Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Are you in the right place? Using this page
Shortcuts:
  • This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
  • Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion.
  • You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.
    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.
  • If no comments have been made within 48 hours, your post and any responses will be automatically archived.
  • Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~".
  • If discussion is already ongoing elsewhere or if there is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and put a short note with a link to the relevant location on this page.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, please place your comments on this page and they will be addressed.
What these pages are not

These pages are not the place to raise content disputes or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.

Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page and note that messages which egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.
Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages


Certified pages

General
See also
Click here to start a new discussion thread
Archives This page is automatically archived by Cluebot III. Threads with no replies in 48 hours may be automatically moved.

Contents



[edit] Requests for closure

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.


[edit] Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?

This has been open for a couple of months now, partly because of a long wait for a foundation legal opinion, but discussion has pretty much stopped and this needs closing. I started it so am involved and Moonriddengirl was involved in her WMF role so can't close either. I'd hope to be able to find a image copyright admin to talk a look but a post to WP:MCQ has yielded no responses so bringing here. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness Shines

This discussion is inactive since Monday and I think it can be closed now. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This report is stale now and so are the proposals. Don't see a consensus there for an action as wide as a topic ban or anything else. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages and its sub-proposals? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a Bugzilla request? Cunard (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Clouding_of_consciousness#Should_Clouding_of_Consciousness_Be_Merged.3F

RfC on merge, please assist in closing. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Anti-Pakistan_sentiment#Request_for_comment

Would someone be so kind as to close out this RFC? [1] Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:FTN#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?

Could someone close this RfC? It's rather malformed, being put on the main noticeboard, instead of the talkpage, and seems to have fairly clear consensus. 86.** IP (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge

Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge?--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Armed_Forces_of_the_Libyan_Arab_Jamahiriya#Requested_move_2

Discussion has been inactive for 9 days now, opponent was presented with edited solution on which he never reacted and nor have anyone else. One way or another, since no editor which never participated in similiar discussion has been found, could you close the request? Thank you. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move?

I don't know if the nominator and administrator User:Tenebrae (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is acting on good faith or not, but look at the comments he made toward me and others. Look at what he did to my Block History before I moved it to my talk page. Look at the comments in User talk:Elen of the Roads#User:George Ho/Block History#Blackmark. Look at the comments in User talk:Tenebrae. Seriously, even with the consensus over significance and stuff, I am not sure if the discussion can go on any longer. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol declined.svg Declined - Requested moves have a seven-day waiting period. The discussion has gotten a little hot, but that happens all the time on Wikipedia, and the closing administrator can gauge consensus in spite of any bad faith, assumptions of bad faith, ad hominems, etc. that occur on the page. If you become offended by anything said on the page, then simply ignore it because administrators are usually smart enough to see through it even without a rebuttal on your part. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:2006 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties timeline#Merger

The proposal is standing for a couple of years already.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 13#Healthcare_by_subdivision_of_the_United_States

Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 14#Category:Old_Etonians

Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 15#Category:Old_Harrovians

Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 17#Old_Carthusians.2C_Salopians.2C_and_Wykehamists

Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Category:Aerospace_journals

Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Some_X_people_by_Kurdish-descent_categories

Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 29#Template:Technical

The consensus unanimously opposed this proposal, and I bet many more will oppose. Odds of supporting this proposal may be none. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Tai chi

This has been awaiting closure for over a month and it's been about a week and a half since the last comment. I've taken part in the discussion so can't close it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Woody Interruptus#Merger discussion

There are three oppositions and two supports. However, opposition begs chances, while supporters do not want to give chances. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Radical_right#RfC:_Should_the_article_mention_the_Tea_Party

Does not appear to be anywhere near a close result - but would an unilvlved admin kindly close it? 3 appear to consider the Tea Party to be properly mentioned (even if it is not deemed Radical Right) while 11 deem it improperly in the article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Mike

New user Admarkroundsquare (talk · contribs) uploaded a new logo for Round Square and explained at the help desk that he works for the organisation and asked for help updating the article with new information and the new logo. So Orangemike (talk · contribs) blocked him without discussion and slapped an offensive template on his user page.

This seems inappropriate to me. Is this the way admins typically treat new users? Do you, as a group, approve of this kind of behaviour? I've notified Mike of this discussion. I haven't discussed it with him because he clearly thinks it's OK and I'm actually interested in what the admin community thinks. I'm not looking for any action, just opinions (unless there's a pattern of rudeness). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion, Anthony; I am not even remotely offended. My reasoning was that the username Admarkroundsquare was clearly for advertising and marketing of Round Square, and thus was inappropriate. I will readily acknowledge that I am not hospitable towards advertising and marketing in Wikipedia, but did not think my actions were out of line. That "offensive template" was designed by Wikipedia's user interaction gurus, not by me, and is the standard template for spamusernames. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue at hand is not really blocking the editor, but your attitude in dealing with these people. Which is problematic IMO. --Errant (chat!) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • People with undisclosed but obvious affiliations edit articles like this every day, I see it all the time. If he was less honest, he wouldn't have disclosed it like most. I always like it when editors disclose it honestly.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Mike has a particular... view.. of editors associated with organisations or their own biographies - which is that they are bad people, here for a nefarious agenda and must be immediately blocked with prejudice or put in their place. Part of the problem is that block notice (not his fault) which doesn't help explain the issue at hand to what is probably a well meaning individual who doesn't know how things work. But then we also have this from earlier today - Wikipedia:BLP/N#Keith_Gary - in which he bites heavily at a new editor on the basis of reading "my Wikipedia page" as asserting some kind of ownership. I've recently noted Mike's work through a recent AN/I and I have quite a lot of concerns about how he deals with COI, BLP subjects etc. as well as possible issues with content he is adding in his own topic field. An RFC/U might be in order, although it would be nice to see his response to these concerns. -Errant (chat!) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
content he is adding in his own topic field???? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
We'll deal with that in a moment. But reviewing the block procedures; why did you use a "bad faith" template for an account that has tried (and failed) to update their logo, then asked for help on the helpdesk? Certainly the username was wrong, but why not use {{Uw-softerblock}} in the absence of any actual promotional editing? --Errant (chat!) 12:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ummm... "How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo." isn't promotional? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Misguided, sure. Aiming to be promotional. But assuming they can't have WP:NPOV explained to them is a succinct failure of assume good faith. --Errant (chat!) 12:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's a username block, and the username does contain the name of the organization. The discussion of COI seems relatively neutral. I don't see this as horrible. Possibly a little more tact was in order, but that's arguable.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I will readily concede that I have low tolerance towards paid editors and the entire COI/PR/spindoctor industry (which seems to have us targeted for conquest or destruction, if we don't yield to their demands). On the flip side of WP:AGF, I will point out that it was at my instigation that we created the {{causeblock}} template, for the clueless well-intentioned advocate who creates an account in the name of their cause or not-for-profit organization, but is not spamming Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a simple case of WP:ORGNAME. User had a clearly promotional username and was engaging in promotional activity. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME says:

  • Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
  • Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. (emphasis not mine)

This editor did not make any problematic edits. In fact, they don't have a single edit in article space. Also, how is a newbie supposed to know about WP:ORGNAME? I've been on Wikipedia for 2-3 years now, and I've never seen that policy before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the guy made it clear that he was here to construct a page for his company. Again, Advertising and Marketing. WP:NOTAD. The fact that you are ignorant of the relevant policy is really quite meaningless. I have been around for around the same amount of time and have known about it for quite a while. Spend a couple months patrolling new pages and recent changes and you'll learn these ropes right quick. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I think your response here rather highlights the problem... A new user is always ignorant of policy; treating them as a criminal rather than trying to educate them is simply bad faith. So what if they are here to market their company/organisation - doesn't make them a bad person incapable of changing. I hope to god you don't patrol new pages with that sort of attitude. --Errant (chat!) 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This particular block I find to be justifiably "preventative". As outlined before, policy is pretty clear on promotional behaviour and usernames. If the guy is such a "good person", then why don't you go and suggest that he change his username and mentor him on policy? If you're right, then he should warm right up to it. As for myself, I grew tired of NPP about a year ago, to an extent because of PR guys like this one. I'm not buying your line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Furthermore, speculations on whether or not an editor is a "good person" or "bad person" are really quite irrelevant. Such wishy-washy subjective labels are not part of the workings of this site. I have never seen a block that says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because you are a bad, bad person." I am sure that many vandals, POV-pushers, and even banned users are great guys/gals in real life—they just cause issues for the functioning of the project. Character evaluations are utterly meaningless. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not understanding how {{softerblock}} is considered offensive – especially since it starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia", and kindly tells to "please take a moment to create a new account". --MuZemike 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike originally placed {{Uw-spamublock}} on the user's talk page and it has since been replaced with {{softerblock}}, so it was the spamublock template that was referred to as offensive. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see why: We usually do that to direct users who have already made edits to change their username so that they get to keep their contribs when switching to another username (normally via WP:CHU); {{softerblock}} is more intended when there are no contribs under the username (or they have all been deleted) and when it would be easier for that person to simply create another account on his/her own without our assistance, unlike the other username blocks. --MuZemike 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is now a non-issue, as the original {{Uw-spamublock}} has been replaced with {{softerblock}}. There is no evidence that the user even saw the harder block template—it was up for less than 24 hours—so the slightly too-harsh response by Orangemike is old news. Orangemike should be forgiven this very minor blip which was only a matter of degree of response. I am 100% supportive of anyone who stands between PR agents and Wikipedia, to make it more difficult to turn the encyclopedia into a promotional tool. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The block and the {{Uw-spamublock}} block notification template were appropriate. Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia, and the username indicates that this was the account's purpose. I do not see the problem here.  Sandstein  17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    You might think that, but that's not what WP:ORGNAME says. If this is the new community concensus, then someone should make following changes:
  • Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The block was itself valid. So what would've happened if the guy had a non-promotional username and posted "Hey, this company's logo changed, see the link here", would we have blocked him immediately with a bad faith template? That's where I have trouble with this one. I think we can block, advise them why (and a template does not work well for this) and still accept valid, correct information. Someone says that an article is out of date, getting blocked doesn't mean they're wrong. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to agree with Ultra on this one. I prefer the ErrantX approach much better. I'm not saying the block was wrong - but, if you're not "not hospitable" toward a particular group of new editors, then take a break from that area for a while. No need to wp:bite someone just because they don't know the rules. Personally I think admins. should strive to achieve higher standards than that. The guy/gal wants to update a logo, and we slap him with some "you're outta here" template? We can do better, and we should. — Ched :  ?  18:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, clearly User:Orangemike has declared a strength of opinion in this area that makes his use of tools in the area totally inappropriate - if you can't stay unemotional in a sector then stop policing it - Here is the user Orangemike very recently immediately attacking a user after a very good faith request to contribute a picture after the user opened a good faith thread at the BLPN noticeboard - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Keith_Gary - Youreallycan 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I object strongly to that categorization. The user talked about an article about himself as if it was his MySpace or Facebook page, in language that implied ownership of the article; I firmly stated that the article was just that: an article, not a "page". It is him, but is not his' and is not under his control. That is not an attack in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You can strongly object all you like. Anyone is able to look at that discussion - you started on an attack position not a welcome one - you assumed a lack of good faith - you attacked , you didn't show any good faith or welcome at all - not at all - users can read that discussion and see for themselves. -How can I add photos to my wikipedia page? - did you help them in their question ? - no you didn't, not in any way - Youreallycan 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Mike; I think that is the crux of the problem. Because my reading of the comment was "the article about me". You assumed that meant he could control it, which is a lack of good faith - especially as a perfectly reasonable reading of the comment doesn't show that. When users ask for help you should give it to them nicely - not jump down their throats. You categorically & needlessly attacked him. --Errant (chat!) 19:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Lord knows I've had plenty of disagreements with Youreallycan, but he's right in this case. Your response was not at all welcoming or friendly. You have no idea when they said "my article" if they meant "it's an article about me" or if it meant "it's an article I control". You assumed the latter, and not the former. It seems to me that newbie isn't going to be aware of WP:OWNERSHIP and probably doesn't realize that such language can be interpretted to mean ownership. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The block itself was fine, if a bit too quick. Choosing to use {{softerblock}} would have been much better, but it's not required, It's a judgement call, and not everyone knows about it (or thinks about it, with the automated tools that many people use). I'd just like to point out that this is part of what is something of a campaign over Orange Mike himself (and Cla68, not coincidentally). Making decisions about other users through that prism, and with passions running high, isn't the best way to manage things. At the very least it opens people up, on both "sides" of the issue(s), to criticisms over their politics.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"Assume good faith" does not mean burying your head in the sand and pretending that nothing is going on. --MuZemike 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
And what exactly is going on? The only thing we know for sure is that they said that the logo in our article is out of date and the wanted to update it. I checked out their web site and it turns out Admarkroundsquare was correct. tThe logo in our article is out of date. Here's the new one. What's wrong with updating the logo to their current one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You say that as if it contradicts what I said. Let me clarify. The only thing we know for sure is that they said that the logo in our article is out of date and the wanted to update it. What other changes they had in mind, we don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yup; and I absolutely agree, Sarek, that they probably wanted to do exactly as you posit. But why does that mean they are not welcome? Do you disagree with any of our policies? I'm guessing there are some you think are wrong, or at least not perfect; but no one wants to block you for it! Because you have had the concept of community concept explained, and accepted it. But what you are advocating is not giving them the chance to have it explained... --Errant (chat!) 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be "positing" here? I was quoting the editor verbatim. I'm not advocating anything, except not misrepresenting the information we have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
heh. yes sorry a little sleepy here... consider my comment intended generically, then. --Errant (chat!) 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that, regardless of what anyone here may or may not desire, "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent". This user still has talk page access, and is quite welcome to request a name change (which will likely involve and unblock, but there's nothing wrong with that). AGF can just as easily be applied to everyone in this discussion rather than just a few of the participants.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me draw a comparison - you are on vacation in some country which language you barely speak, looking for a hotel. Eventually you find one and walk in, but once you walk inside and try to ask the receptionist for a room you are grabbed by a doorman and tossed out. Once outside the doorman hands you a note stating that you are not wearing black shoes, thus you are not allowed entry again until you do. Now, what will you do - get some black shoes or be abhorred by your treatment and search for a new hotel?
What i am trying to explain here is that new editors are complete rookies who only just made their first edit, and often don't have a clue what they are doing. Just blocking them with a template message will scare people away - period (Unless they have a specific reason to "get the black shoes" such as marketeers). I utterly detest spammers and marketeers and i am only to glad to throw those out, but all to often we truly lack empathy towards new editors. Note that this is quite a general comment on newbie treatment, though it does somewhat apply in this case as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I don't disagree. I'd like to see the policy changed so that "automatic blocks" are not issued, basically unilaterally, against users who certain administrators feel have "promotional" user names, and I've spoken out against that in the past on AN/I. That seems like a separate issue though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Excirial, your example would make sense if there was no sign at the door of your hotel. But there is. In English. You walk in anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed, there is. But have you recently looked at the sign up page and imagined what it looks like to a new user? It is so riddled with links, text, policies and so on which means that it is easy to miss the sign. How often do you read the entire EULA when installing some software, and did you ever you read the entire manual when you buy something from a store? I am not surprised that editors just see the two "Fill me in" boxes for username and password and ignore the rest.
I don't intend to state that not seeing the rules doesn't mean that they are there. My entire point is how we deal with people who go over the line - a friendly comment or even a softblock and a manually written explanation of the block are vastly preferable over a spamblock. Especially in cases where the editor did nothing to bad so far. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed blocking. --MuZemike 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike should be drawn and quartered. Now that I have your attention, everyone seems to be quoting WP:AGF without assuming any good faith on the part of OrangeMike; saying he "attacked" a new user instead of considering the fact that he was following what he thought in good faith to be the policy. No permanent damage has been done, and even as an admin who thinks WP:BITE is the worst problem on Wikipedia right now, I don't think any further action is required. The harsh template has been replaced by a more welcoming message, and instructions on requesting an unblock if the user wishes. I think we should also start a new policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the admins. We are human after all, and no one has just straight-up asked OrangeMike if he'll agree to be less WP:BITEy in the future. So....

OrangeMike, could you please agree to be less WP:BITEy in the future, especially if they are posting in the correct venues seeking help? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 06:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Running, I try not to be bitey; but I simply cannot agree to any commitment which would preclude me from blocking blatant violations of our rules. Advertising and marketing by COI editors is one of the biggest dangers to our prized neutrality here, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise in the sacred name of AGF. Nonetheless: I'm already keeping this discussion in mind when choosing between a softerblock and a spamuserblock.
I am already, also, keeping this discussion in mind when encountering folks who genuinely don't understand the distinction between "my page" (which I control) and "an article about me" (which I do not).
I hope some of those who have piled on me will agree to spend more time at the Help Desks and maybe in the Tea Room, helping those noobs you are advocating for. (Yes, some of you already do; it would be obnoxious and unfair of me to pretend otherwise.)
I would also hope that this discussion might lead to some discussion in the appropriate venues about improving the wording of the standard templates, which some of you clearly consider a bit bitey.
I hope this response is satisfactory to those not of a lynch-mob mentality. For those who are of that mind: sorry, I have no intention of going away or of dropping the Mop-and-Bucket with which I have been entrusted. I've been shat upon by the best; I don't frighten easy.
I am, however, weary. I myself would like to go back to trying to improve the content of this encylopedia; I've got several projects I've been neglecting while this discussion dragged on. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a step in the right direction, but please keep in mind that WP:ORGNAME says that you cannot block someone for their account name until after they're had problematic edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Thought experiment

