Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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 |
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
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 21 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 75 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. |
|
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 53 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)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 52 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 52 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 49 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:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?
(Initiated 39 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 36 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 20 | 29 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 28 | 32 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 53 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:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.
(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 44 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)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 27 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)
Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?
(Initiated 16 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Block of IP range
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked the IP range 101.0.71.0/24 because an IP editor active from that range had an IP-hopping connection. The log claims this was for "sock abuse", but there is no indication that the IP was a sock of anyone or that there was any misrepresentation on the IP's part. Instead the WP:SOCK argument appears to be based on the nature of the IP's connection. Future left several statements demanding the IP create an account or else be blocked: [1] [2] [3]. Future ultimately performed an anon-only block on the IP range when this didn't happen, initially for three months with account creation blocked. For no apparent reason, Future modified the block a half-hour later to make it a hard range block for six months. The IP was editing from a VPN server and this is what caused the IP-hopping. Given the IP's statements about editing from work it seems this was not done with any deliberate intent to evade, but rather because the company for which the editor works uses a VPN connection as do many other companies. Blocking account creation when the whole concern was about the IP-hopping range seems punitive in the extreme. The IP editor did use a proxy server after the block to inform me of the issue, but I don't think that should be held against them given the excessively punitive nature of Future's block. I ask that the range block be amended to anon-only with account creation allowed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The socking argument was obviously related to this ANI discussion about possible socks of Echigo mole where 101.0.71.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was attacking Mathsci and Dougweller. So, connections aside, I think there's a good likelihood that this IP is in fact related to Echigo mole. In this light I'm not sure that account creation from this very range would benefit the project, so a hard range block may be justified. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that the IP hopper's account is operated by Echigo mole, since he edited a year ago from a regular IP range in Australia. On the other hand the IP hopper did restore a trolling edit of Echigo mole and acted on it as if it had been made by a good faith user, despite having been told otherwise by two editors. After FPaS, blocked the range 101.0.71.0/24,[4] the IP hopper used an open proxy in Brazil which was reported by me[5][6] at WP:OP and blocked for 6 months by Materialscientist.[7] Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple users have suggested that it would be helpful if the IP hopper registered an account. At the same time last year, they were editing in a different Australian IP range. Again suggestions to register an account were fobbed off. The excuse finally offered was the inability to think up a "decent name".[8] Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that the IP hopper's account is operated by Echigo mole, since he edited a year ago from a regular IP range in Australia. On the other hand the IP hopper did restore a trolling edit of Echigo mole and acted on it as if it had been made by a good faith user, despite having been told otherwise by two editors. After FPaS, blocked the range 101.0.71.0/24,[4] the IP hopper used an open proxy in Brazil which was reported by me[5][6] at WP:OP and blocked for 6 months by Materialscientist.[7] Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Adopting a bureaucratic procedure of taking a week to agonize over every "new" user editing from an IP-hopping proxy would not be helpful when facing long-term and very determined POV pushing. It is very hard for people unfamiliar with the WP:ARBR&I debacle to follow a case like this. Third parties should bear in mind these factors: a very dedicated group of determined people has been pushing a certain line about race and intelligence for years (and some are banned); in the past, Mathsci was the main obstacle preventing Wikipedia from being used to promote their view; several of the banned users have created socks to push their view or to provoke Mathsci in the hope of having him sanctioned; independently of the R&I case, there is a long term abuser (Echigo mole) with a grudge against Mathsci who frequently posts provocative messages hoping to recruit editors for their cause. The 101 IP is not Echigo mole. 101 is someone supporting the R&I line of the banned users, and who has been carefully following good practices to do what they can to support their view. However, they came unstuck when discussing Mathsci on ANI (archive). Taking the trouble to follow the interactions shows that 101 revealed their agenda by restoring and spreading Echigo mole's trolling (EM used 111.161.30.218), then focusing on Mathsci at ANI. If 101 were a good-faith editor, they would have responded to the ANI report by explaining why they restored 111.161.30.218's message, and taking advice on the matter. Instead, they pushed their line. Good block. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The IP was not a proxy server as you are implying, but an IP range belong to a VPN server that is apparently operated by the editor's place of employment. In addition, the IP indicated that he or she was not a new user at all, but has been editing for at least a year, noting this IP. As I noted above, Future's concerns focused only on the IP-hopping and he called for the IP editor to register an account to resolve those concerns. An anon-only block that allowed account creation would allow for that concern to be addressed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- That interpretation is very unlikely to be correct. Yet another IP (92.4.162.209) posted some info at Talk:R&I. The Internet has an industry that provides proxy servers that people can use to hide their IP and their geographic location. Services provided include the ability to change IP whenever wanted (with the ability to appear to be from one country in one post, and from an entirely different country in another edit made a minute later). If wanted ask at my talk for an explanation of what 92 said, but I checked their evidence and it is correct, namely that PureVPN is a business providing proxy services (under $10/month), and the PureVPN Australian server is at 101.0.71.2, and that makes it very likely that all the 101.0.71.* IPs are used by PureVPN (the coincidence of that fact combined with an IP-hopping editor in an area known to be inhabitated by determined socks is striking). The 101 user may claim that their 101.0.71.* IPs are from a VPN server operated by their employer, but that claim is very likely to be false (unless they work for PureVPN). Apart from the PureVPN coincidence, legitimate VPN servers do not change IP (and they certainly do not do so frequently). It is obvious that the 101 user is not new, and it is obvious they want to settle grudges concerning the editor I named, and it is obvious that they were settling in for a protracted battle with demands that there be proof that the EM trolling was made by a banned user (the EM comments came from an IP with a total of two edits, both being "helpful" comments at User talk:BlackHades, intended to continue their fight). Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, now that you mention it, I do wonder if we should even operate under the presumption that the UK IP was right about there being a VPN involved. Were it not for that comment, along with rampant sock paranoia, none of us would be talking about VPN and it is quite possible that it is just a coincidence. The 110.32 range that was active until at least July of last year geolocates to the same metropolitan area and the editorial activity does seem similar to the 101.0.71 range, with the same IP-hopping (see the revision history of the Guns, Germs, and Steel article around February 2012). I don't think there is any basis for suspecting that the IP editor is lying about this being their prior IP range and it seems to support this being the same editor. The IP-hopping is unusual, but looking at the GGaS revision history, in one instance only an hour elapse before IPs changed. As these all geolocate to the same area it seems unusual to see anything nefarious in that. It actually does seem suggestive of some connection that constantly changes the IP address.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- In an ideal world perhaps we would have time to accommodate people with a plethora of problems: IP 101 does not want to create an account; their IP changes frequently; they happen to be using IPs that are known to be in a range also used by PureVPN; PureVPN is in the business of providing cheap proxy services intended so users can avoid scrutiny; the 101 user happens to favor views shared by several banned users; they are perfectly civil but cannot pass up an opportunity to settle a few scores with a well known editor who happens to be the bete noire of the banned users; they demand proof to justify the removal of a troll post by a banned user using a throwaway IP. What benefit would arise from spending a couple more days agonizing over whether those factors are sufficient to justify a block? Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of people "happen to favor views shared by several banned users", but that in itself means nothing. The prior activity from 110.32 range strongly suggests the geolocation is legitimate as PureVPN didn't have a server for nearly the entire time that range was active. None of the banned users edit from Australia as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with User:The Devil's Advocate this block, and the discussions related to it don't seem to add up. I'm curious as to what ultimately was the justification for this 6 month block. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of people "happen to favor views shared by several banned users", but that in itself means nothing. The prior activity from 110.32 range strongly suggests the geolocation is legitimate as PureVPN didn't have a server for nearly the entire time that range was active. None of the banned users edit from Australia as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- In an ideal world perhaps we would have time to accommodate people with a plethora of problems: IP 101 does not want to create an account; their IP changes frequently; they happen to be using IPs that are known to be in a range also used by PureVPN; PureVPN is in the business of providing cheap proxy services intended so users can avoid scrutiny; the 101 user happens to favor views shared by several banned users; they are perfectly civil but cannot pass up an opportunity to settle a few scores with a well known editor who happens to be the bete noire of the banned users; they demand proof to justify the removal of a troll post by a banned user using a throwaway IP. What benefit would arise from spending a couple more days agonizing over whether those factors are sufficient to justify a block? Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, now that you mention it, I do wonder if we should even operate under the presumption that the UK IP was right about there being a VPN involved. Were it not for that comment, along with rampant sock paranoia, none of us would be talking about VPN and it is quite possible that it is just a coincidence. The 110.32 range that was active until at least July of last year geolocates to the same metropolitan area and the editorial activity does seem similar to the 101.0.71 range, with the same IP-hopping (see the revision history of the Guns, Germs, and Steel article around February 2012). I don't think there is any basis for suspecting that the IP editor is lying about this being their prior IP range and it seems to support this being the same editor. The IP-hopping is unusual, but looking at the GGaS revision history, in one instance only an hour elapse before IPs changed. As these all geolocate to the same area it seems unusual to see anything nefarious in that. It actually does seem suggestive of some connection that constantly changes the IP address.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- That interpretation is very unlikely to be correct. Yet another IP (92.4.162.209) posted some info at Talk:R&I. The Internet has an industry that provides proxy servers that people can use to hide their IP and their geographic location. Services provided include the ability to change IP whenever wanted (with the ability to appear to be from one country in one post, and from an entirely different country in another edit made a minute later). If wanted ask at my talk for an explanation of what 92 said, but I checked their evidence and it is correct, namely that PureVPN is a business providing proxy services (under $10/month), and the PureVPN Australian server is at 101.0.71.2, and that makes it very likely that all the 101.0.71.* IPs are used by PureVPN (the coincidence of that fact combined with an IP-hopping editor in an area known to be inhabitated by determined socks is striking). The 101 user may claim that their 101.0.71.* IPs are from a VPN server operated by their employer, but that claim is very likely to be false (unless they work for PureVPN). Apart from the PureVPN coincidence, legitimate VPN servers do not change IP (and they certainly do not do so frequently). It is obvious that the 101 user is not new, and it is obvious they want to settle grudges concerning the editor I named, and it is obvious that they were settling in for a protracted battle with demands that there be proof that the EM trolling was made by a banned user (the EM comments came from an IP with a total of two edits, both being "helpful" comments at User talk:BlackHades, intended to continue their fight). Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whoever the IP hopper is, the open proxy 201.76.185.214 in Brazil that they used has now been used for a second time to post an unblock request.[9] That request, however, is in the style of Mikemikev's edit summaries here (now reverted with edit summaries rev-delled) and is unlikely to have any success. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a list of the 110.32 IPs and 101.0.71 IPs (the latter being the IPs subject to the range block) generally sorted by time of use in chronological order:
- 110.32.141.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.146.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.158.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.128.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.128.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.132.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.192.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.150.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.203.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.128.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.147.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.195.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.155.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.129.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.146.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 110.32.155.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 101.0.71.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Looking at them all seems to make it more likely that this IP was not using some service to evade scrutiny, but just that the editor's connection constantly changes IP addresses. The IP editor has been consistently straightforward about their connection with the other IPs so it makes it even less likely. As far as I know, none of the persistent sockmasters in the topic area edit from Australia so that does not seem to be a likely issue either.
