a bunch of clucks who will let anyone graffitti their wall. I posted this question because I don't want anyone to say that allegations about an admin were being swept away because of a feud with Meta. Instead, we have Tom Paris suggesting that the complainat should be banned here for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia - which rather left me shaking my head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the clarification, that was more an expression of my frustration over the arrogance it takes to think they can dictate dispute resolution to use rather than a real !vote which is why I said it should be taken as a neutral !vote in parenthesis. I just feel that en.Wikipedia has the most complete dispute resolution process and tougher sysop prerequisites than any other project and some sysop on meta who didn't have to go through half the RfA that any of us did, then an additional month long vote and (ceremonial) appointment by Jimbo to the role of Arbcom shouldn't feel they have the right to judge and jury the English Wikipedia. Besides, they have no technical capability to fulfil their decision anyway (besides the global sysops) and they should stick to their own sandbox. As I said, it was in frustration and not a honest !vote that I said what I said and I made that clear in the first edit (no subsequent edit to clarify what I meant) that it was in actuality a neutral !vote.--v/r - TP 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have some sort of red telephone you can use to call Meta and straighten things out? There's a rule if you send more than two emails trying to straighten something out, pick up the phone instead to avoid misunderstandings. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such "red phone"--project-to-project leadership coordination is actually quite lacking, and essentially accomplished only through informal links among those who participate in multiple projects. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, meta-wiki doesn't have an ArbCom or a Jimbo, so there's no clear "supreme" authority. m:WM:RFH (their AN[I] equivalent) is already swamped with threads related to mbz1's RfC on Gwen, so it's not awareness that's lacking over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, my experience is en.wikipedia to other project communication can often be poor with many users from other projects not always happy with the way en.wikipedia people approach their projects or agreeing with our blocking and banning policies, and en.wikipedia people confused by the rules or allowance of banned/blocked users and their content in other projects. (One thing of course is that very commonly many people in other projects have some experience at en.wikipedia but of course most en.wikipedia users have little or no experience with the other projects.) Of course usually they stop any attempts to comment on people at en.wikipedia but I guess it's more difficult here given meta's purpose. As with EotR, I'm not convinced the way we're approaching the situation there is helping anything, in fact it seems to me it's just going to further convince them that perhaps there are problems at en.wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's cut to the chase: which concerns about Gwen need addressing, and how do you propose we address them? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said any concerns about Gwen need addressing. What gave you the idea I did? I have little experience with GG, but the consensus here and at the meta RFC by meta participants who I presume have analysed whatever evidence was presented appears to be that there's no legitimate concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, so are we supposed to have some sort of show trial then, in which nobody [on en.wiki] believes the concerns are real, but we do it anyway to appease someone at meta? WP:BURO? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction aside, hasn't ArbCom reviewed this already? From the not-so-confidential-anymore email that ArbCom sent to mbz1, [25] I would have thought so. If someone who isn't blocked on en.wiki wants to bring a RfC/U here on Gwen Gale for the multiple accounts stuff or anything else, I'm not sure what's stopping them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wyss account was begun in 2004 and blocked at the user's request in 2006. That's an incredibly long time ago. Those matters can't be reopened now. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was ever a justified "tl;dnr", this, and the barrage of words on Meta, must be it. I make no judgement here about any of it except Jehochman's assertion above that matters between 2004 and 2006 cannot be re-opened now. In general terms, if a behaviour or set of behaviours started then and is continuing into the present, it would seem to be very important to know just how long it has been going on. Bielle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The matters were hashed out long ago. The complaint was raised by a chronically disruptive, community banned editor. Sorry, no, they do not get the satisfaction of putting a good faith user through the wringer. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am astonished by the abusive, nasty behavior of the admins over there. I would fully expect ArbCom to hand my head on a plate if I acted like that over here. I know they aren't used to en.WP style uber-drama over there, but an admin participating in a discussion and then edit warring over a deletion tag, and threatening to block anyone who dares to revert him? And conversations just shut down while people are still adding comments because those admins don't think the request is valid, regardless of what consensus is arrived at? The whole affair makes me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The same admin just indef blocked me without talk page access over there. Something is very rotten in Denmark when the guy defending a banned users right to attack someone over there for things that happened here can indef block me for saying something he didn't like. And I can't even appeal it on-wiki because he cut off my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess they are very fond of playing overlords when "admin abuse" on some other wiki is brought to their sérénissime attention, but they have a giant blind spot for their own petty, autocratic behavior. Meta = Animal Farm. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He isn't involved in the discussion, he is involved in keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama as possible. Your personal attack were why you were blocked, not the fact the you were arguing on the opposite side as him. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally fair, an indef block with no talk page access and no email access, applied by the very user who was the subject of said attack. I linked to WP:DICK, which is hosted at Meta and this is the fair result from a good faith admin just doing his job? Bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Yeah, right. He is "keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama" by abusively closing early the deletion discussion multiple times so that actual user consensus can't be formed. And blocking users who protest that action. And the "RFC" your metapedian wizard is so carefully protecting [from enwiki drama] contains soapy commentary like "self-pitying" and "shameful, childish, dishonest and cowardly retaliation", words penned by author of the RFC. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on meta:User talk:Nemo bis#Deletion closure is also instructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also m:WM:RFH#Involved_block.2C_WizardOfOz_and_Beeblebrox. It looks like there are some sane admins on meta after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Floating an idea