I was thinking about how to demonstrate the perspective that is eluding some of the commentators here - and perhaps this is it. Imagine that I flicked through your contributions. I expect that, and this applies to all of us here, I could find something that violates one of our policies in some way or other (ostensibly or otherwise). Is it to be assumed you, being regular editors, know policy and therefore are deliberately violating it? Should I block you and whack a template on your userpage? Or is it more likely that an explanation would be of effect? This is the core of the issue; as regulars Wikipedia is as natural to us as breathing. To a new user - yes, even one who wants to make their article say nice things - it is a black box. By assuming the worst of faith & dumping an aggressive template note on their page (which they probably don't even know exists, yet) we don't even make an attempt to educate them, we just decide they are unsalvageable. What's the response? They are upset, create a new account and try to "delete" the article. They contact OTRS. They decide Wikipedia is obnoxious and tell their friends. Seriously, the way we treat newbies is disgusting. I'm sorry to Mike that he has become the current focus, because he is far from the only guilty one, but he is a strong example of one of our most pressing problems. --Errant (chat!) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so our Standard Operating Procedure should be then, if we find usernames that don't fall within our policy, should be to tell the user to change his/her username and/or establish an account, and if he/she doesn't, then ignore the problem? --MuZemike 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not sure how I would be suggesting that... if we take this case I gave you an example (by doing it) of what we should be doing - which is politely blocking the username, explaining why and then trying to answer the question posed. Ignoring the problem is silly, as is stamping around all over the place. --Errant (chat!) 19:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the next question should be: Is a block ever a polite action? Because from what I gather above, the answer seems to be "no". --MuZemike 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I invite those who complain so much about our treatment of newbies to pop over to UAA and see what's actually going on there. If you don't like the way things are being handled, do it yourself; guess what, after the thousandth SEO upstart tries to spam about his company, your patience will run thin. We have a username policy for a reason, and people who violate it should change their usernames. It's not unlike requiring someone to put on a shirt before they walk into an establishment with a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a bad analogy, because we don't have a sign of that sort. What we do have is a global invitation to edit... A lot of the UAA stuff is obvious, I agree, but many (such as this one) are not. It would certainly be worth having a discussion about improving the default templates to assume better faith, certainly. @MuZemike; of course a block is impolite, but often that is the only option. My argument is that it shouldn't be the first option if the situation doesn't seem utterly lost from the get go. --Errant (chat!) 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Have no sign for that? Good — so make one. Should be easy. Oh, strike that. I just logged out, and looked at the "create an account"-page. There is a sign. Maybe make it bolder or colored. Or blinking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
From the "create an account" page:
"Username policy prohibits usernames which are promotional, misleading, or offensive:
  • promotional usernames:
  • containing existing company, organization, group, or website names (including non-profit organizations)"
There is a clear warning. This isn't some obscure guideline, this is explained up front when a user creates an account. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
Might be nice if the process to change a username was made easier by programming. If this issue is one that some newbies feel bitten by, and administrators get tired of seeing, then a more 'self-serve' process, where admins can check a box or something might cause fewer problems for editors and admins also. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
reality is that, as I suggested above, you could make the note blinking yellow with stars in 70pt, some people never follow it, either because they are dumb, illiterate, or just willfully ignoring it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
We can assume good faith, but I don't think we can assume people aren't stupid, illiterate, or ignorant. Some people have an amazing capacity to impress, not by their feats of strength, but by their ability to take something that seems foolproof and still find a way to mess it up. We do hope admins at least have one eye (figuratively), in order to lead the nation of the blind if needed. -- Avanu (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen much sense in that part of the username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations. It's a simple fact that we have lots and lots of editors who edit on behalf of their company or organization – often in a problematic way, often not; we couldn't stop them doing that even if we wanted to, and at present we don't actually prohibit their editing as such. It strikes me that as soon as we're stuck with working with these editors, we should actually encourage rather than prohibit their announcing their affiliations in their names. I've often found blocking such account to have been quite counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
There are difficulties and complications in keeping track of who is entitled to use a company or organization name. If Bob works for FooCorp, and creates User:Bob(FooCorp), what happens when Bob moves to another company? Do we close the account? Do we rename it to User:Bob(NewJob)? Does FooCorp's HR department give it to Carol, and rename it to User:Carol(FooCorp)?
Who actually holds the copyright for the submissions made by the account, Bob or FooCorp? How do we know that Bob really works for FooCorp, and is entitled to represent them in public? Who gets to make the call on right-to-vanish questions?
Do we want to be in a position where the Foundation has to deal directly with FooCorp's legal department?
Sure, we probably could hammer out some sort of policy on these issues, and then ignore it to try to come up with new ideas on the fly when we found the edge cases where it broke, and be embarrassed when some random admin was a dick to a charitable organization and the incident made the papers on a slow news day, and then end up with all the bitter arguments and recriminations that would necessarily fall out of the whole mess—but it's not worth our bother. We deal with individuals, not with corporate entities, and we expect usernames to reflect that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] It's super clear

What Errant and others are trying to tell the admins is that POLICY states you need to try to resolve a problem without resorting to the use of tools, leading by example, and behaving in a respectful, civil manner. Using language or taking actions that feel like an attack on someone who is most likely 100% ignorant of policy is not in line with policy itself. It would be like a police officer shooting a suspect and later saying "I could just tell he was going to shoot me", even if he was just standing there and the officer hadn't said one word, and the suspect didn't have a gun drawn. I'm puzzled why those of you who are administrators can't simply say "yes, that is what policy says, I will recommit to being civil, and lead other editors by example". Rather what I often see is a zillion excuses why it simply isn't done. Every one of us understands that reality won't allow a perfect world, but there's no reason for admins to avoid saying, "OK, I see your reasonable point, I'll do my best." We end up in this long nitpicky discussions because of that simple lack of humility and human-ness that would put the issue to rest instantly. -- Avanu (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

hm. So what you're saying is that only admins are supposed to read policy, and are then under the obligation to explain to everybody else individually what the policies are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. Without question Admins should know policy. But so should editors. Take another pass at what I wrote above; you're very much missing the point. -- Avanu (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
@Bwilkins, actually in looking at that diff, it shows not really an ignorance of policy in that he's not aware of it, but an ignorance of policy in a WP:IAR way. Look, in the end, why put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law? There are times when it seems like the bureaucratic mindset has pushed away the friendly neighborhood spiderman mindset. Peter Parker would be our greatest admin because he knows 'with great power comes great responsibility', and without an honest recognition of one's own weakness, you limit yourself. -- Avanu (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, it's you and the blocking editor and a whole bunch of editors on this page who seem to be ignorant of policy. Seem to be, but the policy, don't block has been pointed out several times here. So I don't know what's going on. Do you agree that the policy says we should discuss the name with unproblematic editors, and encourage them to change it? If you do, can you concede that you've been misreading policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Practice is generally nuke from high orbit if there is a hint of corporate editing. Username vios pick up all the COI ones, and we have a block first _practice_ Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] My page

One of the things that makes Wikipedia seem unfriendly to outsiders is that the use of plain English ("my page" or "our article" being shorthand for "the article about me, or the company I represent") triggers an immediate assumption of bad faith: the article subject must be claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of said article. Well, they may be, but probably they're just trying to communicate in plain English because they didn't realize that the "Wikipedia way" of referring to an article requires you use a bit of convoluted speech. "The article about me" is OK, "my article" will get you into trouble. 28bytes (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another way to put it is: profound lack of empathy -- inability to remember that everyone here once didn't know squat about Wikipedia and made equivalent "mistakes". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hence this rather old essay of mine (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Clearly Mike breached WP:ORGNAME here, but clearly some ORGNAME/COI editors are a nightmare. I deal with obsessive fringe theory POV-pushers a lot, so probably have an inkling of what he has to deal with. In that light, I'm more than happy to cut him some slack.

I'm disappointed though by the response of most of the rest of you. He did cross the line in terms of civil behaviour and policy. This was an opportunity to quietly remind him of WP:ORGNAME and WP:BITE, and gently encourage him into line. A couple did, but most of his peers supported him in his denial that he'd done anything wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


The message I use is:

if the name you have used includes or refers to the subject of the article, you must choose another username. As explained in WP:USER, only individuals may edit. When you have a username that is or includes the name of your organization, you imply that you are editing officially, and have a superior right to edit the page. But that is not the way WP works--all editors are considered equal--and your contributions like those of any editor must be justified by sources. I'm sure you do not intend to give such impression, but that's why we have the rule. Therefore, please choose another name. On that user page, you should say whom you are working for.

I do say this for partial names also. I think that partial names also promote ownership,& perhaps our written policy needs to be changed to reflect that.

But I do not block unless they are being uncooperative, and then I word it something like "To ensure you make another account, I am blocking this one." ; since the usernameblock preset on Twinkle defaults to prevent their making another account, it defeats entirely the purpose of our policy on user names, they they should make another one. On the one hand we tell them to do it, on the other we prevent their doing it. It's time to fix twinkle: the default for username block should be a usernamesoft block. This meets the purpose.

Because of the widespread use of Twinkle and the need to keep things in sync, the procedure for changing these templates has now gotten so lengthy --requiring in effect a long period of experimenting with different versions under the guidance of the foundation, where after many months very little if anything has actually been accomplished, that we need to come up with something better ourselves. We have let Twinkle become our master. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. The kinds of tests the foundation people did with some of the templates have nothing to do with the technical needs of Twinkle, and they certainly don't mean WP:BOLD no longer applies to templates. If you want to change the wording of a template used by Twinkle, just change it. I'm sure it's possible, because I've done it numerous times recently. It's only if you need to change Twinkle itself that it may get complicated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Precisely why I've never used any (semi)automated tools or scripts or anything like that on any WMF site, with the sole exception of the nominate-this-file-for-deletion script at Commons. It's not hard to write something out by yourself. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bwilkins and others

Above, I pointed out to Bwilkins that he and others appear to be either misreading or deliberately flouting WP:ORGNAME. He hasn't responded.

  • The policy says:

"This does not prohibit every use of a company, group, or product name as part of a username."

so it is not obvious that "Admarkroundsquare" is a breach of this policy, and yet Orange Mike simply asserts it is a blatant violation of our rules, Wehwalt says "and the username does contain the name of the organization" as though that means there's obviously a problem with the name, Lothar says it "Seems to be a simple case of WP:ORGNAME", MuZemike asserts the name doesn't fall within our policy, Blade asserts the name violates policy, Fut.Perf. says "I've never seen much sense in that part of the username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations."
I'd like Fut. Perf. to point me to the part of username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations as part of a username.
  • The policy says:

*Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
*Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

which is pretty unequivocal. Applying either {{Uw-spamublock}} or {{softerblock}} is a block. And yet Sandstein says "The block and the {{Uw-spamublock}} block notification template were appropriate," UltraExactZZ says "The block was itself valid," Ched says "I'm not saying the block was wrong," Ohms law says "The block itself was fine."

There is an unambiguous disconnection between policy and practice. That policy seems to be worded as it is in order to expressly prevent the kind of behaviour engaged in by Mike and supported by others here. I don't know enough of the dynamics at NPP or the politics of PR editing to have an opinion as to whether behaviour should conform to policy or vice versa, but clearly your behaviour and policy need to be reconciled. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. When that many admins agree... Doc talk 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
If admins are using a procedure "hardblock on sight" that is not supported in guidelines then it needs to be added to guidelines so that users affected by it can a, avoid it happening to them and b, so that they can be pointed to the reason they have been blocked clearly written down for them, - Youreallycan 09:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardblock on sight should not be applied in situations where Wikipedia is not being harmed in some concrete way. Issuing hard blocks for soft errors is out of line with our civility policy. -- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This behaviour is not only "not supported in guidelines" it is expressly proscribed by policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The blocking of MonmouthMuseumWales (talk · contribs) (discussed here at RFCN) is another example of an admin going straight to a block without first discussing the issue with a user who has made no problem edits. In this instance the user name was the same as the organisation, so a name change is usually expected, but rather than follow policy and gently explain the situation, the account was blocked. Bwilkins thinks that's fine, and accuses the unblocking admin of misreading [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This sort of thing has been happening for years. It was exactly what happened to me when I started: [3] (and no, JzG never did apologize). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocking usernames that explicitly promote a company/organization in and of themselves has been long practice here. The policy (WP:UN) is that:

    When choosing an account name, do not choose names which may be offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional.

    A username that appears to represent more than one person, or appears to promote a product/company will be blocked. That is appropriate, that is long standing practice. Whether Mike used the right template above is the question but the block and others of this kind are appropriate. Gentle explanation can happen afterwards but users with promotional names will not be allowed to use these (becuase using them promotes what ever it is they are promoting)--Cailil talk 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You're quoting that line out of context and claiming it says something that it clearly doesn't (i.e. no where in that line does it say anything about blocking the account). Here's the part about blocking accounts:

*Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
*Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

So, the block was an error. The admin should have gently encouraged the user to change their username. If anyone disagrees, that's fine: start an RfC and get the policy changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* As the guy who designed the much-used {{coiq}} template, I can tell you that we sure as heck are NOT going to RFC every single obviously promotional username. That would be a horrific waste of everyone's time. We have the very gentle {{softerblock}} template for a reason - it's an AGF template. Someone want to create {{SoSoftItsLikeCharmin}} instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that if you disagree with policy, then you should start an RfC on the policy, not the username. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting. Bwiklins seems to think that MonmouthMuseumWales and Admarkroundsquare are "promotional". What's promotional about them Bwilkins? They're clearly identifying an affilliation with the organisation, but they're not promotional. It's not MonmouthMuseumrocks or RoundSquareWillSaveYouMoney. Calling them promotional is weird. You can't just "call" any username that incorporates an organisation name promotional as an excuse for not following WP:ORGNAME. Follow that policy or change it to fit your behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The entire problem is that they are accounts that appear to be the organization's, rather than a person's. When User:Microsoft adds an unsourced fact to Microsoft, it's going to be left alone - because that's the official word from Microsoft itself (I know, it wouldn't, but play along). Thus, the prohibition. In this case, the block came from the confluence of having a username that matches the company AND editing in regard to that company. If the user had gone off to edit articles on hockey teams, no one would've noticed the username problem. My problem with this block wasn't that the user was blocked - he should have been and was - but that no one said why. He just got an angry wall of text, and no answer to the question. When I block such an editor, I template - but then explain below. "You got blocked because you can't have a username that matches the company. So you'll need a new username, which you get by doing X Y and Z. Now, you wanted to update your own page, and you can't because of your obvious Conflict of Interest - but if you show me what the inaccuracies are, we can figure something out." Engaging them, even if they don't end up unblocked, sidesteps all of the bad faith and bad feelings that seem to have come up here. They may respond, they may not - if they do, we get accurate information and (maybe) an editor who sticks around (with a new username and staying the hell away from his COI). If not, I've wasted two minutes of my life. But this seems to greatly reduce the "Wikipedia is a bunch of assholes" factor, which is worthwhile. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I like your attitude, but you're wrong on a couple of points. Notwithstanding what some admins may do, policy allows a username to incorporate a company name (e.g. User:Mark at Alcoa), and allows such a user to add content to the organisation's article. Neither is a blocking "offense;" we appreciate the transparency. Certainly, if they're biasing the article they should be pointed to the relevant policies, and if they continue they should be corrected, blocked if necessary. But that goes for anyone regardless of the username.
In this instance the problem is with the blocking editor. He breached policy and is supported and encouraged in that by Bwilkins and others. I see that they haven't changed the policy yet to conform with their behaviour. If that's not going to happen, they should conform to the policy. It's not a big deal, or even a difficult or complex issue to grasp. The policy says one thing. They're doing another. Now that this has been pointed out, if they continue summarily blocking people for having an organisation name as a username, or blocking people (or threatening to block them) simply for incorporating an organisation name as part of their username, they will be demonstrating contempt for community consensus and should be desysopped. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A point of clarification, I don't believe the example you used is consistent with the username policy which states: "usernames that are specifically disallowed":

Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia"

.

And no, that is not the problem as described in the original AN. It was about a template and a perception of editor conduct in regards to an overzealous nature to these types of usernames as I recall. Not sure if it was actually proven as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
What's promotional about User:Mark at Alcoa? It identifies the user's affiliation with the organisation. That's not promotion. That's transparency; something we like. Blocking accounts like that has no basis in either logic or policy.
Not sure what you mean by "original AN". If you're referring to my original post in this thread, I was drawing attention to this very point. The editor was acting diametrically against policy. Personally, I have a problem with that. Particularly when it's an admin, and when it involves blocking editors. Just seems off to me. But it seems it doesn't bother the majority of admins commenting here. I have a problem with that too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if it were promotional, we're supposed to encourage the user to change names, not block them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between a username like "Mark at Alcoa" and "Alcoa". The first clearly identifies an individual which is allowed. The second identifies an organization which isn't. The issue is less about promotion, and more about ensuring that an account represents an individual. This is made pretty clear at WP:ORGNAME. -- Atama頭 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A Quest for Knowledge is correct. See also WP:UAAI: "users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username." --JN466 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty much the point. Look at the username and how it reflects a breach in guidelines or policy. "Mark at Alcoa" does not breach any policy, as explained above. Then you have the example of something just without any identification to an individual ("Mark at...") and just "Alcoa", which, as you said would be more about ensuring the account represents an individual and less about promotion...then there is what this username was, "Admarkroundsquare". Which contained both an intent of promotion (advertising and marketing) as well as a specific company. This falls within the existing block policy and the original template could also be seen as simply meaning that new comers are not exempt from the block policy based soley on being new and not knowing the policy as you can read the policy BEFORE you register a promotional username AND we don't know if this editor was already editing with an IP to have even had such experiance while already contributing. While a more subtle warning with the block is better, it is understandable why a more sterner approach was selected and my experiance with Mike's similar blocks is that he has been in the right on all points he has made.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you please re-read "users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username", noting in particular the words I have put in bold? Thanks. --JN466 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't need to re-read it. You show clearly that it states "Should" not "They are required" or "Must". Hmmmm. Guess that was not something you thought about?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)signature added by JN466 07:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If a policy says you "should not" do something it really means you ought not to do it. In particular, you "shouldn't" hard-block such users, as then they can't register a compliant account. If they do insist on writing crap, by all mean warn and then block; but don't block after five harmless edits just because of what someone's account is called. --JN466 07:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I will ask again for clarification: Do we then inform such users with problematic usernames that they need to change their username, and, if they don't, we just simply ignore the problem? --MuZemike 03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. If the username is the name of a group and it is being used to edit content related to the group, and after having the problem explained in clear and friendly terms the user chooses not to avoid the topic or abandon the name, it should be taken from them (indefinitely blocked). If it is a shared account, regardless of the name, it should be blocked (again in a clear, friendly, helpful way). If the name is promotional, it should be blocked (again, in a clear, friendly helpful way). Clearly "promotional" doesn't mean "a username that incorporates a group name."
Usernames that are not identical to the name of an organisation, nor promotional, nor a shared account, that simply identify the user's affiliation with a group are good. They are transparent. Something we encourage.
If the username is an organisation name, e.g., User:Alcoa, and it is not being used to edit content related to the organisation, there is no problem. If they are editing those articles, are pointed to WP:ORGNAME, and agree to no longer edit those articles, there is no problem.
The present problem: (1) When the username is the same as an organisation name and it is being used to edit content related to that organisation, the editor should be (per policy) politely pointed to WP:ORGNAME and gently, politely encouraged to either abandon the account or avoid that topic. Presently, they are just being summarily blocked with an unfriendly template. (Even the softblock template is officious.) (2) Usernames that incorporate an organisation name, though permitted, are being summarily blocked as "promotional" or "COI", when they are patently not promotional, and when editing with a COI is not a blockable "offense." Indeed, we encourage editors with a COI to declare it, and incorporating the organisation name in the username is as clear a declaration as we could ask for.
And it goes without saying that if an editor is biasing a topic, and won't conform to NPOV, regardless of the name, they should be blocked, topic-banned or site-banned. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you exactly understand how official organizational accounts work, i.e. not on Wikipedia, but in general (such as with Twitter)? In common practice, a company hires or assigns one or more people to operate this "official company account", and, over time, companies may rotate out people in charge of this account. The problem is that this goes against our policy that accounts are not to be shared. --MuZemike 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep. If only one user is using the account, it's not that kind of account. But, even if it is only used by one user, User:Alcoa shouldn't be used to edit content related to the organisation, because it could easily be mistaken for such an account. Whether User:Admarkroundsquare is a shared account could be established by asking the question, "Is this a shared account?" and pointing them to WP:NOSHARE and WP:ROLE. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There is an easy solution to that. They can have accounts like User:Mark At Round Square, User:Jill At Round Square, etc. and can identify the full name of the person who operates the account on the account's user page, if need be with a confirmation e-mail from the company to OTRS just like we do it in other cases where impersonation could be a problem. At any rate, no one should be hardblocked just for having the wrong account name. --JN466 08:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem should not be ignored if the user has a problematic user name (or wants to share an account), and does not respond to the gentle persuasion called for in policy. On the other hand, I would think most users would happily change names once the issue was explained to them. --JN466 08:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

I have raised an unblock request for Admarkroundsquare, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request:_User:Admarkroundsquare. The user is currently hard-blocked, meaning they are unable to create a username policy-compliant account. This is an invidious and abhorrent way to treat people. --JN466 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not quite true; they could use an unblock request and ask for a new username. But that would require reading the instructions, which didn't work out so well the first time around... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
They had no such instructions, because these had been replaced, by a well-meaning admin, with a soft-block template simply telling them to create a new account. --JN466 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Floquenbeam has lifted the hardblock but left the username blocked, which should allow the user to get on with updating the article. [4] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Larger issue unresolved