I see no reason to presume that a hard block of the 101.0.71 IP range was in any way necessary or justifiable. Should the issue only be, as Future suggested in his statement to the IP, that the IP-hopping made it preferable for the editor to have a registered account, then the six-month hard block is not an appropriate action. Allowing account creation seems more appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chronological information on the IP hopper's cumulative edits is easily available using toolserver because of the narrowness of the IP range used. The link has been displayed multiple times here and on WP:ANI. Here it is again: [10] As Future Perfect at Sunrise has written on his user talk page, after one week this meritless request has found no traction with any administrators. The reasons for unblocking appear to be more related to the continuation of various disputes in project space.[11][12] Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is known is that PureVPN provides a cheap service intended to assist its users avoid scrutiny, and that PureVPN uses at least one IP in the range listed above. There is no reason to think that anyone using PureVPN IPs has ever seen Australia—the whole point of a service like that is to hide the user's location. I have never heard of someone having an Internet connection with an IP that changes in a matter of hours (once or twice, yes; frequently, no). Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- They probably are editing from Australia. There is a history of tendentious editing around WP:ARBR&I by anonymous IPs from Australia, e.g. the IP 220.233.29.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Timotheus Canens not so long ago. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Any reason why we shouldn't treat PureVPN the same way we do open proxies? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- PureVPN didn't have a server in Australia for nearly the entire time that the 110.32 range was active and that seems to be the same individual. It seems very unlikely that the wider IP range was originating from anywhere other than Australia and they geolocate to the same metro area.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no proof the user is using PureVPN. The IP range of 101.0.71.* is owned by Digital Pacific. It is true that PureVPN has a server on this range but that doesn't necessarily confirm that this user is using PureVPN. Many companies have a server with Digital Pacific and would hence have an IP in that range not just PureVPN. Including the companies listed here. There is no conclusive evidence this user is using PureVPN and no evidence that this user was trying to evade scrutiny. This IP range should be unblocked and the user should be allowed the opportunity to open an account. BlackHades (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not correct. Digital Pacific state that their dedicated servers come with a minimum of 5 usable IP addresses. The VPN server is located at 101.0.71.2, which means that 101.0.71.0/29 is the minimum range allocated to PureVPN. 101.0.71.6 has been used by the editor in question, so they are definitely using PureVPN. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no proof the user is using PureVPN. The IP range of 101.0.71.* is owned by Digital Pacific. It is true that PureVPN has a server on this range but that doesn't necessarily confirm that this user is using PureVPN. Many companies have a server with Digital Pacific and would hence have an IP in that range not just PureVPN. Including the companies listed here. There is no conclusive evidence this user is using PureVPN and no evidence that this user was trying to evade scrutiny. This IP range should be unblocked and the user should be allowed the opportunity to open an account. BlackHades (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There probably is not conclusive evidence one way or the other regarding any blocked user (their little brother might have done it). A key feature of the IP user being discussed is that their IP changed much more frequently than normal experience indicates is reasonable. That was discussed with them, and they were told several times about the desirability of creating an account so there was no question of whether the IP edits were by one person or several. The IP offered no explanation about their IP (no unusual situation mentioned). The IP declined to create an account. As soon as they were blocked, the IP complained that they could not create an account. It just does not add up to a reasonable situation. In an area known to have been inhabitated by banned POV pushers for years, the community does not need to prove conclusively that an IP-hopping user really is a problem. That particularly applies when the IP was pointedly restoring comments by a banned user, and was getting stuck into an editor who has done little recently in the area, but who is known to be a target of the banned R&I users. The IP brought their problems on themselves, and the PureVPN "coincidence" (with a very plausible technical explanation from 92.2.72.72 above—thanks) is too much to overlook. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The first identified edits of the IP hopper, apart from edit-warring to blank a large section of the lede of R&I three times, stated their POV clearly.[13] It is inconsistent with the principles laid down in WP:ARBR&I. With a registered account, they would almost certainly have been topic banned (similarly to the Australian IP mentioned above, indefinitely blocked by Timotheus Canens for WP:TE). Having a hopping IP allowed them to evade scrutiny. In this thread two editors, who edited in concert with the IP hopper, are griping about the block of the narrow IP range. One of them, BlackHades, is hot off a one week arbitration enforcement block for battlefield conduct, which included frivolously reporting Dougweller as a sockpuppet of KillerChihuahua. Why does he think his complaints about the treatment of a user who harassed Dougweller will carry any weight here? Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Stick to the issue. WP:No personal attacks. PureVPN didn't even have a server in Australia until June 2012. This user's history goes back to 2011. There's no indication that the user is trying to evade scrutiny. His IP history consistently locates back to the same location geographically well before PureVPN even ever had a server in Australia. BlackHades (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no valid "issue" in this thread. The IP hopper's edits were disruptive: restoring Echigo mole's trolling edit, knowing at the time that it had been made by a banned user; acting on it as if made by a user in good standing; harassing Dougweller on his talk page; and making personal attacks at ANI. The very narrow IP range, whether it was a VPN or not, has been used exclusively by this user. So the block has no collateral damage and prevents any further disruptive edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Stick to the issue. WP:No personal attacks. PureVPN didn't even have a server in Australia until June 2012. This user's history goes back to 2011. There's no indication that the user is trying to evade scrutiny. His IP history consistently locates back to the same location geographically well before PureVPN even ever had a server in Australia. BlackHades (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The first identified edits of the IP hopper, apart from edit-warring to blank a large section of the lede of R&I three times, stated their POV clearly.[13] It is inconsistent with the principles laid down in WP:ARBR&I. With a registered account, they would almost certainly have been topic banned (similarly to the Australian IP mentioned above, indefinitely blocked by Timotheus Canens for WP:TE). Having a hopping IP allowed them to evade scrutiny. In this thread two editors, who edited in concert with the IP hopper, are griping about the block of the narrow IP range. One of them, BlackHades, is hot off a one week arbitration enforcement block for battlefield conduct, which included frivolously reporting Dougweller as a sockpuppet of KillerChihuahua. Why does he think his complaints about the treatment of a user who harassed Dougweller will carry any weight here? Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- That UK IP is far more suspicious to me than the 101 IP. It appears to be the same individual that first made this allegation, though the IP has changed in the few days since it was last active. For those in the know, this edit would seem indicative of a certain editor.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am that same IP editor. Sorry for not making that clear. However, I'm not whoever you seem to think I am. I edit as an IP, and only very sparingly at that. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The IP appears to be editing in good faith and does not appear to be a sockpuppet of a banned user such as Echigo mole, Mikemikev or JarlaxleArtemis. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (as with 111.161.30.218, now blocked for a year), suspicions about sockpuppetry should be reserved for WP:SPI. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The editor using this IP range based in Hammersmith appears to have expertise in economics (which involves applicable mathematics, not pure mathematics).[14] There are no similarities with Echigo mole edits at all. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, IP ranges should never be rangeblocked long-term without the "anon-only" parameter. Blocking an IP range long term affects thousands of users on a given network. The best thing to do would be to change the block and place a {{anonblock}} in the summary so that established users can still edit from that range. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am that same IP editor. Sorry for not making that clear. However, I'm not whoever you seem to think I am. I edit as an IP, and only very sparingly at that. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
New account User:PsychKitten editing using open proxy
- PsychKitten (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
This account was created on Feb 22 and today they have been using an open proxy 202.105.113.132:8080 from China.[15][16] The targeted articles are the same as those frequented by Mikemikev, but the style and POV are more like those of the IP hopper. Initially I posted a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev before seeing something funny about this. I removed the report, but the SPI clerk Spitfire confirmed that the IP used was an open proxy from China on 8080. As there is no reason for Mikemikev to use an IP outside Korea, this is more likely to be the IP hopper, bypassing the block of the IP range. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Subsequent ongoing edits on Talk:Race and intelligence confirm this identification. The IP has also been reported at WP:OP. Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the "IP hopper", commenting from Melbourne via a proxy. PsychKitten is not me. I don't know if it is Mikemikev or Echigo mole, but it isn't me. I haven't made an account after Future Perfect disabled registration from my IPs, and I intend to wait for the outcome of this thread before I do. 54.243.69.129 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mathsci, on what evidence specifically is there that you think PsychKitten is related to IP 101.0.71.*? All you said is that you think "style and POV" is similar but you haven't stated specifically why you think this. BlackHades (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is clearly not a new user per Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. No new user arrives at wikipedia and heads to Talk:Race and intelligence, Talk:Race and genetics and Talk:Race (human classification) with a complete knowledge of the back history. On the other hand this could still be Mikemikev because of the first edit to Franz Boas. That edit might have been made using a different IP. At WP:OP the IP has been confirmed as an open proxy and has been hard blocked for two years by Materialscientist. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, 54.243.69.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also an open HTTP proxy, this time on port 8000. Someone may want to block that? I've also sent an email to ec2-abuse@amazon.com about that one, although whether they'll actually do anything about closing the proxy is another matter... SpitfireTally-ho! 11:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, looks like that one's down now. Perhaps Amazon shut that hole. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is clearly not a new user per Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. No new user arrives at wikipedia and heads to Talk:Race and intelligence, Talk:Race and genetics and Talk:Race (human classification) with a complete knowledge of the back history. On the other hand this could still be Mikemikev because of the first edit to Franz Boas. That edit might have been made using a different IP. At WP:OP the IP has been confirmed as an open proxy and has been hard blocked for two years by Materialscientist. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mathsci, on what evidence specifically is there that you think PsychKitten is related to IP 101.0.71.*? All you said is that you think "style and POV" is similar but you haven't stated specifically why you think this. BlackHades (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Improper merge