Since there's no ArbCom on meta-wiki [to appeal to] but they love RfC/Us so much, how about we start a RfC/U on User:WizardOfOz and User:Nemo_bis, both of whom are responsible for abusively closing the Gwen "RFC" deletion discussion multiple times. I'm not sure what the best venue would be. Meta might not be a good idea unless you want to get blocked over there for "intimidating behavior". Given that off-wiki harassment is actionable on en.wiki, and the two meta admins have clearly taken sides in that, a RfC/U on en.wiki has cause, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I intend to appeal my block, if they will grant me a way top even do that, and I certainly think Wizard is an absolute disgrace of an admin, but just as the discussion there will have no effect here, no RFC here can influence anything over there. I find it comical that an admin who was acting the bully and openly threatening to block anyone who reverted him would turn around say I was the one doing the intimidating and proceed to block me for it. And he took the coward's route, denying me any avenue of appeal right off the bat. It is clear to me that Meta is severely dysfunctional if this sort of abusive admin behavior is considered acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your reduced to twenty two hours - congratulations - oh noes ...there is clearly something wrong in Denmark - Youreallycan 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure about the opposite direction. A sizeable number of users from en.wiki asking the WMF or Stewards to relieve these two guys of their bits has some chance of succeeding. Hopefully, they'll see reason before it comes to that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We all know...

...that no matter what "consensus" Meta-Wiki comes up with in regards...well, anything, we have no reason to follow it. And, seeing what's going on over there, I don't feel we should follow any decisions they make whatsoever unless there is a clear consensus here to do so. At this point, I really see no purpose to Meta-Wiki at all. They just seem to be a clique of people who fancy themselves rulers of all language Wikis, while having absolutely no power as it is. Silverseren^C 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they do have some practical power over all wikis, like via the global abuse filter and probably a few other bits. So we can't just let anyone be in charge over there. The meta-wiki pages have the same high google juice as most other Wikipedia sites. Let meta turn into soapbox where banned users can attack whoever they want with impunity? Their RFC/Us aren't non-indexed by default. True, almost everyone can put a blogspot page up and get practically the same result on google. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we clearly need to take some sort of action about this abuse of power and, really, the abuse of the trust of the English Wikipedia community. Silverseren^C 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot even find anything about a de-adminship procedure on Meta. The only kind of de-adminship their process pages say anything about is for inactivity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking administrator on Meta has an account here as WizardOfOz. Is it not possible to request arbcom to review his actions on other WMF sites if they are directly related to en.wikipedia? He saw fit to leave Gwen Gale a notre here which seems a little bit odd.[26] Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy I have informed WizardOfOz about this discussion.[27] Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that: The Racepacket case is supplemented as follows:

The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need Help

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

---

Can Someone Protect Page List of Secret Mountain Fort Awesome episodes Or Tell User (talk) To Stop Adding Unnecessary Titles I Have Undid His/Her Information 3 Times And Him/Her Has Not Found Any Source For It. Thanks d} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aozz9 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll look into it--but this is not a matter for this board. Requests for protection are at WP:WRPP, but there is no need for protection in this case. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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