The larger issue - the disconnect between policy and supporters of OrangeMike's block - remains unresolved. Can someone who supports this block please propose a change to WP:USERNAME? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, this doesn't seem supported by the discussion. It does appear that Mike, while perhaps taking a more proactive response, was within policy and guidelines. I see that the editor that was blocked did make an edit, so the argument that they could not have done anything wrong to warrent a block is incorrect. The actual edit was indeed asking a question at the help desk...HOWEVER that is still an edit and the question asked was basicly asking how to get guidence to make it easier to get the POV results they wanted. This very well could be seen as the direct conflict in context to the promotional username that gave Mike the option as an administrator to make that call and he is willing to block when he identifies the criteria to do so. The danger to the encyclopdia is real and the amount of issues from these types of editors could range from "gaming the system" to outright harrasment of editors and individuals offwiki to those not involved here at all. I have seen it and Mike has seen it and so have many other editors. This has never been about Mike's supporters but the issue of the block he administered. About the template, He made an edit and that was the correct template to use in my view. It gave the editor the chance to take care of the situation right then and there with clear instructions. If anything went wrong it was replacing that template.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The user said that the current page on their company is out of date. I am sure it is. So we have an out-of-date page in mainspace. Does that concern you at all? The ideal solution here is that someone works with the user to update the page in line with policy, not that the user is blocked. And there is assuredly a disconnect between policy and at least some admins' practice. I played a small part in the discussions that led to the present wording of the user name policy. The intention was that this practice of "first shoot, ask questions later" blocking should cease. --JN466 07:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a user informing us in the name of his company that our article on said company is outdated really ought to be punished properly for making such a horrible, horrible POV/COI edit. It might lead to "outright harrasment of editors and individuals offwiki" otherwise, after all. Seriously, how on earth do you jump from a user asking to update an article to throwing around "off-wiki harassment"? --Conti|✉ 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
@Amadscientist: This editor did not make any problematic edits. In fact, they don't have a single edit in article space. Policy is quite clear that such editors should not be blocked. For those who disagree with policy, the correct course of action to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have moved to Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME. Maybe close this now? (But don't immediately archive as there are a couple of current discussions linking to this one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Requirement for declaring an interest after off-wiki canvassing

After noticing over the last few months, Wikipedia Arbcom members, Admins and Oversighters creating and engaging with discussion threads on Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, and then going on to use their tools and authority on Wikipedia in response to what I would consider to be canvassing off-wiki, I would like to propose a vote to clarify a possible interpretation of Involved admins:

Would you require users with sysop or other trusted tools on Wikipedia to openly declare their involvement of whatever sort in off-wiki prior canvassing when using their tools on Wikipedia?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] !Vote on the need to declare an interest after involvement of whatever sort in off-wiki prior canvassing

  • Absolutely support - anyone who thinks that they were wronged by anyone of authority (including the authorities of admins, such as deletion), should have the right to know such facts, as well as the community in cases where the decisions are appealed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that these types of discussions often suffer from the deliberate distortion of the nature of sites such as Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. These exist primarily as forums where contributors discuss Wikipedia and related subjects. Those contributors are individuals with widely disparate views and motivations. There is a tendency here to pretend that these sites are monolithic entities and to classify discussion as either "harassment" or "canvassing", depending on the which is most likely to achieve the desired result. I was a frequent contributor to Wikipedia Review until recently and various editors here tried to use me as the scapegoat for comments made there by others. This latest volley in the fight against "bad sites" appears to be another attempt to discredit admins who participate at those sites by implying that their actions have been negatively influenced by reading or participating in discussions on those sites. Those discussions may result in admins becoming aware of an issue and acting on it as a result, but Fæ's suggestion here makes it seem like they are proxying for banned editors or acting as meatpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I have a conflict of interest which should be noted - I am the author of the blog post currently on the front page of Wikipediocracy, which deals with hardcore sex films on Wikipedia (not articles about them, but the actual films themselves). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Off-wiki canvassing among admins and other functionaries has existed as long as I can remember, largely in the form of IRC discussion. I think that more transparency is always better, but I don't think this is a new issue nor one confined to the specific forums mentioned in the original post. MastCell Talk 17:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipediocracy is not the only site that has this issue, but the number of them doesn't really matter. Canvassing is canvassing and, for the most part, these sites are for a gathering of like-minded individuals, even if there are one or two outliers. So, it really is the definition of canvassing. This involvement should definitely be announced when becoming involved in a discussion as a result of this canvassing. SilverserenC 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I find this comment especially interesting coming from you, Silver Seren, since you were a regular contributor to Wikipedia Review and should have a better sense of what really goes on there. About half of the regular contributors to Wikipedia Review were banned users and others did not edit Wikipedia at all. It is rather hard to "canvass" people who do not or cannot edit Wikipedia, even by your "definition". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Having been a part of WR, I would think that helps me know full well that canvassing does go on. There's more than enough users on there that are also active editors on here. And there is a group effort on there when a specific article is brought up to enact something on-wiki. It's rather obvious. SilverserenC 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Can you think of a recent example where this happened? Since we obviously define canvassing differently, it might be helpful to see what you mean. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, the Jim Hawkins incident is an obvious example. The AfD on it wasn't created until after this thread was created and it is likely to have been instigated from that thread itself. And Delete votes from a number of known WR/Wikipediocracy users and/or readers began pouring into the AfD after that. SilverserenC 01:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • I started the Hawkins AFD after a report at the BLPN which you see I mention in the deletion rationale diff - my opening the discussion had nothing to do with any off wiki comments anywhere as I had not read them, after multiple on wiki reports about the article I felt enough was enough. Youreallycan 07:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Let me see if I have this straight. Hawkins had been complaining about this situation for years, as I understand it. A thread was started on Wikipediocracy to discuss it. After that, an AfD was started, which you suggest, without any evidence, was "instigated" by the thread. And after that, the thread which was opened before the AfD has somehow "canvassed" people to vote a certain way? What nonsense. This was discussed on multiple WMF mailing lists and Jimbo's talk page. Of course a lot of people participated. I didn't vote in the last AfD, but if I had, I would have voted to delete because that is what I think should be done in these cases, not because someone on WR or Wikipediocracy wanted me to. I imagine others hold the same opinion and would vote the same way. Perhaps it is issues like this that cause them to be contributors to those sites, and not those sites that cause them to get involved with the issues here? What an incredibly tone-deaf example. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Weren't those discussions started after the AfD began? The Afd was really the starting point, all the talk page discussions and discussions elsewhere came after the fact. SilverserenC 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
            • (ec)Do you feel that this affected the outcome of the on wiki discussion? Kevin (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Likely would have, looking at the early parts of the discussion, if not for the subsequent posting to several noticeboards, which then brought in so many people and such chaos that no consensus was really the only option. SilverserenC 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
                • The subject of the article requested that it be deleted in 2006, which lead to the first AfD. And again, same thing in 2009. All the while making comments on the talk page, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on the radio. And you think a discussion of the article on Wikipediocracy materially influenced the outcome? I was hoping you might come up with an example that had something to it, but this is just ridiculous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sort of support, ish, if it's amended slightly. I think the phrasing as Fae presents it here is imperfect when it comes to addressing the issue he wants addressed. If you want users (and I do believe it ought to be "users", not only "users with advanced permissions") to disclose when they've participated in discussion of a topic/action off-wiki, wording saying they must disclose when they've participated in "off-wiki prior canvassing" isn't likely to get you disclosures; it's more likely to get you a whole lot of neverending argument about whether thread X was canvassing. A more useful wording, I think, would be something like "users participating in discussions or actions on Wikipedia should disclose openly if their involvement was brought about by discussion off-wiki". In some cases this might be addressed by a one-time userpage notice - "This user participates in/on [IRC|Wikipedia Review|local Wiki-meetups|a consultancy related to editing Wikipedia] and may comment or act here on topics discussed or related to there". In other cases, it may be appropriate to add a note to an individual comment - "I came here because I saw the thread about this on site X" or, failing that by the commenter, a note similar in style to those we leave on SPA or unsigned comments "This comment left by a user who has participated in discussion of this topic on site X". There is a continuum here, ranging from things like "user asked for help in IRC help channel, so I helped them onwiki" all the way up to something like "I placed this block based on evidence I received in a private message from a banned user on Wikipedia Review". Even on the "clean" end of the continuum, I think there's little to be lost by just going ahead and disclosing, but I would hesitate to make it sanctionable to fail to do so for now, both because making it "encouraged practice" may be all we need, and because it may end up being used as a hammer against people ("You didn't disclose that you came here from Wikipedia Review thread X!" "That's because I didn't; I was just reading ANI and wanted to comment" "Impossible, you participate in Wikipedia Review, you must have come here from that thread. I demand you be sanctioned for failing to disclose!") and I'd want to see how that shook out before we started giving the requirement teeth. Why yes, yes I was bitten in the butt by drama recently because someone was upset about a topic being discussed on irc. Why yes, I do think disclosure is a good idea largely because it can help prevent situations like that in the future. Thanks for asking! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the spirit of disclosing an off wiki reason that lead you to a particular discussion, but like Fluffernutter I fear where an enforceable rule could lead. Unless an editor has actively participated in an off-wiki discussion using connected identity, it will be impossible to tell if they saw an off wiki discussion and failed to disclose, or came to the discussion another way, despite frequenting the off-wiki location. If I were to idle in the IRC channel, and a discussion of an AN/I thread occurs, will I be imputed with knowledge of that IRC discussion even if I had IRC minimized and saw the activity on my watch list instead? Monty845 18:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This strikes me as an effort via the backdoor to establish a BADSITES policy towards Wikipediocracy and its better-known-but-now-in-its-death-throes predecessor. An administrator participating there and then working at WP is no different than an administrator participating on WP mailing lists or IRC and then working at WP. People have lives, they spend their time as they will. Even if one accepts that so-called "canvassing" is a problem in the first place (and I personally feel that so-called "anti-canvassing" rules are merely a mechanism of clique control to the exclusion of more democratic mass participation), there's not the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that there's a coordinated effort by Wikipediocracy or any other site to "canvass" for action at WP, using tools or not using tools. It's a paranoid perspective, in my view. Most of the obnoxious parties at Wikipediocracy not only don't have tools to be canvassed to be used, they're blocked or banned out altogether at En-WP. It baffles me how this is even perceived as being a problem at all. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that Wikipediocracy is the same as the mailing lists and the IRC, both of which are considered on-wiki and are subject to the rules of WP:CIVIL? Clearly then, Wikipediocracy should also be subject to these policies. Also, do note that people on the IRC have gotten in trouble in the past for canvassing. Organizing a group of people toward a specific article is canvassing. SilverserenC 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that the biographies of living persons noticeboard is canvassing and anyone posting there should be blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The BLP noticeboard is a neutral posting, since it is not a biased, partisan area. An IRC discussion between friends on Wikipedia would be canvassing and a discussion of known like-minded individuals on a forum is also canvassing, since in both cases, the purpose of notification would be to get votes or statements of agreement in the on-wiki discussion. SilverserenC 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Seren, it was the BLPN that first drew attention to the Hawkins issue by way of a section started by David Gerard who had been canvassed by the original author of the Hawkins article. As an aside I do believe that the origional author of that article has been appaleed by the churlishness of his fellow wikipedia editors, their lack of empathy, and gross impertinence towards a fellow human being. Your own attitude of demanding a doctors note is included in that above. John lilburne (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was originally mixed about this, but after further thought, I have to slip into oppose. Issues of canvassing in AfD's can be handled on a case by case basis, but a lot of the time someone saying off-wiki "Gee, this article about a BLP is a real hitjob" and people who read that forum who agree posting votes based on that reasoning (after reviewing the article themselves).. well, to ignore that a problem exists just because we don't like who's saying it would be cutting off our nose to spite our encyclopedic face. And while I deplore the actions taken by certain members of those sites (Self-disclosure: I am a member of two sites, one of which I have not made a single post, and the other I haven't posted at in six months or so), I think this action by Fae is motivated by the off-wiki attacks they have made against the proposer. I would suggest that such disclosure applies equally. SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You may be confused about the proposal text, it asks for transparency, not that we should pretend that admins do not read off-wiki forums or to require that they can never take action if they have. Transparency is not "cutting off our nose". --Fæ (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Sir Fozzie, Fluffernutter et al. The proposal is symptomatic of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality whereby evildoers (i.e anyone associated with WR or Wikipediocracy) have to be fought and exposed at every opportunity. Oversighters, admins etc who act on information they come across somewhere else should not be assumed to be acting in bad faith without evidence or forced to don yellow e-stars just to please Fae.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There should be corners of the web where one can speak their minds freely, frankly, and naturally without fear of being punished on Wikipedia. People who speak freely outside of Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to display yellow stars on every discussion page, on every closing statement, or every edit or log summary. Reporting Wikipedia news and ongoings shouldn't be a crime. Should a columnist be forced to wear a yellow star for writing a op-ed column about a political debate? The proposal degrades those who use forums and blogs by forcing them to wear yellow stars. It's an insult to those users' dignities, and it discouraged frank, natural discussions outside of Wikipedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Except canvassing is something that users on Wikipediocracy do, including attempting to discover personal information on Wikipedians to use as chilling effects to stop certain people from editing, in addition to attempting to create legal actions against Wikipedia itself, such as through the chapters. I'm sorry, but "frank, natural discussions" are not what goes on over there. SilverserenC 01:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So where on Wikipediocracy is this discussion mentioned that Wikipediocracy members are being/will be canvassed from to oppose it, all while insulting Fae continuously in the process? SilverserenC 01:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Addendum: This isn't about canvassing – Read Fæ's statement again. This isn't about canvassing. Fæ's statement isn't about drawing attention to a discussion page. This is about someone on the Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy pointing out a mistake or violation, which results in a sysop fixing that mistake or removing the violation. For example (probably not the best example): http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=299. If someone on a forum points out an image's inappropriate or inaccurate name, should a sysop seeking to give that image a better name really be forced to say, "Wikipedia Review said…"? I don't really believe a sysop acting on a mistake pointed out by the WR or Wikipediocracy to be "canvassing". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • However, it is well known that Wikipediocracy is a group of like minded people, with only one or two members that disagree. Therefore, when one of the members brings up a discussion going on somewhere and berates it or praises it, it brings in the other members to vote or make a statement on-wiki to that effect. That falls exactly into the definition of canvassing, because it is notifying a biased, partisan group of people. SilverserenC 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Becoming aware of a discussion shouldn't be a crime. Learning isn't a crime. Reporting news and events isn't a crime. I have the right to learn about these sorts of discussions. It isn't the quantity of !votes that counts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It's that it is being presented in a biased manner. Learning of news from, say, Fox News is likely to prejudice one to a certain opinion because of how the information is presented there. Thus, in terms of informing people about a discussion, this type of biased informing is exactly what canvassing means. It's directly why WP:CANVAS exists. SilverserenC 02:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too open to abuse -- look at all the screams that go up when someone says, "Oh, I saw someone mention it on IRC..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If they were mentioning it on IRC to a group of friend, thus leading them to join the discussion and side with that person, then that is canvassing, yes. SilverserenC 02:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope. In the case I was thinking of, one admin said something like "Oh, fun, Admin B just blocked Admin C..." I looked at the case, saw that there was some related admin action that should be taken, and took it. Now, I wasn't canvassed to take that action, but if I had said that it had been inspired by an IRC conversation, I would have had to defend a perfectly normal action at far too much length.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was concerned on how I would word this (and still am), but I'll give it a shot. First, I have to say that I admire any display of transparency and all statements of honesty from editors. Now - over time we've developed a ton of rules (aka Policies) that with the best of intentions; but in practice they now utterly fail us. "Policy" is used more and more to batter people over the head with club-like bluntness. (CIV, NOTORG, CANVASS, etc.), and the loopholes in those policies are used to manipulate discussions. Now, on a more "off-wiki" sort of thought: What another editor reads, hears, participates in, signs up for, and which websites, IRC or chat venues, or email they exchange is simply nobody's damn business. And by the way - the sheer irony of posting this tread simply astounds me. — Ched :  ?  07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the idea, but Ched makes a good point — we simply have so many policies that nobody can keep track of all of them. Imposing yet another requirement will not help in building the encyclopedia, but it will help to inflame passions among those who are more concerned with building an encyclopedia than with keeping track of policies and thus reduce the number of people who are writing. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as a concept, though not a formal rule Wikiprocess should be open. I consider it wrong to proceed on private information or as part of a cabal. What is used to hit people over the head is these private arrangements. (but some types of things discussed I never see, as I don't use irc & don't participate in projects that require it. And to the extent I see something on my rare random looks at WR/etc., if I see a movement developing there, my normal reaction is to find some reason to oppose it. If I'm asked on or off wiki to intervene in anything, I normally say so, though I do not necessarily say who it was who asked me, especially if it was off wiki by private email. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in general one should disclose when !votes are the result of otherwise untraceable canvasing. This includes IRC, and whatever else. I see no reason not to ask that people do so. It's not reasonably enforceable, but still... Hobit (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Hobit above, but because it's not enforcable it would be a silly rule to have. Rules that can't be enforced or policed just serve to undermine the rest of the rule-book. But while on the subject I would say this: we have talk pages, we have essays, we have userspace, we have the village pump, we have the Signpost complete with "comment on this story" sections... there is absolutely no need whatsoever for discussions about Wikipedia content to happen anywhere other than on Wikipedia (unless it's a legal issue, BLP violation etc). So for somebody to set up an off-wiki discussion forum for things that should be discussed on-wiki goes clearly against the principles of the project in my opinion, and editors participating on such a forum are for the most part, knowingly/intentionally or not, damaging Wikipedia. waggers (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If you would forbid articles like this, would you also forbid articles like this? How about articles like this? Should they be allowed, or forbidden as "damaging"? Should people be allowed to talk about Wikipedia on Facebook, and Twitter? I find what you say quite extraordinary. I imagine it's the sort of line the Chinese government might take, concerning discussions of the Chinese government. --JN466 13:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Ched and Sarek pretty much. Snowolf How can I help? 08:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: if the good folks at Wikipediocracy or WR point out a problem that needs fixing, they should certainly be given credit for doing so.