In an ongoing discussion on whether Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) should be merged into Heart and Soul (1938 song), User:Kww, an admin who expressed an opinion in that merge discussion, subsequently merged the source article into the target article[17][18] after another editor suggested that "perhaps it's time to merge per kww and move on,"[19] even though the discussion was not closed and Kww had a demonstrated potential conflict of interest/lack of impartiality for the merge action prior to the merge edits. Was this a proper admin action? Also, please undo the merge edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- This does not look like an admin action to me. Nymf talk to me 14:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- No admin tools were used. Your argument with me is with me as an editor, not as an admin.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- My thinking in posting here was that administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and have actions that are compatible with the status of administrator. No admin tools were used, so apparently this was not an admin action. In any event, I would appreciate someone returning the two article to their unmerged state since the merge discussion is ongoing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- The two article continued to be reverted from their unmerged state.[20][21] There have only been three editors commenting in that merge discussion and now the merge notices are gone. If this is the wrong board to obtain assistance in this, please let me know where I can go to get assistance in allowing the merge discussion to take place without disruption. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The merge discussion has taken place. What you seem to be seeking assistance in is undoing the result and reopening the discussion. Your frenzy of taking the discussion to such various places as Jimbo's talk page, an MFD that was inappropriately opened in an effort to delete a single paragraph from a guideline you dislike, WT:N, seeking assistance after the discussion closed and opening a merge proposals after the merge is complete is getting disruptive.—Kww(talk) 03:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Complaints that this merge was closed too quick should be compared with this edit by User:Uzma Gamal where s/he removed the merge tag to stop a discussion actually happening. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, you did not open a discussion even two days after you posted that merge tag.[22] You then readded the merge tag[23] and opened a dicussion[24]. The merge discussion is open because it has not been closed. See close the merger discussion and determine consensus -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- (vaguely involved editor) I feel this issue is really about Uzma Gamal not getting enough credit for the substantial Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article content he created, and I think he is quite justified in feeling a bit miffed. He added a huge chunk of content here[25] only to see it merged into another article by another editor, and now his contribution is not found in the edit history of the article which received the merged content. I think Uzma deserves a barnstar for his work. --Surturz (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Surturz, you have made a very good point and I am pleased you have awarded Uzma his deserved barnstar. Most of Uzma's work will continue to exist in the much improved Heart and Soul (1938 song). --Richhoncho (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Per step 8 of WP:FMERGE, the courteous thing to do when merging is use the provided {{Merged-from}} and {{Merged-to}} templates on the article talk pages to credit the authors of the merged from article. I've completed this step. NE Ent 00:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Topic (article) ban
Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- article protection log
- GeorgeLouis’s article edit history showing 280 edits or 21% of the total edits to the article
- Rhode Island Red’s article edit history showing 456 edits or 35% of the total edits to the article
- RFC about RIR closed with no consensus
- edit-warring report
- edit-warring report
- edit-warring report
- edit-warring report
- There are more edit-warring reports, but I got tired of listing them all.
- ANI discussion about VanderSloot
- ANI discussion about VanderSloot
- BLPN discussion
- BLPN discussion
- BLPN discussion
- There are more BLPN discussions, but I got tired of listing them all.
I propose a topic ban on Frank L. VanderSloot for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red based on the history above, which may not be complete. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of my 5 edits to the article and a couple of edits to the talk page last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Proposing to ban me based on a few old retributive edit warring reports (baseless reports filed by George Louis that led to nothing) and a failed witch-hunt RfC (filed by George Louis that led to nothing) in the absence of a compelling reason or a recent incident? I have to question your motives for filing this. I suspect a pre-emptive measure aimed at derailing my request to go to ArbCom to resolve the POV pushing by editors who appear to have a vested interest in the subject matter. Looks like you're picking up the torch and launching yet another ill-conceived witch-hunt (of course I am in no way defending George Louis and won't obstruct your efforts to ban him). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Wikipedia resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?
- the article was locked as recently as February 13.
- your last edit to the article was a revert of GeorgeLouis on February 23 (preceded by edit-warring between the two of you).
- the last edit-warring report was on January 31 brought by you against GeorgeLouis (with this lovely opening salvo: "We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus.").
- the last ANI discussion was in the middle of February.
- the last BLPN discussion was on January 21.
- --Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Wikipedia resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?
- What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- None of the evidence you presented falls on my shoulders nor does it remotely justify calling for a page ban against me. So what if I made an edit on Feb 13. It was a legitimate edit. The page wasn't locked because of me. The ANI was to resolve an editing dispute -- had nothing to do with my conduct. Yes, I filed an edit warring report against George and it was deemed that he was edit warring; how can you possibly try to twist that as evidence of misconduct on my part? That's ridiculous. Your blood lust is baseless. No admin would be foolish enough to not see through your paper thin premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Support for RIR, waiting for comments from George before !voting on him. I think RIR's comments here are representative of his inability to recognize the results of his actions. Arkon (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that because I challenged the charge and the evidence presented, that's evidence that the charge is legitimate? What kind of ridiculous circular logic is that? 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Support: I have felt on many occasions that this discussion is basically endless, and that any solution cannot be achieve without some kind of legitimate fork in the road we are all forced to follow. Ban everybody involved on all sides unless we can collaborate. I was deeply disappointed by the recent reversal of administrative decisiveness on this page purely because two editors on the losing side decided to make a fuss. This whole situation has made me lose faith in Wikipedia's ability to protect living people and deflect political bias. Makes me want to stick to artist only, and science pages and forget the entire side of Wikipedia dealing with businesses and businessmen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeeremy, you have been very much involved at the core of several of the editing disputes. This might seem like convenient opportunity to take out the opposition with an unjustified page ban, but it won't work. It's shameful that you would even try such an underhanded tactic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm simply responding to the recommendation of another individual. If they felt I was a part of the problem too, I would go along with any request to pause, rewind, or move forward in a different method myself. I know that you have good intentions on Wikipedia and I do not doubt that at all, I in fact very much admire the pages you've chosen to take on, but I also think the intention of this proposal is constructive as well. I have tried to be constructive in all items I have posted regarding these situations. But how many hours of other people's time is this project going to continue to take? I think we can trust that the Wikipedia community at large is capable of handling this page effectively if we all left it alone.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Support for RIR. Opinion reserved on GeorgeLouis pending a response. I followed the last several ANI's revolving around article and decided against commenting. This is a ultimately necessary step to stop the endless unconstructive bickering at that article. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's silly. Bickering is not a basis for calling for a page ban. Nor is the so called "bickering" confined to me and George; you seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that multiple parties have been involved, and yet you are trying to make it seem as though it's all somehow my fault that multiple parties are in disagreement. I've been saying for quite some time that the article and the actions of various POV pushers should go before ArbCom for resolution. My impression is that there are some ardent advocates of Vandersloot and Melaleuca who don't want that to happen, for fear of that the decision would not rule in their favor. This is a silly witch-hunt; nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment.You got the wrong guy, officer, but thanks for posting this link to my edits. It shows clearly that I've made beaucoup recent edits on such controversial subjects as "Copy edit," "More copy edit," "Comma to set off appositive," "Impersonal, not personal pronoun," "Spell out approximate number," "Correct small number per MOS. Hyphens in 9-1/2 and in second-largest. Comma in compound sentence" and "Changing % to percent for concistency." Then there was the landmark "Correct capitalization," which amended the name of Vandersloot to the correct form VanderSloot (thirteen times!), which had been in the article — I don't know — maybe forever? We also have several instances of "Adding In Use Tag" and "Removing In Use Tag," not to mention "Link is now dead," "Adding a link that does not require payment," "Reverting self. Have to do more checking" and "Explaining what the Inc. 500 list is." Thanks again: It was fun going over my past edits in this one article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose RIR, leaning Support for GL; @GL, a couple of your "copyedits" were substantive, and a number of your substantive edits are wrong. A majority of your edits this year were removing material added by RIR or adding material removed by RIR, whether or not you were specifically reverting his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Wikipedia's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those aren't the words I'm talking about, obviously. And no one is calling your "edit count ... malfeasance". I'm talking specifically about you discounting the efforts of others, and blowing your own efforts out of proportion. That aside, I'm surprised that you insist that there is no hostility whatsoever to your words, perhaps you should recheck your phrasing before posting. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Wikipedia's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to make light of this WP:ANI because I know how annoying it can be when confronted by what seems to be endless dispute in WP articles. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that I have been active in developing new Talk Page sections when requested, by RIR or by other editors, all with an eye to settling disagreements. Granted, because these are Talk Page changes, they may not have been included in the very comprehensive list of diffs submitted above by User:Bbb23.
- Wife contribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=528829649&oldid=528825896
- Add a subheader for ease of comprehension and editing; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=527573603&oldid=527573383
- Adding a marketing subsection entitled "Inverted pyramid vs. chronological
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=525083077&oldid=525079257
- Adding a new section on the Direct Selling Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524652084&oldid=524647718
- Making subheaders for ease of editing and of comprehension. Hiding some off-topic comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161
- Idaho ballot initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161
- New subheaders in Talk section, "Consensus" for ease of comprehension
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537308982&oldid=537307545
- Making additional subheaders so each editor would have his or her own subsection instead of having to share:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=536849148&oldid=536836231
- To get this discussion off dead center, I don't mind taking a four-week break from editing (I did this for some two weeks last December), so that others could improve the article. but I think the project would benefit from whatever I post on the Talk Page, even if it's just advice about correcting a spelling error.GeorgeLouis (talk)
- Oppose topic-banning either RIR or GL. Having watched the VanderSloot shenanigans for some time now, it seems to me that RIR is the most valuable contributor in terms of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and GL is prominent among users whose resistance to policy-compliant, reliably sourced content makes it hard not to wonder about agendas and motivations. I note, and agree with, Arthur Rubin's comments on GL's edits. Yet I don't think topic-banning GL would be helpful without also including the others who together form, whether by accident or design, a united front against content they apparently don't like. Might there be a mature, neutral, policy-savvy admin who has the balls to mediate the content disputes on the talk page? Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Writegeist has an excellent point! If we can get that kind of administrative support on the page ... can we? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- I get the sense that a topic ban per se isn't going to get sufficient support here to be adopted. To plant a seed for future consideration: what might help avoid disruption here is to impose a restriction on use of noticeboards w/rt this article: a prohibition on initiating a discussion at any noticeboard, and a prohibition on contributing more than twice (with each contribution <75 words) at any single discussion initiated by anyone else. Tweak the details, whatever, but the point is to restrict the drama to the article talk page and spare the larger number of people who participate at the noticeboards. Again, for future consideration perhaps -- and since I've been involved at the article myself, feel free to discount the entire suggestion on that basis alone if you like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I never discount anything you say. Although an interesting suggestion, I fear it would be almost impossible to implement. It would be almost like saying anyone can do whatever they please on the article, and no one can seek sanctions or even input about editors' actions. I suppose you could craft something that might be doable, but it would no doubt have to be an extended use of wikilegalese.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I meant it to apply only to the two editors in question here. The point is, there's enough attention on the page that if a genuine problem arises with one or the other someone is likely to raise it at a noticeboard -- but we wouldn't have to worry about frivolous or retaliatory reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Admin threats
Hi, not sure if this is the right place so please move if it isnt but,
I just had an admin threaten to block me for reverting his edits that were clearly a violation of NPOV and wp:undue. Just wondering, is that even allowed, and will i be blocked for fixing the article? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 08:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Admin in question is Buckshot06 ★★RetroLord★★ 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, he's not allowed to, but someone else might. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Block me over removing probably incorrect unsourced material? ★★RetroLord★★ 08:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please see User talk:Retrolord for the ongoing discussion in this case. Retrolord is trying to remove material which is well sourced and meets the GNG, as well as POVing the article at least as much in a totally opposite direction. Concern has already been raised regarding his edits at WT:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to be an extension of an ongoing content dispute, which has also reached WT:MILHIST — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The edits that Buckshot06 reverted (for reference) do seem to portray the New Zealand Army in a rather negative light (although perhaps the original text was overly positive as well; I haven't taken the time to do a thorough review). I hope you don't honestly think this constitutes a genuine talk page consensus; you're going to need much broader participation than that. My advice is to check out some of the venues listed at dispute resolution, such as RfC or 3O. Another thing, please don't make comments like these anymore. Not only are you making negative assumptions about the motives of someone who disagrees with you, but frankly you make yourself look ridiculous. And yes, if you continue to remove swathes of text without any discussion, you will likely wind up blocked. Kurtis (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Kurtis for reinserting my comment. You beat me to it by about 3 seconds. The original material may have been overly positive at some points, obviously NZ was not really a major player in the Korean War, but I believe Retrolord, while no doubt acting in good faith, has gone too far in the opposite direction and not allowed enough time for others to add citations after CN tags were requested. You'll see my comment about 24 hours; should he wish to remove other dubious material, I would only ask that he mark it and wait the appropriate time so that editors can insert citations. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem. It was an accidental removal on Crisco's part, so I guess it goes without saying that no harm was intended. As to your other point, I hadn't meant to imply that the original text was overly slanted in a positive direction or anything, but just that I haven't actually checked it over to make any real contrasts with Retrolord's additions. My cursory review of the article's history was to examine the content dispute. Kurtis (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe its just me, but an admin who is involved in a dispute saying they will block the non-adimn (and relatively new editor) who is on the other side of the dispute is a very small step from violating WP:involved and definitely violates the spirit of it. I find this comment utterly unacceptable, and it is attitudes like that which leave a bad taste in non-admins mouths. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Where there is smoke there is usually fire. In November Buckshot06 issued a rather uncivil warning block (whatever that is) here. It was also over an article that he was involved in[26]. I don't even see the basis for the block in this case as removing that info arguably improved the article and there was no edit warring that I could see. The block was also labelled vandalism in the block log.[27] AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Agree that block is a bad, not sure any admin should be saying "Any appeal can be directed to my talkpage in the first instance" where is the use of the standard block template with the correct details on how to appeal ? How can he appeal to the blocking admin if he is blocked and can only edit his own talk page ? Why wait 2+ weeks to issue the block smacks of punishment rather than preventative. LGA talkedits 23:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- This one just confuses me. Someone is given a six month block for vandalism nine months after their last edit (which wasn't even vandalism)?[28] There is also another "warning block" here.[29] AIRcorn (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, where there is smoke there is sometimes fire is more accurate; in this case, however, I concur something's amiss. NE Ent 12:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- This one just confuses me. Someone is given a six month block for vandalism nine months after their last edit (which wasn't even vandalism)?[28] There is also another "warning block" here.[29] AIRcorn (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Very concerning admin actions. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Buckshot06 should strike their threat to block Retrolord, and an explanation of the block on Kamal44 would be appropriate. NE Ent 12:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Huh. I wonder, is Buckshot06 still following this thread carefully? The citations listed above by Aircorn (specifically the situation regarding Kamal44) don't reflect very well on him. =/ Kurtis (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Left a note at his talk page asking him to return here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for advising me Aircorn. The issue is pretty simple. Anyone who has been monitoring the Milhist talk page may be aware that we have a large number of not highly visited armed forces articles, some in places like Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan where we have significant numbers of POV warriors. Anyone who closely examined Kamal44's edits will have seen virtually every edit he made had to be reconsidered or rolled back across the entire range of Kazakh related articles he edited. He repeatedly vandalised the Kazakh Armed Forces article to push his Turkic agenda, and he simply isn't the kind of editor this site needs. Now he appeared to have left the site, but we do not need or want his kind of editor here - for those kind of articles, we need effectively good researchers, dedicated to putting the facts as can be found out, without inflating or creating nonexistent armoured vehicles, fighters, removing truthful material that doesn't suit them, etc. I suppose I could have raised it to some sort of forum, but which? The wikiprojects on these countries are hardly visited, and the Milhist project has had an entire *page*/project which was dedicated a while back to remove outright falsities from articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Contest/2012_Cleanup_Campaign). In summary, he was not the kind of editor we need, and I didn't want his to come back. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain what exactly about his edits that was WP:VANDAL, which was the reasoning for the block? Please be specific. Thank you. — raekyt 08:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be a textbook case of a punitive block. I really think that this editor should be unblocked, especially as one of their creations is currently up for deletion (which is probably a direct result of this discussion). At the very least they should be given the chance to screw up before being blocked. AIRcorn (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain what exactly about his edits that was WP:VANDAL, which was the reasoning for the block? Please be specific. Thank you. — raekyt 08:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for advising me Aircorn. The issue is pretty simple. Anyone who has been monitoring the Milhist talk page may be aware that we have a large number of not highly visited armed forces articles, some in places like Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan where we have significant numbers of POV warriors. Anyone who closely examined Kamal44's edits will have seen virtually every edit he made had to be reconsidered or rolled back across the entire range of Kazakh related articles he edited. He repeatedly vandalised the Kazakh Armed Forces article to push his Turkic agenda, and he simply isn't the kind of editor this site needs. Now he appeared to have left the site, but we do not need or want his kind of editor here - for those kind of articles, we need effectively good researchers, dedicated to putting the facts as can be found out, without inflating or creating nonexistent armoured vehicles, fighters, removing truthful material that doesn't suit them, etc. I suppose I could have raised it to some sort of forum, but which? The wikiprojects on these countries are hardly visited, and the Milhist project has had an entire *page*/project which was dedicated a while back to remove outright falsities from articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Contest/2012_Cleanup_Campaign). In summary, he was not the kind of editor we need, and I didn't want his to come back. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Left a note at his talk page asking him to return here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, on the topic of admin threats, what are we going to do about Buckshots borderline violation (in spirit atleast) of WP:involved? A retraction of that remark would seem appropriate ★★RetroLord★★ 05:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Retrolord was removed sourced data from historical works by professional historians describing the evolution of the NZ Army in the 20th Century (specifically, encapsulations of the end of the coastal artillery capability). Entirely within the GNG, entirely valid, referenced data. Yes, in retrospect my behaviour was overhasty and intemperate - and I've learnt my lesson in this case, but surely you should at the very least be examining his conduct as well?
Did I actually block him? No. What I wanted him to do was to slow down and consider his edits, which had already been raised as borderline.Buckshot06 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)- I removed statements I believed to be a violation of WP:NPOV using WP:BOLD, you added it back. Some sections appear to be WP:RECENTISM (The M113 replacement section). In the end I dont think my actions were that bad at all. And they certainly do not excuse this sort of behaviour from an admin. As an admin, you are expected to be an upholder of wikipedias policies and guidelines, and should be familiar with such a basic rule as WP:INVOLVED. Making threats when you dont get your own way, because I made your article more neutral is 100% unacceptable.
Regarding the discussion above about the blocked user, his case seems somewhat similar to mine. You arbitrarily decided that Kamal44's contributions were not welcome, nor was he. You stated that "we do not need or want his kind of editor here" and that you "didn't want his to come back". Seems more like a punishment block, not a preventative one. Another example of sysop abuse from our friend Buckshot06. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is, in my considered opinion, misrepresentation. Under the edit summary 'Removed significant bias, unsourced facts', you actually removed the scored out sections below, including a reference:
- The 1957 National Government defence review directed the discontinuation of coastal defence training, and the approximately 1000 personnel of the 9th, 10th, and 11th Coastal Regiments Royal New Zealand Artillery had their Compulsory Military Training obligation removed.