    BTW: Would this also apply to requests on IRC channels, email requests to delete one's uploads, discussions of prior usernames with the members of ArbCom, and the "in camera" discussions at WMUK? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

    • SB_Johnny As you mention WMUK, your question seems pointed in my direction - yes; though a common sense interpretation of personal privacy, harassment or legal considerations may limit how much of the prior confidential discussions can be released. If use of tools on-wiki is the result of such discussions then we should always be as transparent as possible. For example, as an OTRS volunteer, I had a photograph (uploaded a few years ago) of a young woman exposing her breasts for a fun dare at a public concert deleted from Commons, after she emailed in explaining how being personally identifiable in the photo was a problem for her now. In theory, we could reject such requests as we have a full copyright release, though I would hope everyone understands that Wikimedia projects ought to be managed with respect, compassion and in confidence where information or images have a credible case of causing damage or distress to the models or other people involved. In that particular case, creating a lengthy deletion discussion would only draw unhelpful attention to the image and massively increase the distress for the model. If in the future we force that to happen as policy, then we should be totally fair and add extreme and dire warnings about the risks of irrevocably releasing images to Wikimedia projects in order to fully inform our contributors. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Right. Agreed. (Putting a halt to uploading images of that nature from flickr (etc.) where people don't seem to understand the licenses would probably be a good thing for the same reason, but that's a whole 'nother topic ;-).) --SB_Johnny | talk 14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Presented Transparency is a good thing, but 'badsite' is not. This proposal is too enmeshed in the later.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If you could suggest an alternative wording that can improve the policy and side-step a badsites debate, that would be helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    This discussion's to contaminated. It started as badsites, the clock can't be turned back to make it into a genuine transparency proposal. Not here and now.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Sarek. And per Ched below, to note this proposal runs counter to the position Fæ took in an email on January 26 in a different situation. MBisanz talk 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please note, I have asked Fæ to no longer contact me via email. MBisanz talk 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; rephrase. It should be clear that if a known editor is engaging in a heated debate with an admin on WR, and that admin then finds a reason to block him on WP, there is "the appearance of bias". I would, however, say simply that "WP:INVOLVED can apply regardless of whether interactions occur on or off Wikipedia", to be clear. Indeed, an admin could be involved due solely to a bitter e-mail exchange or IRC conversation, though proving it could be tough. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while in many cases transparency would be worth encouraging, a policy to that effect would just add complication to complication even without singling out particular sites... although is AN really the place to be making policies? Or am I just misunderstanding this entire thing? — Isarra ༆ 01:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support nub of proposal. Good and bad criticism of wikipedia can come from many outside sources. If admin action is being taken because they saw X, then it "should" be mentioned, so as to clarify the discussion as to why and what exactly is being adressed. Seems like this should be developed at Village pump. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is just more witch-hunty butthurt over WR/'ocracy, nothing to see here. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Michaeldsuarez. Admins (and other users with elevated privileges) are trusted with their tools to step in with their own perspective regardless of the channel through which they were notified of the problem. There is no point forcing everyone to say "Facebook said", "Twitter said", or "this editor told me in the last WP:MEET" when the admin would've come to the same conclusion anyway had they stumbled upon the problem through a purely on-wiki channel like Watchlist or noticeboards. Deryck C. 14:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's request

For those keen to shoot down what I still believe is a mild proposal, that those with admin and oversight tools should be held to a reasonable standard of transparency, when using their tools if they choose to engage with off-wiki attack forums, I suggest you take a quiet minute to consider this request put out today:

Those who think of themselves as my allies on this issue I appreciate very much. I need your help. You do not help me by participating in a forum run by someone who I think is dangerous to myself and my family, who has posted a photo of himself online with a semi-automatic rifle along with a sick fantasy about a gun battle with me.--Jimbo Wales [5][6]

Are you honestly comfortable that we are not just allowing this situation to happen, but as a collective we support those amongst our numbers with a trusted status on Wikipedia who are not open and honest about taking part and hence covertly legitimize the same forums that harbour and encourage people who make personal attacks, creepily engage in long term internet stalking and harassment, make false public sexual and personal allegations and issue anonymous on-wiki threats against established members of our community? My ethical compass is certainly troubling me greatly right now. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

reasonable standard of transparency???? Really Fae? Tell me - where was this reasonable transparency at your last RfA? HUH? How dare you try to point a finger at others. You sir have lost the last ounce of respect I might have ever been able to muster for you. Damn hypocrite. You dare try to point fingers at "those with admin ..tools". Good grief. — Ched :  ?  07:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

'

make false public sexual and personal allegations; a recent example, perhaps, in the case where an editor viciously attacked another on the grounds of homophobia, dragged him to a noticeboard and essentially forced him to out himself in defence of the charge? That sort of thing is pretty horrendous, I agree. Ethics is certainly a double edged sword. --Errant (chat!) 08:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo's request (quoted above) seems to be a false and personal allegation as well (see diff). The hyperbole really isn't helpful. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I take seriously threats against people, real or perceived. That being said, his deletion of a post to his talk page is regrettable, since it seemed a serious response. I suggest that we close this thread. There's really nothing we can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Wehwalt, the clue about what we can do might be in Jimbo's direct request. Everyone here has their free choice of whether to support attack forums by taking part in them, or denying them oxygen. It is interesting to see the list of names here who appear to be resisting my request for transparency (even resorting to irrelevant personal allegations about me) and who are also known to be highly active advocates of Wikipediocracy, and frequently use free speech and transparency as their justification. I think we are all aware that personal attacks, hounding and harassment are not the same thing as free speech. Now, rather than rushing to find a reason to close down this discussion, why don't we let our opportunity for free speech have a moment in the sun? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
As I deleted nothing, your paean for free speech might be better directed to Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I would not dare advise Jimbo on how to manage his own talk page, I've had my fingers burnt on that one before. Interesting reference to Apollo you made there Wehwalt. Shade.png --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh. Um, I hope I have not offended, I have not enquired into the, er, orientations of the Greek gods?  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
This is yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND nonsense from Fae. Greg Kohs does seem to be obsessed with Jimbo. He has also been criticised in such places as Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy for some of his posts on Jimbo and especially his daughter. However, it is inconvenient for Fae's Battle to mention that neither WR (particularly before the schism) nor Wikipediocracy have a monolithic party line. Also Greg Kohs isn't an admin or Mod on either of those sites and I don't think he has ever been one. Perhaps we should consider whether the attempt to pursue a battleleground mentality to the extent that Fae is doing here is appropriate in an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Peter, could you do me a favour, as you regularly contribute there, could you confirm who legally owns the Wikipediocracy website? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
What happened is that about a dozen people, Greg among them, got together to set up a new site when Wikipedia Review went downhill. For a while, we were unsure what to call the site, and Greg in particular bought a string of domain names people had suggested. One of these was for the name we eventually chose, i.e. Wikipediocracy.com. The site hosting is not paid by Greg, but by another member of the collective. We're hoping to have the domain name and hosting bills transferred to a non-profit within the next few weeks. Greg will likely be one of about a dozen trustees of the non-profit. It's correct that he has neither moderator nor sysadmin rights at the site. --JN466 12:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
(EC. Jayen's reply is going to be more accurate but I had written this already.) They are setting up some sort of not for profit trust to take over the ownership. I don't know the membership of the steering group and haven't been invited to join. Kohs may have paid the initial cash but doesn't manage the content and, although he might be a member of the steering group, he would be just one of several voices. As far as current ownership is concerned, I think he just happens to have been the person who made most preparations for a new forum in January after Selina was late paying for WR's registration then, when she fell out with him, Hersh/Herschel Krustovski and Gomi/Greybeard in quick succession they set in motion the alternative site. Although more people actively sided with those three, I think most people who have moved there have done so because it looks like being the only game in town rather than because they have a clear understanding of the rights and wrongs. But this is similar to lots of people contributing to or reading Wikipedia because it is the only show in town not because they necessarilly think it is superior to what Citizendium, Encarta or Britannica might have produced in its absence or that it has better policies than them. The fact that I contribute to Wikipediocracy is no more evidence that I support all of what Kohs and Herschel think or that I approve of them as individuals than the fact that I contribute to Wikipedia should be taken as evidence that I approve of you or Jimbo or agree with what you say. And that is the fallacy of your proposal here. The criticism sites are not monolithic and there is no party line. Various Wikipedia admins, functionaries and beaurocrats have participated on those sites and various other people monitor them even though they might not participate. This makes them different from the various closed lists that have featured in Arbcom cases regarding the Middle East and Eastern Europe.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your understanding of the future situation. I look forward to Gregory Kohs no longer being the registered legal owner of the website and finding out who will be the new owner. Until, and if, that happens, I think it entirely accurate for anyone to call it Gregory Kohs' forum. Note, you probably mean "directors" rather than "trustees" if it is to become a not for profit. I will be interested in seeing who is prepared to take personal liability for the forum and put their full legal names in the public domain as directors. Depending on how the company is registered, it may well be subject to hate crime legislation, an interesting position for the future directors considering the current culture which enabled the recent faggot "fae got" incident which passed without any meaningful sanction against the person involved.
Peter, as you appear to be arguing against closed lists, and presumably must highly prize transparency, you may want to review your opinion in the above discussion where you appear to be against it for those who have trusted authority on Wikipedia.
By the way, most of us with a Jewish heritage would probably find your immediate comparison of my proposal for transparency with the holocaust, an extreme and offensive viewpoint. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Assuming that the planned non-profit organization will be in the US, you have two potential sources of information:
  • Assuming that they manage to get tax-exempt status on the grounds that they're supporting Wikipedia's educational mission (a little dubious, but it would probably work in the end), you will not necessarily be able to find out who all of the directors (or trustees; for charities, the terms are used interchangeably in practice) are, because their gross receipts will be so low that their public reporting will be the 990-N, which needs to list only one officer (who might not be a member of the board). Seeking tax-exempt status isn't mandatory, and if they don't, they can avoid tax liability simply by not making any profits (which should be very easy for a website to arrange; this is the approach I would take if I were setting up a similar program).
  • Assuming that they incorporate, you should be able to find out (from the state) the names of the president, secretary, treasurer, and agent for service of process (could be all the same person if not a non-profit; may be as few as two people if it is). Incorporation isn't necessary, of course, but it provides some liability benefits. If they incorporate, the individual directors (and owners, if it is not a non-profit) will not necessarily have "personal liability" for the contents of the website. That, after all, is the primary point behind incorporation: you can sue the corporation, but you can't win the assets of the people who run it or own it except in specific, unusual, and very severe situations (and online insults isn't one of them).
Whether or not an insulting speech in the absence of an independently criminal action (e.g., yelling a slur vs yelling a slur while killing someone) counts as a hate crime is outside my area of competence, so I'll leave that to others, but free speech laws are generally very broadly construed in the US, so I wouldn't count on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh I think we reached the point some time ago where some consider that anything less than abject brown nosing is a 'hate crime'. John lilburne (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's probably not smart to scheme on a public noticeboard about how best to get around hate crime legislation; your call I guess. I fully accept John lilburne's implication that I am an abject brown noser. I'm naturally talented and have many years of experience in that department. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's probably not smart to scheme on a public noticeboard about how best to get around hate crime legislation... - Is that REALLY what you're reading in the comment above yours? I find that baffling. So-called "Hate Crime Legislation" wouldn't seem to have anything to do with anything in this specific instance, let alone there being any attempt to "get around" it. Is this some sort of veiled legal threat? I'm at a loss... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Fæ, what are you babbling on about? You seem to have the recipient of the brown-nosing confused, and the rest of your comment is just completely bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one who thinks it a bit hilarious that Jimmy Wales' "Those who think of themselves as my allies on this issue I appreciate very much. I need your help." is being quoted by the proposer as bolstering his backdoor BADSITES proposal? What "issue" is it to which Mr. Wales refers? Hmmm? It is, pretty clearly, his desire for users to be able to filter sexual content at Commons, set in motion by the activism of some contributors to Wikipediocracy on the festering situation there. Wales is essentially saying, those of you with me on the image filter issue are not doing me any favors working through that site, which is "run by" [incorrect statement by JW, per the above] a person that I see as a possible physical menace to me. The proposer is keen to hear what is useful to him, ignoring the basic issue involved and quoting out of context.
I'm not going to defend the words or actions of ANYONE at Wikipediocracy. Indeed, I find several of the principals there, including the Wikimedia-project-banned individual with whom the proposer is at war, to be obnoxious and consider them opponents. But the views and actions of a few are not sufficient to condemn that project as a whole, which in this case I believes serves a positive mission as a source of independent criticism of the systemic problems of WP. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Carrite, you may not be the only one who finds Jimbo's personal request for our help hilarious, but I expect you would definitely be in the fringe minority. I read his request as genuine and I think most readers would accept it in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Whew, difficulty discerning meaning or something. I find YOUR quoting his comments made originally in the context of helping offended users mitigate the porno catastrophe that is Wikipedia Commons to be hilarious, not his seeking of help for those who don't want to see, y'know, naked butts of boys in ropes and stuff like that. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's see, Gregory Kohs has been in a long-running, online (entirely online) dispute with Jimbo Wales. The two men can't stand one another and Mr. Wales gives as good as he gets. Some time ago, Mr. Kohs posts a picture of himself with a friend's rifle on his Facebook page. In the comments thread, a friend asks him something like "I hope you're not planning on killing anything with that." He responds, "I understand that Jimmy Wales often carries a gun, so I have to be prepared with counter-fire." [7]. Hmmm... Counter-fire. counter-fire. counter-fire. This is A. clearly a joke and B. A reference (in the context of the lame joke) to self-defense. Now, six month's later Wales (who would like nothing better than to shut Koh's up and smear his good name) writes: I think (Kohs) is dangerous to myself and my family, who has posted a photo of himself online with a semi-automatic rifle along with a sick fantasy about a gun battle with me. This is a classic, classic Wikipedia smear tactic against people you don't like/disagree with. Then Mr. Van Haeften, who has made a habit of accusing all and sundry of "homophobia" and "harassment" and "hate crimes" and posing a danger to his family, for the crime of criticizing him (I've been on the receiving end of this nonsense in the past) and for seeking for, well, transparency as to his past and current actions on various Wikimedia projects, tries to stir up a little wiki lynch mob against those who would dare to frequent the Wikipedia criticism site wikipediocracy.com because, because... the dangerous Mr. Kohs posts there too. If Mr. Wales is really concerned that Mr. Kohs is a threat to him or anyone in his family, he should seek a restraining order. As for the backdoor "badsites" policy, well, Mr. Van Haeften will just have to adjust to the fact that he's not going to get his way.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Dare I suggest it's probably a pretty heavy BLP violation... runs and hides --Errant (chat!) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
BLP does apply to talk pages. Suggesting that a living person is a danger is definitely a BLP violation. Although I'm not stupid enough to try editing Jimbo's page. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As usual, a lot of the rhetoric here is overblown. At the same time, while I don't subscribe to the stuff about hate crimes and gun battles, it's obvious that there are individuals whose interest in Jimmy Wales and his family verges on the uncomfortably obsessive.

    The whole thing is sort of ridiculous; obviously, the people who contribute to Wikipediocracy are not about to stop just because Jimmy Wales asks them to. And in the end, a discussion forum is just a discussion forum. If a website lost all redeeming value simply because it was frequented by a few nasty, obsessive pieces of work, then Wikipedia should have been closed down long ago.

    That said, there's a sort of icky, vindictive, excessively familiar undertone that runs through a lot of posts on those off-site forums, and it's fair to consider whether we as Wikipedia contributors want to be associated with that. MastCell Talk 18:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Time for changes to the Username Policy? ROLE, ORGNAME and NOSHARE

Every policy has room for improvement, and the username policy is no different. I am not proposing (nor supporting/opposing) any changes myself. However, in hopes of drawing a wider audience to the conversation to achieve consensus I wanted to mention this here. In response to some potentially unclear wording in the policy we saw this RFCN and this conversation on Jimbo's talk page a number of editors are taking a stab at clarifying the policy. Admin who regularly review the backlog at UAA may want to review and comment. Your input on the username policy talkpage would be appreciated.  7  23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You might point out that WP:ROLE is not actually part of WP:Username, but part of the WP:SOCK policy. I think part of the problem in interpretation might have been the different goals of these two policies. The naming of users is primarily focused on avoiding confusing names and giving basic guidelines for new users, while the 'Sock' policy is about stressing the 1-to-1 relationship (1 human to 1 account) that is strongly preferred because of security and accountability concerns. -- Avanu (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
... Except that that's not actually what WP:SOCK says. Users are allowed as many accounts as they can use in a policy-compliant manner. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You're talking about the exception, not the general rule. The policy still says what you just said. But if you're summing up general user creation policy in 1 brief sentence, you'd probably say "generally one human to one account", which is what I'm saying above. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
See my most recent post on Jimbo's page for some ideas :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
In that conversation I proposed to create/use a more gentle template to mark blocked organization-name accounts, Template:Legal person. But probably to go ahead and legitimize simply blocking accounts with such names on sight, given that the person is free to go ahead and start a new account anyway. Wnt (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Admin refusing to participate in dispute resolution

There is a dispute over the structure of List of vegans, discussed at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates. User:SlimVirgin has been claiming consensus for pushing changes through and I dispute she does have a consensus, so started a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of vegans. So far she has refused to participate in the dispute resolution, claiming she does not need to: [8]. Administrator User:EdJohnston tackled her over her refusal to participate in dispute resolution, noting ...it seems to me that your insistence on removing the templates has no supporters but yourself. What consensus there is suggests that Betty's scheme is favored. SilmVirgin has refused to acknowledge this. She has also requested another editor on the article to write a program that will remove all the citation tempplates, which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools. Since EdJohnston does not believe she has a consensus for her changes, can you please compel her to participate in dispute resolution and to cease making structural alterations to the article until the issues are resolved at DR. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Please remember to notify involved editors as required. Notifications to SlimVirgin and EdJohnston made. Monty845 02:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This complaint is not valid and looks like forum shopping. Editors are not required to participate. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    If this complaint is not valid, I am going to take my efforts of Wikipedia. I have promoted articles to GA and FA status, but if there is not a legitimate process for settling a content dispute then I have no recourse. And this is not forum shopping; after filing a complaint at AN3 I tried being constructive by entering dispute resolution. Even EdJohnston said this was an appropriate step, and he advised me to come here if I was still dissatisifed, which I am. It is very clear that this would not be happening if the other editor was not an admin. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • But if they don't participate, then that generally means that they are in the wrong and are trying to avoid responsibility. SilverserenC 03:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've given three years of my life to this project working on articles and developing templates (just check my user stats), because I believe in free knowledge. You can't even give me one lousy dispute resolution process, where someone impartial decides what the consensus is. Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty strange to defend SlimVirgin over Betty in this case. It seems that SlimVirgin has been ignoring all objections on the talk page, refused to participate in dispute resolution, and is allowing her personal distaste for templates to guide her actions here. She has been dismissive of Betty Logan's attempts to insist on reliable sourcing (and, lets not forget, describing someone as a vegan is a WP:BLP issue, where strong sourcing is an absolute requirement). I've reverted the article to a version prior to SlimVirgin's participation. I suggest that she not return to editing the article until she participates in dispute resolution and agrees not to include statements about living people that don't meet WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Kww, that was out of order. You've undone a lot of work, including adding new names and sources. I advise you to look at the page history, the serial reverting, and the talk page. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's your changes. I'm seeing only 4 new people added and about 5 source changes. The rest is just decapitalization and such, which isn't all that important. It's certainly easier to do it this way than to have to manually put the color coded stuff back in. SilverserenC 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Just as it was sorted out, Kww has stirred it up again. The truth is that Betty Logan has been a serial reverter on that page for two years, barely allowing anyone else to edit it, but without improving it either. I'm all for a bit of OWN when it helps, but what he has done has caused the page to stagnate. Now, because I tried to help a new editor he was repeatedly reverting over the last few days, he has turned on me, and has taken me to, I believe, four noticeboards since last night. You have just rewarded that behaviour, and have undone a lot of work in which I added names and references that he had been removing. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
And now we move onto the bit where, when you can't get people to agree with you, you try to discredit the person you're in a disagreement with. Really, I could make a checklist and mark each one as you follow it, you've done the pattern time and again. SilverserenC 03:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't sorted out at all, SV: you were simply ignoring all objections to your edits. Pay attention to the DRN request, and enter into it in good faith, with the full expectation that you might not prevail. Sure, Betty is frustrated as all hell and lashing out, but I probably would be too.—Kww(talk) 10:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin did not request that anyone write a program. I told SlimVirgin that I would write a program (at a later date, after I've completed my current project) and SlimVirgin agreed that it would be a good idea. The purpose of the program would be to convert templated refs to non-templated refs in order to see if makes a significant difference in the page loading speed. Certainly, neither of us had it in mind as a permanent adjustment as no permanent plan for the page had been determined. It was just talk during the discussion & testing phase that we are still in. --Andomedium (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Pain/Archive_4#Cite_ref; it has been tried manually and apparently does make a significant difference if there are many citations in the article (Pain has more than 100). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. --Andomedium (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Forget it

Forget it, I've just had enough. I loved Wikipedia when I joined and now I absolutely hate it. You don't have fair rules for settling editing disputes, and you allow editors to destroy other people's work like what happened to User:Armbrust, the best editor you ever had. And you always take the admin's side and provide no mechanism for editors to have a consensus judged fairly and impartially. This is not a nice place. You probably think I'm a troublemaker because I'm a redlink, but I've promoted articles and peer reviewed film articles, and practically held the snooker project afloat with Armbrust. I want you to know how good I was though so here are the two articles I am proudest of:

  • Don't Look Now – This is my favorite film and the article was shit when I joined Wikipedia. I single handedly developed it from this to this.
  • List of highest-grossing films – I wrote all the prose on that, and designed and implemented the expandible tables at the bottom. I thought they were so cool, and really elevated the article. Under my guidance that article went from this to this

I think those two articles show me in my best light, it shows what I'm capable off when I'm allowed to edit fairly, although I doubt you give a shit. And you insult me by not even giving me the opportunity to have my editing decisions and my point of view heard fairly, by someone impartial. Over and out. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Betty, please don't leave. That was a really crass comment by Jehochman above, please ignore it. I'm sure there's people here that can help with this issue. SilverserenC 03:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Betty, for what it's worth, I apologize to you that we have gotten off track here. I take responsibility for that. The situation now is that several of us are discussing on the talk page what the formatting of the article should be. We agree that the list needs something to prettify it, and there are several good featured lists that we could take our lead from. One consideration is not to add to load time (already slow) with unnecessary templates, and to make sure the page is easy for new editors to expand (i.e. not too fiddly -- the previous colour-coding was problematic in that regard). The discussion is going well, and you are welcome to join in.
My suggestion is that you take a couple of days away from the article, and I will do the same. Then when we're both refreshed, we can meet again on talk to discuss how to proceed. Nothing has happened at that article that can't be changed easily, so please accept this olive branch, then we can start again with a better relationship and work to improve the page together. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any agreement on the talk page with your view on the load times. Furthermore, I just tried loading both versions and there wasn't any time difference. You also don't have any consensus on the talk page for the removal of the color coding. Also, this polite, fake positive wording/speech methods that you use to imply that you're the one that has consensus and that you're the one doing all the work in the discussion is really just insulting to whomever you're speaking to. SilverserenC 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you clear your browser's cache in between? It's (I've been told) a necessary step to get valid results in this instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Betty Logan seems to be making pointed comments at EdJohnston now.[9] Not good. Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a pointed comment, i'm seeing someone upset and burned out. She isn't even being insulting or anything, so I don't see the issue at all. SilverserenC 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No. A section headed "Thanks for nothing" seems to be a critcism of EdJohnston's closing of the report at WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I think EdJohnston's close of it was appropriate, but I can fully understand Betty being upset as they are if I had to deal with a talk page discussion like that one with Slim Virgin. SilverserenC 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Betty Logan objected to the close explicitly.[10] The discussion on the talk page is proceeding in a calm and orderly way. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It was already going in a calm and orderly way. And considering there's been only one edit since then, Slim Virgin making an RfC on the color thing, there isn't really anything that has happened since to be judged whether it is calm and orderly. I assume these comments are just trying to defend SV, Mathsci? SilverserenC 04:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No, SV is not the problem here. Meanwhile Betty Logan has forum-shopped elsewhere.[11] Mathsci (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you follow SlimVirgin's example, extend the olive branch and let this go. Its probably past time to close this thread before someone makes things worse. -- Avanu (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If only it was an actual olive branch and not a snake. SilverserenC 06:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so every time someone else puts a message on Jimbo's page, it's not forum shopping, but now it is? Besides, there's no link back here or even an explicit mention, so it's not forum shopping. SilverserenC 06:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please cut back on the drama-producing rhetoric, personalised remarks and scarcely credible wikilawyering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So, essentially, you're not actually going to respond to what I say. I see how it is. SilverserenC 06:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see Ched Davis' comments below: your contributions here seem to be in bad faith. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to enter into the meat of the disagreement itself, but I must say that when an editor (Slim) states I apologize to you that we have gotten off track here. I take responsibility for that. and Then when we're both refreshed, we can meet again on talk to discuss how to proceed. Nothing has happened at that article that can't be changed easily, so please accept this olive branch, - I find it rather unseemly for other editors to use language such as: this polite, fake positive wording/speech methods that you use and If only it was an actual olive branch and not a snake.. Let's try to do a little better please. — Ched :  ?  07:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "I'm sorry people got upset" is not the same thing as "I'm sorry for what I did". Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I did go a bit overboard with that, but i'm extremely annoyed that everyone is ignoring what Slim has done wrong (and the canvassing below). Though I am, admittedly, not surprised at the response either. And now we've lost yet another editor. Great job everyone. SilverserenC 07:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

Right here. Saying "Please don't feel like you have to comment" is just a veiled attempt to pretend it isn't canvassing. Why wouldn't he feel compelled to comment after being informed of it? SilverserenC 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to list diffs under a section titled "Canvassing", allow me to help by adding a few more: diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
How is any of that canvassing? Those are all proper processes to be used in a dispute. The RSN discussion is in agreement with Betty. The AN3 discussion was no consensus, but noted that there was no support for Slim. And Slim refused to be involved in the DRN discussion. Again, how is any of this canvassing? It looks to me like a continually agreement that Slim has no consensus and is refusing to actually discuss anything. SilverserenC 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see the RSN discussion is not the recent one I was thinking of, but one from a few days ago. What does that one even have to do with anything? SilverserenC 07:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally I hope that Betty doesn't leave, and I hope she and SV can find a resolution to all this. I do understand that once frustration sets in, it's often difficult to see another person's side of things. I don't know Betty - but she seems to be a good-faith editor, and I hope she'll stay. I'm just saying that having seen Slim around for many years, I know that she too is someone open to reason and compromise. I haven't read through all the discussions on this, and I'm not really interested in the "vegan" topic itself. If it were me, then after a WP:3O my next step would be to start a RfC on the article talk page (perhaps even try to get it listed at WP:CENT - at the conclusion of the RfC, you get some sort of established consensus. If it can't be resolved that way - then some sort of WP:MEDCAB type of thing perhaps could help. (and I should have said earlier too - SS, I do admire you sticking up for another fellow editor - I'm just saying it's not necessary to "bash" one person, in order to "support" another.) — Ched :  ?  07:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Please Allow SlimVirgin to Proceed

My words may not matter much because I'm not an established Wikipedia user (I've actually made many attempts over the past seven years to become an active Wikipedia editor but each time I was discouraged by users like Betty Logan who are so eager to delete the contributions of other users) but I'd still like to show my support for SlimVirgin.

If you check the History pages for the List of Vegetarians and the List of Vegans, it's quite clear that Betty Logan is more interested in completely deleting new (valid) list entries than in finding ways to help retain them.
If a new entry has no reference, Betty completely deletes the entry.
If a new entry has a reference but Betty finds the reference unsatisfactory, Betty completely deletes the entry.
Betty doesn't try to help create a better reference.
Betty doesn't seem to care that the entrant's vegan/vegetarian status can often be easily confirmed with a quick Google search and a pinch of common sense.
Betty doesn't bother to list the entrant on the Talk page so that other users can try to find a better source (something that SlimVirgin has already begun doing).
Betty just completely deletes the entry and that's that. The name usually remains gone from the list unless the user who added it happens to return to battle Betty, or another user comes along at a later date to try to add the name again.

While viewing the page history, I found more than enough reversions to convince me that Betty Logan shouldn't be maintaining these lists. Unfortunately, I didn't keep a good record of my findings (I'll read through the history again if necessary).
One example that I can clearly recall is Kesha who was deleted from the List of vegetarians simply because the user failed to add her in alphabetical order.
I don't believe that Betty Logan knows, or even truly cares about, what's best for these lists.
I believe that SlimVirgin does know (or will soon determine) what's best for these lists and I believe that SlimVirgin truly does care about what's best for these lists. I've looked at a lot of SlimVirgin's past work and I am convinced that, if allowed to work on the lists unimpeded, SlimVirgin will produce better structured lists and a better system for expanding and maintaining the lists. --Andomedium (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. While edits like this are not a good way to behave, it's also important to source things. If the reference is missing, or unsatisfactory, then remove the sentence it's referencing. That's pretty standard for information about living people. SlimVirgin doesn't necessarily know what's best for these lists, because they're not her lists: they're lists on an encyclopaedia, and lists on an encyclopedia should always be referenced with good quality sources. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly it is important to source things, and Betty Logan does not appear to be doing that. The reason we edit by humans is so the full range of appropriate actions should be considered. Before removing someone from a list of that sort, one should make at least a cursory check that there is not available documentation--at least by checking the Wikipedia article in case there is a link that can be copied over. Otherwise its operating like a primitive level bot, and we already have enough of these without turning ourselves into unthinking machinery. SV's edits over the years have shown her to be, in contrast, an extremely resourceful editor, who takes care in following the actual BLP policy. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
(Comment by Non-Admin.) SlimVirgin is one of the finest, if not the finest administrator I have ever encountered. I do not say this because she has always agreed with me. Quite the contrary. But she has ALWAYS been polite and informative and an encounter with her will make a better editor of you for it. Just thought it had to be said and this was a good place to say it. Mugginsx (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
(Another non-admin comment). Let me begin by saying that I, deliberately, have not reviewed the edits at the page in question. It isn't on my watchlist, and it's an argument I can do without. But I want to criticize what I see in a lot of this discussion: character endorsements or criticisms that, likewise, seem to be made by editors who know nothing more of the specifics than I do. I don't remember ever having crossed paths with Betty Logan, but I most certainly have done so numerous times with SlimVirgin. Comments that someone (who is, whatever else, a long-time active user) is generally resourceful or one of the finest do little to shed light on a specific incident, and are the kinds of things that give rise to the perception that we have so-called "vested contributors". Veganism is somewhat related as a subject to animal rights, and I have a lot of experience there, and have had some truly horrid experiences with SlimVirgin in that area. That doesn't mean that the same thing is happening here, but please forgive me if I have a Pavlovian response and worry that Betty Logan might have reason to feel badly. And yet, it has been my impression that SlimVirgin has been making a commendable effort to be on good behavior since her return from her illness. I, very sincerely, respect that and wish her well. So, reputations are not going to help us here. Actually, it ends up being a matter of looking at the edits rather than the editor, in the sense that the specific editing actions are relevant in ways that reputation is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I am no vested contributor. Look at my edit history before you make such a comment and you will see how unfounded it is. Mugginsx (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that that is what Tryptofish meant. I think they were referring to a tendency to overemphasize who the editors are (and possibly rule in their favor because of that) rather than on the substance of the dispute in question. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I see. My apologizes. Mugginsx (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I just logged back in, and saw this, and I want to assure Mugginsx that North is correct, and I was not at all calling you (nor DGG, whom I also obliquely quoted) a "vested contributor". Rather, I was trying to say that your comments, amongst many other comments by many other editors here, reinforced the somewhat flawed perception held by other people that such "vested contributors" exist. In other words, the fact that certain users have a long history of positive contributions should not be a sort of "free pass" in the event of unhelpful contributions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Need a new Admin attitude

Disclaimer: Before I begin, let me say that I know full well we have an ample supply of perfect, abundantly helpful, and unfailingly charitable administrators. The following comments are not intended to change the behavior or process of those admins, except to encourage them to help those few administrators who manage to fall short in minor ways.

The PROBLEM

Its becoming a tired refrain that when people bring an issue to the admin board for help, asking for 'X', invariably admins and other editors chime in on 'Y' and 'Z'. Far too often, it degrades into personal attacks, nitpicking on policy from all editors toward all editors, and generally unproductive tangents. Admins seem far too eager to use banning and blocking tools, and far too hesitant to apologize for mistakes.

The QUESTIONS

Is this the exception? Are these things the few public opportunities we have to see a generally streamlined and efficient administrative process at work, and are people misjudging admin behavior because of a few abrupt or insensitive comments?

What suggestions might improve this? Do we say "no tolerance for incivility from our admins"? Do we remove admins from the process and allow community consensus to develop first before an admin is allowed to use 'tools'? Would things like this help or hurt?

Could programming fix some of these things? After all, we debated 'bad' usernames at length simply because we let people sign up almost anything they like. Perhaps 'suggest-a-name' algorithims? Or maybe allow admins to have a temp-rename ability that would allow them to 'fix' a username by amending it to something that they feel is acceptable, without having to block someone outright (assuming it is a non-vulgar type naming issue). It could have 1 month temp duration before a block is instituted, which would give a non-problematic user time to work through consensus processes before they end up blocked.

Back on TARGET

Some admins have to shoot so often, they probably end up in the middle of the street at high noon without even trying. While we end up getting rid of a lot of bad guys this way, you might lose track of who is who.

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is an Administrator, the most powerful editor in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk? - Dirty Mopper

We love a cowboy; we love a person who stands up for what's right and don't take no guff from nobody. But even John Wayne's characters sometimes realized that they needed to gain some perspective. Yeah, they were usually right, usually brave, and usually honorable, but they weren't perfect.

The KEY

If we don't appreciate the impact our actions have on others, we end up locking them out. I can't tell admins what to do, any more than I can train a cat to use a toilet (although some people have). But I can tell you that I have seen a lot of people who feel very excluded by the behavior they see on these boards. I can tell you they don't walk away feeling helped, they don't walk away feeling appreciative for your hard work, they walk away wondering why they bothered. I don't think that is what admins want. I would simply encourage admins to hold one another accountable for civility above all else. Getting policy right is important, no doubt. Getting relationships right takes more work, but in the end more people will appreciate the hard work that you do and even scramble to step up and help. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I'm very surprised to see no reaction to this thread. I was looking forward to various views. I think you've (Avanu) have made some astute observations. (and while "technically 'off the record' - I do enjoy the bits of embedded humor). — Ched :  ?  19:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I kind of finding it hard to come up with a response to this; there is no clear direction that the above comment is going in. --MuZemike 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Muz - how ya doin? .. yea - it's rather difficult for me to compose a reply as well. I agree with a lot of the observations though. In general, I think our project does need to re-evaluate our stance on many things. Definitely a mind bender IMHO, and I've seen more than one lately along this line. I think it's an indication that there are indeed things that need to change if we're to survive - and I do want to hear other view-points. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
(non-admin Pesky) Is it possible that too many of our admins are getting a bit burned-out? People can subject themselves to too much stress without really noticing it happening. I don't know what the fix for that would be, but it might explain a part of the problem. Avanu's made some good points there (and I liked the humour, as well :o) ) MuZemike, I think it's a hard thing to respond to, so not surprised people may find it hard to come up with a response. It leaves me with a kind of hollow, empty, "Don't know what, don't know how" to do anything feeling. But, underneath that one, I also have a feeling that there may be things that could be done. It just might take a while to come up with them. Pesky (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't help but to conjure up the recent South Park episode where Eric Cartman tries to deflect attention from his misdeeds by claiming horrific deeds done by those around him, including alleged deeds of those accusing him. His friends and peers ignore this attempt at redirection and keep the discussion on-topic. This sort of action, I call it the Cartman Attempt, is employed with great regularity on these administrative boards. Much to my shock it actually succeeds in a great many cases. If this were a court of law an attorney or barrister would object based upon scope and evidence not in the record. Unless the judge was off his rocker that day a Cartman Attempt would be immediately shot down. We have no true impartial judges here (except maybe for the Arbitration Committee) and those pointing to a succeeding Cartman Attempt are not likely to succeed. Often folks point to the WP:BOOMERANG page but this isn't very reassuring for those who are truly interested in justice. I beg Wikipedia editors and administrators to see the Cartman Attempt whenever it is employed and to not let it muddy the waters. 140.247.141.142 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It's basically a typical ad hominem response to others' points. And no, you're right; that should be discouraged. However, sometimes that can be difficult, as there are people who make rather ridiculous claims about stuff – of course, this is all dependent on your interpretation of "ridiculous". --MuZemike 22:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've heard that diplomacy is the art of telling another person to go to hell in a respectful enough way that they actually look forward to the trip. Being able to do that requires an inner calm that wears thin after being faced with the same nonsense (person doesn't understand why he can't spam his product on every page in the wiki, etc.) for the 500th time in a week. That loss of calm (and therefore diplomacy) over repeated annoying incidents is called "burnout" and it happens to everyone. Forcing one's self to stay diplomatic while in a state of burnout is sometimes necessary, but it's stressful in its own right and increases the burnout.