A small cadre of regulars remained, but as Henderson, Green, and Cook say, 'the coastal artillery had quietly died.'[1] All the fixed guns were dismantled and sold for scrap by the early 1960s. - I will ask you again: how do you possibly consider this 'unsourced' or 'biased', and *why* did you remove this commentary by professional historians in the first place? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for cherry picking evidence and ignoring my post about the M113! I removed that part because I felt it was too colloquial and unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. I probably used the wrong edit summary tho. Feel free to rewrite the part or add it back if you disagree. Thanks for also ignoring everything I said about your behaviour as an admin. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, a retraction of your block threat would seem appropriate as it was a gross abuse of your administrator privileges. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am addressing exactly why I made the ill-considered threat you are referring to. Is that not what you wanted addressed? You removed considered opinions by professional historians. That kind of thing is *not* what is desired here: we want people adding such material. As to the M113 issue, as I explained to you on your talkpage, the section (again) was well-sourced (meeting the GNG), and completely appropriate (the history of the NZ Army's equipment). Just needs to be matched by sections, again as I explained on your talk page, on the artillery, the Valentines, the Walker Bulldogs, the Centurions, and the Scorpions (plus things like Mistral). Buckshot06 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note:Is there a better place to continue this discussion. Not the one about the NZ army article, as I have given up on ever getting a compromise out of Buckshot but a place to discuss his innapropriate actions and abuse of his admin privileges? An rfc perhaps? ★★RetroLord★★ 07:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say I'm staggered by this. You started this discussion talking about 'probably incorrect unsourced material', have admitted that this was incorrect twice based on the very sections (like M113s) that you raised, and you're not even considering admitting that you've walked very close to the line yourself. How many times do you have to have it explained to you that this is exactly why I censured you? Yes, my threat was ill-considered, and I should not have made it. I apologise. But surely you realise that the actions you took had already attracted adverse comment, and did so above, by User:Kurtis, who specifically said you'd be be likely to attract blocks if you removed sections of (well-referenced) text? Can you not realise that while the specific action (the block threat) was unwarranted, everything else was, and has been supported by other editors? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
From my perspective its all a bit irrelevant. Your the admin, not me. Its up to you to be the rolemodel, not me. Perhaps i made a mistake. But your an admin, you cant make mistakes like this. With your questionable block of the account mentioned above, your gross violation of WP:involved and abuse of admin privileges, it seems that you are the one walking "close to the line". ★★RetroLord★★ 08:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Buckshot has just apologised to you, so continuing on with the same complaints seems a bit pointless: if you have a broader concern about their conduct as an admin, start a WP:RFC/U. Your statement that you have no obligation to be a role model is a bit odd: all editors are expected to behave in a civil and productive fashion, and this is common sense (eg, don't do anything which wouldn't be considered good form at work/university). It's a shame that these edits weren't discussed on the NZ Army article's talk page - it's generally a good idea to discuss, or at least explain, significant changes to high profile articles such as this one. But that's water under the bridge and it seems time to move on. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply above. I am not sure how to respond to it yet and would rather see how more experienced editors see it. I have had a good look at your contributions and will admit to being impressed with your dedication. However, I do hold some quite serious concerns about your use of the block button. I am hoping you can explain your thinking behind these blocks as well.
- As I brought up above, Superzohar (talk · contribs) was given a warning block[30] for 24 hours because of this edit. The edit he was blocked for occured over three weeks before the block. I have a few questions. What is a warning block? Why was that edit considered vandalism and not a content dispute? Why was there no warning given to the user before issueing the block?
- 217.67.17.109 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 1 month for edit warring. They received no warnings and a quick look through their contributions revealed some positive edits.[31][32] I could not find any obvious edit warring, but given the timing of the block it may be because of their edits to Hungarian Air Force[33] A few more questions (some are the same as above). Where is the edit warring? Why no warning? Why protect the page and block the IP? Why is the block over two weeks since the incident?
I realise that this is going to come across accusatory, but I find these really concerning. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- In regards to the protection of the Hungarian Air Force Article, I imagine that it was sparked by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 117#Hungarian Air Force. There's been a long running problem with IP editors making dubious and/or entirely unreferenced edits which change the figures on the amount of equipment operated by the miltaries of former eastern bloc and developing countries. What was going on in the Hungarian Air Force article up to the point where protection was imposed (and not two weeks before as you imply) was entirely characteristic of this behaviour, and an intervention by Nigel Ish (talk · contribs) to encourage the use of reliable sources was totally unsuccessful (see Talk:Hungarian Air Force#Mi 24 Hind, not to mention the previous post in which an IP editor asked for the article to be protected). As such, protecting the article to stop this edit war was sensible. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- From WP:BLOCK "In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate." These blocks are well after the circumstances have been "cold." Is there some sort of sanction on these articles that give administrators a much wider degree of blocking then would normally be accepted? — raekyt 10:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I was more concerned about the block than the protection. If an article is protected, then blocking an ip seems redundent at the least. The only reason I can think of to block the ip was that buckshot thought he was the same as the other ips that had been edit warring or there was more than one article that the IP was edit warring over. FWIW wouldn't pending changes be ideal for these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you weren't particularly concerned about the protection, I'm not sure why you raised it as an issue (I completely agree with you on pending changes; from memory it was very helpful for these types of articles during its brief career). I note that 217.67.17.109 was engaging in pretty unhelpful behaviour immediately before the block - in these series of edits on 4 February he or she removed a reasonable reference from the Italian Air Force article for no apparent reason, and fiddled with the figure on the number of aircraft the air force operates in a way which isn't actually supported by the reference given (by my count, the World Air Forces report states that the force has 482 aircraft and not 470 as claimed by the editor - they appear to have changed the figure for one type of aircraft and then changed the total in the article accordingly, without actually consulting their claimed source for that total which doesn't support either figure). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because it gives the impression that blocking the ip was more about punishment than damage preventative. There may well be another reason beyond the edits to Hungarian Air Force to block the ip, I initially thought it might be that he thought it was Kamal44, but it is not obvious to me. Anyway, I think Buckshot is being a bit too heavy with the block button. While I understand he works in areas with strong nationalistic tendencies, maybe it would be better if he concentrates more on just using some form of article protection or asks someone else to look at these cases. AIRcorn (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Was there any attempt to educate the user through warnings or any communication before a month long block was issued? — raekyt 10:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure; that's a question for Buckshot (I personally would have given a stern warning or a short block, but this person may have a history under different IP addresses). My point is that it doesn't appear correct to refer to the matter as 'cold'. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- 75.18.250.149 (talk · contribs) and 193.52.208.105 (talk · contribs) were both blocked for 6 months. I didn't think it was normal practice to give six month blocks to IP addresses unless there was very good reason. It does seem that buckshot needs to read up on the blocking policy a bit. Polequant (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not normal but certainly not unusual, and I have seen IPs blocked for longer. GiantSnowman 10:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Are you just using this opportunity to take potshots? We don't usually indef IP's ... 6 months is not necessarily abnormal, depending on the circumstances. Potshots don't become you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a first time block? Where there is no long term history of vandalism? Better change what the blocking policy says then if these are not 'unusual' blocks. And no, I have never come across buckshot before. I don't want him desysopped. I want him to do the job he has been given properly. Concerns have been raised over his blocking, and looking through the log, the last 8 or 9 look dubious, either in blocking at all or in their length. This seems like a reasonable concern, but instead you accuse me or taking potshots. Brilliant response as ever. Polequant (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- 75.18.250.149 (talk · contribs) and 193.52.208.105 (talk · contribs) were both blocked for 6 months. I didn't think it was normal practice to give six month blocks to IP addresses unless there was very good reason. It does seem that buckshot needs to read up on the blocking policy a bit. Polequant (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure; that's a question for Buckshot (I personally would have given a stern warning or a short block, but this person may have a history under different IP addresses). My point is that it doesn't appear correct to refer to the matter as 'cold'. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you weren't particularly concerned about the protection, I'm not sure why you raised it as an issue (I completely agree with you on pending changes; from memory it was very helpful for these types of articles during its brief career). I note that 217.67.17.109 was engaging in pretty unhelpful behaviour immediately before the block - in these series of edits on 4 February he or she removed a reasonable reference from the Italian Air Force article for no apparent reason, and fiddled with the figure on the number of aircraft the air force operates in a way which isn't actually supported by the reference given (by my count, the World Air Forces report states that the force has 482 aircraft and not 470 as claimed by the editor - they appear to have changed the figure for one type of aircraft and then changed the total in the article accordingly, without actually consulting their claimed source for that total which doesn't support either figure). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Protected Disney (and other) films
Just HATting to WP:DENY recognition to a long term vandal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On December 28-30 2008 the (now retired) administrator Tanthalas39 indefinitely semi-protected ~50 Disney and Teletubby related articles with the protection summary "Persistent sock vandalism. Please consult me or User:Collectonian before unprotecting". As both the protecting administrator and User:Collectonian appear to have left the project, I bring it here. My normal course would be to request unprotection on all of these but I don't want to flood WP:RFPP on the chance that there is still a valid reason to keep them protected. I suspect that sock vandalism from four years ago has moved on, and all the pages could be unprotected (with the high profile pages re-protected if necessary through normal means). I think the salting Tanthalas enacted is fine, but the indefinite semi's without any current reason on a good portion of the List of Disney theatrical animated features seems unnecessary at this point. Thoughts? Crazynas t 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
|
What should be done with this category? No templates appear to be populating it anymore, so it would qualify for deletion under CSD G8. But DumbBOT keeps creating daily categories for this and the bot operator appears to be inactive (last edit October 2011)...— Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's supposed to be populated with images that have been tagged with {{nld}}. No clue why that's not happening. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- About a year ago, changes to the upload script made it very difficult to upload files here without specifying an acceptable license. As a result, I assume that essentially all files have a license on them (though the fraction with erroneous licenses might have increased). Once the backlog of unlicensed files was cleaned out, it is possible that there are essentially no unlicensed files left on Wikipedia. Of course, it is also possible that the bots or other tools looking for unlicensed files have simply stopped tagging them for some reason. So, my guess would be that the categories are empty because no files are being tagged {{nld}} any more. I tried it out and it looks like the tag still adds the category, so I'm assuming it just isn't being used anymore. Dragons flight (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's because I just added it. When I left the previous comment, the template wasn't adding the category. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although why exactly do we want two deletable image categories, one of which is a subset of the other? Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) already commented out the categories on the category itself. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because it exists, so it should be doing something. I've never particularly understood why we have both it and Category:Wikipedia files with missing copyright information, but the way the bot's going we can't get rid of it, so we might as well have it do something. It should definitely be G8-deleted once we can get the bot to stop creating subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although why exactly do we want two deletable image categories, one of which is a subset of the other? Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) already commented out the categories on the category itself. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's because I just added it. When I left the previous comment, the template wasn't adding the category. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- About a year ago, changes to the upload script made it very difficult to upload files here without specifying an acceptable license. As a result, I assume that essentially all files have a license on them (though the fraction with erroneous licenses might have increased). Once the backlog of unlicensed files was cleaned out, it is possible that there are essentially no unlicensed files left on Wikipedia. Of course, it is also possible that the bots or other tools looking for unlicensed files have simply stopped tagging them for some reason. So, my guess would be that the categories are empty because no files are being tagged {{nld}} any more. I tried it out and it looks like the tag still adds the category, so I'm assuming it just isn't being used anymore. Dragons flight (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree the Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag (populated by {{untagged}}) and the Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status (populated by {{no copyright information}} should be merged, as should be the templates themselves. (Why not simply redirect the one template to the other?) By the way, what we really ought to be doing is change WP:CSD to remove the 7-day waiting period for images that are uploaded with no source or copyright info at all. It is true that the number of such images, especially those with completely blank description pages, has dropped a lot since the introduction of the upload script a year ago, but a few such images still come through. In my experience, the number of potentially rescuable ones among them is absolutely negligible. If somebody goes out of their way to choose the old upload form to be able to upload an image without a tag, it always, always means it's a copyright violation. There's really no need to have all the bureaucratic costs of maintaining a waiting queue for these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not practical to merge them when we have a bot still creating all of them, but once we get it stopped, I would strongly support merger. Someone over at WP:BOTR has suggested adding these categories to the blacklist, so I've done it. This is the first time I've ever edited a regex page, so someone PLEASE check my edit as soon as possible! I'm guessing that # characters mark comments, so I've added it before what I want to be effective code; if I did it right, please remove the # character. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
CSD question
Does this qualify as a {{db-hoax}}? I'm hesitant since I think that content in the User namespace does not necessarily purport to be true / purport to convey fact in the way that content in the main namespace does. Insofar as user pages allow users a degree of self-expression, shouldn't our default assumption be that these sorts of things are just a bit of fun, rather than malicious misinformation? I know that at the top of WP:GCSD it says that the General criteria do apply to user pages (among other places); but, what I'm asking is, is that appropriate in the case of G3? It Is Me Here t / c 11:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's obviously false and obviously garbage. What's the problem? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that it's not an article, and so isn't necessarily trying to mislead anyone. See also the next edit: there do appear to be others who agree with me on this. It Is Me Here t / c 12:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Hoax" is slightly to narrow a perspective for G3. The litmus test I would use it - if the entire article text appeared in another page, even the most appropriate one for the topic, would you revert it as vandalism? We don't need that to sit for a week at AfD. However, I'm slightly more lenient on user pages. It might just be something they personally identify with and explains their behaviour on wiki. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- If someone replaced an article with "Ritchie333 is a thirtysomething software engineer, musician, road enthusiast and real ale drinker.", shortcuts, Zen details, etc., and a bunch of userboxes, I'd definitely revert it as vandalism, even though your userpage definitely is not vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my point. I was explaining what I would class as a G3, which this isn't. (Though I'm surprised you refrained to comment on "My favourite vandalism"....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- If someone replaced an article with "Ritchie333 is a thirtysomething software engineer, musician, road enthusiast and real ale drinker.", shortcuts, Zen details, etc., and a bunch of userboxes, I'd definitely revert it as vandalism, even though your userpage definitely is not vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Hoax" is slightly to narrow a perspective for G3. The litmus test I would use it - if the entire article text appeared in another page, even the most appropriate one for the topic, would you revert it as vandalism? We don't need that to sit for a week at AfD. However, I'm slightly more lenient on user pages. It might just be something they personally identify with and explains their behaviour on wiki. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that G3 shouldn't apply to that at the moment. If the editor proceeds to place that anywhere else in the future (if they haven't already been scared off by the tagging), it might qualify at that point, though. There was a recent discussion on the subject of G3s in userspace at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48#G3 clarification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not formatted as an article, it's not attempting to appear be an article, and it was not created/added to articlespace ... what's the issue? This situation is entirely different than User:Duke of Waltham, and I would say some rather extreme crow-eating apologies are due to the editor in this case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Was there a change in our child protection policy?
I don't have a recent example to link this to, it's just been something I've been wondering generally. In the past, it appeared that if young people posted their ages, they would be informed of the problems that could occur from posting their age and asked if they want it removed. Now we appear to be using a remove first and possibly ask questions later policy. Is this just a change in behavior or was policy changed sometime in the last year or so? Ryan Vesey 13:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy has the relevant statements; practice dictates that the response is left up to the discretion of the respondant. Children are advised of the policy and asked to remove mentions of their age and personal details; revision deletion and oversight may be used to enforce such requests as the situation calls for. I don't know that this has changed in policy or practice in many years. --Jayron32 14:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What Ryan may have encountered is "discretion" being rather wide-ranging. So for example, if someone claims to be twelve years old and posts their full name, date of birth and school name, it's not at all surprising for an oversighter to come along and zap all three pieces of information immediately. What is rather more surprising is if someone claims to be fifteen years old and posts their age in full years only, and that gets zapped without discussion. The use of discretion is not a huge problem, but it does cause confusion and/or annoyance sometimes. (The sillier side of me foresees a future in which 11-year-old admins go around using revdel against personal information on the userpages of 20-year-old editors, strictly for their own safety.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- As Demiurge says, it's less a matter of "the rules say we must nuke everything from orbit!" and more a matter of "Arbcom/oversight/admin discretion often tends to protect minors more aggressively than it may have in the past." At any rate, AN doesn't seem like the right venue to start an in-depth discussion of where the lines should be drawn, if that's what we need to do. Though I'm also not sure what would be the right venue, especially considering the potential BEANSiness of the issue - perhaps Wikipedia talk:Child protection or Wikipedia talk:Oversight? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What Ryan may have encountered is "discretion" being rather wide-ranging. So for example, if someone claims to be twelve years old and posts their full name, date of birth and school name, it's not at all surprising for an oversighter to come along and zap all three pieces of information immediately. What is rather more surprising is if someone claims to be fifteen years old and posts their age in full years only, and that gets zapped without discussion. The use of discretion is not a huge problem, but it does cause confusion and/or annoyance sometimes. (The sillier side of me foresees a future in which 11-year-old admins go around using revdel against personal information on the userpages of 20-year-old editors, strictly for their own safety.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you talking about WP:CHILDPROTECT then the change that I have noticed is that ArbCom is no longer enforcing the policy. I have yet to receive any response or action on my last report to them. An earlier case which I detailed in an offsite blog post was reported to ArbCom but the user was blocked not by ArbCom and only after an admin noticed my follow-up blog post talking about ArbCom's lack of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- On ArbCom's enforcement of the child protection policy, our position remains that the policy will be enforced without question in all credible cases. If we do not respond to an e-mail, it's likely we have forgotten to action the thread, and a reminder should be sent to us. If we do not receive a report at all (for instance, if the case is reported in an off-site blog post instead), then we cannot possibly action it because we have no official channels of contact other than our mailing list. On whether oversighters have been more rigorously removing self-references by apparent minors, I suppose we have, though I consider that—as has already been argued above—a natural development of previous convention and not contrary to the child protection policy. I have access to the oversight tool, and for my own part (I can't speak for the other oversighters) I will always remove personal information published by apparent minors—and tell them about it afterwards. The possibility that the information could be used by a predator is, to me, too much of a risk to justify doing anything else in the cases I come across. AGK [•] 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen a recent incident on a talk page where an editor complained he didn't get a reply from Arbcom, though in that instance he wanted to know about some Arb action that he wasn't involved with, so I thought a lack of response was understandable in that context as an extension of WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- AGK, do you think that "If we do not respond to an e-mail, it's likely we have forgotten to action the thread" is an acceptable excuse for ignoring reports of pro-pedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia? Is that an indication of how seriously you take such reports? In my case, I sent a reminder message to ArbCom just in case my first message had gone astray. No response to either message. Although I am limited in what I can say here, the case to which I refer concerns an editor that I have previously reported to ArbCom. My blog post is a reiteration of what I reported to ArbCom at the time with the addition of other evidence. I sent you enough information to know which user was involved and sent you a link to the blog post. I have no doubt that the post has been read by at least one member of ArbCom. With your permission I will post the link here, if you think it will help. Perhaps someone can cut-and-paste it into an email so that you won't have to click on a link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- We didn't ignore the report; the Committee did not see any reason to take further action. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you clarify which report you "didn't ignore" - was it the first one (who was indef blocked under the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy by an admin not in ArbCom), or the second one (who remains unblocked)? How is one to know whether you have declined to action a report, are ignoring a report, or, as AGK suggests, have simply "forgotten to action" it if you do not respond to such reports. I know you much get a lot of email, but I like to think that my record of productive collaboration with ArbCom should entitle me to at least a reply telling me that you're not doing anything. Why do you think I started posting these reports on Wikipediocracy's blog? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those weren't rhetorical questions - who's next up on the ArbCom wheel of hit-and-run communications? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone is actually interested in this topic, discussion is now split between here and the ArbCom talk page (although I would prefer that Arbs answer here, where more editors may see it). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those weren't rhetorical questions - who's next up on the ArbCom wheel of hit-and-run communications? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you clarify which report you "didn't ignore" - was it the first one (who was indef blocked under the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy by an admin not in ArbCom), or the second one (who remains unblocked)? How is one to know whether you have declined to action a report, are ignoring a report, or, as AGK suggests, have simply "forgotten to action" it if you do not respond to such reports. I know you much get a lot of email, but I like to think that my record of productive collaboration with ArbCom should entitle me to at least a reply telling me that you're not doing anything. Why do you think I started posting these reports on Wikipediocracy's blog? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- We didn't ignore the report; the Committee did not see any reason to take further action. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The situation as I read it is that ARBCOM found that the community was undecided, and that continued work was needed on the policy, but it seems that work did not continue: the community dropped the ball -- for six years. This is not a situation that should be permitted to continue indefinitely. The real question is how to move forward to a clear policy that is effective, usable, and supported by both the community and the Foundation. Is this a matter for discussion at VPP or should it go to the calmer space at Meta? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- As an oversighter, I usually remove personal information posted by minors. Usually the information is wholly inappropriate; however, if someone who is technically a minor, but seems reasonably mature posts general information such as I'm a student in high school and live in Newport, R.I. and am interested in nautical history, I might decline. If the minor is posting silly stuff, such as their phone number, or whether they are looking for a boy friend, oversight is done. Which is to say, the nature of what is posted gives lots of information about the maturity of the minor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, you're using your brains and judgement? Isn't that grounds for de-sysopping around here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a stupid question, but...