    In a no-deadline, volunteer operation like this, a better solution is to just stay away from the affected area (or in intense cases, quit Wikipedia completely) until it stops bothering you and you are WP:COOL again. I think this thread is in response to Orange Mike blocking that newbie further up. Both threads are about failures of diplomacy. That incident struck me as showing burnout on the part of both Orange Mike and Future Perfect (and maybe others). The actual facts Orange Mike communicated were fine, but he could have been much more diplomatic, and that actually counts. A few editors (it's easy enough to spot them) are unusually skillful at this; the rest of us can all benefit from watching them and trying to operate the same way. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I'm verging on burnout. Certain editors, especially JayEn and to a lesser extent Avanu, seem to believe that I should stop doing New Page Patrol, CSD, and UAA, so that new COI accounts won't feel intimidated in their attempts to use us as their advertising medium and fluff up the portrait of the people who pay the COIs' salaries. (Sorry, that's sure as hell what I'm hearing from you, even if you insist that's not what you're saying.) I have my own interest which I'd much rather be working on, but since these are areas where there is a constant backlog, I've felt it was my duty as an admin to concentrate on places where the Mop-and-Bucket was the most needed. I have compared doing NPP in particular to "drinking from the Magic Fire Hose of Sewage", and would just as soon leave it to others; but nobody else really enjoys doing it either, for obvious reasons (to those of us who've been on the front lines, anyway). Forgive me if I seem unrepentant for trying to do my best here; I know, I know, no good deed goes unpunished. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do NPP? It doesn't require a sysop bit. Nobody Ent 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
And I may misunderstand smth, but this page shows that there is a large group of users consistently doing NPP at least this year. Whereas I doubt that the majority of them (I am certainly not an exception) enjoys this work, the progress is consistent, and the backlog is now slightly over two weeks, so that if you feel that you are burning out, you can certainly take a break from NPP. Your contribution over there, as well as everybody else's contribution, is much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to disparage the work of anybody else who's doing NPP; but to me, a two-week backlog is just unacceptably high. NPP is one of the few places where we can act to stop the vandal, the attack-article maker, and the spammer and nip them in the bud, before they sneak by and become an embarassment to this project. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. To the extent there is a problem, I think it's too difficult to fix. We have a mix of admins just as we have a mix of editors. Some are more deft than others. Some are more prone to keep things on track. Some prefer to let users vent a bit. Everyone gets tired at times and says things they regret. For some it's easier to apologize than for others, although it doesn't necessarily mean that the non-apologizing editor doesn't realize they crossed the line. These boards have developed a certain culture. It's not always pretty, but it ain't gonna change anytime soon, although we will probably be discussing it in different ways at different times and still arriving at the same dead end.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't spend much time on AN or ANI so I may be off the mark, but from the occasional glimpses I take, I see these boards evolving dramatically. A big shift happened a few months back when Newyorkbrad stepped in and made some stern observations about the ethos. That precipitated a bout of sincere navel-gazing here that had a lasting effect on the maturity and sincerity of discourse. And I think I've discerned a continually growing readiness to self-correct which leaves me mildly optimistic about this project and the prospect of an improved quality of life here, led by the admin corps. (But then again, I could be dreaming.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've only really been active for about sixteen months, but I'm sure I've noticed a lessening of general "making allowances for each other", an increase in dramahz, an increase in people feeling upset in general, several editors leaving in despair, and much more what I'd call "irritability" around. Is everyone burning out? Or are we somehow beginning to set a bad example for newbies on de-escalating conflicts, conciliation, trying to find ways to work together instead of obliterating the opposition and undermining each other ... this place isn;t the same as it was even just over a year ago. It's a less happy place. If we can work out why it is, then we know where to start fixing it. Pesky (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Concur; ANI is vastly improved over 2 to 3 years ago. Why, many days it's downright boring (this is a good thing). Nobody Ent 23:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: OrangeMike, I never said or implied that you shouldn't do New Page Patrol. The blocked user asked Jimbo why they were blocked, and I showed a scenario where MANY people are being blocked summarily for having a name that they likely signed up under in good faith. Our policy on Usernames and Socks says that we need to exercise Civility with new users. Having a process in place to eliminate promotional or role accounts is a good one, and I recognize that it is labor intensive to have to warn, then follow up and block. So I recognize that we have competing interests. The question becomes, how do we craft a process that actually follows Civility AND is not labor intensive for Admins? I think it is doable, but we need a willingness to push for change rather than simply admit we can't have both. Civility is a pillar policy, not simply a policy. This means we should not ignore it. But we have to also be practical. So let's look for solutions. -- Avanu (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Infinite patience is not one of the tools that admins are given upon receiving adminship. As most people who've interacted with me know, I spend a lot of time handling some of Wikipedia's worst snake pits, especially with regard to Indian castes (have a look at Talk:Raju and Talk:Saini for what I'm up against; these are demonstrative, not exhaustive, examples). The community at large seems to demand that admins handhold every misguided editor who wanders in regardless of their potential as an editor, and we listen to endless streams of bullshit when that doesn't happen. I'll claim to speak for a couple other admins as well when I say that I'm not interested in being nice and friendly to someone who doesn't have this project's interests at heart. If you want to spam about your company or write a hagiography for your caste/social stratum, you can go do that somewhere else, because you're not doing it here. It's not that hard to find out what this site is about, nor should we assume SEOs are merely innocent victims of The Cabal And Their Tyrannical RulesTM, because they're not; they come here to promote themselves and/or denigrate those who they feel stand in their way. I have no intention whatsoever of offering my time and efforts to such people; in Indian caste articles, at least, I haven't had an issue because the editors there recognize that it's not worth wasting time on people like those at the above-mentioned talkpages. When it comes to spam, the community seems to think that we're the people who have to be endlessly tolerant, whereas it should rather be the other way around; new users should be trying to integrate themselves into the community without us having to spend hours upon hours working with useless spammers and POV pushers. When I joined in 2010, that's how I went about things; I read the basic policies of the site. If new editors don't and create a mess, it's not up to admins to force them to and it should be on the person who created the mess to do their reading, figure out what the problem is, and take steps to rectify it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Coddling is not required but respect is (or ought to be). I'm blocking you POV scumbag! not good. I'm sorry, your edits are disruptive and you haven't responded to notices on your talk page, so I have to block you fine. Nobody Ent 23:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Well yeah, that's what I shoot for, but sometimes we're condemned for not being willin to go further even when it's apparent that it's an exercise in futility. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been very active in the COI area both before and after becoming an administrator. I'm very familiar with Orange Mike because he makes frequent reports to the COI noticeboard where I volunteer my time often. I don't know him well on a personal level, he's not a "friend" (not that I have more than a few people on Wikipedia I'd call "friends"). So I say this as an unbiased colleague. In my experience, Orange Mike is often passive in his dealings with COI editors, usually referring them to the noticeboard, rather than directly bringing down the hammer, so I can't see him having any sort of agenda or an increased level of hostility toward such editors than what is acceptable. I think he made a mistake in leveling a harsher block than usual in the username case discussed above, but we all make mistakes, I know I have before and will again. WP:UAAI suggests soft-blocking an editor who hasn't been disruptive yet if their username is unacceptable, and I've done that myself and I know that's not unusual behavior (I learned from watching others at WP:UAA). So I feel I have to speak up for someone who has been a huge help at COIN and elsewhere. -- Atama頭 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
General comment (not specifically addressing OM here) -- I don't think the situation is extreme in either way. I certainly don't see too many bans and blocks that are way out of line -- I rarely see anyone blocked who wasn't dabbling in gray area behavior. (Inconsistencies are a significant issue but that's not the topic here.) Do some admins sometimes get a little too intense in their interaction style. Yes. Are we going to magically fix that overnight? No. Does that mean nothing can be done? No -- we can gradually fix it, day by day, bit by bit. All we (bits or no bits) have to do is speak up -- but -- and this is really important -- we always have to evaluate whether our contribution will improve or worsen a situation. The fallacy is thinking that if our feedback to an editor (sysop or not) isn't met with You're right! I'm horrible, I'll never do it again!!! we've been ineffective. Most humans don't like to be cornered and demanding mea culpas is usually counterproductive. Just because you don't get a concrete reaction doesn't mean you're not having an effect. A lot of wiki-crap just can't be undone once done, so you have to think long term and strategically and just believe you'll make an editor a little more thoughtful the next time. Additionally, even if you have no effect on the editor you're addressing, you can affect other editors, and if an editor X was, in fact, inappropriately treated by an editor Y, the fact that someone said so can often make X feel less aggravated and more likely to start or contribute to positively. Nobody Ent 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Pirate Bay

[[12]] - TPB is now likley to be blocked in the UK. This means that some citations will become difficult for UK based Wikipedians to confirm

The current links to TBP in Wikipedia are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.thepiratebay.org

I've removed some links to TPB already :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG typically in articlespace, I've got no objections to admins carefully reviewing these removals.

The number of clearly 'bad' links is tiny though.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got concerns about these links in general. For example this citation doesn't even support the material it is a citation for. I suspect some of these links are spam. The one Sfan00 IMG removed in this diff is another example. Material isn't supported, but it's a torrent to download the copyrighted track.--v/r - TP 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Is Sfan00 IMG planning to remove offline cites to foreign newspapers that are "difficult for UK based Wikipedians to confirm"? Exactly what's the point of this knee-jerk reaction? 2 lines of K303 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No. Offline Cites to Journals aren't problematic. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, so ignoring the problem that they might not source what's claimed, why are you removing cites just on the basis people in one country may have difficulty confirming them? Since you spectacularly missed the point of what I just said.... 2 lines of K303 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That confuses me too. I can understanding removing the links on the grounds that they make us guilty of contributory copyright infringement, but removing a link from a userpage on the grounds of "Removing Piratebay link - Blocked in UK" doesn't make sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
What the what? There is no way an editor should be removing links on userpages based on that reasoning. Also, I agree with asking why the user would be removing valid links/citations in articles based on this same reasoning(may be blocked in the UK). That is not up to any specific editor to decide and, if it's not Wiki policy, is itself a violation. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just used a scholar source that costs $50 to read. Maybe I should remove it because some wikipedians might not be ready to pay that amount? Or how about books that don't have preview in google books (and are not available in pirate websites), should I stop using those because they are difficult to verify for some wikipedians? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
We should definitely be removing most of these for linking to copyright violations, but not for being inaccessible in the UK (although being illegal to possess might be a grounds). MBisanz talk 23:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I'll revert the user space link you mention. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
@Sfan00 IMG, I looked at a few removals and they look OK. People complain because you are copy/pasting "blocked in UK" in most edit summaries, you make it sound like a knee-jerk removal. use "copyright violation" for edits like [13]. Use "primary source" for [14]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This is utterly ridicolous. We're not UK-based and there is no reason to remove links based on the UK status. I've reverted your removals when they were unjustified (several were just irrelevant/pirated stuff). For what it's worth, TPB has been blocked in Italy for years, and I didn't go around remove the links then. This is just utterly silly. Snowolf How can I help? 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted a few my myself based on consensus here, I've also noted in the edit summary that one appears to be public interest (and is as far as I can see PD-US Gov in any event). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Links to pirated stuff should be removed, see WP:ELNEVER. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The Reinstated items are not linking to 'pirated' material, hence the revert. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm satisfied that you get the gist of the complaints here, and most of your removals were justified for various reasons other than the one being complained about. In any case, good luck and happy editing. Dave Dial (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Also created {{CensoredLink}} Although the wording is more polite in tone than some people might want ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to switch the pirate bay links into direct magnet links, this avoids the issue of linking to a possibly censored site. At the end of the day that is how the Torrent is hosted on TPB anyway. It's entirely possible a site may disappear, but the magnet link is static. --Errant (chat!) 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #7. We have more editors who self-identify as furries than we do readers who have clients installed on their computers that can digest a magnet link. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Except TPB currently only offers magnet links themselves. So if the purpose is to provide a link to the torrent all linking to TPB does is add an extra click :) So to take on your reasoning; per ELNO#7 we should switch to using magnet links, as TPB is blocked in some countries and therefore the torrent is currently less accessible than it could be. --Errant (chat!) 14:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the majority of our links to the present TPB site are not actually to torrents. And ELNO#7 strongly discourages linking to torrents regardless of whether it's over http, magnet, gopher or anything else for that matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This ELNO#7 is about media inaccessible to users. Torrents are not inaccessible! Many people have the software already, and if not, getting it is as easy as a free download of μTorrent. In fact, in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Who's censoring this stuff?, I found a torrent to be more accessible than the Commons file. It took a request for expert assistance to point me at a download manager that could get .ogv video off the Commons server after 34 lost connections, whereas I was able to download and watch the torrent on my own with no problem! Wnt (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That said, ErrantX's suggestion to use magnet links directly makes some sense. While it is distasteful for Wikipedia to set itself up as a copyright-censored torrent tracker alternative to TPB, politics must take a back seat to Wikipedia's top priority of getting the reader to the WP:EL-compliant sources with the least amount of trouble. Though it is also time to make sure we give Britons good coverage of the alternative methods of accessing material from the UK, such as the VPNs Pirate Bay mentions. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] C:SD backlog

There's a pretty hefty backlog at C:SD. Can someone please chip it down? I've had two G6's in the queue for several hours now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are they really hurting anything? Does it actually matter if they hang out for a few hours?
If they're deleted in less time than a PROD or AFD takes to process, then they're still "speedy" (per definition at the policy). We don't have a mandate to maintain our two-minute historical average. Indications of a bit more thoughtfulness (say, like a three-minute average) might actually be desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if a freaking G6 takes more than 24 hours to get taken care of, then that's just inexcusable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If the G6 does not include a proper reason then some may leave it for later. Anyway this backlog will have been cleared multiple times sine the alert was raised here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between "Can it be done quickly?" and "Is it urgent?".
Sure, if a G6 is sitting around for 24 hours then that suggests that we have fewer admins than usual working on CSD. However, it's probably not a crisis; does the delay cause any harm? It's an uncontroversial technical deletion, like prodding but without a week-long wait. If something like a G10 were sitting around for a long time, that would be a bigger problem imho. bobrayner (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bob: I wouldn't want an obvious G10/attack page to sit around for even ten minutes, but for G6/housekeeping, who cares if it sometimes takes a day or so? It's not really hurting anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Any admins reading this I recommend installing User:Ais523/catwatch.js with at least csd:attack, so such pages get attention as soon as possible--Jac16888 Talk 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed to close old discussions at WP:MFD

Please see the oldest discussions at WP:MFD#Old business. There are a couple that are well over a month old. I would close them, but I've participated in some of the older discussions, and I've already been closing some of the others. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever closed one of them. There's still one older discussion which needs to be decided and closed. Thanks in advance to whoever closes it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

I’d like to propose a topic ban from articles related to Christianity for User:BruceGrubb, as suggested by several editors at the end of a thread on the Original Research Noticeboard: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory. BruceGrubb has problems with original research, misrepresentation of sources, the use of poor sources, and biased editing (largely in the promotion of fringe theories and fringe viewpoints on mainstream subjects). In addition, he often derails talk page discussions with long, rambling barely-relevant edits that often include text copy-pasted from earlier posts on different topics.

These issues can be seen in his recent activity on Josephus on Jesus. In this edit (inadequately described as a “major cleanup”) Bruce inserts text based on fringey sources from 1892 and 1912 and another mainstream source from 2002. There’s been extensive discussion on the article talk page, which indicates that the 2002 source doesn’t say what Bruce claims; he seems to be basing his text on a blog post that builds an argument based on the 2002 source—as Bruce himself says, “What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way…” Since the blog is not a reliable source, putting this in the article is WP:OR#SYNTH, i.e. advancing an original argument through the use of published sources. This is a major issue with Bruce’s editing, but he usually claims that he’s simply explaining what’s in the source, rather than creating his own interpretation of the source.

I’ve had extensive experience with Bruce’s editing at Christ myth theory—years of experience, in fact, so I’m not sure how to boil it down into something concise. Perhaps it’s enough to say that Bruce has been the most active editor on this article in the last year ([15]) and is responsible for almost all of the text in the lead and the first few sections; in the discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory, many editors agreed that the article had significant problems with OR/SYNTH, and even Bruce himself seems to complain that the article is problematic. So perhaps he should take a break. (That noticeboard also illustrates how difficult it is to discuss issues with Bruce—he writes gigantic posts that rarely respond directly to anyone’s points.)

Also notice that attempting to improve these articles often inspires a revert, e.g. [16] [17] (this resulted in the article being protected for 3 days) and [18] [19] and [20] [21]. Bruce has also been removing posts from his user talk page ([22] [23] [24] [25]), which is obviously his right, but it doesn’t indicate a willingness to solve problems constructively. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - The history of demanding self-published sources be recognized as acceptable is troubling, and the recent misrepresentation of sources at Josephus on Jesus is even more so. I might limit the scope of the ban to early Christianity, including issues related to the Historicity of Jesus, but I am not sure that Bruce has ever shown much interest in any other Christianity-related topics, so I have no real reservations about the ban as proposed. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems that covering alternative history is not enough but could this be seen as attempting to write alternative history as OR into existing articles? I think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid that it looks like some WP:CANVASSing may have begun Special:Contributions/BruceGrubb since there are posts to talk pages of editors who are not currently mentioned in this thread. If this is in error than my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is that under my comment. I have this page watch listed and it was the latest discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It is under your comment because when I posted it there were no other posts after yours and, thus, this was the place to put it. I was simply trying to alert those that started this thread that something was up. I don't know where else it might have been placed and I was certainly not trying to make any comment about your post. If you want to outdent or indent it further please feel free to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
No need to do that. Thanks for clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
He has verbally attacked myself and other editors in IMHO violation of AGF (see Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition for some of that--did Anthony really deserve that kind of response?)
He has ignored the comments of his fellow administrators User:SlimVirgin (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_30) and User:Elen of the Roads ([Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory]) (who I have directly notified regarding this) as well at that of the community that IMHO clearly support my position that there is no real there there regarding this as a unified topic and numerous other behaviors to IMHO POV push that article it something not supported by the material.
For example, Akhilleus has even gone as far as to say and I quote "Schweitzer's comment in his autobiography is immaterial here" A quote that established just how Schweitzer classified John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, and Arthur Drews is immaterial?!? How does that work? Biblical scholar Marshall's two historical Jesus options (flesh and blood man or Gospels reasonably accurate) was similarity dismissed with something like 'Marshall doesn't give us enough options'.
@Amadscientist your alternative history comment makes no sense, unless you hold to the idea the Gospels are reasonably reliable as historical documents--something hotly debated (especially with regards to Mark and Luke).
@MarnetteD I would like to point out that User:SlimVirgin and User:Elen of the Roads are ADMINISTRATORS and this is the ADMINISTRATORS noticeboard. User:SlimVirgin felt the entire article was one big CFORK to begin with and User:Elen of the Roads stated "More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ."
Funny thing, I am the one who removed that "There is no independent archaeological evidence" stuff while the rest of you were perfectly happy to leave it in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Elizium23 is challenging the following:
"A quick look at some of the creationist pamphlets and books shows just how misleading and dishonest their presentations are. Typical of the genre is the little pamphlet Big Daddy, published by creationist Jack Chick." (Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624.)
""Nebraska man," as we outlined already, was the mistake of one scientist and was corrected within a year." (Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624 pg 334)
As I explained in talk:Chick_tract#NPOV_does_NOT_apply_to_the_content_of_reliable_sources_but_how_they_are_worded_in_article_space NPOV applies to reliable sources which Columbia University Press clearly is. He provided NO reliable source to counter this but rather comes crying here that I am somehow violating NPOV. Now you have a prime example of the nonsense I have to deal with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I spent an hour today reading up on a source on Josephus on Jesus which BruceGrubb had twisted to support the almost exact opposite of what the author says. It was used out of context, and significant parts of the line of reasoning which it was supposed to support were not discussed at all; the source given by BruceGrubb for those parts is the "amateur research community". I don't think issues of WP:OR and WP:SYN get any clearer than that, and when I asked BruceGrubb on the talk page whether the source actually supported that critical piece of information (before looking it up myself), he did not answer that rather simple yes-or-no question but responded with what a collection of further unrelated citations which supported parts of his position and therefore to him apparently justify his synthesis. If this were a single incident I'd say a stern warning might be sufficient, but apparently it is not, and more thorough measures are required. Huon (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This has been going on too long - it's got way past warnings, talkings to, advisings, noticeboards, talkpages or discussions. Bruce has a (metaphorical) banana in each ear - anything you say sounds to him exactly like what he wants to do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You'll notice the way he says above that I support his position...classic example of this problem. I said he'd written a bunch of OR into the article, and suggested someone ask for a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads, you are then denying that I stated on your own talk page "I believe you and I are in agreement that there is no one Christ myth theory thought I must ask if you share SlimVirgin's view that the entire article is one big CFORK." (sic)? Do you also disagree with the clarification above that clearly states that my position that "there is no real there there regarding this as a unified topic"? I have to ask who here really has "a (metaphorical) banana in each ear"?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Possibly the same person who is stated below to have considered the Oxford and Cambridge university presses unreliable because they are in a nominally Christian country? Bruce, I have to say that your obvious personal belief in the idea that Jesus/Christ was a myth has apparently so seriously warped your judgment that there seems to be increasing, perhaps unanimous, agreement regarding your conduct. Whether you personally would ever admit to that, of course, is another matter. However, please read WP:POV - there seems to be ever-increasing evidence that your biggest problem lies there. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I also made comments on the WP:NORN board, so I will just provide general points here. The problems I see, as outlined by Akhilleus are:
  • Continued use of Self-published sources. This happens even after the user has been notified that a source is self-published. A recent example was the book by Richard Gibbs referred to in the links above. It is still there with a "self-published tag" on it.
  • Continued use of WP:Original research items. The user even calls these the results obtained by "amateur research community" without naming the amateurs. There is a serious WP:OR issue here and it does not want to go away. It will be WP:OR for ever.
  • Continued use of outdated and antique sources that have been long surpassed by modern scholarship. I once commented that a source he used was from 1910 and was over 100 years old. The retort was that no, it was republished in 1912 and was hence only 99 years old.
  • Continued "knowing use" of statements that fail verification. At one point the user may admit that material is not in a source, then will add it again a few weeks later with the same source but with somewhat different language. As user Huon stated on talk today after directly checking Mason's book: "Bruce Grubb is twisting Mason's points beyond recognition".
  • Continued use of WP:Walls of text as a method for changing the subject.
There is really little hope for remedy in this situation, and a topic ban is the best and perhaps the only way to stop the incredible waste of time that will otherwise ensue if this user realizes that "they can do all of this" and walk away scott-free. That can not happen. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't followed the subject area in question (thankfully), but I'm very familiar with Bruce's edits at WT:V and the related mediation pages, and I regard those edits as borderline disruptive, so the rationale expressed by those supporting the topic ban rings true to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: An indefinite topic ban on all religion-related articles very broadly construed is LONG overdue, if not an outright community ban. This user constantly produces sources that clearly fail our policies, introduces OR and synth that abuse the sources, is a master of WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE, and sttempts to flummox anyone opposing him with long, rambling, barely coherent and off-topic filibustering. As someone else put it, a classic tendentious and disruptive editor that has wasted an enormous amount of time on the part of other editors. Fortunately, I have not had to deal with him myself, but have been lurking on the articles he mentioned and am surprised that it took so long for someone to start up a topic ban discussion. As I said, it's LONG overdue, and there is no hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively in the banned area. There are fundamental competence issues that cannot be overcome. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an editor who tried to argue that Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press are unreliable sources because they are somehow linked to a Christian (British) state, and because the former publishes Bibles! [26]. Bruce has constantly and consistently misrepresented sources over a long period. At one point he claimed that a passing remark by the writer of an obscure article in a sociology journal was proof that Christ myth theory was a widely accepted view among sociologists. His posts are long walls of text comprising often almost unintelligable if interminable arguments. They function as battles of attrition against anyone who opposes him. I admit that I gave up the effort of expecting productive debate years ago. His agenda is clear: to make Christ myth theory seem more plausible and more widely accepted than, in fact, it is. He is an unrelenting POV warrior who believes that pious fraud is a legitimate means to convey WP:Truth. Paul B (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I won't tediously reiterate the reasons provided above, but I agree entirely. Eusebeus (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The Oxford and Cambridge issue was when I thought COI applied to sources as we as to editors. To clarify it wasn't just that Oxford and Cambridge published bibles but they had a special contract with the Crown (ie head of the Anglican church) to print the Authorized King James Version (the official bible of the Anglican church). As I said back then to expect any kind of verdict other then "Jesus existed as the Bible portrays him" from them was an on par with Brigham Young University Press saying anything but the Book of Mormon is historical accurate, Gregorian University Press saying anything but negative things about abortion, any German university from 1936 to 1945 doing anything but proving Jews were a parasitic/despicable/vile race, any 1950s US university saying anything but negative things on any subject views as communist, or a university that is getting huge grants from tobacco companies would say anything but that smoking is safe/good for you. This is known as "Confirmation bias" or "hypothesis locking" which Horace Mitchell Miner so brilliantly satirized in his famous 1955 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article.
This is all ignoring the fact Oxford and Cambridge are in a country that until 1998 had a very broad Blasphemy law that would have made any meaningful review of the historical nature of Jesus next to impossible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This is simply disingenuous. UK case law had long since established that denying the existence of God, or arguing against fundamental Christian tenets, did not qualify as blasphemy so long as it was done in a civil and respectful manner. This was true since at least the mid-20th century. Your point does not stack up. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it was pretty much established in the mid 19th century when Charles Bradlaugh was acquitted of blasphemy for his numerous anti-Christian publications. Bruce's portrayal of Britain as some sort of Christian police-state with censorship comparable to Nazi Germany just indicates that he has a fundamentally distorted view of reality. Ps I wonder how the Grand Inquisition allowed these ones to be published by OUP [27] [28] Paul B (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said: "There are fundamental competence issues that cannot be overcome." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
"This is all ignoring the fact Oxford and Cambridge are in a country that until 1998 had a very broad Blasphemy law that would have made any meaningful review of the historical nature of Jesus next to impossible." What kind of fantasy world are you living in? All the major Jesus myth books were published in the UK before 1998 without any censorship. For example, Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross was published by Hodder & Stoughton. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Request for admin closure: The votes are now 10 to zero in favor of a topic ban. The reasons provided by the users who support a ban are generally uniform and consistent, and the comment by Dominus Vobisdu just above echoes the observation that Bruce's statements in this thread do not reflect an awareness of a need for change, rendering any type of warning ineffective. Ten-zero probably amounts to consensus on this, so closure would be appropriate so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose closure now, it's been less than day. and insert "not voting" blurb here. Suggest waiting at until, say Friday. Nobody Ent 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
(non-admin intruder ;P) Oppose topic ban. Any kind of mentoring or re-focussing on the cards? Much less humiliating and quite possibly more constructive. My personal opinion is that while BG can come across as irritating, it's generally because he has something sensible to say and nobody's listening. I (think I) can see both sides of the problem here. Bruce has an excellent mind and (check his user page) background / qualifications. He's not an idiot. But ... BG, you can be a bit over-intense and over-verbose, even though you have good points, and people rebel against that. Hugz, anyways, and I hope that whatever happens is a sensible and constructive way forwards. Pesky (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the evidence and the well-reasoned rationales above, I'll be okay with closing this unless significant evidence to the contrary is given in the next day or so. I'm uncomfortable with a topic ban being enacted after such a short period in general, but the support is all well-reasoned rather than just pile-on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • People are bringing up diffs from 2008. If the problem complained of has been been ongoing for four years, the complainants should have the patience to allow a ban discussion to last more than a mere 22 hours and some minutes. Snap decisions on this noticeboard almost always turn out to be bad decisions, not least because third parties don't necessarily read these noticeboards every day of the week, or every hour of the day.

    Of course, that people are bringing up 4 year old diffs does raise the question of whether this is a current problem. However, the somewhat amazing claim, dated 2012-05-03 06:31, earlier in this very discussion, about OUP and CUP, does indicate that it is. On the other hand, the 2008 diffs don't actually read as people are here portraying them, which undermines the case for the ban somewhat in the eyes of this uninvolved observer. If you want to sway the opinions of third parties, rather than merely echo the opinions of an involved group who have already made up their minds long since (which is a waste of this noticeboard), you need to make a better case with diffs. Wading through four years of talkpage contributions takes time. (I speak from experience.) Most people that you are addressing this ban proposal to aren't going to do it on their own.

    And reading Talk:Chick tract#NPOV does NOT apply to the content of reliable sources but how they are worded in article space I see that there's blame to be shared around a bit, if that's any guide to the sorts of talk page discussions you are claiming to have had. It is rather silly, people, to say that "I never claimed that talk pages are subject to NPOV" only four edits below saying "Headings should be neutral". At best, that's logic chopping. If you're going to upbraid BruceGibb for a bad talk page discussion style, I suggest not setting up such silly arguments amongst yourselves in the first place. Splinter in your brother's eye, and all that.

    Uncle G (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Huh? What's self-contradictory about saying "talk headings should be neutral" and "talk page discussions are not subject to NPOV"? Both statements are quite correct. Yes, talk headings should be neutral, but the reason for that is not the NPOV policy; it's something else. Perfectly logically consistent position to take. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose  This is a content dispute and the remedy is not logically related to the objection.  I am familiar with BGs edits at WT:V.  BG has repeatedly given IMO well-founded evidence at WT:V of Wikilawyering WP:OR arguments against his position.  I see repeated references to WP:OR above, in fact, it is the first "problem" raised in this thread.  I think this entire exercise is better explained by issues that don't belong at ANI.  Personally, I would read more of BG's posts if they were more concise.  It would also help if the beginning and end of quotes were clearly marked.  I've also seen the problem of a long post changing the topic of a thread.  BG is an internalized editor, but has a broad knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually no one is trying to stop him from typing on WP:V. The issue is that the continued "knowing use" of improper sources on other pages, and arguments that are clearly, clearly far less than logical. And I did say "knowing use" of improper sources. What is the use of a user having a "broad knowledge" of policy as you state, if he is determined not to follow policy, but violate it again and again by inventing sources, removing tags at will, misrepresenting references, using self-publishers in one breath, then challenging Oxford University Press in the next breath. There are diffs and statements by a number of people that affirm this pattern of conduct. Let us reproduce more diffs below. This is a straightforward task. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
"I think this entire exercise is better explained by issues that don't belong at ANI." I'm not sure I follow this sentence, but this is not ANI. It's AN. It's the appropriate board to request a topic ban. "This is a content dispute and the remedy is not logically related to the objection." No, it is not a content dispute, It is about the abuse of sources and other behaviour issues. "BG has repeatedly given IMO well-founded evidence at WT:V of Wikilawyering WP:OR arguments against his position." I've no idea what this means. Arguments about policy are not subject to WP:OR. Policy is decided by the community, so you can't criticise someone for "OR" arguments in favour of specific wording. However, this is beside the point. This is about a topic ban, not blocking all editorial activity. The topic is early Christianity, and more specifically Christ myth theory. This will not affect Bruce's ability to contribute to discussions about WP:V, though I should note that Bruce's arguments there are tangentally related since he is, in effect, attempting to weaken the rules against OR in articles. Still, he has every right to argue for that view. Paul B (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Requested Diffs: Uncle G asked for diffs, let us add some here:
  • User claims that Van Voorst (a professor) is WP:RS reliable, but not when his book is published by Eerdsman The same user who uses self-published books and "amateur research" claims that 100 year old publisher Eerdmans has a "horrid QA department" and hence what Van Voorst publishes through them in 2001 or so is unreliable. As I pointed out in this edit on page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on Van Voorst' book, and calls it the "best recent discussion on the topic". And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst". One of the best books on the topic is labelled as unreliable by a user who uses self-published items. Eerdmans publishes many highly respected professors in fact, as I pointed out here.
  • The user continues to use "invented sources" Wikipedia has to be an encyclopedia based on on solid sources. As another user stated in this edit: "I have now read Mason, and while I thought History2007's scorn undue before, I now understand his reasoning. BruceGrubb ist twisting Mason's points beyond recognition". And that is a correct statement. Bruce Grubb is using a source that talks about Book 18 of the Antiquities by Josephus to hint at an argument about a passage in Book 20. The source is thus "invented", and does not correspond to what appears on page 228 of Mason's book, as he has been told many, many times on the talk page.
Please add other diffs to this list above. There are just so many that are just too laughable. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the comment below by Huon is addressed to Uncle G. History2007 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what 2008 diffs you mean; the oldest diff provided by Akhilleus was from about three weeks ago. The only one linking to talk page archives from 2009 and 2010 is BruceGrubb himself. If you want some diffs of a recent problem, I can provide them: In this edit, already linked by Akhilleus above, BruceGrubb introduces original synthesis by citing Mason to support statements almost the opposite of what Mason actually says. He follows up by directly citing the amateur research community. (The source provided is Gibbs, p. 143 (actually p. 144), but firstly, that's self-published and not a reliable source, and secondly, Gibbs also doesn't make the connection BruceGrubb wants him to support.) I ask him about his sources on the talk page (before checking Mason myself); his reply completely misses the point and provides further original synthesis. As I said above, If Bruce Grubb were a new editor, this might be resolved by giving him a stern warning and pointing him to WP:RS and WP:NOR. But apparently this behaviour has been going on for years. Huon (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If the editor in question has been doing that for years and stepped on many other people's toes in the process, this definitely requires a topic banhammer. Using self-published sources that may or may not be of value to the article. I'v said it before in the cases of other errant [term censored due to NPA] editors, but if he can't follow the rules, better get out of the project. I presume they have been notified of this discussion? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the user was notified about this. History2007 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It should also be noted that not only has Bruce been notified, he has already, as of this writing, made four comments in this thread. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And in those four comments he did not challenge his own use of:
  • Outdated sources - often about a hundred years old
  • Self-published sources and "amateur research" - even after notification
  • Invented references that fail verification - and removal of tags from them
He reiterated his position that Oxford University Press is questionable, but for someone who usually "types a lot" he remained silent on the issue of improper sources, not challenging the validity of the root causes of this request for a topic ban. History2007 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments on my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)

I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination), a lengthy and contentious deletion discussion as keep, with a lengthy rationale. As I expected (what with the nature of the topic), an editor has disagreed with my closure and has begun a discourse with me at User talk:ItsZippy#Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination). I've given further explanation of my actions to him there, but I think it would be helpful for another administrator to review my closure; I have said that I am willing to accept an alternative if others think that would be necessary. Could someone have a look and give me their opinion, please? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is like forum shopping your close - please just address the issues and request raised on your talkpage - Youreallycan 20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's probably because of that that he's asking his colleagues. It's probably therefore the right thing to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Its not correct procedure at all - if an administrator is not confident of his own close without asking other administrators to comment then clearly he should not have closed that or for that matter any other discussion - especially when they are aware the discussion is contentious Youreallycan 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 :: Hi, I'm ItsZippy. I am 18 years old. Ah, Wikipedia, always improving. Nice to check in and get reminders of how this encyclopedia is administered.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
So ad hominems are the word of the day? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not an ad hominem. I have mentored many young journalists in my career (all of them over 21 when starting out). Some went on to be brilliant, some were washouts. None of them were qualified to exercise editorial discretion, in any capacity, without years of work and training. The fact that you have 18-year-olds running around casting nonsensical super-votes when any adult professional editing an encyclopedia would say: "The dog story? A graph or two in the Romney election campaign article" and move on. This is an entrenched, deeply harmful systemic problem and yet another reason for qualified professionals to stay away. There is nothing ad hominem about pointing out that untrained teenagers should not be making these kinds of judgements, on (unfortunately) the most frequented online resource for knowledge. (I know, it will never change. But sometimes I can't help pointing out folly when I see it). Ah, and before someone says "grownups are incompetent too sometimes" let me save you the trouble. Some mature people are unqualified. No 18-year-olds are qualified.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If I may say (speaking as an "untrained teenager, who knows, maybe I should be seen and not heard), "pointing out that untrained teenagers should not be making these kinds of judgements" is exactly what constitutes an ad hominem argument and a silly one at that. In any case it's just ridiculous to assert that being any given age must make you inept at making judgment calls. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
"None of them were qualified to exercise editorial discretion, in any capacity, without years of work and training." Really, its the pathetic journalists who've written 100s of stories about Seamus that are to blame here, not the 18 year old who has paid attention only too well to what journalists are telling us.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You illustrate my point very well. Journalism is, largely, ephemera. The hot, the new, what people are talking about right this second. The decisions I make at my newspaper about what we publish in the daily are very different from the decisions I make about what we publish in the weekly. And the decisions about what is an encyclopedia topic are different still. Judgement, maturity, and discretion are what inform the process. Adolescents (and their adult fellow travelers) who read a newspaper article and feel that "tells" them an encyclopedia article should be written (based on transient ephemera) are precisely the problem. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, though I do not think the problem is particular to young people. The wider culture informs us all that the ephemeral has infinitely greater weight than it does in reality. 24/7 news stations might be far the most obvious symptoms of this disease but they are most certainly not the worst. Moreschi (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, if this were one newspaper article on an ephemeral subject, you might have a point. In this case, we're talking about 100+ articles over at least five years. While we all have our own views of what an ideal encyclopedia would cover, admins are not given the freedom to close discussions based on their personal views--they're required to close based on our guidelines, which is what the admin in question did. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Again with the "adolescents"... Judge people on the decisions they make, not their age. There's simply no reason even to refer to it, for it to every come up in a discussion of this nature. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook when he was only 20 years old. Suhas Gopinath founded a company and became its CEO when he was only 14 years old. If someone can handle CEO's job at the age of 14, then ItsZippy, who is much older, can easily handle the role of a Wikipedia admin at the age of 18. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It had better be an extraordinarily sharp 14-year-old admin, wise far beyond his years, before I even had to question his or her age. I've got t-shirts older than that. 14 years old and making life decisions? Really? Scary stuff, folks... Doc talk 05:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What a strange false comparison. I am not sure how running a business compares with adhearing to objectively looking at political issues, and if the movie "Social Network" is even close to reality, Zuckerberg would make a terribly biased admin. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Zippy, here's my 2 cents. The plus:fantastic closing statement. The minus: absolutely inverse "decision" than was possible based on the arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
+1. Also, if I may, a small suggestion: It'sZippy, your mop is still somewhat new. It may be a good idea to avoid the particularly contentious decisions for the moment, until you're a bit more comfortable handling it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (Non-admin comment, with caveat that I participated in the AfD). I think that the close was reasonable (and far from "absolutely inverse"), and that you explained it very well. I also think that you handled the complaints at your user talk very considerately. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing this is going to wind up at DRV anyway, but here's my two cents - decently argued close, but I think it's a horrible decision that misses the big picture. We have an article on Mitt Romney's dog. Not the dog controversy, the actual Dog Itself. Jesus H Christ. I'm sorry, but if that close doesn't represent a facepalm moment as far as Wikipedia's claims to be a serious encyclopedia are concerned, I don't know what does. Moreschi (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • A few years ago we had a political party make a statement that the governing party leader ate kittens. It became a big election kerfluffle. I don't think we have an article about said kittens. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
      • That's because there are no reliable sources to prove that the kittens existed or were eaten :P Snowolf How can I help? 05:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        • To clarify, I might just grit my teeth and howl in pain - but ultimately accept - an article on the dog controversy, but one on the actual dog itself is a joke. It's generally accepted that when someone/something is notable for one event only and has no chance of having an encyclopedic biography they are incorporated into the article on that event. Madeleine McCann, Ian Huntley and so on are redirects for perfectly good reasons. But no, while this is a bad close I do not think it is a call-for-desysop-and-call-him-a-terrible-person close. Moreschi (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't read either the article or the afd so I'm not commenting on their content (I might do so later, if I have the time and stomach to read the things). But this dog is now quite famous and it would have surprised me if we didn't have an article about it. We've had Bo (dog), Barney (dog), Buddy (dog), Socks (cat), etc. for quite a while. So the deletion attempt on Seamus offhand sounds tendentious, regardless of whatever wikilawyering may have framed it. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's a perfectly reasonable close, well grounded in policy. Moreschi is free to promote a guideline on the notability of dogs. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I said in the AfD discussion that it should be renamed from the dog to the incident, per WP:BLP1E. I was only half-joking, because it really is a problem over multiple pages that we name articles for animals, when they are really about events that happened. BLD1E, anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    Well, BDD1E in this case. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    The article title is kind of peripheral to the topic coverage, and if there's battling going on then the problem is with the editors rather than the topic. FWIW, noticing just now that Laika (sort of the ultimate in BDD1E's) is a Featured Article was one of the increasingly rare moments that made me proud of Wikipedia. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with BWilkins and Moreschi on this one. 28bytes (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think some of my colleagues here are taking a hyper-serious view of things. WP will not be a laughing stock for covering what newspapers cover. (What people laugh at us about are the sort of topics people here think important, but newspapers do not cover.) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed. Newspaper folk know that those pesky lanthanides and crab grasses are not newsworthy, and we should be rightly ridiculed for any thinking that encyclopaedicity and newsworthiness are synonymous. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm with Moreschi here. Scientific commentary on a dog Mitt Romney owned in 1983? The mass media are aiming for the lowest common denominator, as a purported encyclopedia we should aim much higher. Kevin (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with BWilkins and Moreschi here. MBisanz talk 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is ridiculous that we have decided to delete Obama Eats Dogs, which is basically a right wing attack on Obama, but kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination) a left wing attack on Romney. Wikipedia's editor base clearly leans to the left, but I would have hoped that we could have put our political biases aside and make a fair decision regarding both articles... Both have received ample media coverage and pass the General Notability Guidelines, so there is really no excuse. Monty845 02:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
False equivalence works better in the mainstream media than on wikipedia. On wikipedia, we're just haphazard. Yes, most of the world is "biased" against the American far right, perhaps that influenced the outcome.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I took part in the AfD discussion, and I thought that ItsZippy did a very good job with a difficult issue. He actually read through all the arguments, and wrote a detailed response that explained his conclusion based on Wikipedia's policies. That's what a closing admin is supposed to do. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS states, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." If an editor does not like the outcome, they have every right to go to deletion review, but ItsZippy did nothing wrong, and I think this is just a case of "I just don't like it" syndrome. Debbie W. 02:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I support keeping the article. It is well-written, well-sourced, and Seamus is arguably the second most famous/notable dog in the US right now. — GabeMc (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with DGG's comment. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would have to question the experience of any admin that would make the following statement. Merging with the Obama dog article, as noted, would not be correct as the two issues are very different in nature. As any person can see the two issues are directly related. The poorly named "Seamus" article is nothing more than a political talking point from the left, pushed by a single journalist for several years. The Obama dog eating story is political response from the right to that talking point. To make the statement that they are very different in nature seems quite odd. Arzel (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to save this for the DRV, but I'll say it now: Admins have some leeway when closing discussions--they're not vote-counting robots. They weigh consensus and strength of argument, and that's what was done here. In fact, I think the closer's rationale was pretty well reasoned--far more reasonable than the ad hominem attacks against him, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly have to agree that ItsZippy came to a reasonable close, and was wise to come here for review. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I cannot find a considerable fault in the reasoning. I still believe the article is not much more than an attack, especially as written. Although the closer felt there was a consensus to Keep even lacking a clear consensus to delete, we still Keep. So I hesitantly support the close. -- Avanu (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh - It is becoming clear over the last few years here that to actually get a non-notable hit-piece deleted when the target is hitting a conservative American politician requires a great many dominoes to line up just so. When the inherent bias of most Wikipedia editors plus the I-never-met-an-article-I-didn't-like dogma of others joins forces, the odds are long, and a closer is left with little alternative but to count sheep. Tarc (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Reasonable closure by ItsZippy. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I can see a potential reason why ItsZippy would close the AfD that way, but his reasoning was not reasonable, nor did it justify his close. At DrV, I would probably vote to reopen, rather than to revert the close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm just going to point out something that was pointed out by myself, Debbie and others in the midst of that AFD: this topic has been covered by The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, and the Guardian over the period of at least a year in most cases and in some cases even more. That's not an exhaustive list; almost every major paper in the US and many internationally, as well as radio and television, have covered this story. It's not our job as editors to second guess our sources or express disregard for what they consider to be a worthy topic. Our job is to take sources, determine their reliability, and based on what they report, represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by said reliable sources. Significant views on this topic obviously exist; we would be remiss to ignore them. I fully understand that many people here believe that this topic is not worthy of being in this encyclopedia - I don't disagree with a lot of these arguments, but I believe that NPOV should trump all else. SÆdontalk 09:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I only commented at the AfD in question, since I never vote. But wouldn't it be much better that whenever an AfD discussion exceeds (say) 20 or 30 votes and has lengthy discussion, then let it by closed by 3 admins, not 1. This doesn't happen very often and would not unnecessarily burden the admin who "dares" to close it. I also think that for controversial decisions, the closing admins should be randomly selected. That would remove questions about admins coming in to close something based on their own opinions. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a very sensible suggestion. There's going to be a lot of similar kerfuffle this election season and I strongly recommend we follow this procedure when closing similar AfDs. Moreschi (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with your proposal. Although I think that ItsZippy did a fine job explaning his rationale, having 3 closing admins for contentious AfDs would reduce any allegations of bias or mistake by the admin. Debbie W. 10:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but it might also just lead to a mini-admin debate too. ... -- Avanu (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As others have said above, (and I do appreciate the effort) - I think the close was incorrect, but appreciate the attempt at both determining a consensus and at providing the reasoning. Political, Religious, and National debates are always going to be difficult for anyone to close, and there's always going to be someone who disagrees with it. I also agree that there will be a DRV in the near future. And the trifecta mentioned above is something I can easily support. — Ched :  ?  10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • MakeSense64's suggestion, well, makes sense! What a solid idea. Pesky (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The bureaucracy will expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy! Except it won't. This was, by the arguments above, simply a bad close (even if the closure action itself was exemplary and should be complimented for a difficult situation like this). We haven't enough admins active in closing AfDs already without new procedures being put in place for something as idiotic as head counts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)