Why does Wikipedia:Child protection encourage us to report potential child endangerment to ArbCom rather than to the WMF? 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- My guess is that the WMF wants to wash their hands of it so there is no legal trouble. If they take full responsibility of potential child endangerment, they become liable for any mistakes they make/actions they don't take. That's just a guess though. Ryan Vesey 18:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't a stupid question at all. NuclearWarfare, one of the newest Arbs, recently opined "The child abuse and other private stuff I think we should entirely not be handling at all; that should be the WMF's domain". The WMF have already acted in this capacity - they globally banned a user when it looked like the Commons community was unwilling or unable to do so. Personally, I don't care who does it so long as someone does it. I am deeply unsatisfied with ArbCom's performance in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- With only two people available WMF is prepared to enforce decisions the Arbitration Committee has made but is not able to fully investigate allegations regarding troublesome edits or editors. It is possible the volunteer Arbitration Committee is also not able to fully discharge this responsibility, particularly if its members were elected on the understanding that engaging in such heroic and risky efforts is not within the remit of the Committee. However, in extreme cases action needs to be taken; luckily extreme cases are usually obvious. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't a stupid question at all. NuclearWarfare, one of the newest Arbs, recently opined "The child abuse and other private stuff I think we should entirely not be handling at all; that should be the WMF's domain". The WMF have already acted in this capacity - they globally banned a user when it looked like the Commons community was unwilling or unable to do so. Personally, I don't care who does it so long as someone does it. I am deeply unsatisfied with ArbCom's performance in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- While I think it's probably a good approach to leave the deletion of unwisely-posted personal information to the volunteer staff, I don't think volunteers should be asked to deal with predators, stalkers or other nutjobs. That should be left to paid professionals who are accountable, understand how to work with law enforcement, and above all compensated for doing what is after all a rather unpleasant job. It's not as if the WMF can't afford to staff a department for that purpose. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- While I don't disagree with you on that, SB Johnny, the reality is that for the moment we're stuck - WMF doesn't have the staff to do it, and for whatever reasons of budgeting and prioritization, they're not willing and/or able to hire the staff to do it. Which leaves...well, arbcom and the functionaries, pretty much, with the backup of random community members as far as reporting issues. It ain't fun for anyone, but it's what we've got to work with for now unless/until the WMF magically hires professionals to do the work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What's even more concerning is that the English Wikipedia is the only site making efforts to protect children; none of the other WMF sites are covered by this, at least to my knowledge. --Rschen7754 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite right. It is difficult to get anyone to make clear statements about this issue, but WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner said "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false" in response to a Fox News story entitled "Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia". Commons has a proposed policy but in my opinion it is unlikely that it will ever become more than proposed until there is a major shift in the Commons community. There is also a proposed policy on Meta, which would cover all WMF projects. This will never move beyond proposal stage because, as I have been told in so many words, there is no procedure agreed for moving something from proposal to policy. Sue Gardner's statements would suggest that such a policy is already in place, albeit in an undocumented and haphazardly upheld way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Specifically I am relating to the posting of too much information by minors, which only the English Wikipedia has policies regarding (as I have been told by a steward). --Rschen7754 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misunderstood which policy you were referencing. I agree that all projects should be mindful of children posting inappropriate information about themselves and it would be nice to see the WMF act to rectify this situation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Specifically I am relating to the posting of too much information by minors, which only the English Wikipedia has policies regarding (as I have been told by a steward). --Rschen7754 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite right. It is difficult to get anyone to make clear statements about this issue, but WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner said "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false" in response to a Fox News story entitled "Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia". Commons has a proposed policy but in my opinion it is unlikely that it will ever become more than proposed until there is a major shift in the Commons community. There is also a proposed policy on Meta, which would cover all WMF projects. This will never move beyond proposal stage because, as I have been told in so many words, there is no procedure agreed for moving something from proposal to policy. Sue Gardner's statements would suggest that such a policy is already in place, albeit in an undocumented and haphazardly upheld way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What's even more concerning is that the English Wikipedia is the only site making efforts to protect children; none of the other WMF sites are covered by this, at least to my knowledge. --Rschen7754 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- While I don't disagree with you on that, SB Johnny, the reality is that for the moment we're stuck - WMF doesn't have the staff to do it, and for whatever reasons of budgeting and prioritization, they're not willing and/or able to hire the staff to do it. Which leaves...well, arbcom and the functionaries, pretty much, with the backup of random community members as far as reporting issues. It ain't fun for anyone, but it's what we've got to work with for now unless/until the WMF magically hires professionals to do the work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- WMF seems to have the concept that English Wikipedia capable of managing itself. NE Ent 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
As an oversighter I can tell you that we remove material under the heading "self-disclosure by an apparent minor" on a daily basis. I don't have any statstics but in my experience it is one of the most common suppression actions. Kids who are brought up using Facebook don't seem to get that there are built-in protections for minors on Facebook that are not present here, and that it is a really, really bad idea to post your age, name, what school you go to, etc. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Meta to actually do something either, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Block removal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a formal request to switch accounts. For privacy reasons it is not possible for me to edit certain topics from this account. Normally I just use an alternate account per policy, but until the restriction limiting me to one account I will need to flip accounts every two months. So now that I am caught up on the solar accounts, what I need to have done is to unblock Delphi234 and indef block Apteva. This same flip will be done every two months until the restriction is lifted. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Changing back-and-forth between accounts? It would be better to have one of them deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to people looking at this request if you can provide links to the current implementation of any community or arbcom restrictions you're under. An explanation of how "flipping" accounts on a regular schedule will help your privacy would also be good. Without that information, it's difficult to evaluate what you want or whether it's grantable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No - choose one account and edit from it, we will not be blocking & unblocking your two accounts wvery few months because you want to edit something different. I have asked this multiple times, and never received a satisfactory answer - why do you need two accounts? What are these "privacy reasons" which means you must have two accounts? GiantSnowman 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Count me in as confused also. How on Earth does this request make any sense? You are requesting, for privacy reasons, to switch back and forth between accounts? --Onorem♠Dil 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your last block (for 2 weeks not quite a month ago) was for violating a topic ban. You say, "So now that I am caught up on the solar accounts, what I need to have done is to unblock Delphi234 and indef block Apteva." Are you topic banned and thinking that the ban only applies to the account name instead of to you? Which name you use doesn't matter. YOU are topic banned. --Onorem♠Dil 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you can consider this request denied. It is utter nonsense, per all the above remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No and no. You're restricted to one account. Flipping between two accounts is, even if not simultaneously, using two accounts. Besides this I'm not convinced that this privacy spiel is the genuine reason behind the request, and even if it is I'm yet to see any evidence as to why it's necessary. And even if the above were not true, I can't see how it would help, as there is no way you're going to be allowed to edit from either account without it being tied publicly to the other. Like beeblebrox said, I think you should consider this stuff about being allowed two accounts over. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Like the others, I don't particularly see how this would help anything. I would be willing to support permitting the use of a second account for password-safety reasons only (i.e. something like "Apteva alternate" for use on public computers, so keyloggers wouldn't be able to steal your main account's password), but that's the only reason I'd see myself supporting relaxing the current restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- For anyone who understands how alternate accounts are used properly, the sequence is this. If everyone used their real name for editing there would be less need for alternate accounts, and the only need would basically be for test purposes and for logging in from a location that could easily be compromised, such as a public wi-fi network or computer. Doing that though would eliminate a lot of contributors, such as myself, who edit solely on the basis of anonymity. However, that means that certain edits can not be made from the same account, and that is the main reason that I use an alternate account and the only reason that I am making this request. Sure I have no problem doing lots of solar edits, but it is impossible for me for privacy reasons for doing certain other edits, and the unintened consequence of this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account was that a large portion of my edits have vanished. No one intended that to happen, and there are two options. Remove the restriction or switch accounts. If anyone wants to follow me around and check all my edits they are welcome to, but there is no possibility that any problem will be found, and such wiki-hounding is not recommended. In case anyone wonders, yes the topic ban applies to the person not the account, so the letter K ban would apply to Delphi234. Apteva (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your accounts are already publicly linked. Switching back and forth on which one is blocked doesn't do anything. Pick one and go with it. --Onorem♠Dil 21:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- "For anyone who understands how alternate accounts are used properly," - People who understand how they are used properly generally aren't restricted from having them. What difference does it make which account you use to make which edits when they are linked already? --Onorem♠Dil 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, and restricting me is pointless, but I can not appeal the restriction until a more appropriate time has passed. But what I can do is ask that the accounts be flipped. Presumably everyone will get tired of this request and just remove the restriction. Apteva (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let me see if I understand your reasoning correctly: You have two accounts, X and Y. For privacy reasons you can't disclose, you feel that account X can't edit in topic area T (and perhaps account Y can't edit in topic area Q). However, you're also restricted to using one account. You're interpreting that as "one account at any one time", and your solution is to repeatedly switch accounts - for two months, you'd use account X and edit topic T; then for two months you'd use account Y and edit topic area Q. If that's a correct interpretation of what you're asking to be allowed to do, I'm going to have to agree with all the other naysayers here. One-account restrictions are put in place to limit a user to one account; serial account swapping doesn't pay off to the community in cases like this, and usually confuses issues rather than calming them. If you feel that your privacy doesn't allow for you to edit in topic area T, the solution is to avoid T, not try to slip around that by using another account. And asking solely to tire us out so that we eventually say yes is...well, let's just say it's not the greates plan. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two months was chosen because most of the data that I use for updating the articles is released once a month and the ones not updated would only be out of date one month if I flipped them once every two months. The privacy reason is specified - that my real world identity is compromised, and that is not only allowed by Wikipedia, but it is required - I would not edit unless I was able to maintain that anonymity. I am not asking to tire anyone out. I have a topic ban and while it is in effect the single account restriction was applied, although, that was not necessary and has unintended consequences, and was not a good idea. Presumably in six months all restrictions can be removed, including the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let me see if I understand your reasoning correctly: You have two accounts, X and Y. For privacy reasons you can't disclose, you feel that account X can't edit in topic area T (and perhaps account Y can't edit in topic area Q). However, you're also restricted to using one account. You're interpreting that as "one account at any one time", and your solution is to repeatedly switch accounts - for two months, you'd use account X and edit topic T; then for two months you'd use account Y and edit topic area Q. If that's a correct interpretation of what you're asking to be allowed to do, I'm going to have to agree with all the other naysayers here. One-account restrictions are put in place to limit a user to one account; serial account swapping doesn't pay off to the community in cases like this, and usually confuses issues rather than calming them. If you feel that your privacy doesn't allow for you to edit in topic area T, the solution is to avoid T, not try to slip around that by using another account. And asking solely to tire us out so that we eventually say yes is...well, let's just say it's not the greates plan. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, and restricting me is pointless, but I can not appeal the restriction until a more appropriate time has passed. But what I can do is ask that the accounts be flipped. Presumably everyone will get tired of this request and just remove the restriction. Apteva (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the privacy argument. If we all know that both accounts are the same person, then how does having two accounts help you in any way? --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- We is not who I am concerned about! Of course I know who I am and of course some people can figure out that I am editing under both accounts, but not the vast majority of readers! The fact that an editor can be outed is not important. What is important is that they not be publicly outed, as it usually means they will choose to forever stop editing WP. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The only way I can see that this makes any sense is if Apteva told someone else in real life that they were Apteva, but not about Delphi234, and Apteva doesn't want said real-life person to know about the edits that they'd make as Delphi234. If so, it sounds like a case of "Apteva's problem, not ours", to be honest. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No that is not what it is, and Apteva's problem becomes Wikipedia's problem if it interferes with Apteva's ability to edit Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- "For privacy reasons it is not possible for me to edit certain topics from this account." Then this really is just you own problem and not Wikipedia's. While I am all for taking any privacy issue seriously, this seems to be about your concerns about editing "certain" topics as Apteva and for some reason that seems a bit like a red flag.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why would it be a red flag? It is one of the fundamental reasons that alternate accounts are allowed. I can either switch accounts or stop editing those subjects. Stopping is not a beneficial result. We are already losing editors at an asymptotic rate and I have no intention of being one of them. Apteva (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- "For privacy reasons it is not possible for me to edit certain topics from this account." Then this really is just you own problem and not Wikipedia's. While I am all for taking any privacy issue seriously, this seems to be about your concerns about editing "certain" topics as Apteva and for some reason that seems a bit like a red flag.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No that is not what it is, and Apteva's problem becomes Wikipedia's problem if it interferes with Apteva's ability to edit Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Silly, and Wikipedia's loss. This is frankly more than absurd. Apteva (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
unblock review: User talk:Chutznik
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chutznik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user was indeffed blocked for a gross violation of WP:OUTING, as well as vandalism and socking. There is basically no doubt that they did these things as part of the problem was them bragging about it at Wikipedia Review. They are requesting an unblock, the reasoning is on their talk page, but basically it is a standard offer request. It appears they have not been socking in the last several months and they are admitting to the wrongdoing of the past and promising not to repeat any of it, ever. I feel like this is the type of situation that should not be handled by one admin and am therefore soliciting broader input on the matter here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Beeblebrox. Let me add a couple of points. First of all, in past discussions it has been said that I don't understand why I was blocked. This is false. I was blocked because I made an edit as Throwaway666 (talk · contribs) where the content of the edit was "The result of the [AFD] debate was [f___] you," and the edit summary was "Majorly's real name is [name]." I also made other edits around that time nine months ago from other sockpuppets that violated policies against vandalism and harassment. For everything I did wrong, I apologize to Majorly, to Sandstein, to the community at large, and to the individual editors who had to undo the damage I caused. Having done many hours of vandalism patrol, I recognize what a burden every vandalism edit places upon experienced editors whose time would be better spent improving articles. I was under stress in real life at the time I made those edits, but that is no defense. In the future, when I am under stress, I simply will not edit Wikipedia, or if I do, I will edit within policy.
- Second, EdJohnston pointed out in the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard three months ago that he would like to see an explanation of what I would do if I were unblocked. As a long-time editor (since November 2005) with 30,000+ edits, I should not need to explain what I have to offer. Nevertheless, I will. I am a law school student, so I might contribute in articles related to American law. Also, I am experienced at Wiki=gnoming, such as adding categories to uncategorized pages. I will not be editing every day or even every month, but I would like to come here once in a while to add content or to build the web by categorizing pages. I also have experience in community affairs such as RFCs and noticeboards, and would contribute there on occasion.
- Third, an unblock discussion is not a Request for Adminship. Some users said in the previous discussion that they don't trust me not to create sockpuppets and vandalize again. I'm not sure how to respond to that, but I'll try this: you don't have to trust me. You just have to impose the restriction (no sockpuppets, no vandalism), and I am fully aware of the consequences if I violate the restriction (another indef-block, and this time I may never get out of it). Consider the risk-benefit ratio. The risk is perhaps one chance in a hundred that I will go crazy and vandalize again, and someone will have to revert the vandalism and block the offending account. Although this is not a good thing, I wish to remind you that administrators on Wikipedia deal with this type of situation literally every hour of every day. Conversely, the benefit is that I may contribute hundreds or even thousands of productive edits to Wikipedia in the coming months and years. Unblocking me would be on the same rationale that we allow unregistered users to edit; each individual editor probably will not vandalize, and if they do, it's worth it to allow the vandalism to get the benefit of the positive contributions that come from unregistered editors. Just to be clear, I promise never to vandalize again, but if you don't trust me to keep that promise, you can fall back on the risk-benefit calculus. Chutznik (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Based on the premise there's been no socking, support unblocking. NE Ent 21:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can't fault his logic. Support unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I remember nothing of this, but since I'm mentioned, I appear to have been somehow involved? Anyway, this is one of the relatively few apparently sincere and useful unblock requests I've ever seen, and on that basis I suppose we can lift the block as probably no longer needed for preventive purposes. That is, provided that the people affected by the outing are notified and have no objection. Sandstein 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with NE, Wehwalt and Sandstein; it's worth a shot. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: it appears you had just relisted the AFD just before the outing/socking/vandalizing inciddent. The user who was outed was actually already inactive well before this incident so unless they pulled a clean start or something they are probably completely unaware of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support unblock with the understanding that future misbehavior will result in an indef block that will be a lot harder to get overturned. Should probably include a one-account restriction as well. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 00:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry, and normally I'm a huge proponent of "anyone can edit", but there's just something here that feels wrong to me. I feel like we're getting played. I won't bother debating the issue, and on general principle I applaud giving a person a second chance - but my gut feeling here is "trouble waiting to happen". Sorry. I'm good with wp:rope and all, so I guess we'll see what happens. — Ched : ? 01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Non admin support Everyone deserves the standard offer and this appears to be VERY genuine to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
We've recently seen a successful RFA from a user who previously had a "dark period". It shows that people can reform. On this basis, plus reading the comments above and looking at their sock-puppet investigations, I've gone out on a limb and unblocked him. An optimist on the run! 06:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a heavy backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Mopers Moppers (AKA admins) needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I trust that you mean "moppers" as opposed to "mopers".... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, fixed. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dang. I'm really good at moping. I thought my hour had arrived ;) The Interior (Talk) 02:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh well. Thanks for noticin' me. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dang. I'm really good at moping. I thought my hour had arrived ;) The Interior (Talk) 02:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, fixed. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Move this page please
Talk:List_of_cysts_of_the_jaws#Requested move
Thanks. Lesion (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please wait for consensus to be established at the RM discussion. GiantSnowman 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem might be that Lesion didn't know that if you genuinely believe a move is uncontroversial, you can just be bold and move it yourself. WP:RM is more for moves that might be disputed. This looks uncontroversial to me, and the editor who has dramatically expanded the page in the last couple of days agrees with the move, so I'm inclined to just close the RM as unnecessary and move the page, and on the 1% chance someone disagrees, they can move it back and discuss it some more. But I've used up my "unilaterally overrule another admin" tokens for February. GS, while you're technically right, do you care if I IAR/BURO this one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Oh no!! now I have to figure out how to close a requested move! Thanks GS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I see they needed an admin's help anyway, as the target had a short history due to a previous double redirect. All done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Lesion (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
What to do in this case
There is a content dispute, we are unable to resolve in the talk page, the other party does not accept any type of mediated dispute resolution mechanism. What could be done in such a case? (Sorry if this is not the correct place to ask, I tried WP:EA but no useful suggestion came up.) Filanca (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- A few ideas: Ask for a third opinion; leave notes on relevant Wikiproject noticeboards to ask for more opinions; open a thread at WP:DRN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- see the section called "POV Pushing" for more background on this KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 If you are referring to this, then the other party does not need to accept an RFC if you do it on the article rather than the editor. Place an RFC notice on the talk page per the instructions here. Remember if it does not go your way, life still goes on. Rgrds. --64.85.217.110 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- ( Facepalm) I forgot WP:RFC, which is kind of Dispute Resolution 101. Thanks, 64.*. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since the other party strictly refuses to bring the issue to any sort of mediation, WP:DRN will not be a solution. RFC seem to be a good mechanism which does not require consent of both parties. I suspect WP:3O may still need cooperation from the other side. Thank you all. Filanca (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism block
Could someone please add a schoolblock template to User Talk:204.109.64.203? For some reason the virtual keyboard on my tablet has decided to not let me type curly brackets. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ta. Back on a proper keyboard now :) Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend purchasing a wireless keyboard if you plan to edit WP from a tablet. It will save you hundreds of additional keystrokes with that virtual keyboard, and you can always turn it off if you don't want to carry it with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Forgot password, didn't register email address in preferences
Is there any way to reset password if I provide an email address?
Thanks, Regushee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.191.6 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you're screwed and will have to start over with a new account. There is basically no way to confirm you are the owner of the account at this point. I'd go ahead and provide an email address when registering this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's technically doable, yes, but from what I've heard the sysadmins are reluctant to change passwords, and you need ironclad evidence that you're the same person who originally controlled the account. The simpler option is to request that a bureaucrat usurp your account and give you the name back... but that would still require some sort of proof. Did you ever:
- Disclose your real-world identity?
- Acknowledge an IP address you'd used?
- Link your account to a profile on another website?
- Meet a fellow (highly trusted) Wikipedian in person?
- — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just as a precaution, I left this message. A similar case can be seen at User talk:AGK/Archive/76#Checkuser me?. Ryan Vesey 07:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Hendrson, Green, and Cook, 2008, 374.