If the AfD closure was faulty for some reason there's Deletion Review where disputants can present their case why there was fault in the rendering of consensus from the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I recommended "delete" and the result was "keep". But I was fine with the close. There's a fundamental flaw in that admins, who are just are just people with some extra tools to implement basic policies, are elevated to being the (only) people who handle complex closure situations. But I don't think that it hurt us here. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the helpful comments made here. I don't have a great deal to add here, really - my reasons for the closure are at the AfD and expanded at my talk page. I am more than happy for someone to open a DRV if they think that is necessary; I'll accept whatever outcome that may have. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@ItsZippy; I personally think that you handled a tricky one pretty well. And I don't think that we should generalise about people just because of their calendar age, at all. We have some truly exceptional youngsters here in WP, and ageism is not a good way to go. A good 18-year-old Wikpedian is a very different animal from yer-average bog-standard global-population 18-year-old.

@Thumperward, I've noticed, over the recent past, that your patience / understanding quotient seems to have dropped a bit. I feel that maybe you're feeling a bit too WikiStressed? Things got on top of you a bit too much? Have a few nice cool beers, and a Granny-hug, and take some time to do something which makes you feel happy, as often as you can. Pesky (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a "BLPet1E". ;) Fortunately, BLP only covers living persons - at least, not until dogs start suing for libel. (Probably that gives us about five years - not yet, anyway) Wnt (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Afd is attracting political crazies

This AFD should be monitored by admins very closely because Drudge Report has linked it's users to it. Lots of pollitical arguments are being made and oh yes there are socks. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As I can see, IPs and new accounts cannot vote anymore. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, I weep for the administrator who will close this AfD. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 06:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Note that IPs and new accounts can still comment at the AFD's talk page - and several have already. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Old account locked as requested. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I wanted my username to be changed from "Gay Mormon Boy" to "Mormon Man" and it was, but for some reason the "Gay Mormon Boy" account still exists. I am confused, and this was not the result I wanted. Can someone please help or explain this to me? Gay Mormon Boy (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You re-created it by re-logging into it after I renamed you. Just don't log into it again and only log into your new username. MBisanz talk 00:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Gay Mormon Boy (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I know it's a flukey system. MBisanz talk 00:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like the "Gay Mormon Boy" account to be deleted, or blocked, or renamed to something completely neutral and uncontroversial. I did not want to recreate it, and I am most unhappy with its continued existence. I'm not sure I want to edit Wikipedia at all if it is still there. Someone help me please. Mormon Man (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have locked it and you will no longer be able to log into it. MBisanz talk 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Mormon Man (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What the crap is LOCKED? I've never seen that before. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

See meta:Global locks. MBisanz talk 01:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Abuse. Jafeluv (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
How so? Looks like a good solution to me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Now that you were at it, you could have also renamed it...... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I could have, but then it would have auto-recreated if he ever tried to log in again. Locking it prevents him from logging in. MBisanz talk 16:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Abusive global block by MBisanz. 140.247.141.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] User:Shrikanthv removing links to Siddha Yoga from articles

I have no personal association with Siddha Yoga. I came across this because a page was on my watchlist. Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) is removing internal links to Siddha Yoga with the edit summary (Removing link(s) to "Siddha Yoga": commercially motivated links , trying to get donations and sell articles , reference source is not meeting with WP ref criteria. Can someone look into this and decide if his edit are appropriate? Thanks! — goethean ॐ 16:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like someone has undone his edits. And it looks like this is the wrong noticeboard anyway. Feel free to archive this thread. — goethean ॐ 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that: The Cirt and Jayen466 case is supplemented as follows:

Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man at anytime, or by further motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

[edit] Cat Daddy Locked?

There is some sort of lock on the Cat Daddy page making it impossible for me to recreate. Can this be undone? (It is possible that my IP is blocked because at this moment I am at the Chicago Public Library).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is salted.[31] 64.160.39.217 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It was salted because it was repeatedly recreated and then immediately deleted as a CSD:A9 (as the article was about a single by a band called Rej3ctz who as you can see don't have an article). I've unlocked it so you should be able to create it now. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are trying to improve this article, but some topics are just not notable enough to exist on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain why this song is notable (supported with some reliable sources) and why it should have an article on Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Two words: Cat Daddy on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I know that the Internet has had an effect on the English language. But is that really only two words these days? Is the word boundary between "Daddy" and "on"? Or between "on" and "Twitter"? Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm more worried about the state of Wikipedia than that of the English language. The claim to fame for this song is that it became "topical" when an almost-nobody danced to it in some office and it was posted by another barely somebody. "Topical" my ass--but TT has made a career out of posting encyclopedic articles about vloggers and bloggers and cloggers. At what point do WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM come in? This is WP:FART material but hey! it's got sources. Tony, try to get a screenshot of the woman's breasticles in there. They were on YouTube, so they must be notable. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The irony is that the song itself isn't even topical. The song is completely incidental. The 'topical' story is Kate Upton vs. YouTube. But I've been involved in more than enough AfDs on 'topical' articles to know that WP:NOTNEWS gets swept under the carpet in cases like this. Resolute 21:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Jerome Emiliani Institute

Could someone look at Talk:Saint Jerome Emiliani Institute please - it seems to be an intriguing mix of multiple accounts, copy-pasting and a possible copyvio. Unfortunately I've been too busy in the last couple of days to look into it. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The creator of this is from the institute and has permission to make the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Since when does anyone need persmission to make a Wikipedia page? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page modification notification

Did anyone else get an email message saying their talk page had been edited? I got one, just one. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Occasionally the settings in Special:Preferences changes to notify you, just go to your preferences and uncheck the box. I think there is a glitch that resets it every now and then, happened to me about six months ago or so.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Something odd is going on. I've never had the "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" box checked in Preferences, but at some point today all the articles I edited started appearing in my watchlist. I had to go in and uncheck the box, then manually remove the articles from the watchlist. Deor (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It was a bad server setting for 16 minutes. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist notification emails. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem referred to by Deor is slightly different - a default preference change made at the same time as eNotifWatchlist that suffered from the same issue, but didn't get reverted at the same time as the ENotifWatchlist change got reverted. I pinged Reedy, who's just reverted that change as well. A load of people are going to have a few more pages on their watchlists than they did before, annoying but not killer I suppose. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Only posting so it's on record. I do have my preferences set to tell me when someone posts to MY talk page - but today I got a notice about someone ELSE's talk page being changed. I'm guessing from the oddities mentioned above that is was just some sort of server glitch. Thanks again for following up on this Drmies (and everyone else) — Ched :  ?  02:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

I really, really do not like making this proposal. If anyone checks the records, they will in fact see that I have historically been one of the few editors who has been somewhat on DeknMike's side. But the editor has a fairly long history of trying to get the content of the main Messianic Judaism article to support some internal positions of the group, specifically that they are older than independent sources seem to support. User:Jayjg has been most heavily involved in this, trying to get DeknMike to produce independent reliable sources that would support his contentions. I've tried to find such sources myself. So far as I had been able to see from the databanks I checked or the independent reliable published sources, the position is not supported. I and others have also tried to reason with DeknMike, to no apparent avail.

In this section, Jayjg indicates much of DeknMike's problematic behavior to that date. A check of the most recent article talk page comments would indicate that the problematic behavior of DeknMike hasn't changed. He misrepresents sources, emphasizes non-independent sources, and otherwise engages in disruptive behavior.

Although I am personally somewhat sympathetic to DeknMike's positions, as is apparent from some of my own comments, I have to say enough is enough.

I would request that DeknMike be banned from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well. There is not yet an article History of Messianic Judaism so far as I can see, but I would not rule out the possibility of such a page being created and possibly being subject to the same problems. Other related pages might also be subject to the same treatment if the editor is banned from only the main article.

I will myself continue to check the independent reliable sources to which I have access, and, if any of them do ever provide independent support for the MJ's positions, trust me, I will let everyone know on the article talk page. But none of us have the time to spend dealing with the problematic behavior which does not seem to be likely to stop without action of this sort. Based on the lack of existence of an article on the MJs history, I guess I would have to support at least a ban on the main Messianic Judaism article, and possibly on any yet-to-be-created article on the history of Messianic Judaism. But I am not sure that material might not be added to other related articles. On that basis, much as I dislike it, I think that a topic ban is possibly the option that would create the least trouble for others, and on that basis am proposing such a ban, although I would not necessarily object to more focused bans if such are proposed by others, and will try to comment on such . John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • For the sake of clarity, please be more specific about the latitude of the proposed ban — either you need to list all of the pages from which you're asking him to be banned, or a description of the type of pages (e.g. "All pages dealing with the history of Messianic Judaism") from which you're asking him to be banned. If we enact a ban with "possibly related Messianic Judaism pages", there's too much latitude for him to claim that he's not editing a related page and for his opponents to claim that he was editing a related page. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Undedrstood. At this point, I propose the ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed. If a relevant extant article, like History of Messianic Judaism, already existed, I might consider limiting the scope of the ban to a few specific extant pages, but the present state of the content makes that a bit problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Jayjg, et al have repeatedly stated their opinion that Messianic Judaism 'arose' in the 1960s. The word 'arose' is particularly troubling - what does it mean? Stood up/started? Emerged from the shadows? The sources used don't say. Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century...he tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915 Again, Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s... These external sources have been on the page for some time. What is 'disruptive' about citing the sources already on the page to say what they say? Except that I refuse to be bullied into ignoring true and reputable sources? I have admitted many times that the name was not mainstream in the US before 1967, and that it has seen significant growth since then (arose?). I have presented many sources that say the movement existed outside the US before the 60s, but the others in this conversation will not consider any sources they don't agree with or that says anything but their stated notion. I myself am not Messianic, though I attended their services in several cities, and have talked with leaders in the movement. I am an outsider trying to make sense of ALL the literature, not just the sources that agree with the opinions I held before the research began.--DeknMike (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe a more accurate and less self-serving comment would be more along the lines of "you insist on indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the basis for including material which does not meet basic wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the more obvious recent examples is to be found at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Jerusalem Council as source, in which you appear to take the position that because a self-published source makes a declaration about a specific group within the broad field of Messianic Judaism, that statement is true of Messianic Judaism as a whole. Such a position is not only contrary to policy, but actually even contrary to basic logic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
(Pesky non-admin intruder again ...) Comment: is this just another US-centric problem? Pesky (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so, because Messianic Judaism started in the US and remains overwhelmingly a US-based movement. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I support a general topic ban for DeknMike for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages. Reasoning:
  • I was going to type up a long and detailed history of the issue, but it really has already been laid out pretty well here: Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. The basic issue is a very long history of civil (well mostly civil anyway) POV push. The description at Wikipedia:CIVILPOV fits the situation perfectly.
  • The civil POV push is built on consistent (and sometimes sneaky) misrepresentation of sources. The editors at Messianic Judaism no longer have any faith or trust in DeknMike, and for good cause. Every one of his edits now is viewed with suspicion, and requires us to get him to show us the full text of the source he is trying to use, in context. Almost invariably, the source does not support his edit. This is really appalling.
In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.[1]
What the source actually says, in the chapter on "Hebrew Christianity," is
On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.
Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations".
  • The Messianic Judaism article is itself in pretty bad shape. It used to be a good article but quickly fell apart. I think it has the potential to be restored to Good status, but I see DeknMike as an impassible obstacle to improving the article.
  • Attempts by John Carter to encourage or mentor DeknMike in improving the article in areas other than history consistently fall on deaf ears.
  • I have had, occasionally, some productive interaction with DeknMike on the Talk pages of the Messianic Judaism article, see for example Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_22#Non-summary_statement_in_Lede where we actually worked together and came to an agreement on a change to the lead, which still stands today. Although I've felt I've been on the receiving end of some personal attacks from Mike, honestly they aren't that far out of line from how lots of other editors I've seen behave on Wikipedia. For these reasons, I am proposing not to include Talk pages in the topic ban.
Zad68 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting. Zad, how would you define the phrase "Jewish Christians?" Pesky (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe the article Jewish Christian does a reasonable job of addressing that question. However, I cannot see how it is acceptable according to policies and guidelines, including WP:SYNTH, for any editor to instantly assume that any "Jewish Christians" must necessarily be among those described as being within the group Messianic Judaism. There are and have been other groups and individuals prior to modern Messianic Judaism who have been described as Jewish Christians. If we were to accept that argument as valid, we might just as easily call them Cerinthians, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Nazoreans, or Saint Thomas Christians, or followers of Antinomianism, Marcionism, or any number of other names that have been applied over the years to individuals who have been roughly described as "Jewish Christians." John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should avoid getting into a content debate here, this is about editor behavior. If we find one of the examples I have listed questionable, I'll provide a different one. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • [non-admin observer comment]. I thought it might end up here. I've pretty much stopped watching the page (or rather stopped bothering to click through to follow the daily edit summaries) so my comment has little recent value, but might provide some background. Firstly, John, there is a history page, Hebrew Christian movement, which has the same editors but gets less traffic - partly I suppose because it mainly represents the more "assimiliation" minded and Gentile-funded Victorian Jewish missions. It also contains the same 9 August 2011 edit as Zad68 points about above as OR that the 41 member 1813 Hebrew Christian congregation in London was the "first" - which I can't see how is a problem on a content level as putting [1813 "Hebrew Congregation"] into Google Books immediately pulls out 3 sources supporting that this (correctly r not) in sources is regarded as the "first" (since two of the 3 sources - Stan Telchin & Rich Robinson are anti-MJ Evangelical works I'm assuming they aren't internal sources). The reason I mention that is that if that's the worst example of DeknMike's OR, and we have to go back to August 2011 to find it, then how come it's supported in Google Books? ......that said, the issue here isn't content so much as constantly pushing edits and pushing with a slant - which usually get reverted. I initially thought Jayjg was being too picky in some of the edits being blocked, but have come round to see that in almost every one of DeknMike's edit a sourceable factoid is being accompanied by a tail with distinct POV/OR characteristics, meaning both the sourced factoid and the tail get reverted. In addition John Carter - who is evidently neutral if not vaguely favourable - has offered DeknMike the opportunity to pass edits through him first. I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something. What I personally would suggest is that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article, and others commit to check every week or so, with more leisure than now. There's also another potential issue with a topic ban - POV concerns aside I'm not sure that it's healthy for en.wp to ban the only active User of a particular religious group from editing his/her religious group's article. Particularly as MJs are a group, like JWs?, to which most of their religious cousins range from suspicious to hostile. That may be a consideration outside AN scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that we pretty much banned every western Falun Gong practicioner from that content some time ago, for POV pushing, so there is precedent for that. But I would think that only two months would be far too inadequate. Procedurally, there have been indefinite bans from a topic in the past, which are reviewed later and ended. That would probably be the best way to go here. And I do think, maybe, allowing him perhaps to leave notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity, for anyone to see, might be sufficient for him to propose new edits. If, however, DeknMike were to agree to a self-imposed topic ban, I would probably agree to that. If he would agree to that. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think maybe a bit more listening to each other, in a more relaxed atmosphere, might be good. I don;t think a self-imposed topic ban is the way to go about that, personally, but if it's the only thing that works for you, he may have no option. Looking at the above information, though, I'd like people to think about "Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s..." and "Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century" and see if they can understand why DeknMike believes that saying it arose in the 1960's is wrong. See if you can discuss this one carefully with each other, looking to understand the "other side's" reasoning. Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead? Pesky (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Point of order. Zad68 correctly stated the article is within the category 'formerly Good Articles', but including it in a discussion about me might lead some to conclude is was delisted BECAUSE of me. In fact, it was delisted in 2008 [[32]] and I didn't join the conversation until March of 2010 [[33]]. To say otherwise misrepresents the issues even more.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
DeknMike, I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". There was just something (well, several somethings) about it which rang warning bells for me. I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. I think there's far more to this than meets the eye, and that what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it. I'm not saying that that is intentional (though of course there's always the possibility that it may be), just that these things happen. I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first. Pesky (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the .

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=490762933"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages