Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 74 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Moved from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Nobody Ent 15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some may recall this incident: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning. User:HanzoHattori, banned and indef-blocked in 2008 for chronic incivility and an inability to work with others, was contentiously allowed to return under a new name: User:Niemti. User:MuZemike warned: If he gets unbanned/unblocked, I'm sure we will be discussing numerous ANI incidents, culminating with another ban proposal, within a year. So here it is, 3-4 months later. Niemti has displayed the same incivility and failure to assume good faith and more: particularly unashamed WP:OWN violations, as well competency issues. These have continued (last couple of days: [1], [2], [3]) despite a recent discussion in which multiple users voiced concerns (and to which he responded with little but taunts). An RfC/U containing the appropriate evidence has been certified and listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti. Niemti has swiftly stated that he will not respond: He called it tl;dr, and this is "the first and last time" he edited the RfC (and not to provide an endorsed response). I don't want to unilaterally withdraw the RfC (if this is possible), not least because I don't know where to put the evidence otherwise, but it is abundantly clear that it is not going to achieve anything.
• I thus propose a community ban of Niemti, per the fact he already has been banned for the same issues, and per the fact the supports of his return contained caveats such as Look, if he comes back and takes advantage, I'll be the first to kick him in the ribs - hell, I'll be happy to make the block myself. (User:Ironholds). Failing that, editing restrictions: at a minimum the restrictions described in the RfC, but preferably a topic ban from video game characters, and possibly also GAN. Evidence for the multitude of policy violations and the complete lack of respect for others, endorsed by other users, can be found on the RfC page (please do read it). The only counterpoint Niemti has provided is his vast edit history. Aside from the fact his editing lacks competency (the GAs he boasts of were either cleaned up by their reviewers or received rubber-stamped non-reviews), no amount of edits can excuse these violations, nor driving other users to edit nowhere near him. bridies (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of Niemti has been pretty much limited to Another World, although his name seems rather familiar, so maybe elsewhere too, but I have to say I see nothing wrong with his work there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban proposals are made at WP:AN and not here at ANI. Won't work here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They're made in both places and multiple bans have been enacted on ANI. Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. If it bothers an editor they're welcome to move it to WP:AN Nobody Ent 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, oh wow. Like I'm going to respond to a barrage of false accusations (like the one that I responded) and things taken out of context. Hilariously, some people seem to be annoyed because I'm doing too many Good Articles about video games (yes, you heard it right - only this week GAs of my were Another World (video game), Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth and Wolfenstein 3D, with about two dozen more coming through right now). --Niemti (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as non-admin - per rationale given by User:Bridies. While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements. I don't like to throw out the baby with the bath water, but it seems like there's more water here than baby. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "some", but most. Plus 3 out of 4 A-class assessments (the remaining 1 being on hold, and you know it). --Niemti (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: additional site ban, topic ban, and lesser restrictions. After reviewing the multitude of blocks, investigations, AN/ANI/ANEW reports, and warnings, I also concluded that Niemti's recent conduct reiterates a long-term pattern of belligerence, condescension, and incivility towards others. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, should I tell you about my first accounts? You would dig up on me something from 2004 and 2005 too. So relevant. --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)--~~[reply]

• Support based on history, behavior documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, and refusal to participate in RFC/U. Nobody Ent 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I already told you how it was laregly just false accusations and things taken out of context. Which it was. And cherry-picked from tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles. Instead of believing this, maybe you should check yourself (that's 500 last week, mostly finishing touches on the recent GAs and preparations for the new ones, in particular The King of Fighters XIII, Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) and Shank (video game)). You can check then the earlier 500 too (that would be probably something like the previous week), and so on. --Niemti (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironic Support considering the WP:ABF that I was subjected to last week regarding this exact same editor. The battle mentality, "not me" attitude and "I don't have to answer to the community" statements pretty much say it all. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - poor past conduct and does not seem willing to deal with any issues which have been raised again. GiantSnowman 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Issues", ha. Especially this "Oh no, he's making too many GAs!" thing (it was in Video Games Portal or something). Like, what? Jesus Christ, lol, WHAT. (Want a hint? If you don't want to review them, for whatever reason, then just don't do it. Like I don't want to review, and guess what - I don't review.) I'm basically being attacked for this very reason. I'm making to many good articles (literally, Good Articles). Funny thing is I'm not even interested in drama. All my talk pages (including my own talk), portals, etc. activity is less than 10% of my edits (so much for supposed "battle mentality"). More than 9 out of all 10 of my edits is tirelessly editing content, every day. This week alone I achieved 3 GAs. I listed them above. They're actually good articles, I think. But instead of congratulations or barnstars or whatever, or just respect, I get all this shit. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Producing good content is not a get-out-of-jail free card, to be waves about whenever your incivility and attitude (as you are again demonstrating here) becomes disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm "demonstrating here"? Like I'm getting all this, yes, shit ("ironic support"), while nobody is listening to me, again coming with stuff from years ago, or just believing (onca again) false accusations and things taken out of context? And the "funny" thing is - "producing good content" was really the thing against me. Seriously, it was. Supposedly, I was doing too many of these GAs (Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Video games are these waiting currently, and I'm continously working on them if they're not simply finished already, by me, as you can check in their histories). It all started with this, like last week or something. I was like "what? no of course I'm going to continue, and I'm not going to review, don't review too if you don't want to do it" (it's not like I'm forcing anyone to do it). Then, some people from this portal decided to spend a lot of time and energy to dig up dirt on me (even if it's laughable or false, like this thing that I commented on, no matter, it was just piled it out in this huge thread). I didn't even know they want to actually ban me. That's just incredible and I can't believe it. --Niemti (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban (non-admin) - Agree with the concerns by Bridies the nominator, Bwilkins, Nobody Ent and Teancum. The sum total of his battleground mentality and incivility have been staggering and has unfortunately exhausted our patience. With that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Civility is equally as important as quality mainspace edits, and while the latter is good, it can't overshadow battleground mentality tied with the former. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is equally as important as quality mainspace edits no it freakin' ain't, and that attitude is exactly where this project went wrong. Encyclopedia. Not Facebook. Volunteer Marek  01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem is a long term, good faith editor, and I'm pretty certain he doesn't treat or view Wikipedia like social media. He means that it's virtually impossible to work on any sort of collaborative aspect of the encyclopedia with him. Let me ask you this: Have you tried working with Niemti before? Have you tried to have a discussion about policy with him before? Have you tried to take an article in a direction even minutely different than Niemti's vision for it? If/hen you have, perhaps you'll understand what we're is getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then s/he should know better. As to the loaded bad faithed question - " Have you tried working with Niemti before? Have you tried to have a discussion about policy with him before? Have you tried to take an article in a direction even minutely different than Niemti's vision for it?" - the answer is yes, I believe I have. And I had no problems, it's all in how you approach people. Volunteer Marek  19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And let me ask YOU: did you read what Chaheel Riens wrote up here? No, I didn't ask him to come here and say this. I didn't ask ANYONE to come in defense. Morever: I didn't even tell about this to anyone at all. I sure could, but I didn't, my choice. That's unlike you, the clique, who thought it's fine to gang up on me in an organized manner (guess it's this "collaborative aspect" at work). And hey, just why do you have (collaboratively) had to quickly resort to personal attacks and telling lies about me? Like about me supposedly breaking almost "every" ("every") Wikipedia policy. Well, that would indeed make me an absolutely horrible editor. One small problem though - it's not true. But it worked, people bought this, so congratulations. You can be proud of yourselves. I guess. --Niemti (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on going on about "It's not true!!", but what exactly is your counter-argument? That you're lovely to work with, and somehow mysteriously misunderstood by the 10 people you seem to interact with the most? Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My counter-argument to what? Who are those "10 people"? A majority of the people who posted here are all in the clique? Then I don't even recognise most of them. So much of "working wioth them the most". (Btw: I don't even really work with you. There was only Yuna and you came there.) --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that civility is one of the five pillars, I'm pretty sure acting civil is on par with quality editing. (This is the entire crux of the Malleus Arbcom case, IIRC...) --MASEM (t) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "battleground" are you talking? Where is it, exactly? (I don't even hang on you portal.) If somebody told me I should have taken this thing seriosuly, I would. "Request for comment" didn't sound to me like a serious matter (I never heard about such a thing before), especially since I was only told about it as a "part of procedure". --Niemti (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I called this whole situation "hilarious" at first, but now it's just Kafka-esque. I'm being basically lunched by the Video Games Portal crew for being too ambitious for their liking. For working too much (like already more than half of Sjones23's edits above in just 7 months, even as his are counted from over 7 years) and also, as strange as it may sound, for my liking of the articles on fictional characters (besides all the other articles), which that many of them despise for some irrational reasons. The rest is just an excuse, and seems that I myself gave them excuse with my misunderstanding of "request for comment" thing. --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the deal: A user RFC is an attempt to come up with a voluntary solution to perceived issues with a particular user's contributions. It is considered the final stage in voluntary dispute resolution, if it fails to achieve a voluntary agreement the next step is usually a filing at ArbCom or a request like this one. As a user who was previously banned and was extended a massive amount of good faith when the community allowed you back in even though you were actively evading your ban at the very moment discussion of lifting it was taking lace I would expect you to realize that your behavior afterward would basically need to be above reproach and that any concerns brought to your attention would be responded to in a civilized manner. Of course by letting you get back in through the back door like that the community may have sent you the message that we don't actually take such things seriously and you can flaunt and ignore community standards of user behavior safe in the knowledge that there will always be someone there to make excuses for you, so there is blame to spread around on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I actually "flaunt and ignore community standards of user behavior". I'm not saying I'm perfect, but this is totally all blown out of proportions. Even couting the accusations towards me that are simply absurd (in my opinion), factually incorrect, or taken out of context, it's all a very, very small part of my activity, and what exactly was supposedly the most serious thing? Like, me calling names against anyone? Maybe I threatened someone in any way? Did I falsely accuse someone? Any incidents of vandalism? I don't know, what was that? --Niemti (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the RFC/U - there are examples where you have a combative stance on article changes that act like article ownership, and resistance to take suggestions from others. Those are just as bad as vandalism and false accusations towards the constructive group efforts to improve the work. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. "Article ownership" (supposed), on exactly how many of the thousands of articles edited by me, and where in nothing but good faith (like maybe some POV stuff or something)? Where exactly it it written "resistance to take suggestions from others" is now a such a so-serious, bannable offense? (If so I'm going to suggest something to you now and you better do it.) --Niemti (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN and YOUR MIRROR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"YOUR MIRROR"? Seriously? Ha, yee YOUR MOM. (Look, I'm being "battleground" now, oh no. I should have taken such a polite "suggestions from others", who want to ban me, without complaining.) That was an excellent list of my supposed most serious offenses, too. --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor, probably at one time or another, acting in a way counter to WP:OWN with regards to an article they have spent a lot of time editing and preparing. Alone or isolated, that's not a problem. But when it happens repeatedly and after the user's been cautioned against such actions when others are trying to improve said articles in good faith, then that starts becoming specifically disruptive which is the primary point here. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no solid consensus on this, but the community seems to be heading away from the notion that making good edits makes up for chronic incivility or combativeness. To make an imperfect analogy, let's say a mechanic was sometimes putting water in his customer's fuel tanks so that they would need to come back and spend some more money. If he only did it 10% of the time and used proper fuel the other 90% of the time does that make it ok? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to make a more perfect analogy, I say I'm not displaying "chronic incivility or combativeness". I even actually generally avoid portals, Administrators' whatever, Articles for whatever, etc. It's also because I'm just not really interested in discussing things. --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's one of your problems! Wikipedia is a collaborative project, this means you have to discuss things, even if you'd rather not!--86.156.212.221 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I edit articles, I don't discuss articles for deletions and stuff. There is no requirements for doing any of this. That's not "one of my problems". It's not a problem at all. (Also, I was here to argue with people, about anything, I'd do this instead of editing articles. And guess what.) --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that was an excellent list of those most serious things (all zero of them), and especially the ones that I didn't try some middle ground solution or just gave up or even eventually agree with these all-bidding "suggestions from others" (as every users need to readily agree with "suggestions from others" or else it's a ban time). OK, gotta go. I guess I'm going to leave it with the previous comment by Masem (complete with "just as bad as vandalism and false accusations" and hey, he was serious), which really shows the absurdity of this. --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to work with the community on one's behavior, even if one thinks they are 100% in the right, is usually also taken as a sign of battleground mentality that is harmful to the project. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I got a "request for comment". So I even actually commented. It didn't say anything about how it's "explain all this or else". It basically didn't say anything at all. (And I really need to go.) --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, yes ... yes you do need to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I can. I just didnąt understand it was serious, or what was it at all. But thatąs when I'm back, because seriously I need to go. --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's serious in the sense that not complying is an implicit sign of not wanting to cooperate. If you showed interest in cooperating on the RFC to understand how to improve this behavior, I would not be surprised to see this suggestion to ban you called off. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which really sounds like a blackmail, but anyway. So what do what do you exactly except me to do supposedly? --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's really not necessary for us normal editors to label our positions as "non-admin" -- I'm sure the mop wielder who closes this will intrinsically know to give our positions greater weight without the hint. Nobody Ent 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. When I look at topics on admin noticeboards, all of the non-admin comments are different colors and blink. The colors vary based on the season.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No doubts, Niemti has certain (mis)communication problems. For example, he recently reverted a few my edits withot talking. So what? Is it such a big deal? I think Niemti must take a serious wikibreak. But his comments look to me mostly like sarcasm, rather than serious personal offences. I did not see User:AnddoX (who Miemti allegedly offended) complaining about it anywhere. Does anyone here feel himself so much personally offended that he can not forgive fellow editor? My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He already had a "serious Wikibreak": 4 years, after being banned for the same stuff. He has barely made it 4 months before intractably putting himself in the same position. His recent ongoing incivility ranges from I told you to stop fucking up my articles to if you do want actually contribute, go and try to make Ryu's article a GA [...] Which I did it with Ayane [...] nearly 300 edits from this account alone, mostly in the previous month, and now you want to mess with it. As for "So what?" This is the second time in barely as many months I've had to waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration putting together evidence for an RfC/ANI, just to keep the content areas which I enjoy functioning normally (the other instance was User: Jagged 85; I see Niemti has used the exact same defence of "cherry-picking") as he did. Personally I'm strongly tempted to finally edit Wikipedia no further after this: how many more editors who break every other policy except WP:CIVIL (Jagged), or damn near every policy (Niemti) but add big green numbers (though not quality, nor even readable content), need I/we indulge for years, through multiple ban/RfCs/ANIs before finally having to go through a time-devouring, laborious due process to (maybe) have them banned. I've only managed about 20 successful GAs and an FA, many of them collaborative, over the last few years. I'm sure I wouldn't be missed, next to Niemti. bridies (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I had no problems while editing aricles about Chechen warlords together with him. It looks like editing videogames is more dangerous. A topic ban from editing videogames? A temporarily block to chill out? My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously video games is a subject that is chill subject ESPECIALLY compared to dealing with nationalist editors on politically charged subjects. And what Bridies says is not only lies, it's all his personal dislike, after I told him how I don't like him (literally, I told him "I don't like working with you, and I don't even you, anymore"). As I said. He actually said this: "I've had to waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration putting together evidence for an RfC/ANI, just to keep the content areas which I enjoy functioning normally." What? While there other editors can say, quote (for example, very recent), After the second look, I see the article much improved. I have no further comments, so I pass the article. Good job! after I did this much improvement indeed, and these changed don't even include my previous edits to this article, tons of them ("wasting my time", too - maybe he should have "waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration" on editing some articles, which almost all I do). That's quite a difference, no? --Niemti (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Until I read this thread, I was unfamiliar with Niemti. I have looked at the diffs provided by the OP. I have looked at the RFC. I have read the extended discussion here with Niemti. I have not reviewed Niemti's history. What I have looked at seems to be consistent. An editor who creates good content and who relies on that work to thumb their nose at anyone who interferes with their work. The arrogance, the sarcasm, the mockery, the condescension. Despite what Niemti might think, they're not indispensable. See My Fair Lady song, "Without You".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - While he does contribute a lot, he also wastes a lot of the community's time with the issues he's constantly bringing up. He is almost always condescending and rude to virtually anyone who interacts with him. There's just no reason for him to go out of his way to be so difficult. I've told him several times before that his bad attitude would overshadow any good he does here, and yet he continues on without hesitation, so he's clearly aware of what he's doing, and has no intention of stopping. If he intends to bless the world with his video game knowledge, (He likes to make claims that he's irreplaceable.) I think he needs to start up his own solo blog or something, because he clearly cannot handle working on a collaborative project. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - honestly, this appears to be a bunch of "oh noes, how dare he disagree with me!?!" kind of complaining. If there are issues of ownership they appear to be with the OTHER parties. Over at the RfC I see the statement "Most (though not all) of these are relatively minor, but should be considered as part of the broader problems with Niemti's editing style." - when someone first admits that the given diffs are "relatively minor" but then tries to string up the subject anyway based on "part of a broader problem" that sets off the bullshit detectors screaming. Yes, there is some arrogance and (horror of horrors!) sarcasm, but it's not like any of these are that hard to deal with ... if you're willing to do your part in the AGF equation. Volunteer Marek  01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "some arrogance". It's deluded, megalomaniacal hubris. And when I said they were "relatively minor", I meant in relation to the gratuitous ownership-claiming and incompetency. As for "assuming good faith" and "dealing with it", as Sergecross said: I'd love to see you review half a dozen of "his" video game GANs, and make dozens upon dozens of copy edits to "his" articles, as I did, and then see what your "bullshit detector" says. How would you defend such reverts as: "I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I?", "thanks, I prefer it this way", "nope" and then "really, no", "I told you to stop doing that", " if you do want actually contribute, go and try to make Ryu's article a GA [...] Which I did it with Ayane [...] nearly 300 edits from this account alone, mostly in the previous month, and now you want to mess with it", "It was all quite well thought by me, see? Now, if you have something to CONTRIBUTE to the article..." and so on? My own "bullshit detector" is "screaming" right now. bridies (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"deluded, megalomaniacal hubris" - go call me some more names, come on. And you forgot to "inform" it was in a discussion with a dude who thought that what I said to him was "such a blasphemy" (which I guess was not "deluded"?). And you also "forgot" to show examples of my supposed "chronic incivility or combativeness". Like, I'm right now watching 1,281 pages. It's mostly articles. That was one example (same guy, two pages, of one I let it go (Ryu's, precisely) and on another on which I discussed on its talk page, by presenting a number of arguments). It's on [4] "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris". Oh, and uh-oh, reviewing my GAs, somehow all the other have no problems. Only you. Only this week, 3 reviewers somehow didn't had such horrible ass pains like you apparently did: [5], [6], [7] (and those included no prior edit wars in these articles, of course). What you do now, is only your personal dislike, after I told that "I don't like you anymore". My own "bullshit detector" is "screaming" right now. - great, mine too. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: or damn near every policy (Niemti) - he's just lying. Lying, lying, lying, lying. I see any lie about me can now go unchecked, and without consequences. People will believe it, even! I'm being, groundlessly, demonized in such an absurd way that I'm just short of words now. As I said it several times, it's incredible, and getting more every new moment as it goes. --Niemti (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree with Sergecross73's argument and that of threadstarter. When you fail to even collaborate with other editors just because you're "not interested in them," you're already a liability to the project. Sergecross made a point about Niemti's condescending behavior - it's already evident in how he responds here! When you take a Wikibreak for as long as Niemti has but you still exhibit the same kind of BS behavior, it goes to show you haven't used the time to reevaluate your worth to the project. Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? What kind of quote was this "not interested in them"? "BS behavior" - LIKE WHAT? Huh? Of the last say 1,000 of my edits, go and show my, like, 10 (supposedly) worst offenses (out of 100 offesnses I guess, like in "an imperfect analogy" above with "10% water"). Clearly those people (VG Portal clique, which I'm not part of) convinced you I'm supposedly cruising Wikipedia (which is supposedly "battleground" for me, the word "battleground" repating so many times) looking for a fight or something, so it should be easy. That's [8] and [9], 1,000 sample edits since October 23. What you will ACTUALLY see, is mostly working on creating Good Articles. A lot. As of this thread, I have to deal with people who, groundlessly, say my GOOD ARTICLE WORK is "as bad as vandalism" and apparently people agree with this absurd, who call me "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris", what the FUCK is this? Go, call it "such a blasphemy" too, it's just this level of, yes, "BS behavior" right now. Just incredible --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You forget where you said those words? You know Niemti, all you've been doing in this thread these past 48 hours has been nothing more than the act of a editor desperate to avoid being banned. You are certainly fond of replying to everyone who either Support or Oppose this ban proposal, but frankly, I can only see nothing more than delusions and revisionism on your part not to mention bragging about what you've done for the project (you definitely lifted your benches hard on that). I shake my head at your above response to me. I'm not gonna dignify that by deconstructing it. Off you go. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban an unacceptable battlefield mentality is very much on display in this thread - and especially the post immediately above. Niemti, if you make any further posts like that you're going to be blocked regardless of the outcome of this discussion to impose a ban. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how will you call the BLATANT LIES being told about me by bridges? Yes, lies. Yes, he's lying. Should I repeat it? And also he's outright INSULTING me. It's, somehow, accepted. No one says a word. The term "BULLSHIT" is circling around, but it's not about his lies and insults. There are ABSURD accusations towards me, and yet they're accepted, while no one is listening to me. Except when it finally gets a rise from me, then yeah, now people take a note. How is this right? --Niemti (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my "battlefield mentality" to ask them to show the SUPPOSED worst examples of my oh-so bad behavior (even if cherry-picked out of tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles in only 7 months, including zero instances of vandalism, including always trying to mantain absolutely NPOV conduct (as much as it's possible), including making several Good Articles in such a short time, and getting numerous others to B-Class too, and creating several (that's not even including re-creating, that was many more), and uploading lots of pictures, and so on) and yet it's not "battlefield mentality" to answer with "YOUR MIRROR" (yes, in caps) to this. No one said a word about it, of course. It was not "battlefield mentality", it was peacefield mentality from Bwilkins (who said he's holding a grudge against me, but I have no idea why and what was that, I just don't know this person). What's with this thread? I told it once, I say again: it's a pure Kafka-esque stuff. --Niemti (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there ... who said I was holding a grudge? I was given shit by my fellow editors for holding you to the same standards (as you're a longtime editor) as I hold others. Nothing at all about a grudge (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ironic Support considering the WP:ABF that I was subjected to last week regarding this exact same editor." - that's how I interpreted this cryptic message. I seriously have no idea who you are. --Niemti (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny. I especially like your response there where you degrade the individual to below-human status because 8 of their 9 edits were possibly vandalism. You really just cemented my Support for this ban by making me go back and actually see your response. Your dismissiveness of simple, human-relations based suggestions is appalling. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were not "possibly" vandalism. It was - "8 of their 9 edits were vandalism", factually stated, nothing "possibly" about them. And someone even confronted you on this. And the other one was basically proudly saying what this VANDALISM ONLY ACCOUNT was doing - he posted a definition of trolling. And your reasoning here is "appalling". You're still, continously defending the vandal(!!!!!), you want to ban me for reporting vandal! The Trial - Wikipedia edition. It's just getting ever more crazy. --Niemti (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving me right - and I think you now finally understand my comment. Someone "calling" me on it was WP:ABF - you're justifying the fact that you refused to do them the courtesy of advising them that you had reported them to this very board, because you considered them sub-human. I'm not defending any vandal - I'm defending due process and human courtesy. I think you just put the final nail in. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Also, you lie, too. And there are tons of "due process and human courtesy" towards me here. But that was my last post here. --Niemti (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you finally did that a significant time after I prodded you to do so. Now that you have resorted to personal attacks, I fear this will go even worse than it already was (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's roughly as much of a "personal attack" as the other 4 people who told you the same thing right away but before you also used this as an inane "reason" to get me banned me for. No, I have no respect for trolls. There is nothing to respect. But neither, I don't think they're "sub-human", that just your imagination, and I never used such a racist language on Wikipedia anywhere (btw, just yesterday I did some better photos for Wikipedia with a memomorial in place of a concentration camp where "sub-humans" were held 1943-45). OK, I'm done with posting for today. --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I really shouldn't be replying, but I do appreciate the Kafka allusions. For only in either Kafka or on Wikipedia could one bring someone, banned for failing to assume good faith, to ANI for same thing only be told not only that one must eat that person's insults, but should assume good faith while doing so. bridies (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I like to show how absurd this thing is. Bridies (WHO IS LYING) really, really wants to ban me, and it's because of my and his (volunteer, it was 100% his own initiative) work on some of my GA nominations. Some he passed, some he failed, anyway he holds a stupid grudge against me ever since then. But now I want to show you something. That's also addressing the claims of it's virtually impossible to work on any sort of collaborative aspect of the encyclopedia with him and he clearly cannot handle working on a collaborative project from Sargecross73:

In this thread, I already showed you the 3 GA that passed this week. Without complaints. One of them even commented in this very thread. Let me quote it: My experience of Niemti has been pretty much limited to Another World, although his name seems rather familiar, so maybe elsewhere too, but I have to say I see nothing wrong with his work there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, those were the articles that passed just week. Those are GAs that are currently under review (not counting those that are awaiting a review), in chronological order:

• [10] and here's there's my work on to adress the issues (about new 40 edits)

• [11] - I'm not sure it's going to pass (despite "Continue the good work" comment from the reviewer), but one thing for sure - the article is much better now (my work on it in meantime, about 85 new edits) which is an important positive impact, even if it's not going to end with a GA.

• [12] - I'm not doing much, but also just no issues were raised at all, yet.

• [13] - awaiting a second reviewer, but the first one sees nothing wrong with the article.

So, is it really SUCH a problem with me? Or, maybe, rather it's with Bridiesm, like with his LIES about me here. (Somewhere up there, he's actually compaing how his efforts to ban me are wasting his precious, precious time.) Why do you people accept this so easily? Maybe now, for once, ANYONE will listen to my side of the story. --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban. No worse than Malleus from what I see above. And the editors who want him banned for incivility using expressions like "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris" strikes me as a bad case of WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility is merely one of the reasons he should be banned. Though do feel free to put together evidence that I'm anywhere near as bad as Niemti (you might get a feel for how much of a pain it is). The comparison to Malleus is useless: not only is Niemti infinitely worse than him, in terms of content creation, Niemti is no Malleus. bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are you. Or am I. If "not as good as Malleus" is a criterion for banning, none of us would be here. Absurd logic. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's entirely your own absurd logic. "Not as good as Malleus" is merely the logic for not comparing him to Malleus. The logic for banning him is given at the top of the thread. bridies (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These "other reasons". But hey, I will try. For starters. The reasons/aspects bridies is "worse" (as of "infinitely", that's just some sillyness from his shock-vocabluary) than me: bridies is currently prone to be seriously abusing other users by outright insulting them (by which I mean calling them in very deregatory terms) and lying about them, even while on administrators' noticeboard. That surely is a display of "combative stance" and/or "battleground mentality", and that's something that bridies don't even does in his defense - it's just to attack. Proof: this very thread. Is it something that bridies does often (define: "often"): I have no idea. And now someone else can carry on and examine bridies for a greater scrutiny, because that's not how I spend my time (unlike some others). Also unfortunately I couldn't compare bridies to Malleus because I don't know who Malleus is. --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you people, take note, please. Bwilkins "reasoning" is I was was being "degrading" towards the "alleged" vandal (I wasn't even really, I just called the things by name while reporting this - it was vandalism-only account, it was trolling), but he thinks the vandal was not "degrading", not towards AIDS victims and homosexuals or against Han Chinese people. And so he only banned the vandal for only 1 week, and still defends him (no, really he does), but now he wants to ban me, for my reporting of the vandal - "ironically", he says. It's an excellent example of what's going in this thread. But people just automatically accept and "agree" with this (quote: Agree with the concerns by Bridies the nominator, Bwilkins) even as they don't even know what is it about (even I didn't know what "the concerns by Bwilkins" were about, and turned out it was this). And when I'm more and more dismayed at this situation, nobody is actually listening to me, only - "yes, this, it's his battelfield mentality again, the barrage of absurd accusations, insults and outright lies to get him banned got a rise in him, it's totally unacceptable!". It's like a parody, really. --Niemti (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and rice ... now you're claiming that my reason for supporting this much-needed community ban has to do with the incident with that editor? That's not even part of what entered my mind. You flat out stated that you had never heard of me before ... I showed you that wasn't true. How is it that you can twist that into suggesting that it's that tiny (although indicative) incident that is the basis of my decision to support? NO. I supported based on 10 minutes of the easiest research I have even done into your behaviour towards others. The level you're stooping to in badgering those who dare acknowledge that you're a poison on this project has risen to outright bullying: if this was RFA and you badgered the opposers like you are in this thread, you'd be shut down long ago. Your sole "defence" is that you have written some good stuff. While that's appreciated, it must also come with behaviour towards others. If you don't get that, then it's indeed time for you to take a break until you do (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This thread alone demonstrates perfectly why a community ban is in order. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, such a "perfect" collection of personal dislikes (the real "reasons"), manipulations, outright lies and insults, and sheer absurd. If I just layed down as they kick me, and ban me, surely this would show my lack of "combativeness", right. My bad. It's bad to defend oneself, it's okay to lie and insult to attack people. I'll note it down somewhere. --Niemti (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Suffering fools gladly should not be a requirement to edit. Niemti is a good editor, which sadly has become the strongest criterion for a ban proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What fools? bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Niemti contributes very well to wiki. That he's not the friendliest guy in the world shouldn't be a reason to ban him. This isn't a playground. If niemti is uncivil a lower sanction should be sufficient. But I don't see how he broke the rules. This looks more like a bunch of guys who "don't like him". Machinarium (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti, with his insults and mine-mine-mine attitude, treats Wikipedia exactly like a "playground". bridies (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it. Machinarium (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. I'll expend my time and energy in some other pursuit. 14:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As said after insulting me and blatantly lying about me here. Good work, sure you can go now. Seriously, why didn't anyone confront him on lying in such a case? I'm only one who addressed this. Like it's an okay thing to do if one is Bridies, perfectly acceptable, I see. But if I did something like that... Hey, just see my "improper" handling of a Wikipedia troll (also note how 4 diffferent people absolutely disagreed with BWilkins back then, and yet now I'm alone to face this absurdness). No, I didn't lie about it, it really was a vandalism only account. But for my supposedly imperfect reporting of it, it's now one of the main arguments for why I'm now to be banned (as stated by one admin and cited by at least one other person, without even knowing at all what was this about). So what will be the consequences for bridies regarding him lying about me on administrators' noticeboard? (None whatsoever, I know. It's just a rhetrical quiestion.) --Niemti (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Marek, the argument basically runs "this guy still annoys us, let's ban him again". Niemti produces good content and a bit of hassle. I see no evidence that he's a net negative to the project. Just ignore the childish outbursts and let him get on with writing those GAs. Claritas § 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd love to see someone actually refute the evidence while opposing. bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an AfD. No one needs to "refute evidence" to oppose the banishment of a user. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd "love" to see a real evidence of your claims. Here I see a "complete lack of respect", to quote you but for me (or maybe things like calling me "deluded, megalomaniacal" was an expression of respect and I just misunderstood it as an ugly personal attack), including by accusing me of breaking, and here goes a quote, "damn near every policy". Which was blatantly untrue, and with this every so emphasized that it wasn't some kind of a slip of the tongue, you didn't mean it was "some" or "several", not even "most" maybe (not that it would be any more true), you meant what you said, you meant "damn near every", that is every single one with some odd exceptions only (a shock tactic, which then worked, sadly). Or maybe you can prove it by actually showing how I break "damn near every" them (and there's quite a lot of them). No, you can't. You can't because it was only a slanderous lie. Because you so very deliberately lied about me, right here, and without even a good reason, if acually any reason (I can't see it). So, how do you feel exposed, now? You liar. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Frankly, I do feel he is rather overly hostile from the examples I've seen. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what "examples you've seen"? I vaguely recognise your nickname but I can't connect it with anything. --Niemti (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ask what examples? Well, your conduct on this page and the page concerning you on the WikiProject/Video Games Talk page, together with examples offered in both pages, your own attitudes in answering the other editors, the reliable evidence offered about your use of atrocious language. Also, the kind of editing you do can be a little..disjointed. And the references you chose! I seem to remember trying to use some similar ones and they were blocked because of dangers of spam or very poor info. Also, it does seem that you are being more than a little high-handed, as if everyone else in your editing sphere should bow down before you. I think that's what rubs people up so much. Maybe if you worked on keep that aspect under control this could be sorted out peacefully. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I remember you now, I worked at Prince (Prince of Persia) with you. Sure, I was oh-so "hostile". (Except not at all.) And whatever is "the page concerning you on the WikiProject/Video Games Talk page"? --Niemti (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're hostile up and down WP:VG, somewhere he frequents. Not to mention links up and down this ban proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And somewhere where I don't frequent. Whatever "links up and down this ban proposal"? Like this? I had to post this, and all BWilkins postaed at first was a totally cryptic message, which was then accepted and cited by Sjones23 EVEN AS HE HAD COMPLETELY NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS ABOUT (good game, Sjones23, I love you too). And come on, click this link, read what other people say to BWilkins there. Will you stand behind this? That's a reason to ban me? Or is it one less, now? Because now you can show me all the others. --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban I see no evidence of the kind of incivility that would merit a community ban. One of the certifiers of the RfC/U actually complained that Niemti was nominating too many articles for GA status, which would make sense if they were blatantly not appropriate GA candidates, but that is not the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that I was concerned about the multiple nominations that he placed for the project. Its not normal to see at least over 20 noms in our project unless its slow and since I saw it was by one editor, I thought he was just spamming to try to get them to GA status without knowing the process. I didn't know I would open a can of worms from it all. So, I apologize Niemti for what is going on. GamerPro64 15:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no bad feelings. --Niemti (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, I see nothing from a cursory glance that would make any of those nominations inherently invalid so the number is quite meaningless. Maybe there are issues, but nothing obvious to me that would suggest it was being done without consideration for the GA criteria. Unfortunately, it seems bridies has a laser focus on Niemti for some reason.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban. I can't think of the last time I saw someone so carefully and clearly demonstrate to the community the level of contempt they had for it. Every utterance Niemti has made in this thread has been yet another example of how he refuses - not even "can't", but "refuses" - to engage with other community members in a constructive manner. This is Wikipedia, not the Thunderdome, and someone with Niemti's history who plunges into a thread about his uncooperative, uncollegial, battleground habits while proudly flying all three of those on a flag above his head ought not to be terribly surprised when people notice the flags and point them out. I'm sorry, Niemti, but your behavior and attitudes don't fit here. If/when you're able and willing to control those, I'm sure the community would be happy to review your right to edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Say what? I "refuse" "to engage with community members in a constructive manner"? By community, I guess you mean where they discuss stuff among themselves. Well, I tried. I posted there a lot. They (bridies, Sargcross, Masem) told me I was "ranting", they actually told me they don't even read what I write (not even when I've been writing to them specifically). So I stopped trying, for the obvious reason it was evident I was just wasting my time (literally - writing someone others just ignore, that's 100% pointless). And I wasn't even obligated to come there at all, in first place. Or anywhere else, for that matter. But I tried. And what, "every utterance made in this thread", you say? That's absolutely false. Did you just guess it (then you guessed wrong, then you can read all of my actual replies, and especially the one where I show how I get along with GA reviewers in the cases that have just ended (one of those reviewers just posted here, I suggest you should read what he wrote, name's Chaheel Riens - and he did this completely on his own initative, because I didn't inform anyone about it) or are under review now), or was it a premeditated lie? I don't know, but you know, but that's a question you should answer. Maybe you should apologize for this to me, too. --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I neither guessed nor lied, Niemti. I read this thread, read up on your history, and reached my conclusion. Now, needless to say you don't have to agree with my conclusion, but immediately accusing me of either uninformed guessing or lying, rather than saying "I see things differently" or "What makes you say that?" or "Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to think is wrong", is yet more evidence of how you don't really...grok...how we handle conflicts (or even one-off, small disagreements) around here. Flying off the handle at everyone who dares speak to you is why you're here on AN in the first place. Why not make an attempt to not do that anymore, to show us all that we're wrong about how you can't/won't control yourself? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, Fluff, when an editor is facing the prospect of not being able to contribute to Wikipedia at all it is not unusual for that person to be a little snippy, especially when the person pushing for the ban has history with that editor. On Wikipedia people are far too often expected to regard a lynch mob with civility and respect, but whether you believe Niemti's conduct outside this discussion is a problem or not, I think you should recognize a basic fact that people often don't respond well to these sorts of actions and avoid the "well you're just proving the point that you're a bad person by getting mad when people are trying to stop you from doing something you love" response.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  More likely, it seems when a group of User's disagree with a User, someone labels it a "lynch mob." But it is doubtful that there is a basis to label independent users so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Yes, it's to be expected that people might get a little snippy when faced with community disapproval. But the sort of sustained aggression we're seeing here isn't "snippiness", it's "snippy through the initial adrenaline surge, but then switching to mocking, condescension, accusations, 'I didn't hear that', and peppering commenters with insults at a point at which one's brain should have kicked in and said 'this is not a good strategy'." Initial snippiness is understandable. Not being able to eventually moderate oneself and realize that attacking people isn't paying off, however, is a problem. If Niemti wants to continue doing the thing he loves, he needs to show us that he can control himself and act something other than resentful, accusatory, and "snippy". So far, he's not doing that, and I'm making a serious recommendation when I say that he needs to show control if he hopes to prove to the community (not "a lynch mob", thanks just the same) that he doesn't think the only way to behave here is the way he's been behaving. He's welcome to resent me for saying that, as are you, but that doesn't change the fact that the way to change !votes based on "can't control his behavior" is not to continue the bad behavior, but to prove he can control it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban We had a disagreement about robots being anthropomorphic. I was polite and thought that the best way to come to solve was to have a discussion and to get other editors involved. He insisted that it didn't matter what other editors thought, and that I was clearly wrong. He might have some good edits, but if he can't be civil when disagreements occur, then he doesn't belong here. JDDJS (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presented you an array of arguments, including literally thousands of websites for you to choose from, after showing you some specific examples, and more importantely - no one else got involved at all. And once again: it's not, and never was, about "robots being anthropomorphic", I was always ONLY talking specifically about humanoid robots and (fictional) human like-AIs, not simply "robots", something that you still don't understand despite being clearly told by me more than once. But anyway, just let me show you something about just "robots": "robots are not anthropomorphic" gives 93 results (most of it is of discussing "hyper-redundant robots", compeletely unrelated stuff), but "robots are anthropomorphic" is 1,810 results. And just antropomorphic robots - over 1 million, first being the Wikipedia article humanoid robot (the article that I already showed you, too, and which begins with "A humanoid robot or an anthropomorphic robot"). Really. Even if it was ever about just "robots" in general. Which it wasn't. --Niemti (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this what I wrote to you when I (first) initiated a direct communication with you: [14]. And as you're still talking about "robots" - that's just a serious case of communication breakdown, and that's not on my side. No matter how many times I repeated basically the same thing to you, it had no effect whatsoever, you're still going on exactly as you did before I attempted to explain it with, completely to even not knowing what really is the subject matter here (explaination to ininvolved users: JDDJS would make edits like that - and yes, that's not even a robot, in any meaning of this word, as this Featured Article states in a way that SHOULD be just perfectly clear to everyone). --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

• Oppose ban definitely some problematic behavior here, but I think an indefinite site ban would be overreaching a bit. Let's explore other options, topic ban(s), forced wikibreak for a month or two (as in the YRC Rfc), etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget that the community "overreached" before. Unbanning should not result in an expunged record. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually make an use of such a forced wikibreak because I've got tons of really overdue things to do (like a dozen cosplay sessions to edit being piled up for several months now) and Wikipedia can be extremely distracting. Speaking of which, that's all from me for today (I just spent most of whole day just answering this thread). --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 diffs given, and none but the last are even block-worthy. Even the last is only an extremely immature response to someone accusing him of sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, lest we forget, this user was in fact already banned once. That ban was issued in 2008 after 12 blocks for various types of combative editing (and one for copyright violations that was overturned as apparently unfounded) . Then, the community decided in its wisdom to allow him back while he was actively evading that ban. I opposed that decision and saw this as the inevitable result of it. As others have mentioned this project works through collaboration. Niemti appears to reject the idea that collaboration is a necessary part of content building. That's probably ok if you work on creating stubs or do wikignoming type work. If instead you wish to work at the other end of the spectrum, moving articles up the chain in the ratings system, the ability to collaborate is essential. After seeing the way they reacted to the RFC and to this thread I see little to no hope of Niemti being able to overcome these issues, indeed it is pretty clear they do not even acknowledge the problem. I therefore support rebanning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "reject the idea that collaboration is a necessary part of content building" (like, you can read what Chaheel Riens volunteered to write at the top of the thread, then you can check my work with him, and you can check all the other recent or ongoing examples, it's all in this thread, above). As I said, I even actually tried to work with them (them being: bridies, Sargecross, M., T. from above) at the project thing. It didn't turn very well, because they were just not reading what I was writing. Yes, literally. I wasn't ignoring anyone, but they were ignoring me, stating that I'm "ranting" and so they're not reading it. It clearly was going nowhere, so I stopped "ranting" for them alright, I just don't come there (which something nobody is obliged to do). Their recent "problem" was I don't review GAs. And? So what? And I don't think I'm even qualified for this. But anyway it's just 100% volunteer work, for which NO ONE is obliged in any way, too (of course). Their related "problem" was that I prepare "too many" (how many is too many?) GA-ready articles which I then submit for a review (without demanding anyone to do it, or anything like that - as I said no one is obliged to do it). And no, they could be even NEVER reviewed, and just expired or something, and just nothing would happen (but that's literally nothing). They're even talking about it here. So? Do you think it's actually a problem? I wish I had problems like that. Oh, and about this: While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements - this statement is simply not true. For one, "updating sources with reliable replacements" (or just removing them) was, according to my best knowlegde, never a problem, and certainly nothing that would result in "stalemates". Also I always try to use reliable sources when adding stuff. In other words: I think I can pretty safely say, it was also a lie (but for what?). You can check those "stalemates", I listed all of those "many" (four) all above, with my comments, or you can just see them from the list. About lying, just why are they doing it? That's something I don't get. Here, I'm not lying. Elsewhere, I'm also not lying. Maybe I should start, because it's apparently accepted behaviour. OK, that's REALLY enough for today. --Niemti (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease the accusations of lying with immediate effect, per WP:NPA. Mephistophelian (contact) 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Actually the user who lies is the one who has engaged in personal attacks rather than the user who points out that someone is lying. You really can't be faulted too much for your post though, as this insane mentality is ubiquitous on Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subject’s aggressive responses to those supporting the reinstatement of the injunction, the accusations of lying resemble intentional ad hominem statements to disparage four particular contributors. Construing deceitfulness as a personal attack obfuscates the differences, and appears to transform those accused of lying into perpetrators, violating Wikipedia’s policy on derogatory personal comments. Characterising my attempt at inhibiting the on-going melodrama as demonstrating an ‘insane mentality’ is manifestly spiteful and unconstructive. Mephistophelian (contact) 14:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's nonsense. But at least you didn't blue-link to "ad hominem". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me just say "While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements" is not true and that's all. (Also: I just realized it was from an user with whomn I recently had this post-GA discussion, and as you see I am NOT "unwilling" in this matter, and here's an additional proof of how it's just untrue because I act on that.) But could tell them to now to explain the charged statements like: "[breaks] damn near every policy" (emphasized as in original)? And also - why didn't you react, at all, to the accusations of a serious mental ilness ("deluded, megalomaniacal"), really no matter if said with premeditation or just used as insult (in a way similar to popular "idiot"), from the same user? --Niemti (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Took a look at just one article, XCOMXCOM: Enemy Unknown. I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I? is not collaboration. Submitting an article for GA review with a cleanup tag on it [15] wastes the time of the reviewer but could be passed off a good faith oversight. But resubmitting the same article twice [16][17] without fixing the error? The problem isn't that no one is listening to Niemti, it's that Niemti isn't listening to multiple editors, and their response to dispute resolution is attack, attack. Is a ban too harsh? I'd support six-month standard offer, but anything less than is not appropriate for an editor who has to be threatened with banning before even being willing to discuss their behavior, let begin to understand Wikipedia community expectations (not that I'm seeing evidence of that). Nobody Ent 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Corrected link Nobody Ent 20:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice why it failed. I excepted to see a review (there was none), not a note on talk page. After he refused to reupload, I didn't, I re-uploaded it only after this issue was all fixed. I did lots of work with this (most of the content in this article was written by me), and even as this is a brand new game the article is already very good (or isn't it?). Btw, it's XCOM: Enemy Unknown, not XCOM (different games, and even as XCOM content is also mine alright it's just unreleased yet). And such a kind of rise from me (as to use profanity) is not representative at all. I don't think you'll find any more uses of this kind of swearing betwen this incident and somewhere here up above (out of 27,413 edits, you know). It's not like I'm riding Tourette. Nope. --Niemti (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to "their response to dispute resolution is attack, attack", yeah, if it's "them" about them. I don't hang around them to "attack, attack". I don't follow them, at all, I don't look for occasions to do anything, I don't spend time digging dirt on them (not even one second), or anything really. The "attack, attack" here is one me, I'm only defending myself from accuations, many of which are simply NOT TRUE (absolutely not true, with full responsibility I'm saying this) or otherwise just strange/absurd (in my opinion, and I wrote about it lenght). OK, but now I'm really leaving, or at this rate I won't even sleep today. --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all very coplicated, but just looking at a single recent episode, it seems that Niemti reported a vandalism-only account to ANI (here). That was indeed a vandalism only account, and it is currently blocked; but this episode was quoted above as a reason to ban ... Niemti. I do not see any logic. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the problem was that he refused to notify the vandal of the ANI thread, which is required, even after he was reminded to do so. AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No no ... don't let Niemti's attempt to obfuscate the situation add confusion/complexity. The issue about Niemti not advising someone of an ANI filing has never been considered to be a reason to ban. Please re-read where that was merely in response to Niemti claiming he had no idea who I was. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm well aware that isn't the only reason for the ban proposal. I was simply attempting to point out what it was that Niemti had done wrong in that case as it was apparently being missed. Sorry for the confusion. AutomaticStrikeout 16:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The RFC says I have tried to remedy the GAN backlog issues simply by reviewing Niemti's nominations in good faith (7, if I recall correctly). I am now completely at loggerheads with him: he has stated he has "lost faith" in me, "no longer enjoys" working with me and believes I seek only to insult his work. The thing to do then is stop reviewing his articles. If he continues to annoy GA reviewers, he will end up with no-one willing to review. If it is a demonstrable issue, topic ban from requesting GA review. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Strongly Oppose Ban, Strongly Support Admonishing Though he hasn't done much that's worth a ban, he is very incivil. He should be strongly Admonished and warned about his incivility. --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call a previous site ban following twelve blocks adequate admonishment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this ban and all bans. They are a complete waste of time. - John Galt ✉ 07:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly do you propose be done to keep Wikipedia from being a constant battleground? AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose banning is simply not the right option. However, Niemti could be more civil in future. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose should be done instead? As mentioned above, after 1 ban and 12 blocks for uncivil behaviour, saying "Niemti could be more civil in future" sounds a bit like a broken record. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add one more totally absurd accusation to the ever-growing collection: And the references you chose! I seem to remember trying to use some similar ones and they were blocked because of dangers of spam or very poor info. from above. I think PD was talking about this, on the talk page for the article Prince (Prince of Persia) that we have been recently worked together (and very successfully so, a total rewrite from this in April, and until now he had no complaints, how odd - here's also the edit history for everyone to see: [18]). It's all excellent, absolutely first-rate reliable sources (namely: GameSpot, IGN, Computer and Video Games, Game Informer, Empire, The Age), and of course they've been not "blocked because of dangers of spam or very poor info" (by "blocked" I guess he meant blacklisted). Can it get even more absurd? Maybe it already did, I didn't read more updates in this thread yet. --Niemti (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! And I forgot to add: the above accusation (so strange and baseless) came from the user who believes a Wikia article might be a great source for Wikipedia references (my reaction? I placed a 'better' tag at first,[19] then realized it was just plot and so it didn't even needed to be sourced at all[20]). But that's just for an extra dose of absurd. --Niemti (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose community ban -It seems that the user in question seems to be very aggressive at times, but he has contributed. A topic ban might be more appropriate here. Whether or not the psychological stress his behavior imposes on others outweighs his contributions is debatable.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ban Based largely on this thread alone. This user has persisted in an uncooperative attitude. We gave them a chance to come back and now here we are again wasting our time with the non-sense. I think it is time to ban and move on with our lives.--Adam in MO Talk 09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ban The behavior in this thread alone is enough, add in the second chance status, the other diffs and the Rfc and the choice is clear. Basic civility is expected. Content is why we're here; but no one should have to deal with this kind of attitude and hostility. Niemti isn't even pretending to try to behave in a more collegiate fashion; his entire defense seems to be attacking others and accusing them of jealousy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mildly oppose - I first came into contact with Niemti when the issue of many GAN's was raised in the WP:VG talk page. I decided to help clear the backlog by reviewing at least one article. While I don't believe it's up to GAN standards currently due to certain sections being far too long and rambling (a point raised by others too) it is still a decent article. For the work Niemi has done to bring these articles up in quality he should be applauded. However, reading this thread I have come away with the impression of Niemi being very aggressive in his confrontations with other uses. I believe this issue could have been resolved much quicker with a civil discussion by both parties. Instead, Niemi has refused to participate in the requested discussion forcing other users to escalate. In summary, a flat ban would remove the problem for now but doesn't do anything towards actually solving the issues. My wish would be for an imposed WikiBreak to allow this matter to cool down and for Niemti to review the policies on WP:CIVIL noting that, while other users in this thread have had questionable interactions, the spotlight is on Niemti and Niemti alone at this point in time. Finally, a topic ban is not necessary in my opinion but perhaps Niemti could be persuaded to slow his rate of editing down, make use of Peer Review before submitting to GAN and generally interact with the Wiki community on a more collaborative basis. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Niemti has been banned before (following 12 blocks) for uncivil behaviour. One should think the editor would be familiar with WP:CIVIL by now, and the fact that they don't adhere to them has obviously nothing to do with ignorance of the policies but due to sheer unwillingness to follow them.--Saddhiyama (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but having had reasonable discussions with Niemti in the last 24 hours I stand by my oppose vote. Specifically, I think if a mob this size came after me it'd put me up against the wall and cause me to lash out too. I don't deny Niemti has some issues regarding playing well with others but this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. An imposed WikiBreak to cool off and some guidance will encourage Niemti to become a better community player. Banning him will just cause him to become even more disenchanted with the community the he perpaps already is. I agree, he is on thin ice due to past indiscretions but I'll stick my neck out on his behalf as a good faith gesture. TL;DR, community support > kicking out Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't stop to think why a "mob" (sigh) might "come after you"? An "imposed Wikibreak", like a 4 year ban (had one of those)? A block (a dozen of those)? The notion we shouldn't ban someone because he might "become disenchanted" is pretty amazing, but it's again very depressing that the converse (disenchanting productive, civil editors) is apparently not a concern. It is interesting to see people recommending a break (and Niemti kinda-sorta agreeing to one on his talk page), given what he said when he was unbanned (a mere few months ago): Also the truth is I actually wanted (want) to take some kind of a vacation from Wikipedia anyway ... it's like an addiction. Didn't quite happen. 115.74.230.254 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have got to say that after seeing this, (Codename Lisa has my deepest sympathies) I am beginning to feel a little less hopeful of a peaceful solution. And to Neimti, just because I get words wrong sometimes does not mean you have to use that air of contempt with me, or with anyone else. Yes, I did mean the WP:VG talk page, and yes I did mean 'blacklisted'. It was not IGN or any of the more reliable sources I objected to or tried to use, it was those things from fashion magazines and websites that I have been to looking for reliable news on movies and games and things like that. Generally, all I found was poor info or someone having a good rant. And to the Wikia issue, I did not say that a Wikia is a great source, full stop. I said that some Wikias are good. The one for Prince of Persia is admittedly terrible, while the one for Final Fantasy is very good and the one for Legend of Zelda is superb. Alright, I did use the Prince Wiki once, but only because there was no other source available and it was of a far better quality than nearly every other article in that entire wiki. In a way, it was a policy of 'sensible beggars can't be choosers', and that was one of the very few time's I've done that. I don't make a habit of it. I don't deny that together we have put the Prince article to rights again, but your attitude is getting...well...unpalatable with other users and I feel sympathy for them. Maybe Cabe6403 is right about you lowering your edit rate, or maybe something else. I have noted that you do a lot of small edits in rapid succession. Why not group your edits into one session with an article, like I do (unless you see something small that needs correcting). It saves time and effort, I find. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS; to everyone, I'm starting to get tired of contributing as I seem to have become Neimti's pet figure of fun. I will not stand for that. So, I will keep an eye on this discussion, but I am unlikely to take part again.--ProtoDrake (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to feel a little less hopeful of a peaceful solution - as said by someone who opened up with an unnegotiable "Support" and never changed this, just followed with absurd accusations regarding something that only YOU do, not me (which was pure projecting). Such a hypocrisy. Stopped reading right there. --Niemti (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban - same problems re-surfacing over and over again. --Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban If Niemti has already been banned once and then un-banned, they should be on thin ice. If we are willing to un-ban people on the grounds that we can always ban them again if they act up, we have to be willing to ban them again if they act up. Editors like Niemti can have the effect of annoying other editors to the point that they walk away. Wikipedia needs to decide who they want to retain: People who treats others like dirt or people who can actually treat fellow editors with respect. If we never require people to be civil, they won't be. AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban. I can't take many of the opposes here seriously. "Contributions"? HH/N was banned for 4-1/2 years, and I should think we got on swimmingly without him. While he has produced some quality content, bronze stars and green plusses should not be a trump card. Moreover, his core interests of vidya gaems and assorted military history things are anything but unique—indeed, I'd warrant that the majority of the "quirky", tech-savvy single males that dominate this site have significant interests that fall into such categories. Entirely replaceable. "Overreaching"? "Other options"? I'm sorry, what? Is that a position reached through actually examining the case at hand, or did y'all just put down a stockphrase "b nice u guise, banz r mean" oppose? "Other options" have been tried, and the community has "overreached" before. Near up on a dozen blocks ("Consistently incivil and disruptive, many breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; second chances have had no effect."), a community ban on the HanzoHattori account, and over 4 years of socking, and y'all still think that "other options" are a legitimate route? Oh please.

I usually don't take typical "civility" complaints seriously, and I consider myself opposed to the "civility-crusader" mental pathology that has infected a portion of the project as of late. But there is a black void on the other side of the vast greyness that is civility enforcement, and HH/N seems to enjoy floating around in it—in spite of the community's trust (established in this summer's unbanning) that he will not do so. Were this to be a one-off sort of thing with a new user, a ban would not be in order. However, if you are a user with a pervasive history of combative behaviour culminating in a full site-ban lasting several years, and you are allowed back into the fold under much controversy, you had damn best better be on your absolute best behaviour. An almost(?) unreasonable amount of AGF went into HH/N's return, and he seems to be settling into the same patterns that led to his initial expulsion. Wikipedia should not get into the practice of giving nth chances for those who abuse the community's trust repeatedly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not like such discussions because the opinions to ban user X are posted by people who had no prior experience of interacting with user X. I personally interacted with N. during more than a year in a highly contentious political subject area (Russian politics, Chechen wars, war crimes in general, etc.) and had no any problems at all. Yes, we had certain disagreements and discussions. Yes, he was frequently non-responsive, occasionally sarcastic, and defensive with regard to his content contributions, but I did not really care for as long he worked very hard to improve the content and in fact improved it a lot. No, only few to none people worked in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Any "this thread alone" support votes should be dismissed out of hand. Whenever you have a mob of editors pushing to get rid of another editor one can only expect some drama, with the current drama being typical and tame. Behavior when Niemti is not facing such an extreme measure should be considered.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence provided in this thread appears to show that his behavior outside this thread has been remarkably similar to his behavior in it, long-term. For discussion of why "the lynch mob is out to get him so of course he is required to personally attack everyone he can find and we can't ask him to stop" isn't really a reasonable position to take, see the discussion you and I engaged in on exactly that up above, threaded below my !vote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And of course this thread also provides numerous diffs that show uncivil behaviour outside of this discussion. Coupled with the rather astonishing list of previous sanctions, this thread thus does indeed provide a good reason for a ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are both incredibly wrong. If people take the "evidence" being cited here and in the RfC/U as sufficient reason for a community ban, then it seems we need to get rid of a huge chunk of the editors here, including a few voting to ban Niemti. Nothing has been presented to justify any sort of sanction, period.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Niemti should not be considered the same as everyone else. He is on much thinner ice, having already been banned once, and therefore should not be given the same level of patience another user would get. AutomaticStrikeout 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions are not punitive. The question is whether Niemti is seriously disrupting work towards improving the encyclopedia. None of the evidence presented is even remotely suggestive of that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[21], [22], [23] and [24] (in which I referred to the encyclopaedia, not this thread; see AutomaticStrikeout's post). This is not disruptive? 115.74.251.41 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to agree. These four diffs are hostile comments by four contributors, none of which was Niemti. And they continued the hostilies right on this noticeboard. Yes, this is all disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's 4 editors (civilly) stating they will not work with Niemti because of his gross and chronic policy violations, which demonstrates that those violations are a disruptive problem. And I note another of Niemti's GANs has failed, for the same reasons described and which he denies exist. Surely not disruptive either. bridies (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I note another of Niemti's GANs has passed, for the same reasons described and which bridies denies exist. Surely not disruptive either. As of the one that failed: "My end point, Niemti, is that you are a good editor. A bit rough around the edges when it comes to interacting with others (as evident by the RfC and ANI) however you've proved to me here you are able to have a reasonable discussion - something others do not believe." But that's just another instance of "gross and chronic policy violations", aka "the same reasons", according to bridies. So horrible. --Niemti (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated clearly in the RfC that articles on video game characters (and not games, although the frivolous (re)nominations of some of these, particularly Shadowrun and XCOM, are part of the problem), and amongst those longer character articles (so excepting, say, Ibuki, but including most definitely those on Taki and Kitana) that have serious problems: specifically poor, purple prose and biased reception sections. Within those articles, multiple editors have found these issues, and you've continued with blank disagreement. Now, the RfC proposed that you agree to put character articles through either peer review or the league of copy editors before GAN, which was not only very reasonable but would have left your game nominations completely unaffected. You contemptuously refused to participate in, nor apparently even read, the RfC, so here we are. The "gross and chronic policy violations" are pertinent to WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN, are proved above, and not even your defenders reject them (merely saying that others should "deal with it"). The the "reasons" for the GANs failing and the "gross and chronic policy violations" are different if related issues (and you wonder why no one will any longer even acknowledge your incoherent ranting, which is exactly that), although, sure, some of the reception sections you've presented at GAN are gross WP:NPOV (WP:SUBJECTIVE) violations. 115.74.230.254 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (bridies)[reply]

How did your claim of Doesn't seem like this should be a big deal to fix, but the lead still doesn't summarise anything from development or the critical commentary, and now has a clean up tag. led to calling my renomination "frivolous" despite me fixing it all, and much more, right away? But thanks for adding one more to the ever growing list of blatantly false/absurd accusations. Keep fighting a good fight. --Niemti (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: I'd take my "incoherent ranting" any day over your persistance to keep telling things that you know very well are false (apparently, I can't use l-word here to call a spade a spade, too bad). Also, I never made any "biased reception sections" in my life. That's just another of your false statements (I wonder if it's "gross and chronic policy violations" to roll as you do). --Niemti (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I initially asked you to expand the lead to actually summarise the article, and specifically critical commentary, you did not do so "right away". In fact you tagged the article for lead-too-short and did nothing. After I failed it a week or so later, then you suddenly managed to get round to expanding it, and immediately renominating it (with the edit summary lol). So yes: frivolously wasting others' time and clogging up the already overloaded GAN queue.115.74.230.254 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi unlogged bridies. And if you had just reminded me about it (I thought Hibana would expand the article), and waited only 1 hour, everything would be fine and dandy, as "not a big deal to fix" it was indeed. Also there was no alleged "blank disagreement" there neither. Now, would you kindly publicily recant at least some of your false accusations, and personal attacks, by you against me in this thread? Instead of adding more, next. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note you you did exactly as I described above, left a simple fix for someone else, and that you apparently can't keep track of your GANs. bridies (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And further: in Talk:Kitana (Mortal Kombat)/GA1, the reviewer (whom you've cited in your defence) pointed out that the reception section violates WP:SUBJECTIVE, which is part of the NPOV policy. Further irrefutable examples include those given here. Whether or not you wrote these, you are responsible for presenting them at GAN (multiple article with the exact same issues, pointed out by multiple editors) and then responding with blank disagreement. 115.74.230.254 (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the reviewer even actually came here in my defense (no, I didn't ask for it - I didn't ask anyone, which is unlike you). Also now you're really scrapping a barrel. Actually making an NPOV reception edits would be ignoring negative (or positive) sources, or deliberately misquoting those sources (I've seen this stuff happening), in order to to misrepresent/falsify the reception. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the spurious black-and-white-positive-and-negative stance again. So did that reviewer cite WP:SUBJECTIVE against the article? Is that not part of the NPOV policy? Have you even acknowledged this, let alone tried to address or rebut this concern? And as I've proved, misrepresenting sources is exactly what these reception sections have done (whether you actually wrote them is moot, since you've presented them repeatedly at GAN, and disruptively stonewalled improvements to them). bridies (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. That's some truly horrific stuff. That's not just "gross". That's the gross-est thing I ever heard about. I'm really the Antichrist. --Niemti (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so I'll go back to ignoring him as well, and only addressing him if issues/RFCs/ANIs arise - yeah, that's what I talked about. An attitude of ignoring me, and very openly so (including literally telling me they don't read what I write because I "rant", which was really just me putting long and detailed arguments to advance my positions). So I decided to I ignore them, too. As I said, that's why I stopped approaching this fine Wikipedia clique of gentlemen to discuss stuff seriously with them (which I really tried), and grew totally dismissive of them, and long ago so (it's several months now, probably). You can't talk normally to the people who say (to you and to each other) they ignore you, that's only a waste of time and nothing ever will come out of it. But I wonder whey they got this "thriving on attention" conclusion about someone who's not even watching their discussions at all. "Not caring" is a very opposite of this. They do care about me, though, and a lot. That would impress me, if I cared. --Niemti (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the question turns on whether Niemti is just the newest manifestation of HanzoHattori or whether Nimeti represents a clean start. If this is just HanzoHattori being HanzoHattori then ban him with severe prejudice. If Niemti is even somewhat reformed, though, then we should examine him differently (e.g. consider a temporary block and guidance per Cabe6403's comments instead of a ban). According to the clean start policy's "Editing after a clean start" section: "If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be ... held accountable for the actions of your past account(s)." What I think is lacking in this discussion is evidence that positive changes have been made. Niemti's detractors have pointed to his breaches of CIVIL and AGF as evidence that he is the same as HanzoHattori. In response Niemti has pointed to his numerous positive content contributions. From the look of it, however, HanzoHattori was an equally prolific contributor and made a lot of good contributions too. So I'm not sure that demonstrates positive growth. It doesn't matter to me that Niemti isn't a saint, but if he has not made positive changes in his behavior since he was banned as HanzoHattori then policy suggest that he should be held accountable as if he were HanzoHattori. I'll grant that it's not necessarily easy to prove improvement through difs, but something should be said to address this fundamental question. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is HanzoHattori, based on his attitude and breaches of the civility policies, as well as ownership issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it's a clean start, the editor behind Niemti is obviously the same as the one who was behind HanzoHattori. So some degree of behavioral similarity is inevitable. What makes the distinction between whether he should be banned or given a lesser sanction is to what extent he has made positive changes in his behavior. If Niemti has made efforts to improve himself and these are just a few slip-ups then a ban is excessive. There is already plenty of evidence above to show that Niemti is acting like HanzoHattori (in terms of both policy breaches and positive contributions). What I'm saying is that in order to rebut this charge, and to demonstrate that Niemti is a "clean start" account, evidence must be given to show that there has been an improvement in his behavior. If Niemti is an improvement over HanzoHattori then a lesser sanction may be more appropriate. If he's the same as HanzoHattori then he should be banned. -Thibbs (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thoughts exactly, Thibbs. We will see what evidence we can find. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe there has ever been any question that this is the same user. WP:CLEANSTART is for users who leave voluntarily, not users who were banned, but this users enablers helped push a discussion of ignoring the ban because he's so great to a "no consensus" close, which somehow meant that he should be unbanned, when usually no consensus results mean preserving the status quo. So,we have here a banned user who, through making th right friends, was able to just ignore their ban and get back in through the back door. There was never a clean start. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. A banned user ignoring their ban and getting in through the back door is seriously unacceptable. I agree that Niemti is definitely not a clean start. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything in CLEANSTART that limits it to people who have left voluntarily instead of involuntarily. Most of the people who make use of it probably haven't even left at all. Niemti's is an unusual case, but the reason behind using the new name instead of returning to the old one is most likely an attempt to avoid negative associations with the old name. Since this isn't a case of sockpuppetry anymore (i.e. it's been officially sanctioned in the discussion where he was unbanned) I think it's only reasonable to regard Niemti as a clean start if he can provide evidence that he has sought to improve his behavior rather than to simply avoid scrutiny. -Thibbs (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, somehow you missed this at the bottom of the lead section of the clean start page: "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Sanctions were in place when he started editing under this name, so it is not a new account and not a clean start by any definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban. If this is a WP:CLEANSTART, it's clearly a failed one. User is not working collegially with the community, and further appears to be trying to steal Malleus's shtick. There can be only one. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is "Malleus"? "The community" was not "working collegially" with me (by ignoring me and outright telling me that they're ignoring me), I only responded in kind. --Niemti (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using sockpuppets and IPs from Brazil to continually disrupt Wikipedia since being indef blocked in 2010 by adding false information into various film articles. This user's name has popped up on WT:FILM numerous times as well as WP:SPI. More information for the sockpuppet investigations can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive and more evidence can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Vandalism_by_201.19.*.*. As of now, Pe de Chinelo has created 121 suspected sockpuppets (most of them IPs) and 14 confirmed sock puppets. Much of the work done by Pe de Chinelo was cleaned up by regular project members MarnetteD (talk · contribs), Lambiam (talk · contribs), Hydrox (talk · contribs) and TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs), as well as Sjones23 (talk · contribs) (that's me, by the way).

He has also continually attacked Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) ([25], [26], [27], [28]). If those attacks are not called harassment, what else would it be called?

More recent disruption by Pé de Chinelo occurred at Sucker Punch (film) ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). His disruption has caused serious trouble to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to propose an indefinite community ban of Pé de Chinelo to reduce the disruption by this user.

• Support as proposer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - oh that just blows. One-twenty-one suspected socks and 14 confirmed socks, not to mention bashing other editors? Pe de Chinelo, get lost. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The IP socks might be much higher as there was a time when they weren't getting tagged. This person has edited disruptively for years and this ban is overdue. MarnetteD | Talk 03:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Waste of time. He's de facto banned, as his account is indefinitely blocked and no sane admin would unblock him. All editors are fully empowered to revert every single edit he makes. The sole difference between a de facto ban and a de jure ban is that no admin could unblock him in the presence of a de jure ban, and there's no risk of that happening.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support always smartest to dot your i's and cross your t's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Waste of time per Kww and WP:BURO. Nobody Ent 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree that the distinction is academic at this point, since the discussion is being had it I support banning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a perfect example of why non-admins should not be making closes at the admin boards. This was closed as "de facto banned already", and bizarrely "WP:SNOW". We know he's de facto-banned. The request is for a formal ban. WP:SNOW is absurd here; two editors have opined that this is a waste of time, while others support the measure. How in the name of anything that's reasonable can WP:SNOW be invoked? This discussion was supposed to determine whether the de facto ban is sufficient, or if a full site-ban should be enacted formally. BWilkins' point about dotting i's and crossing t's makes sense. It may in fact be a waste of time, per Kww, but the decision was made far too hastily. This should be reopened and given a proper admin-close. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undid close. --Rschen7754 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for doing that. I would prefer that we let this play out play out properly waste of time or not. In the past I have seen editors blocked for reverting a blocked editor by admins who were not aware of a de facto ban. MarnetteD | Talk 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Since he's defacto banned, I created an entry for him in WP:BANNED. I'm afraid I may have been premature doing that now though...--Rockstonetalk to me! 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, I don't oppose entering him as formally banned. I just get confused as to what people think they gain.—Kww(talk) 04:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What people gain is a free pass to declare obvious sock is obvious (or WP:QUACK) and revert edits of a newish editor whose contribution resembles that of the banned editor. Nobody Ent 13:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They have that without a ban. All they have to do is tag the sockpuppet, and they are exempt from WP:3RR. All the offending sockpuppeteer needs to be is blocked, not banned, and all editors are free to revert any edit made in defiance of the block. There's a mythology of the power of a ban that simply isn't supported by policy.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• true, didn't realize that. So I guess the only point is someone gets to put a badge of shame on their talk page. Nobody Ent 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The time the difference is important is when admins can't agree about the block. A case like ScienceApologist, where one faction of admins would block and another would unblock, is a case where a formal ban brings stability. De facto bans can't occur in a case like that because you can never reach the state where no admin is willing to unblock.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support w/e time to put a ring on it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Bans are pointless and we should we more welcoming and less bitey. - John Galt ✉ 07:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding right. Bans are not useless as the allow reversion of edits on sight with out fear of an edit war block. What, pray tell, is bitey about banning someone who has vandalized articles and personally attacked other editors for years. Some of this person vandalism sat in the articles for months. You may feel that is worth welcoming. I do not. MarnetteD | Talk 12:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - what everyone else said. GiantSnowman 13:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Who cares if it's pointless? Who cares if it's a waste of time? Aren't serial sockmasters supposed to be banned? Bans are not pointless and as far as I'm concerned, we should strive to make serial sockmasters feel very bitten and very unwelcome. After all, if the user is blocked, why should we want them to feel welcome? AutomaticStrikeout 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per supports above. Sockmasters need to be discouraged in every possible way. Jusdafax 05:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Waste of time per Kww. People need to cease creating ban discussions that don't change anything. This person would be reverted and blocked every time they showed up at Wikipedia even without this discussion. So the discussion is pointless. Ban discussions are useful in situations where the community wishes to change how an editor is treated. This will not do that, so is a waste of time. --Jayron32 05:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Waste of time per Kww et al. As the asinine non-admin who closed this before, I'd like to set you straight now. What makes you think Pé de Chinelo will stop whether his user page says he is blocked or whether he is banned? Pé de Chinelo is de facto banned because anything he does will immediately be reverted because he is nothing but a disruptive sockpuppeteer who is not here to help the project. Banning takes place because the community as a whole decides that because of an editors behavior, any useful contributions that they may provide are not worth the time and headache of dealing with them anymore. Pé de Chinelo was never that user, never will be, and he doesn't need to be banned for you to revert him, since he'll be reverted anyways. Consensus here supports a ban or thinks its a waste of time as they are not welcome here anymore anyways. If you, Joefromrandb (or anyone else), think that there is going to be consensus otherwise, then you're out of your mind. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you possibly get the idea that I think it will end in any way other than one of the two you mentioned? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep talking about this being a waste of time? If you are so concerned about your time, then don't bother with this and leave it to the interested editors. I don't see why we should not formally ban serial sockmasters and since the consensus is in favor of doing so, I would hope that an admin will soon take appropriate action. AutomaticStrikeout 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It churns the AN watchlist and the section header is indistinguishable from the not waste of time discussions. Nobody Ent 22:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would have at least read what I said, maybe you had understood. :/ If you don't read anything else other than this, just understand: Serial sockpuppeteers do not care whether they are blocked, banned, or anything on Wikipedia. Assuming it is closed right now, tagged as banned and given an entry on the list of banned editors, nothing changes. Pé de Chinelo isn't going to say "well, shucks" and not bother those articles anymore. He has over a hundred suspected sockpuppets and IPs used, so it's clear he doesn't care about any measure we take against him, and no one is willing to give him another chance. It's a waste of time because no one is going to, in good faith, say "Pé de Chinelo should be unblocked." Everyone here agrees Pé de Chinelo is not a good editor, and I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned, but being banned makes no difference. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See how this works? You get to state your opinion and have your voice heard alongside those of your fellow editors, some of whom have a slight disagreement with your stance. Eventually an admin will come along and weigh all the arguments (including yours!!), make a decision and close the thread. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A couple of the "waste of time" mindset here have tried (unsuccessfully) to amend our banning policy page to conform to their view that an indefinite block = a de facto community ban. Until the pages on blocking policy and banning policy are merged, they are two separate things. A community ban is not a "waste of time" until it is made defunct. Open a RfC on whether or not to do away with community bans. It's annoying and pointless to bring up the same old indef=de factoed argument, whatever the particular case may be. There are always admins out there who will surprise you and unblock a user that would have normally been banned by the community. That's why these discussions take place. The idea that the worse a user is means it's less likely that any admin would ever unblock them seems to me like saying "We don't need community bans at all". But that is for the community to decide. Doc talk 07:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ? So your rationale behind having a ban discussion is that administrators are complete nincompoops? I would hope administrators would at least see the two blue link categories of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets, see the hundred entries and tell him to fuck off with the unblock request. If they don't, they need to have their tools removed and their head examined. Why not just close this and tag his page as banned? No one is going to dispute that he's unwelcome. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Doc, that's not a very fair assessment of what I'm saying. Currently policy is pretty explicit: while the indefinite block is in place, a block and a ban are identical in terms of removing edits. The key difference is how the blocks are undone. Any admin can remove the block on any indefinitely-blocked editor as a unilateral move, based on his own personal judgment that it's a reasonable thing to do. I'll do that tomorrow on Iluvrihanna24, for example (see the discussion later in the page). To undo the block on a formally banned editor, you need to get a consensus that the unblocking is a good idea, and no single admin can do it. Formal bans serve a very good purpose, but long-term vandals that no admin would touch aren't it.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:Bgwhite is deleting pages without discussion on the talk page. Several editors have objected to these actions and have reverted the possible vandalism (for example, Robert L. Hite). Recommend blocking this user. Edgerider221 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid is right. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole appears to be (at least part of?) the precedent. It is not vandalism to carry out the consensus determined by the closer of a discussion. It is unacceptable edit-warring to undo that without getting a new consensus from a similarly public discussion (either with new evidence on the merits or with evidence that the previous discussion closure was not proper), and until then, the old consensus would stand. Perhaps visit Wikipedia:Deletion review? DMacks (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the redirect. GB fan 03:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need to change the definition of "vandalism" to "any edit in which another user disagrees with". --MuZemike 04:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change? Isn't that already a fairly common definition, at least in the minds of hoards of edit-warriors on the cusp of getting blocked? DMacks (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's one of the current definitions Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#vandalism Nobody Ent 11:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Birdreader4310 just popped up to carry on the crusade. Indeffed and reverted. The previous two were blocked as being in a known sock-drawer, I'll update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biciklista10 after lunch if nobody else gets a round to it. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the AFD discussion, and it is not linked on the talk page (which is odd). Could someone please point it out. I hate to say it, but if we can't link to the discussion, the page should not be blanked or redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole does not discuss this particular article (even in passing), and it passes WP:GNG. --Nouniquenames 16:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts in question are doing this with the Cole article itself, so they are explicitly against that direct consensus and sock-blockable solely for that. Their behavior there is part of a pattern on a bunch of related articles that some editors think fall into the same category (and they at least appear to on their face) and others such as yourself do not. That's fine, and you're welcome to use normal WP:DR to resolve that. Once the socks started appearing and edit-warring, they are all treated together as an abusive editor and I don't give any mind to the content of their edits, and others do seem to make valid points about the similarity of the other articles. Again, well-behaved editors are welcome to discuss and come to consensus about content issues. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking solely of Robert L. Hite, as it was blanked to a redirect without discussion, would it be acceptable for me to restore it and immediately take it to AfD (as a matter of procedure, not necessarily advocating deletion), or must it go through DRV? I ask to avoid the possibility of edit warring. --Nouniquenames 05:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate editor who thinks the article could exist on its own, and the article was not mentioned in an AfD? Normal discussion is sufficient in my view. You might start by first putting together some evidence on the article's talkpage to support WP:BIO or whatever notability, then you would not be seen as simply revert-warring, but rather bringing new ideas, refs, etc to the table (hopefully other editors would voice some support there too, so it's not "you against others who already are against"). At worst, someone could say "hey wait, let's take this to DRV to get more input". I don't see value in "revive as real article, then AfD it" because AfD explicitly not for article-cleanup (if you don't think it's viable, you'd simply be trying to building more consensus to keep the status quo redirect). DMacks (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Nouniquenames 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could another administrator please review the closing of Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Formal edit proposal by Sandstein[34]. Although by my count the vote was 9 to 5 for the edit, the administrator determined that there was "no consensus". The article has been locked for over a year. TFD (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9-5 means no consensus for the change in my book, although this is WP:NOTAVOTE, so "majority" doesn't matter - strength of arguments does (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus 2 of the support comments attracted opposition from other supporters. No consensus seems reasonable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, I am not sure vote count is in compliance with WP:DEMOCRACY. What we have here is the following. The text that has been a subject of the dispute is supported by the source, which is explicitly and seriously challenged by at least another reliable secondary source. In that situation, this information cannot be presented as a statement of fact per our core content policy(WP:NPOV). The opponents of this proposal were requested to provide the evidence that the source that challenges this statement is unreliable, fringe, or seriously contested. However, no such information have been provided. Instead, those users built their arguments based on another content policy, WP:V, although this policy explicitly prohibits that. In that situation, any uninvolved admin has no other choice but to fulfill the edit request, because that existing text violates our policy clearly and unequivocally, and no local consensus can override the requirements of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WRONGVERSION should be renamed to "in before the (indefinite) lock/protection". Tijfo098 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would note WP:Collect's Law regarding verbiage on the topic. The rule requiring consensus was, in fact, favoured by Paul in the past, and so I suspect he reasonably ought to abide by it. Collect (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus implies respecting Wikipedia's norms. When local consensus violates some policy, references to consensus are senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein did not provide any comment on "strength of arguments". TFD (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the specific closure of "no consensus" is reasonable, the underlying problem of NPOV remains. I notice even the "opposers" do not support the current estimate, they largely just want some estimate included. The current "mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million" does look non-neutral. Probably the editors should try to work out what a reasonable range is, and then try a new RFC. I am not sure this is the best board to discuss the old or the new RFC. Churn and change (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein did explain their reasoning on their talk page. In order for the RFC process to work reasonably well, closes should not be overturned unless they are obviously off or there's evidence of involvement by the closer. Lacking either of these conditions, forum shopping closes to noticeboards should be strongly discouraged; otherwise many closes someone disagrees with will be dragged here. Nobody Ent 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein wrote, "Consensus means a reasonably broad agreement", and "did not provide any comment on "strength of arguments"". "Forum shopping" means bringing original disputes to different fora, not asking people to review decisions. TFD (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First of all, the information on the number of deaths in the lede is not presented as a statement of fact, but as an estimated range. Now a proposal was made that the way forward was to write up an estimates section using a wider range of sources then to update the lede to reflect that. But apparently those wanting outright removal of this estimate would seemingly rather write yards and yards of text on the article talkpage arguing for its removal and forum shop at various venues such as AN and badgering the closing admin on his talkpage[35], rather than write a simple paragraph or two in composing an "Estimates" section. Go figure. --Nug (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong. The information on the range of estimates is a statement. It is this concrete statement (about the range of estimates) which has been contested by at least one reliable source. In that sense, there is no difference between "it has been estimated that X killed 100 people" and "X killed 100 people": if each of these two statements have been contested, both of them cannot be presented in this form, and the word "estimate" is irrelevant to that.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Yes it is a statement that factually represents a reliably sourced estimate. No, an "estimate" is a tentative evaluation or rough calculation, a judgment based on one's impressions or opinion. --Nug (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely a difference between "estimates range from x to y people died" and a statement in Wikipedia's voice "x to y people died." The first represents a statement of what the range of opinions is as to the range, the second asserts the accuracy of the range. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, another source says this estimate was wrong. In other words, we have two statements: the statement A is "estimates range from x to y people died", and the statement B is "the statement A is wrong".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any tentative evaluation or rough calculation is likely to be wrong, that is why it is called an "estimation". --Nug (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The factual statement is the "estimated death toll number[s] between 85 and 100 million." That estimate was made by Courtois and is not representative of mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then write up an "Estimates" section in order to reflect the range of estimates found in "mainstream scholarship". --Nug (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? TFD (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --Nug (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I already proposed the text, which you totally ignored. Who can guarantee that the draft of the "Estimate" section will not be ignored too?

Secondly, the idea that Communist mass killing is a mainstream concept has not been proven by you. Indeed, many single society studies exist that provide quite different figures for each concrete country, and that define the subject quite differently. By merely giving a range you leave these studies beyond the scope, which is against our NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is required to "prove" anything at all. Wikipedia uses what reliable sources state, and cites claims to those sources. Nowhere does any policy say "editors must prove what the reliable sources state." Cheers. Read WP:V and WP:RS to verify my claims on that point <g>. Collect (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references to WP:V and WP:NOR are inappropriate in the dispute about WP:NPOV. This policy says that Wkipedia uses what reliable says " fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". I provided a proof that there is a bias: some seriously contested opinion has been represented as a fact. You responded with references to WP:V and WP:NOR, although all three our core policies prohibit to use them separately from other two. That you mistake has already been explained to you many times. I find your behaviour disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, are you sure you are addressing the right person? I don't recall you proposing some text to me. If you are so knowledgeable about the various studies why don't you write up a brief section, surely must be easier than the tens of thousands of words devoted to argument over removal (which are being ignored in any case), at least that would be a starting point. --Nug (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed it twice on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, you are prepared to write tens of thousands of words in repeating the same argument over and over again on why this reliably sourced text should be removed despite the fact that your arguments are being ignored, yet feel discouraged to write a hundred words for a section on "estimates" because your twice proposed text was overlooked? --Nug (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nug", you asked me to do something and I asked why, to which you replied "why not". Your reply shows that you seem more interested in argumentation than in constructive discussion. The reason "why not" is that the onus for finding sources for facts one wishes to enter rests on those who wish to enter those facts, not on other editors. TFD (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response indicates that you don't seem to think we are here to build an encyclopedia. --Nug (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? I ask "why", you reply "why not", I explain why and you provide a link to an essay. TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The users who are opposed to the edit have repeatedly asked other editors to write a new section for the article before proposing any changes to the lede. Are those users willing to contribute in the writing of the new section? -- Amerul (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – this is under discussion at MFD, please discuss there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently returned to WP:RM#Backlog patrol after a short Wikibreak from it. My practice has been to close those where the consensus is clear, and contribute to the discussion and perhaps relist where the decision was unclear. In those discussions in which I've become involved, I watch the talk page (either by watchlist or my contributions) to see whether I need to clarify anything.

A recent and slightly involved discussion was closed as move and I found the resulting talk page redirect had been deleted as G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article and the several links to it were therefore broken. This deletion rather surprised me, as my practice, and I thought the correct procedure, has always been to leave a redirect to the new talk page location.

Wikipedia:CSD#G6 reads in part Uncontroversial maintenance, such as deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves.... But it doesn't seem to justify a blanket deletion of talk page redirects following moves, and especially after ones where there were dissenting voices.

The admin who performed the move has now objected to my recreation of the redirect, and I have no problem with that, I was going to start a discussion in any case. They correctly point out that G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article is one of the drop-down options in the deletion process.

But if CSD:G6 is to be applied so broadly, why automatically create a talk page redirect after a move at all? And/or doesn't Wikipedia:CSD#G6 need an update to make this clear?

Interested in other views, and particularly in whether there's been a change of policy or procedure that I've missed. Links to it and the related discussion if so would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a page is moved after a "requested move" discussion, it does not usually make sense to delete the resulting redirect, especially when there are links to it. I generally favor a broad reading of G6, but deleting those redirects is even broader than I would go. I would leave a redirect pointing to the same place as the article itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I did not delete the actual redirect, only the talk page of the redirect and even then I agree this should not be done in most cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenks24 (talk • contribs)

Agree. But the drop-down menu as it now stands seems to suggest such a broad reading for some admins at least. See User talk:Andrewa#G6 which reads in part redirects don't need talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some page moves don't need redirects, though. I would say the problem is not the summary, it is an overly broad reading of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like a sloppy implementation. When you delete an article, you should always consider the redirects. Sometimes a redlink is OK, sometimes it's not, but the deleting admin should at least check and figure out what to do.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24 (deleting admin) here. Thanks for starting this discussion Andrew. First, I'd just like to make sure a few things are clear: this was the talk page of a redirect, not the actual redirect; in the vast majority of cases I do not delete the talk page of a redirect, this was an unusual case; I only deleted the redirect, not the actual talk page, so I have not covered up the RM in any way (the fact that there were dissenting votes did not factor into my decision). For anyone looking at this, I'd really encourage them to read my note at Andrew's talk page and look at the RM in question. The reason I deleted the talk page redirect was because leaving it would be more confusing than making it a redlink. Here's what happened: consensus was to move page A to B, but the redirect then created at A should then point to C. So A was now a redirect to C, but Talk:A was a redirect to Talk:B. Confusing, especially for newer editors. Now Talk:A could be changed to point to Talk:C, but that doesn't help much because, assuming there are any incoming links to Talk:A (and yes, I did check the incoming links before deleting), they are actually intended for Talk:B and ending up at the talk page of a dab page would actually be more confusing than landing on a log page that shows where the talk page they're seeking was moved to. Deleting the talk page redirect also has the added bonus of making it much easier for an admin to move a page to A in future (if you look at the RM in question, you can see there is a fair chance of that happening). I want to emphasise I do this rarely and basically only when a situation is created where the talk redirect points to a different place to the actual redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenks24 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the details. I suppose I would redirect the talk page to B, as the most likely destination. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's a little ridiculous (and more confusing) to have the talk page redirect point to a completely different location to the article-space redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenks24 (talk • contribs)

Replying to the above comment by Jenks24 at 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [36] (the indented stringing is correct but a little involved): Yes, there's no doubt that the redirect needed attention. What I'm questioning is (1) whether on reflection this was the best way to fix it, as your request to redelete it [37] implied, and (2) whether there's any truth to your rather sweeping statement that redirects don't need talk pages. My answers so far are no, and no. See below. Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still sorting out the logic, but here are some interim conclusions:

• There has been no change of policy or of practice, and the bald statement that redirects don't need talk pages, even in the context, is highly misleading (and to me alarming, obviously).

• The deletion of the (talk page) redirect was in error. The primary cause of this error is an unclear item of the drop-down menu of deletion edit summaries, which does not match the intention of the policy at WP:CSD.

• The generated redirect was not ideal however. This is an unusual case, and the (talk page) redirect needed fixing. It's just that speedy deletion wasn't the optimal solution.

• Probably the best solution would be a short talk page consisting of a short list of links to the relevant talk pages.

I'll create such a list as an example. More comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. More comments still welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my statement "redirects don't need talk pages" – they don't. Sure, there's no reason to go around deleting them, but in the large majority of cases they serve no purpose. I disagree the deletion was in error – it is simple housekeeping and as such clearly falls under G6. By the way, how is the drop-down summary unclear? It is clearly for a situation such as this. If not, can you please explain a time when "redirect created by move of associated article" would be more appropriate? Or are you advocating its removal? Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but what you've created (the talk page) is a lot of work for absolutely no benefit (and it will most likely be deleted in a few months). Are you really suggesting that should be done in all cases like this? I think I should add I'm far from the only admin who does this and I only learnt that this was the way to go by watching others. I'll drop notes at WT:RM and WT:CSD because I think you're suggesting a quite marked change to (this little area) the current standard practice. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect has a discussion should this be a redirect to article [A] or [B], wouldn't that be a valid thing to keep on its talk page at least for a while? RJFJR (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Please note I did not delete a page that had discussion on it and I don't advocate doing so. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects do need talk pages. Some redirects have active talk pages, more commonly though they are used to hold records of old discussions (e.g. {{old rfd}}, {{old AfD multi}}), WikiProject templates (e.g. those in Category:Redirect-Class London Transport articles) and/or old discussions from the page before it became a redirect (often including the discussion that lead to the associated page becoming a redirect). In the case of page moves such as this one, where a redirect is left at the original title of the associated page then the talk page redirect should remain for exactly the same reasons - to enable people to find the page and avoid breaking incoming links. If the deletion drop down implies that deleting these redirects is uncontroversial maintenance then it should be changed immediately. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I must not be explaining myself clearly. My statement was obviously very broad and I thought of adding a few caveats (such as old AfD and RfD templates), but thought it wouldn't be necessary. I will amend it to say: most redirects don't need talk pages. Again, if they have them (even if they've just been created by a move) there is almost always no point in deleting them, but there are exceptions. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not stringing your explanations very well, at least... Note that the above is a later comment than my reply below at the same indent level. I'm afraid I find most redirects don't need talk pages equally unhelpful. I'm not sure how to decide exactly what it means or how it's to be applied if adopted. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-ups [38] [39], agree that this discussion is very relevant to those two talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do redirects need talk pages

IMO any page needs a talk page if there is relevant discussion concerning the page, and not otherwise. This talk page could be a redirect to another talk page, or it could be a list of links to other talk pages, or it could be a WikiProject template, or a combination of these or any number of other valid forms of discussion and/or linkage to discussion.

I can't see anything particularly special about the talk pages of article namespace pages that happen to be redirects, other than it might be more common to have no relevant discussion.

In the case of a talk page redirect created by a Requested Move in the article namespace, this means that the redirect in the article namespace has been deliberately created, so there's always relevant discussion. So I can't see any case in which deletion of the resulting talk page redirect would be the correct option. The talk page might need work to change or expand the redirect, as in this case, but never deletion.

At the very least, such deletions are not uncontroversial at present, so CSD:G6 does not apply. Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my fault more than yours, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall a little here. I've probably replied too much as well, so I'll let others comment from here out. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, none of the third party comments so far seem to support either the deletion in this case, or the principle on which it was based, or the reading of the dropdown menu supporting that principle. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – clearly does not qualify for speedy keeping or non administrative closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the AfD for UFC 155 qualifies for a Speedy Keep per Reason #2 in WP:SK but also because of WP:SNOWBALL. However, I'm not certain if this is non-admin closure procedure. Could someone please answer this question for me? I'd like to know before taking any action. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless, you shouldn't be closing the AfD because you've taken part. It should be closed by someone uninvolved, particularly if it's a NAC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it rises to the level where Speedy Keep reason 2 applies; as for snow, after your above request, 2 delete votes were made. 7 to 2 is maybe still snow territory, however as the delete votes came after all the keep votes, we really need to wait and see how the discussion develops. Monty₈₄₅ 05:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting discussion, and definitely not speedy anything territory, nor NAC territory either IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links - User:Alan Liefting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am currently under a topic ban and "may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted". See the discussion here. Category-related edits were a large part of my editing history prior to the topic ban.

The way I see it is that the topic ban is in place mainly because I am perceived to be carrying out disruptive edits relating to categories. It is generally the removal of images from content categories that is seen as disruptive. I cannot see how this is the case. The edits in question do not contravene policy or guidelines (since there is no explicit instructions on it) and the unwritten convention is generally to not have images in content categories. If there are images categorised within Wikipedia they are generally placed in a category that is labelled as an image category. The ban is in place because it is a sort of content dispute rather than disruptive editing.

The categorisation of templates is a related but less contentious issue. Templates, to an even greater extent than images, are of very little interest to readers as a standalone page. Templates come into their own as part of an article as a navigational aid. As with images it is unusual to see templates listed in a content category. Therefore, to ensure consistency (a good thing) and for the benefit of the reader I remove templates from content category listings.

Images, and even more so with templates, can be seen as predominantly an editors page rather than a reader or content page. Images are made accessible through the article themselves and a reader can choose to view the page itself via the article. Also, for all of the free images, Commons does the job of categorisation, and Wikipedia is linked to it through the addition of various templates.

So rather than being disruptive in my editing I put it to you that I am simply doing what is best for the reader and following what is done in the well maintained and popular sections of Wikipedia. Note that not all of the edits that I have done in contravention of the topic ban have been reverted. Here are some examples:

• [40] - removal of content category from a template
• [41] - ditto
• [42] - an Articles for Creation page in a content category. I cannot seem to get categories automatically excluded from the AfC pages. The community is not showing an interest in this issue.
• [43] - WikiProjects are not categorised in content categories
• [44] - recategorisation
• [45] - adding a tracking category to a main category
• [46] - notes for a maint category (see below)

Also, the undoing of this edit of mine is in itself disruptive editing. A random logo of a random organisation does not belong in the five content categories that I removed. The same goes for [47] and [48].

I have regrettably contravened my topic ban on a number of occasions leading to blocks being placed on my editing. Some of the edits were in defiance of the topic ban to achieve what, in my opinion, was an improvement to Wikipedia but others were due to oversight. Since the topic ban was enacted I have placed two WP:CFDs using Twinkle. Using Twinkle seemed to somehow divorce the edits from my topic ban. Also, at a time when I was intensely focussed on trying to clear the backlog at Category:Articles with missing files my enthusiasm for the task meant that I added various notes and tools on the category page forgetting that it came under the ban. Given that this is quite different to the type of editing that led to the topic ban I guess it could be seen as acceptable even though it falls under the purview of the ban. Interestingly, the editors who are monitoring my editing have not questioned these category edits.

The discussion that led to a consensus for my topic ban is also worthy of inspection. One editor admitted a lack of knowledge of the issue and seemed to make a decision that was a bandwagon fallacy and another simply said "Per above; enough is enough" (which may also be seen as jumping on the bandwagon). Another editor gave no reason for supporting the topic ban. The discussion also shows that there is no agreed editing style for all aspects of images with respect to categories. I would like to urge all editors who partake in this discussion to look at my edit history afresh rather than relying on the existing discussions.

I would also like to point out that I am often consulted on category-related editing by editors who are not familiar with the category system. This suggests that I have some credence in this area of Wikipedia editing. On the other hand there a few editors who have a strong disagreement with my category editing style. I started a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to try and get some certainty around category related edits. After an initial flurry of interest, the proposal stagnated. I would like to see the MOS completed and and consensus obtained to clarify any category related edits.

As a final point I would like to have the topic ban lifted because it is restricting a large part of editing that I am able and willing to do. Any reverting, additions, or improvements that are category-related that I come across will have to be ignored by me or passed onto other editors. This is inefficient and does not help the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Looking at the discussion that resulted in the topic ban, I don't think the objection raised above are sufficient to overturn the close. In a topic ban discussion, saying you agree with the positions of those advocating a ban is a legitimate expression in support of the ban. An editor need not find independent reason to support. Given how recent the ban was, and that Alan Leifting appears to want to continue editing in the manner that resulted in the ban, I can't support lifting it at this time. I would however consider supporting a modification, if one were proposed, to make it a less expansive ban if there are areas covered by the ban that are beyond the scope of the controversial edits that precipitated it. Monty₈₄₅ 05:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out my edits are in the interests of the reader and follow the convention that I have seen in the thousands of categories that I have visited. The ban was instigated by editors who do not appear to realise that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out yourself, there is no controlling guideline or policy, and you believe there is an unwritten convention that supports your edits, and lets assume your right (as I don't know). There are editors who disagree with your interpretation, and evidently feel the categories you think should be removed are valuable. As the convention is unwritten, no one is clearly right or wrong. The dispute continued to the point where a topic ban discussion was instigated, and passed. I don't think letting you resume the pattern of editing in dispute, without establishing clear consensus that the community supports the edits, is a n acceptable outcome. Technically your topic ban would prevent you from working to reach such a consensus, which is unnecessary and probably counter productive. Hypothetically, would you agree if we relaxed your topic ban, to participate in an RFC on the question of image/template categorization of the type in question, and to remain topic banned from removing such categorization (directly or indirectly) unless there is a clear consensus close in favor at the RFC? (No consensus would not be enough) Monty₈₄₅ 06:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tried an RfC to try and get guidelines to reflect common practice. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories/Archive_3#Image_categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was fully discussed, and rejected, then you shouldn't be doing it. (Particularly in light of how strongly it was rejected) You obviously believe strongly that images should not be in shared categories with articles, but as there is no consensus supporting that position, removing images from categories shared with articles just because the category is shared is not acceptable, as its essentially edit warring. Even if someone disputes your position on one image, and you leave that one alone, if your allowed to continue making the edits to every other image categorization, your position becomes a fait accompli, despite the opposition to making it a guideline. Monty₈₄₅ 07:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that the stance of an editor is more important than consistency across Wikipedia? This should not be the case and this is that crux of the problem that we are dealing with here. Community consensus is to generally put images in image categories yet there is a handful of editors who do not realise this and insist on having random images in random categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lifting the ban. It would seem clear, even from the discussion above, that alan doesn't understand that his preference to keep non articles out of categories which have articles is contrary to current practice and policy; and would appear to be refusing to follow that if the ban was lifted. - jc37 07:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as I have outlined above, the contentious edits are not covered by policy or guidelines and they do follow current practice. There is obviously other editors out there who are doing exactly as I am otherwise there would be a far greater number of random images and templates scattered through the content categories. And so why am I being targeted with a topic ban? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Alan is objective and striving for consistency. Although this is frowned upon by the "community", it should not be and Alan should not be topic banned. - John Galt ✉ 16:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Alan wasn't topic-banned for seeking consistency, he was topic-banned for editing against consensus, editing against the results of an RFC etc. To characterise the topic ban as you have is inaccurate and disingenuous. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as it's not a content dispute but a behavioural one. Alan, you performed a series of edits that other editors objected to. The normal process there would be to discuss the changes, work toward a consensus and then implement that consensus. The fact that when you resumed your edits, other editors still disagreed suggests that rather than actually coming to a consensus with the objecting editors, you were operating on the belief that you were correct and any objections were misguided or mistaken. That's not a content dispute, that's a failure to abide by normal consensus-building process. The RFC you linked should have provided a definitive response that what you believe should happen is not in concert with what other editors believe should happen.

Further, you admit that you've deliberately breached the topic ban since it was implemented. You said you did so because you believe you were improving the encyclopedia, which is nominally respectable, but your topic ban should have indicated to you that your judgement on what constitutes an improvement differs from others. Instead of being positive, it would seem that acting against your topic ban has instead reinforced the impression that you aren't interested in collaborating as part of a team, an activity that couldn't be more fundamental to the way Wikipedia works. I don't generally like forced contrition and making people kowtow to get their topic bans lifted, but at the minimum I think it's reasonable to expect people to understand why they've been placed under restrictions, and it doesn't seem to me that you really understand what about your actions led to this result. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that my behaviour has not been perfect so it is both a content dispute and a behavioural issue. If you were to wade through all of the interactions that I have had with editors who have commented on my category related edits you will see that some have a grudge against me for one reason or other. I may have stepped on their toes when I edited one of their favourite articles. That, and the fact that it seems the same group of editors are not aware of the prevailing (unwritten) consensus on image and template categorisation, has led to the topic ban. Also, I am fully aware of why I have restrictions placed on my editing but I am arguing that there is no reason for the ban.

Incidentally, I have just now come across yet another image from which I would like to remove a category. Category:Pig farming has one image in it. It is of a sow crate, a form of containment that is abhorrent to animal rights supporters. I am quite sure it is in the category because an editor is being overly enthusiastic about animal rights. I also support animal rights but to have the image in question in Category:Pig farming is actually creating bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • The editor in question refused to participate in the original topic ban discussion despite being requested to do so another editor.
  • The editor in question has stated clearly "When, and if, I am unblocked I have every intention of doing the very things for which I was blocked in order to improve Wikipedia."
  • The editor in question attempted an RFC which resulted in a clear and decisive opposition to his editing style. Despite this, the editor continues to "promote" the non-consensual approach.
  • The editor in question attempted an AN/I motion to ban me from his talkpage despite the fact I hadn't edited it since he requested that I didn't; a disruptive and time-consuming/wasting move.
  • The editor in question has been blocked five times since May 2012, once for harassment, twice for disruptive editing, and twice for topic ban violation. This is not the behaviour of an editor that can be trusted by the community.
  • The editor in question refuses to use generally accepted methods of communication (including talk page notifications for prods, including edit summaries) despite being asked to do so.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your comments are more to do with some sort of grudge rather than rational reasoning. A quick look at some of your discussions shows that you can be reasonable.Here is my point by point reply:

• I did not "refuse" to participate in the original discussion. One editor was interested in an explanation but I was not sought out to supply it. Besides, surely partaking in a WP:AN discussion is like the accused being on the jury (I realise the irony here!). There is more discussion on it at my talk page
• Sorry about the honesty! So I wasn't particularly circumspect in what I said. And it is now haunting me. I said I want to improve Wikipedia. So what I wrong with that?
• The RfC was an attempt to get guidelines to match convention. Those who opposed the RfC obviously fail to realise that.
• I attempted to ban you from my talk page because you were disruptive, you were wasting my time, and the comments were not collegial. And what has that got to do with this topic ban discussion anyway?
• I regret the first block. I did some editing to a user page in a fit of rage and have since apologised for it. The other four were imposed because of wiki-law and have absolutely nothing to do with furthering the goal of Wikipedia. There are more to do with the misuse of power, from editors treating Wikipedia as a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game, and because of a range of unneeded human emotions and behaviour.
• My edit summaries are sufficient and there is no guidelines on it anyway. Also, edit summaries have absolutely nothing to do with this topic ban discussion so it is also a moot point. You were one of a handful of editors who wanted to impose something that was completely unnecessary. To say that I cannot be trusted by the community is highly offensive. Look at at all the mundane work I do in clearing backlogs, fixing vandalism, as well as all the time spent in writing articles, adding content and building the structure of Wikipedia. I also monitor my edits to make sure they are acceptable and I have observed that there is only a very small portion that elicit any sort of comment.

Your opinions appear to be clouded by emotion and therefore should not carry any weight in this discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions appear to be completely out of whack with the community, as you have so adequately demonstrated above. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion and as I have stated your opinions are clouded by emotion (IMHO...). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that others share my opinions, perhaps they're clouded by emotion too? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the editor in question seems to be unable to understand even gross violations of edit restrictions that are applied to other editors, therefore it is highly doubtful that they fully appreciate them when they apply to them.
• If you want your edit restriction removed, you need to appreciate their purpose and the disruption that they prevent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated I am fully aware of why the topic ban in place, and as I have stated they should not be seen as disruptive. To clarify for other editors I made a recent comment on a discussion about automated edits by Rich Farmborough. In both my case and Rich's case (and many others) the goal of the project is ignored by some editors who treat Wikipedia as if it were some sort of game. Please, it is the readers who we must consider on every single edit we make. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you think it is OK for Rick to completely ignore his editing restrictions without first getting them lifted. So I don't think that in general you respect editing restrictions - until you do I don't think yours should be lifted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate: it is the readers who we must consider on every single edit we make. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is a community project, we are all volunteers and we should consider other editors as well. Something you clearly don't agree with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion and as I have stated your opinions are clouded by emotion. But would you agree that it is the readers that all editors should consider? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors should consider all editors and all readers. Yes, even you Alan. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that I have done that suggests otherwise? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all of the above. I'm not going over it again. Broken record. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all of the above do you mean the list of six bullet points for which I have supplied refutations? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't refute your busy block log, you can't refute a refusal to improve your communication with other editors, indeed you seem proud of your approach, you can't refute wasting the community's time dragging your attempt to ban me from your talkpage after I'd stopped editing there in any case. Anyway, I've made my opposition clear, and have nothing more to add. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I cannot refute that their are entries on my block log
• I cannot refute that I could improve my communication with other editors but that would apply to all but the most verbose of editors. So where do you draw the line between discussion until the cows come home and actually getting on and do some work around the shop?
• I had no way of knowing when you would stop your talk page stalking so I want to preempt it by banning you from my talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your inability to communicate to other editors here has been communicated adequately to you many times. Therefore you should actively seek to improve your approach. As for the ban request, every time you ask somebody to do something, you'll just ensure it happens by opening a thread at AN? What a curious approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the editor in question has broken the topic ban, and refused to discuss previous threads or at his talk page. It should stand and, if anything, be tightened. GiantSnowman 10:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But have I done anything that has done the project a disservice? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears that you have not read any of the discussions above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above - yet more example of editors having to waste time cleaning up after you. GiantSnowman 10:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate: have I done anything that has done the project a disservice? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mass removal of valid categories, as well as the hours wasted trying to get you to stop. You have shown zero respect for the community or its consensus, and you still don't. GiantSnowman 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The categories were not valid
• I also find the hours wasted to be frustrating
• Zero respect is a gross over-statement.

I will rephrase the question: have I done the reader a disservice? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- No, the categories were valid, hence why you were admonished for your removal. When are you going to start listening to, and accepting, the views of the community? And yes, you have done the reader a dis-service, as categories provide useful navigation. GiantSnowman 11:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think Alan has good intentions, but his impact is disruptive. He is simply unwilling to listen to the community consensus when he thinks knows he is Right.

Alan, I'll address the rest of my remarks to you: this project is built on collegiate editing. When consensus doesn't go your way, you have to accept it. It happens every day to thousands of editors and if they all kept bullishly editing according to their own ideas and ignoring consensus, this place would be even more of a basket case than it is. You make a lot of excellent improvements to Wikipedia, but this blinkered edge to you undermines your good work. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eraserhead1 has attempted to close a recent and very contentious RfC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal, concerning running Good Articles in the Did You Know slot on the Main Page. However, this closure is disputed by a considerable number of editors who state that the RfC should have been closed as "no consensus", and that major flaws in the way that the RfC was run mean that its outcome is unreliable. The main concerns that have been raised are that:

• The RfC only presented one option, giving no room for alternatives;
• It made no attempt to identify how the outcome would be implemented (the answer to this is still unknown);
• Many editors clearly thought they were voting just for running GAs on the Main Page, rather than on the specific question of including it in the DYK slot;
• A concurrent RfC on the basic question of running GAs on the Main Page was closed by the same editor with "no consensus", leading to contradictory outcomes ("no consensus" for running GAs anywhere on the Main Page [49], "consensus" for running GAs on the Main Page as part of DYK [50]).

It is planned that a new RfC setting out a range of options for whether and how GAs should appear on the Main Page will be run soon (provisionally starting on November 15 and running for 30 days). Its scope and wording is currently under discussion. This will supersede the RfC closed by Eraserhead1.

Eraserhead1 has indicated that s/he is willing to have the closure decision reviewed by a "triumvirate" of uninvolved admins and will abide by a re-closure.[51] It would be appreciated if three such admins could step up to review this closure. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making this request. To re-iterate I will stand by a re-closure regardless of what it is.

A few (fairly obvious) clarifications. If it closes as 1 for, 1 no-consensus and 1 against, then I will presume that means no consensus. If it closes as 2-1 for any option then whichever option got "2" in the review I will accept as the new result of the closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal - I'd be willing to review the closure, I'm really uninvolved, with the following conclusion: Either endorse the closure the DYK moves forward with the proposal (of which I'm not entirely sure what it means yet) or not endorse in which case ya'all move forward with the RFC proposed by Prioryman. If that's not acceptable, I'm willing to be one of the three on the triumvirate.--v/r - TP 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it's precisely because nobody knows what the outcome of the proposal means that a better organised RfC is going to be run as a followup. That will happen, whatever happens with the closure, so to some extent the closure will be a bit academic. Prioryman (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this point at all - as nothing was specified they surely just go in the normal DYK queue.

If you really think the queuing issue is going to be a massive problem then if this closure is endorsed then the second RFC should just be about sorting that out - which shouldn't be controversial in the slightest.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the new RFC is going to be from first principles, as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal for new GA on the Main Page RfC. It will present options for running GAs in other areas of the Main Page as well as the most basic question of all - whether there is consensus for running them on the Main Page in the first place. (You yourself closed a discussion on that topic on Talk:Main Page as "no consensus".) The first RfC ignored any other options other than wedging them into DYK, so !voters who preferred other options (e.g. adding them to the Today's Featured Article slot) had nowhere to go. The new RFC will remedy that problem. It'll be definitive and comprehensive in a way that the first RFC wasn't, and will necessarily supersede it. I expect that the first RFC will never be implemented, however it's closed. Personally I would advise that it should be closed as "no consensus" awaiting the results of the new RFC. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why go back to first principles when we nearly have consensus in one already. If a proposal nearly succeeds you don't make completely new ones, you modify the current one so it is more acceptable. This threat not to implement the current one if consensus is found is worrying though. Are you seriously suggesting that DYK editors are not going to promote Good articles out of spite. AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, can you please just stop re-hashing the entire debate and insisting on options that go against what the reviewer wants to do? Frankly it seems like you guys want to torpedo the chance of anyone closing anything DYK related ever again. It already took two weeks for the first closure - you are hardly making a good impression on the rest of the community by insisting on all this bureaucracy.

You guys might like the status quo, but ITN (where I have some previous experience) is certainly dysfunctional to the point of broken-ness, so one day everyone will come in and remove all the sections from the front page (apart from TFA maybe) or the whole project will fail. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eraserhead, no one wants to torpedo the discussion. We simply want the chance to have a meaningful discussion that will come out with clear, solid consensus--not the fruit salad of maybe, kinda, sorta, something should be done response we got from this first, poorly structured and flaw-ridden RfC. As a serious topic that will have long-lasting impact on the front page, this deserves a serious discussion and a well-thought RfC that actually has a plan behind it. With both the original creator of the RfC admitted that it wasn't structure right and you admitting that you didn't even read much less take into consideration all the flaws and problems that people brought up about the RfC (an honest, good faith omission but an omission nonetheless) all we are asking for is a chance to do this thing right. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the flawed RFC comments. It was actually better than many as it made a specific proposal that could be implemented, to add a easily judged criteria to the DYK rules. That commentators made their own suggestions is part and parcel of any RFC and up to the closer to judge what they mean. Even so if you put a bolded support or oppose by it most editors know that it is for the one currently tabled. The suggestion elsewhere that they didn't know what they were !voting for is a little bit demeaning to the voters, anyway even if some did it would go both ways and the closer should take them into account (and given the simplicity of this RFC not likely to be more of an issue than anywhere else). A 60% support rate is borderline, but still not unreasonable to close in favour of supporting if some of the opposing comments were weak. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what we're seeing here is a demonstration that it was a contentious RfC. Can the closure please be reviewed so that DYK can move on, whatever the decision? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agne, torpedoing the review is how it comes across to me. Prioryman looks like he wants to add loads of conditions to the closure, and there are comments below from Poeticbent asking me to go against WP:CONSENSUS.
  • Really aside from Prioryman's initial post and comments in support of reviewing the decision there should be no other comments* here at all from you guys - and there certainly shouldn't be an "other comments" section.
  • Obviously I'm not an admin, and while my handling of the closure was undoubtably far from perfect the fact that I even bothered to reply to your comments without throwing my toys totally out the pram puts me in the top 25% of closers in terms of communication. A lot of the time when challenging an admin decision you have to threaten to escalate the matter as a violation of WP:ADMIN to get any kind of reply at all. That I offered a sensible review option at all probably puts me in the top 5% of closers or something - if not a smaller number - given that there isn't one marked out in policy yet (except for moves and deletions) and even that review process seems more than a little overly bureaucratic.
  • Obviously I am now WP:INVOLVED with this decision, but even if I wasn't there's no way I would review this decision as it stands given the number and content of the comments here, as if I closed the review as endorsed I don't believe that you guys will actually accept the decision and move on.
  • If you actually want a review (and possibly future closes in DYK - this one took long enough) then you have to accept TParis' conditions above, and promise to accept the review regardless of how it closes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* = Except for the strong point about there being more than 5 GAs/day below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fair enough if Prioryman had just left a neutral message asking for the closure to be reviewed. It only needed a single sentence. Instead he added his own interpretations and commentary of the close, all of which are really irrelevant or misrepresent the truth (e.g. why should an RFC have multiple options, it quite clearly said how to implement it, the voters not knowing what they were voting I addressed above and the concurrent one was not for putting GAs anywhere on the main page but for putting them in their own slot - a completely different scenario). AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

• There's no need for a "triumvirate" of uninvolved admins. The proposal was a joke to begin with, and it was bluntly rejected by people who run DYK; however, it was also gleefully supported by the happy-go-lucky nominators who practically enslave our DYK team with an avalanche of crap. The proposal was highly partisan, and it should have been rejected as is. It was closed in favor of editors who attempt to force our dearest hard-working DYK volunteers into submission. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them quit as a result of this particular closure. Poeticbent talk 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you realise that it is this sort of us against them attitude that has alienated a lot of the hard working DYK crowd from the rest of Wikipedia. It is just perpetuating a vicious circle. AIRcorn (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take Poeticbent's comments to be indicative of all DYK regulars and it is certainly isn't indicative of why many people have serious reservations about the closure for this haphazard RfC--the issues of which have been well documented. Many of us do believe that DYK needs some reform and that serious discussions should be had but, unfortunately, this RfC was kinda thrown together by a relatively new user who admitted they may not have put it together in the best way. We also have the closer, Eraserhead, admitting that he didn't get a chance to read all the discussion relating to the serious problems that came about the RfC prior to closing it. It was a good faith close but with the original editor who creating the RfC admitting there may have been issues with how it was put together and the closer admitting that he wasn't aware of those issues when he did the close, I think it is pretty clear that we need to move on and get a proper RfC going. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Agne's comments on the decision, the figure of 5 new GA articles per day that was used to make a decision is too low as the GA bot log for article assessment seems to indicate. It seems it is more like 5 on a slow day and 15 on a good one, so more like 10 on average. Which for a five day allowance if all of them were submitted (probably not the case, but worst case scenario) would be between 25 and 75 submission/ 5 day period or given the current DYK backlog of about 2-3 weeks would be around 75-250 GA articles in the mix for review. GAs are longer than regular DYK and therefore less likely to be reviewed quickly, so I foresee most of them sitting on the nom page for > 2 weeks, so the numbers will indeed build up. The arguments that they might overwhelm DYK are valid arguments. DYK has been mentioned before on laxity in reviewing which comes from inexperienced and too few reviewers and a too many articles to review (GAs will have problems too, probably more so due to a more complete viewpoint open to interpretation). How will increased numbers of articles to review help the lack of reviewers problem (which is why there is a 2-3 week backlog in the first place)? The already overtaxed regulars will have to pick up the slack. We could say that GAs don't need a DYK review, but that could be considered unfair and there would be a higher proportion of GAs to regular DYKs. Plus if something was lacking in a GA review, it would not have a chance of being caught with another review. So it may look relatively simple to just include GAs but we really have to look down the road as to how this is going to affect the DYK and GA projects long-term. Not to mention, isn't it lying to say "newest content" if we include GAs. That would be a serious change to a core DYK policy, and does this vote even have the right to change project rules against the wishes of most of the project members (WP:consensus does not deal with this)? If this passes, could I then lead a vote to make WP: Horse racing cover tortoise racing (same difference, a core project policy is being changed) if there was enough outside pressure through a proposal? If GAs are included in DYK (why not TFA, ITN or OTD for that matter), wouldn't it make more sense for GA to review them? I hope these issues will be considered objectively and fairly in the review. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 13:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should write off 150 plus comments that easily. The RFC asked a simple question and none of the issues raised so far are insurmountable. From a GA perspective (speaking for myself anyway) it is not ideal, but we serve at the communities pleasure. AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind elaborating why you think the proposal is "not ideal" from the GA perspective Aircorn? The viewpoint might have not been addressed. I didn't see much talk of what the GA project felt about the idea, and I don't know if the project was notified of the discussion on DYK talk. The community may want to jump over a cliff, but I'm not willing to follow them there. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be re-hashing the whole debate here... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn has responded with his views at my talk page to keep the discussion on track. I only brought up the 5/day issue here because I thought this was an important part of your decision to close the proposal and the estimate may have not been entirely correct. I'm also having trouble locating the accepted Wiki policies for changing project rules/structure/guidelines outside of editing/article issues, is it up to a vote by the members/active participants or the community at large? Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up the 5/day point is a very strong point, and one of the few worthwhile comments in this thread, but it shouldn't need two paragraphs of explanation - it sits alone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I would quite like to get this review completed promptly, but I still think it is very important to do a review. From the closers perspective it is very difficult to tell the difference between people simply whinging about the close and people having legitimate reservations - a review is a good way of making sure that the reservations raised are legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it would be best if you yourself Eraserhead1 investigate the matter. Check out the list of volunteers (administrators, and those Actively involved) at Wikipedia:Did you know and consider their daily volume of work done. Their opinions matter, because they keep the whole thing going. The RFC result was too close for comfort anyways. Poeticbent talk 06:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly consensus isn't just about counting the regulars.

Secondly no-one can possibly reasonably review their own work. You have to get a third party to do it.

Finally if you guys can't get anyone to review the decision, that sounds like the main problem isn't my close, but your behaviour as a group - think about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your reaction quite disappointing Eraserhead1. You might have been taken for a ride, but instead of taking your time to consider it, you prefer to be subjected to a surgery. The choice is yours of course. Poeticbent talk 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a certain point I don't care - nor do I have to deal with the consequences - as I'm not involved in DYK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was not that it was "contentious", though obviously it was, the problem was that it was so badly thought out. There are many different options for where GAs could appear on the Main Page. However, the RFC only suggested one option and essentially ignored all the rest. To use an analogy, it's as if today's US election had one question on the ballot paper: "Do you want Mitt Romney to be president?" and omitted any mention of any of the other candidates. This was not a situation where there was only one possible solution. The purpose of the forthcoming new RFC is to put all of the solutions to the community to consider.

As for TParis's "conditions", they are really quite irrelevant - the new RFC is going to happen and it is going to supersede this first RFC. Personally I'm quite indifferent as to how the first RFC is closed, as I don't see it being implemented while the new RFC is ongoing. It's possible that the new RFC might come to the same conclusion as the first one - I won't prejudge it - but I doubt that anyone is going to spend time and effort trying to implement the flawed first RFC if the community comes to a different conclusion in the second, definitive one. Frankly, what is the hurry? The new RFC should be closing around mid-December, assuming it opens in about 10 days' time as planned. I would suggest holding off until then. Nobody will be harmed or inconvenienced by a delay of a few weeks. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't agree with a result the solution is to declare it flawed and ignore it. I am getting the distinct impression you are doing everything possible to sink this one, why else would you disagree with one of the potential closers conditions and unilaterally declare a new RFC that will override the current one. This is no more flawed than any other RFC. Where is it said that they need to present multiple options? Most don't. You are basically saying that the 150 people who commented can all be ignored. If it is confirmed as successful and no one else is willing to implement it then I will do so myself. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of not agreeing with the result - it's that the way it was conducted was fundamentally flawed by virtue of the fact that it ignored all but one possible option. As for trying to implement an outcome unilaterally, I would strongly advise against that, as it will only annoy people. I said earlier that it's not urgent. Why not just wait until mid-December when the new RFC's results will be in? Nobody loses out by doing so. Since we'll have a definitive outcome by that time, there is far less chance that it will be contentious by that time. Prioryman (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-contentious RFC involving DYK. It would be a nice change. I have no problem with a new RFC if this closes as no consensus, but this one should be sorted out first and the closure should be respected. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, you obviously don't actually want a review and you don't want anyone to close anything in DYK ever again.

If you wanted a review you'd be prepared to accept the result of the review regardless and you'd be prepared to accept some sensible and reasonable conditions.

If other people here actually want a review, and are prepared to accept one regardless of conditions and will accept the result regardless let me know on my talk page or comment again here and I'll see what can be done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be asking for a review if I didn't want one? If someone wants to review the first one, they're very welcome to do so but they need to be aware of the fact of the forthcoming new RFC. I'm just pointing out that whatever the result of the review is, it will be superseded by the new RFC. Prioryman (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly at this point I have no idea why you asked for a review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to move Slotermeer (tuinstad) to Slotermeer, and I got:

This page-move has been blocked by the title blacklist because the new title contains characters, words, or phrases commonly used in page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Is it because it looks like "Slut"? Anyway there is only one Slotermeer and so this should be unblocked.Keizers (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got no such message, don't know why you did, but the page move is  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those messages aren't shown to admins. RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested it with my non-admin account, and I got the blacklist message; yeah, administrators can override it so we don't get that message. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a block on "RMEE", as part of the hagger vandalisms. Though it looks like it would require a ' in front. --Golbez (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made an edit request to me outside of WP because the page is semi'ed. WP:COI / WP:EL across Wikimedia, WP:AGF. No idea what to do.

Someone, most likely User:Trashmethod, has just sent me a message on Facebook, asking me to add a link to his site to Microphone. He said that he'd like his page to become well-known, even though he doesn't rent out those microphones internationally. His adds to other Wikipedias seem to have gone uncontested, so I'm assuming the site adds value (apparently because of the nice photos of old microphones). I told him that he could file an edit request at Talk:Microphone and that I would not fulfil his request because I am not sure whether it conforms to WP:EL, and I would like more frequent visitors of Microphone to state their opionions. I could have left it at that. However, I wonder if his behaviour of visiting all the different Wikipedias and either adding the link himself or asking others to do it for him is acceptable. I have no idea how to handle this, especially since the issue cuts across Wikimedia sites. I couldn't find a Wikimedia admin (didn't look hard; took the easy route), so I'm asking here if this needs any additional attention. I've answered him on FB that I would contact administrators about the issue (that should hopefully take care of the notification question, but if you feel it is necessary---I don't---, you can additionally notify him on, I guess his talk page. Perhaps to make sure that it's the same person, of which I'm 99.999 % sure. So: What to do about this? From the way he approached me, I have no reason not to WP:AGF, although it is obviously a single-purpose account. --Nczempin (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directing the person to ask on the article talk page is the safest course of action, and having them use a {{edit semi-protected}} request will allow a transparent on wiki response. As to the EL question, my sense is that a link probably would not be justified, yet there are a bunch of other similar links, so its understandable that someone with a site containing similar content would want theirs added as well. Really whats needed is for someone with expertise with EL policy to go in and clean out that EL section. Monty₈₄₅ 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did do exactly that, directing to ask on the talk page; although I am not sure if I gave enough information on how he should do it. I think I'll also bring this up myself on the article talk page, without adding the link myself. But what I'm really concerned with: What about those cross-WP edits? Is there some kind of Uber-Administrator forum to take care of things like this? Should I just ignore it and let each language WP handle the issue separately? Nczempin (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About other wikipedias: Usually, I leave a message in English in the talk page. You can also click on the language clicks here at AN or at ANI, and leave a message in the corresponding administrator noticeboard.

About the website: It's a commercial website, it rents a small amount of microphones, with flattering descriptions about every model. This is of limited value for readers. Specially when you compare it to the searchable database that is already listed in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a case at WP:AE about what I perceived to be a violation by Rich Farmbrough of his ArbCom restriction on edits that perceived to be automated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. While there is no consensus that these were indeed a violation of that restriction, with most people seeing it as probably a form of tabbed browsing instead, there seems to be agreement that it may well have been a violation of his editing restriction on mass creating pages. However, that should be handled here, not at ArbCom enforcement, so here we are.

The restriction is at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, the second of his restrictions there: "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented." The violation is the creation of over 500 identical pages in a day, [52], the edits from 4 November (there were some additional similar creations in other namespaces as well, mainly template talk pages).

Perhaps the admin who addresses this can at the same time remind Rich Farmbrough that adding categories to his user talk page attacking other editors is not a very good idea [53]. Fram (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anyone can seriously argue that creating 500 identical pages isn't a violation of an editing restriction about the mass creation of pages. Therefore just go with whatever sanctions are appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless I'm overlooking the advance community approval, this looks pretty clear-cut to me. What are the consequences of violating this restriction on mass page creation? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Escalating blocks. The last one was for a month, in March (the next month-long block in June was not for these restrictions, but for the ArbCom restriction). Fram (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked for two weeks, which I think was fairly generous, especially considering the personal attacks and the battleground mentality on User talk:Courcelles' talk page. For the record, the last block for violating this particular restriction (September 2011) was one week. If someone wants to extend it, they're welcome to. --Rschen7754 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I noted just before your block that the previous block was for a month, but that may have been for the other restriction (on cosmetic edits) instead, I hadn't checked that and the block log doesn't seem to indicate for which of the two restrictions it was. Fram (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was actually an ArbCom block for violating an ArbCom restriction. I suppose one could make the argument that my block should have been longer, and if they want to extend, it's fine by me. --Rschen7754 10:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd favour a longer block - it just seems strange that we have a duality here. One set of blocks for one thing, a second for another, and the two are unrelated. Disruptive editing is disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 10:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was brought to my attention that Elen's monthlong block was actually for violating this sanction. I'm considering extending it. I'll wait a bit and see what other people say; there's no rush since the block doesn't expire for two weeks. --Rschen7754 10:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular restriction should be removed. It was placed in Jan 2011 in the context of mass creation of categories. The statement of restriction said I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. ... If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant. Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation now includes categories. Nobody Ent 11:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this wasn't automated editing; it's possible to do a similar effect in tabs (hey, it almost worked for me trying to get the 4 millionth article!) --Rschen7754 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this would usually be covered by BOTPOL, but the reason that Rich has the edit restrictions that he has is that he chronically failed to follow the bot policy before stricter sanctions were imposed. WP:BOTPOL already says that any large-scale page creation (the text suggests "anything more than 25 or 50") must have bot approval - which Rich did not have here. This is what led to the community editing restrictions (along with his arbcom ban on automated editing). — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why Fram waited 38 minutes after starting this thread to notify RF? [54][55]? Nobody Ent 11:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I'm also heading out for the night, but if people feel the block needs to be lengthened, go ahead. --Rschen7754 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beacuse I forgot? Anyway, he was aware of this issue (at the ArbCom enforcement discussion), but choose not to respond to it there. having it discussed there, I forgot at first that this is a separate discussion and needed to be brought to his attention as well. I indeed did so only 38 minutes later. Fram (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"only 38 minutes later" doesn't seem very "only" when he was in fact blocked 41 minutes later. So he had 38 minutes of being unaware of your having forum-shopped this to here after it appeared not to be heading towards a block at AE, and then 3 minutes to respond (if he had happened to be editing at the exact moment you hit his talkpage.)

Also, how do you open a completely new section on a noticeboard and simultaneously manage to "forget" that it is a new section that you yourself just opened? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum-shopped? I thought it easier to deal with this restriction and the ArbCom restrictions in one forum, but was sent here by others as the AE forum doesn't deal with other restrictions. Forum-shopping is when forum X doesn't agree with you, and then starting a case at forum Y. Here, forum X indicated that they were the wrong place, and that it belonged at forum Y, i.e. here. No one indicated there that it wasn't a violation of this restriction. Feel free to criticize my late note at Rich Farmbrough's talk page, but please leave out such incorrect accusations. Fram (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:AE ("forum X") didn't agree that there was grounds for action on the basis you proposed it; and indeed no-one at WP:AE suggested you come to this noticeboard. But you came here anyway, while also managing this impressive trick of "forgetting" that you were doing so until 3 minutes before he was blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably get blocked for this and I have been trying so hard not to edit but this embarrassment of an ANI thread and related block has all but required me to comment (more on Rich's talk page). Fram and Rschen you two should be blocked for your actions here! You forum shopped, you deliberately wait to notify the user, block them a long time after the thread was opened ensuring they cannot comment, Wikistalking and constantly hounding and following Rich checking his every editor, assumption of bad faith, posting it in the middle of the night so few would have a chance to comment or respond and a variety of others. You two really have no honor, no respect for the rules here and you shouldn't be admins. I'm tired of seeing these same two names popping up in collusion. I am so angry at this monstrousity of a list of policy violations and utter incompetence. And they say I can't be trusted to be an admin because I have the wrong "temperment", if this is how an admin acts and how they work with the tools then they community is right, I have no business having the tools and I am glad that I have quite editing. This is a disgrace! Only in Wikipedia would this sort of activity be allowed and even encouraged by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Two editors at the AE filing suggested that it was not an arbcom restriction violation but a editing restriction, and one specifically mentioned ANI. It would have been much better form to wait until the AE was closed before filing, however. Nobody Ent 12:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree the ANI was slightly premature as opposed to entirely inappropriate. It certainly shouldn't distract from the issue at hand. GiantSnowman 12:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Rich did or didn't do at this point is really irrelevant. These 2 editors, especially Fram are looking for any reason to ban Rich entirely and Fram seems to be systematiclly eliminating all the editors with high edit counts for one reason or another. The issue at hand was that Rich did some edits. That's it. Just to clarify I admit that I don't have any respect for Arbcom's decision in Rich's case. I think it was blown out of proportion and the limits put on him and the blocking of his bots are a net loss, and it has been noticed by a lot of others in several venues, that the loss of these edits is negatively impacting a lot of areas. Yes he has made mistakes, but they are easily fixable as are most things in WP. What seems to be more important though is catering to a couple of whiners that want to make a name for themselves by playing Wikicop and use any opportunity to use their admin tools, appropriate or otherwise. Sometimes, when you are clearly involved, as Fram has been proved to be well beyond this point, its best to just let someone else deal with it. If it truly is a problem, then someone else will notice and take action. Rich has made mistakes, we all have, no one is perfect and the more edits you make the more mistakes. If you make 10 edits, you can probably have zero mistakes, if you do a million, as Rich has done or several million as his bots have done, then the chances for mistakes are much greater and almost inevitable. But also still easily fixable in a Wiki-environment. But here we are, again, blocking him for doing what? Editing? Absurd! We need to encourage editing, not tell people we don't want them too. Arbcom makes these decisions but the memebers rarely edit so aren't down in the trenches doing the editing and the work. We are and its us that has to deal with the work not getting done and pick up the slack when they block a high volume editor, but oh yeah I forgot, there's no rush! Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you personally view the restrictions as legitemate or not is completely irrelevant; the fact is that Rich accepted the restrictions and is now violating them. It's shows no respect at all for the community. GiantSnowman 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose block: I have observed, and approved of, the vast, vast majority of Rich Farmbrough's edits over the years. In a few cases, Rich has goofed, and alarmed, or merely annoyed, some editors. Annoyed editors should cool off, and should not be steering the ship of Wikipedia by shedding editors. This most recent bout of WikiProject templates being added to (created) Talk pages does not rise to the level of prior mistaken, and sanctioned, actions (creating unnecessary categories - 2011). Rschen and Fram, weighing the "violation" against the benefit to the encyclopedia, I say either cancel the block, or shorten it to 2 days. These are the types of quality, on-policy edits I'd be doing (with bot approval), though I might give warning first in very large volume (>2000) cases. I can do 500 edits per day by hand with no script. Get it straight: Rich Farmbrough is not the problem. This reminds me: I have neglected Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup for too long. --Lexein (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your right it is irrelevant and it is pointless because the community hsa granted Arbcom the power to make bad decisions and there is nothing I/we can do about it now exept deal with whatever tens of thousands of edits don't get done. The fact is that Rich is doing useful edits by adding WikiProject banners to articles, Fram is playing the boy who cried wolf and Rschen is happily playing along with his USRD buddy. The bottom line is, if one devotes a little time to it, its extremely easy to do 500 pages a day without a script, all one needs to do is make a list and either work from notepad or from a subpage, clicking and pasting. additionally this can be done by simply looking through the category and looking for articles with no talk page. It does take one thing though, a large investment of ones time, indicating a belief in the project. And what do we do, tell them that they are wrong by blocking them and tell them that the project they believe in does not want or need their help (which it does, it needs all the help it can get). That we do not appreciate or respect the use of peoples voluntary time. I/anyone can do a lot of edits very very qucikly without a script and the assumption that Rich is using one is just bad faith. Even if he was using one, he is performing needed edits. That's only one of the multiple reasons why this block and ANI discussion is an afront to existing policies. There are so many things wrong with it, as I pointed out some above, it simply baffles me how some are actually supporting it. Now you seem relateively new to this whole situation and seem like a level headed sort. I however and intimately familiar with this case, with Fram, with Rschen and with the activities of Arbcom and that is why this angers me so, why I have retired from editing and why I have taken the time to edit, even though I intended to stop editing and retire from the drama of Wikipedia. Because this sort of B/S is what is killing Wikipedia and keeping good editors away, good edits from being completed and a fraction of why Wikipedia is being prevented by some from being all that it can be.Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also damaged if we have to go over and over and over and over each and every block of a user - even if it is blatantly against their editing restrictions.

If an editor has a ban on mass creating pages 500 is way, way, beyond the line. If it was 20 you might have a point.

If an editing restriction is truly no longer needed, then he should ask for it to be removed, and the community should grant that request as it removes the ambiguity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never agreed with the ban in the first place so I have a jadded view of it anyway and of that I agree. Second, We need not go over and over. What we also don't need is some editor stalking him, crying wolf everytime he doesn't dot an I or cross a T. Additionally, Arbcom has historically been very good about blocking, banning or desysoppoing any editor that came across their desk, I do not know of a case where they have ever come back and removed the ban. If Rich was doing something contentious I would have just kept to my retirement and not chimed in at all. That is not the case here. He was doing needed edits, without error as far as I can see. The pedia is already suffering at the loss of Rich's edits and the loss of his bots (most of the tasks still haven't been picked back up and some have been begged for multiple times by multiple editors). That leaves the rest of us mere mortals to try and cover the absence. Now with my retirement, thats another 10-20, 000+ edits per month that aren't being done. That all adds up. With all that said I am not going to continue to fight for what appears to be a lost cause. I stopped editing because of shit like this and the general attitude and the failure of us to consistently enforce policies instead of picking and choosing (this ANI being a prime example) of when we want to enforce things like AGF, Wikihounding, notifying users of ANI discussions, allowing the user to comment on their behalf, and in this case on and on and on. But instead of saying something to them because we like them or because they are admins, and admins rule the world here, we want to string the user up because they were doing edits against their restriction. OMG, how this place is failing. Somedays I regret retiring and think that there is still a lot of good work that can and needs to be done. But this sort of thing cements the fact that Wikipedia will and is dying and no one wants to change that culture of attacking the ones doing the work. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last motion arbcom made, which is currently posted on this page Arbitration motion regarding Iantresman, is removal of a ban. Expressing concern about Wikipedians being attacked by attacking Wikipedians don't make very much sense to me. Nobody Ent 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko ah, the good old "stalking" claim that is also bought up every single time we have one of these discussions, and one that always raises the drama levels. Frankly editors edit histories should be examined in some detail (AKA "stalking") before blocking to make sure it is actually fair and reasonable.

With regards to Arbcom certainly in their more recent decisions they are usually pretty sensible about who to block, and as NobodyEnt points out their last decision was to unblock. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gotten up and read through this thread, and frankly, the accusations are way off base. "USRD buddy"? Who, in this situation, is involved with WP:USRD? Just me, and nobody else. I know Fram was involved in the Gibraltar road AFD, but I can't even remember how he !voted. Furthermore, it seems Kumioko has an ax to grind with me - his project WP:WPUS and WP:USRD haven't gotten along for years upon years. BTW, my blocking him would be a gross violation of WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock Blocks should be to prevent problems, not to get in the way of a useful editor. 500 manual edits in a day is to be commended. ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry? Since when did we decide that community restrictions are no longer to be enforced? Also, this doesn't address the issue of the problems those 500 edits caused. --Rschen7754 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. As I said, adding correct WikiProject templates to (created) Talk pages does not rise to the level of the prior 2011 issue, and simply doesn't merit a block at all. --Lexein (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block criteria is about as objective as it gets. Rich has a longstanding community editing restriction whose validity was upheld in a finding of a recent arbcom case. Rich violated the restriction by creating 500 pages in one day. The reason for the restriction was a long pattern of problematic page creation by Rich before the restriction was enacted. In this case, is in many previous cases, Rich's mass page creation job included entirely preventable errors [56] as well as some mistakes about which articles should be tagged [57]. A long series of such error-prone jobs is what led to the editing restrictions and arbcom sanctions that Rich is under. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that "error" was typo-fixed within 60 seconds, and was factually correct: "Gracillarioidea is a large superfamily containing four families of insects in the order Lepidoptera." I added a rationale to the Talk page. As for the second error, thanks, I fixed it, though I wish you had. Are you that annoyed? If the error rate is below 2% (less than half the vandalism rate), that's good enough for me. Even manual edits can have errors, check edit histories, yours, and mine. The fact that a script was used is utterly irrelevant. --Lexein (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this point I have completely lost faith that this discussion or the majority of the participants in it are going to agree to anything that is said by the other but here goes.
      • @CBM, For clarification, CBM, that's not quite accurate. Yes Rich made some mistakes, however, the only thing problematic was the gross misrepresentation of the "problem" or more accurately the "perception of a problem" by you, Fram and a couple of others. Now because of that, tens of thousands of edits are not getting done...every single month. Did Rich create 500 things today? Yes it appears so, however as far as I can tell they were all done manually, correctly and he wasn't creating "articles" he was adding a WikiProject banner and that is what caused the creation of the talk page. Because the "article" had not been tagged for the project already. I'm not sure if maybe I misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia so let me clarify my understanding. The pedia is built and maintained by volunteers, who donate their time to make it better. As such, an editor doing more edits equals more improvement equals a better encyclopedia. As a professional mathematician CBM I am sure that you can appreciate that sticking by this formula will lead us to success. We all have strong opinions of the Arbcom decision but setting that aside we need to ask ourselves, did the edits Rich made benefit the encyclopedia? If the answer to that is yes, there is no reason to block him, to argue about right or wrong. They either are, or they are not. Now I think that considering that and nothing else, Rich did what we all strive, or at least should be striving for, which is to make the pedia better.
      • @Eraserhead, you can discredit me if you wish, or attempt to minimize and deflect the comments its really irrelevent. The bottom line is, the background surrounding the creation of this ANI thread, the block and a variety of other things are a disgrace. Whatever you feel about me or my comments aside, certainly you must see that.
      • @Rschen, I have no vendetta or axe to grind with you or with USRD. You both have proven time and time again in your actions how you interact with others. The behavior is toxic. You have reflected article ownership constantly, you have colluded within the project to eliminate other "competing projects" even creating a subpage for this purpose and now you have colluded with Fram to block Rich using tactics that I can only describe loosely as "dirty" because it was the only way you could get the result you have been pursuing. I have essentially given up on editing largely because of editors like you and Fram that are degenerating the culture and environment of Wikipedia into a nasty, backstabbing culture of Blue Falcon's (I'll let you look up the meaning to that one). You both should be ashamed of yourselves for your actions here. Unfortunately we also both know that no one is going to do anything about this. You are admins and we are stuck with the decisions, poor or otherwise, that you make. After seeing your actions here, I am glad I cannot call myself an admin. Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but you're the one who brought up USRD, not me. My involvement in that project is completely unrelated to this situation. --Rschen7754 02:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rschen, please lets pretend for a moment like I am not a complete idiot. Remember that although I am not an admin, I have been here for a very long time and have worked around both of you for a very long time. We have history you might say so baring that in mind, your assertion that you and Fram's membership in the same project and that you both frequently work in tandem on things like this, one submitting and the other blocking, one submitting and the other supporting are completely unrelated. Anyone with 10 minutes of free time can look through your edit histories and see where one is, the other is not far behind. So no I do not accept that they 2 are unrelated anymore than Butch Cassidy was separate from the Sundance kid! Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see Fram's name at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants; can you show me where it is? Also, why would someone from Belgium be a primary member of the U.S. Roads WikiProject? Finally, let me state on the record that I have no other connection with Fram, and Fram has no connection to the U.S. Roads WikiProject. In fact, the only interaction has been at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, where I voted opposite of how he did. I hope we're not playing the game of "throw out plausible-sounding accusations in the hopes that some stick" because this is clearly wrong, and more infuriating and disruptive than the rest of this discussion or Rich's disruption. What, do I need to get a signed statement from the other USRD members that Fram is not a member of the project? --Rschen7754 08:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Kumioko, if you want me, and other uninvolved editors, to take your point seriously don't bring up stalking, its one of the old classics that always gets bought up by the persons friends and it never has any basis to it - and it does nothing but add drama.
              • The same applies to other baseless claims like the one about the US roads project, if you don't have the evidence you shouldn't be making the claims. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe people are arguing against this extremely lenient block. People under sanctions are supposed to avoid behaviour that even looks like it will violate them. Jtrainor (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't even fathom what Rich is still doing here. The guy has worked his ass off for the project and his reward is a "lenient" 2-week block. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So have plenty of other people who have done nothing to require any blocks at all, or only small blocks and no community restrictions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) As a regular target of the self-styled wiki-police myself I am also surprised at his fortitude. He must have broad wiki-shoulders! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from person who created the editing restriction: if the task of tagging categories, templates etc for a WikiProject was requested by a WikiProject member in good standing with reasonably clear instructions then the task can (probably) be considered "community approved". If Rich has merely taken it on himself to go around tagging things, then the restriction has been breached. Given the many, many times this type of issue has come up, is it really too much to hope that the tagging task was actually requested by someone? Rd232 ^talk 07:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any such request by looking through his contribs for an "OK, I'll do/I did it" post, or on his talk page, and nobody's come forward at AE. --Rschen7754 07:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No editor should have to wait for such a request. I am glad that someone is using their initiative and getting something done rather than treating Wikipedia as if it were facebook! Rich, please carry on with WikiProject tagging. I am sick and tired of doing it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even one with an editing restriction? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an editing restriction prevents an experienced editor from doing something that improves the project then there is a problem with the restriction itself. While we have these interminable discussions and because of editor attrition (perhaps actually due to these discussions) we are letting Wikipedia fall apart at the seams. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock. I am not completely familiar with the issues surrounding Rich Farmbrough's editing but his current block does not suit the "crime". Blocking is for disruptive editing and doing the mundane things that never seem to get done is not disruptive - ban or no ban. I am under a topic ban due as a result of a request by Fram at a WP:AN discussion and there are many parallels with this latest request from Fram. (Gratuitous advertising: I am contesting the block in a thread a few sections further up this page!) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's the problem, you need to be aware that there was an entire arbitration case sparked around his automated and high-volume repetitive edits. That should be a red flag there. --Rschen7754 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Eraserhead, I don't care to continue to argue the point. With all of the blatant policy related violations that were associated with this ANI, as I noted before, if you and others can't see it, then there is really no point in my continuing.

@Rschen, in regards to comments here and on my talk page. I have no desire to continue to waste my time on this discussion. Its clear no one cares to do the right thing. I only commented in the first place because the violation to Wikipedia's policies were so blatant and obvious that I couldn't simply sit by and watch it happen. But in regards to the comment you left on my talk page I will say this. USRD wins in the end. With my departure and retirement, WPUS and most or all of the supported projects will likely be inactive in the next few months so USRD will be able to do whatever they want because no one will be here to stop them.

@Others, I have already admitted I didn't agree with the ban against Rich or his bots by Arbcom. It was a bad idea then and it still is. It is a net loss to Wikipedia and anyone who is actually out there in the trenches doing the work can see it. There have been no less than 20 discussions in different boards about the bot tasks and work he used to do that isn't getting done at all now. I am going offline again for at least several days. I have voiced my opinion here and again I feel no one here cares to do the right thing so there's no reason to continue to waste my time with a lost cause. Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "blatant policy violations" then it should be trivial for you to present diffs to backup your claims. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct enforcement action, output should influence length of block. Rich was sanctioned both by Arbcom and by the community and has been blocked under both sets of sanctions. It might be less confusing if the two were combined, but that does not invalidate the block. I do however think that the question of whether the articles created were beneficial should be taken into consideration in determining the length of block. On previous occasions mass-creation has caused a lot of work, and if this lot are in that category, then a longer block would be appropriate. If this lot are reasonable, 2 weeks would be the maximum one would want to impose, and then maybe look at ways to help Rich create articles without getting sanctioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case he was creating talk pages by tagging them for wikiprojects. It would be easy enough to get community approval for this task - go ask the relevant wikiprojects... Which, as so often with Rich, is not any kind of special requirement but the norm anyway: people shouldn't go around mass-tagging things for projects they're not members of without any attempt at prior coordination with the project. Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

NO TOPIC BAN

While there are clearly those who feel that LauraHale's article writing needs work, particularly when those articles are written with a view to being displayed on the main page, there is a sufficiently strong consensus in this discussion against a DYK topic ban at this time to make further discussion a generator of heat rather than of light. However, I would suggest that LauraHale reflects on the views expressed in the discussion – perhaps particularly the views expressed by those who oppose a topic ban but nevertheless consider that her work does need some improvement – and I am sure that in the meantime DYK reviewers will be extra-alert to the possibility of problems with any further articles she nominates, thus ensuring that main page DYK standards are not compromised by not having a topic ban. Bencherlite^Talk 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Nobody Ent 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have a moratorium or ban on Laura Hale DYKs? Both the hooks and the articles in general are much too often of very dubious quality and contain many incorrectly interpreted sources, and thus shouldn't be shown on the mainpage. It is nice to encourage a newbie with a DYK, but we should expect a lot more from experienced editors. Fram (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A ban on Gibraltar-related DYKs didn't work, so I don't think a ban on people who have written Gibraltar-related DYKs is worth pursuing either. I think Laura should be asked to slow down and maybe receive some helpful advice offered in a less aggressive tone. Jumping on her with threads like this because of silly things like a perfectly respectable source being footnoted at the end of the wrong statement - when that statement already has another perfectly respectable source supporting it - is not helpful. (Particularly at the same time as another "ban Gibraltar" editor is throwing accusations that appear to have their origins in internal WM-AU politics.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the least serious problem listed here and ignoring all the much more disturbing ones isn't really helpful either. And note that none of the DYKs listed above is GibraltarpediA related, the Gibraltar rocks articles were obviously created by her to reference the GibraltarpediA problems but that is hardly relevant here. I have never seen any established editor creating so many problematic articles in such a short time, and believing that they are good enough for DYK anyway. I am also ammazed at the ease that these articles are then promoted to DYK, but that's a different problem. Fram (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't want people pointing out that some of the "problems" you've mentioned are actually extremely trivial, then it would be best not to try to pad out the complaint with such trivial things. As I've said, I think jumping in with both feet and going for a "ban" is much less appropriate than arranging some helpful advice and discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some" <> "One", and having a hook with two sources, where one just happens not to support it at all, isn't that trivial. Of course, if that was her worst offense, this section would be serious overkill. On the other hand, it is an example of how she has problems in most of hert DYK nominations. The one under discussion is a minor symptom of a much bigger problem, that she can't be trusted to use sources appropriately, misplacing sources, using sources for statements not in the source, or using sources which are not about the subject at all. As for helpful advice and discussion, I have had a discussion with her previously, about an article where she completely misused multiple sources. She did not give any indication of either understanding the problem or wanting to do something about it. Finding then that it wasn't an isolated incident but a pattern in most of her articles, measures must be taken to prevent these problems from appearing on the mainpage. The DYK review process can clearly not be trusted to fix this, so the swiftest solution is to ban her articles from DYK. Feel free to mentor her so that she can improve her track record; at that moment, there is no reason not to lift the ban again. Fram (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose LauraHale is a diligent editor who produces a lot of good work. Think you should put your own house in order first. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's that supposed to mean? Fram (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Fram states quite plainly "Native language is Dutch, so you may expect some grammatical errors and other crimes against the English language." This warning seems accurate as articles of Fram's creation such as Dupuis contain howlers such as "The growth of Dupuis towards the leading comic book editor of Belgium started in 1938...". See the Mote and the Beam. Warden (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The beam! The beam! Always follow the path of the beam! As you grow towards your nearest comic book editor! :-D
• Would it be unreasonably POINTy to start a mirror proposal for a topic ban for Fram? In my experience, the Dutch have always had excellent English, but I think Laura is likely to be Australian, so I don't see why special exceptions should be made for Fram but not for Laura. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "This user page is written by an American who lives in Australia" being the first sentence on her user page not a clue? Mogism (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Eek! Even worse! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Whoever closes this please note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Hawkeye7_has_a_Conflict_of_Interest_with_regards_to_LauraHale Andreas JN466 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Really, so now we're down to topic bans and mudslinging? When I've spotchecked her sources I've found little issue. She should take a bit more time stringing her sentences together (and use a few more complex sentences) but that's definitely not DYK criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mudslinging"? That your spotchecks didn't reveal much is not really relevant. The problems I raised aren't really few and far between, but all extremely recent. On 29 October, she received a DYK for Tristan Clemons, stating "that Australian field hockey goalkeeper Tristan Clemons is researching nanoparticles that could treat injuries and fight cancer?" Actually, this is WP:SYNTH: nanoparticles could fight cancer, and Tristan Clemons is researching nanoparticles, so he is reasearching nanoparticles that could fight cancer? Wrong, he is actually researching nanoparticles "for the treatment of central nervous system injuries"[58]. Her DYK before that was for Gibraltar Creek, stating that "that Gibraltar Creek is not located in Gibraltar at all, but is a 13.1-kilometre (8.1-mile) long river found in Australia?". The source given for that length actually states "The Gibraltar Creek drops around 774m over its 13.3km length."[59] Then where comes the 13.1km from? And how is Bonzle even a reliable source? It looks to be a wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 November 2012 UTC
• Support per my comment above. Graham87 12:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—It's very frustrating that Laura reacts indignantly at any feedback on her writing. And Hawkeye, she might be "diligent" in a narrow sense, churning out lots of stubs and pushing into the DYK queue articles she believes she's sufficiently improved, but she seems to be blind to any sense that her editing standards might need to be seriously upgraded. As for your claim that she produces "a lot of good work", that's simply not credible. Initially my intention was to offer help; when I was given the brush-off, it was hard to take such a constructive attitude to her need to improve her skills in prose, referencing, etc. It's a strange and ultimately self-destructive attitude we don't often encounter. Heck, my time on WP has really improved my prose and academic skills—I've learnt from other editors, from reviewers, from stylists who still know better than I do; and let me assert that my starting-point was a lot higher than hers was. Something has to give, but an outright ban seems like a contingency only if she persists down the current route. If DYK had proper reviewing, her nominations would simply be knocked back. So I see this as a systemic wake-up call for DYK to get real about reform. Tony (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sets a bad precedent. Topic bans really should be limited to intentionally malicious behavior. If others editors don't like LauraHale's output, then put your energy to editing somebody else's nomination. There's no short supply of needy nominations. Should we go one-by-one and ban all other editors who don't seem up to snuff? Is there a check list of how many mistakes any one editor or nominator can make before being tossed? Or we just singling out LauraHale? — Maile (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I think a topic ban would need to involve Arbitration Committee, not a ban by fellow DYK editors who may not be impartial and uninvolved. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans can be instated by the community: "The community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrator's noticeboard." Whether this place qualifies as a correct venue can be debated, but a topic ban certainly doesn't need to involve ArbCom. Furthermore, all kinds of bans an blocks are given for behaviour that is not intentionally malicious, but which is disruptive nonetheless, due to e.g. a lack of competence, or a disregard for community standards, or whatever other reason may apply. And if you know of any other editor with the experience, the number of DYK nominations (succeeded and failed ones), and the amount of problems in these nominations and articles, then feel free to discuss these as well. I am only aware of the problems with LauraHales editing and DYKs, so I restricted this discussion to her contributions. This doesn't mean that she is the only or even the worst such editor, but that she is the one I'm aware of. Fram (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sets a good precedent. As Tony says, DYK needs to get real about reform. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Graham and Malleus. WP:Competence: The work is too sloppy. As mentioned at ANI, prose problems abound, and how anyone can think that this source, with multiple mentions of glaciers, is talking about this hill in Australia is beyond me. That error was in the article on the day it was on the main page, and remained until I just took it out now. As Fram mentions above, the hook, based on this source, was wrong too (the source said the person found the rubbish on their way to the hill, not on the hill, and there is an obvious question about whether someone having dumped his washing machine and kitchen sink on the side of a dirt track somewhere in the outback deserves a permanent commemoration in an encyclopedia). Whoever approved that DYK nomination and hook ought to hang their head in shame. Andreas JN466 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Look, this is ridiculous. It comes across as far too vindictive and driven by past animosities. If a contributor's writing has shortcomings (note - I'm not making judgements here about Laura's writing, I don't think I've reviewed any of her DYKs) then the right thing to do is to help that contributor, give them feedback and advise them on ways to improve. Many times, including several times today, if I find issues with an article I'm reviewing I fix them quietly and if it's a systematic issue I might contact the contributor to give some advice. But I would never think of banning them, unless they were doing something way outside the bounds of propriety such as systematically deleting anything that conflicts with their personal POV. Running straight for the banning stick is totally against Wikipedia's basic ethos of editors "always treating each other with consideration and respect", as WP:CIVIL puts it. Prioryman (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would agree with Prioryman if it wasn't for the fact that the attitude Laura takes when criticised is unconstructive. There are clearly substantial errors and issues with her articles, and given the approach she's taken to other issues I have no confidence in her ability to correct for them. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (after approximately a million edit conflicts) Question: It does appear there are some repeated issues in Laura's hooks/writing. Has she been offered any kind of mentorship/coaching about how to use sources or phrase hooks, etc? I'm hesitant to support a topic-ban for someone operating in the best of faith and doing their best, especially if a little bit of coaching would straighten things out instead. I see that Tony1 above says he offered to help her, but judging by other venues, Tony and Laura have a somewhat adversarial relationship and it might not be surprising to see her turn him down. Has anyone else offered? Is this a case of "with a little help this can be fixed", or is this a case of "needs help, but won't accept it, so what else can we do here?"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: OK she has made a few mistakes but there is no need for the "I cast ye out" attitude. I agree with Prioryman, she might need some assistance and advice but there is no need to do this proposal to her. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I reviewed a number of her Olympic hooks and found no problems with those articles. If she's made some mistakes since then, they should be appropriately addressed, but to outright ban her? Seriously? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with Fluffernutter's point here. I think that a ban at this point would be premature. There are some issues with her DYK work, but I think it would be better to give her another shot and have her work under a mentor/coach for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but do send in your best mentor, because I've seen her reactions to comments about her writing. There's a syndrome, which might already have been named: getting away with it is not the same as getting good. Stepping around her touchiness, to a willingness to take suggestions, is key. --Lexein (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Turn this link blue and attempt to come to a voluntary solution first. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there should be tighter copyediting on DYKs before they get approved - blame the community, not the editor trying to help out. Further - I have to edit upwards of perhaps half-a-dozen DYKs a day for simple things like MOS (mainly WP:OPENPARA and WP:MOSFLAG) as well as date formats/templates. Some of those are Laura's, some are others. Why punish her specifically? GiantSnowman 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too extreme and comes across as vindictive payback for prior wiki-drama. Her nominations deserve more scrutiny and after this brew-ha they will certainly get it but an outright banning sets a terrible precedent. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The supposed issues with the articles in question seem quite petty and unimportant. Laura is not the problem here. See campaign to drive away productive contributors. Warden (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was alarming, for a second there I thought your link went to an actual project by that name. I guess that would be too obvious though. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A repeat of the usual Wikipedia situation. A semi-prominent person who could benefit from a bit of a course correction never gets it because they know the ropes, have a posse etc. and because Wikipedia lacks a mechanism for providing weighty advice. Then, much later, it gets bigger and they crash and burn. Suggestion: distill some weighty advice from all of this and give it to her. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Beeblebrox and (minus remark about posse) with North8000. Laura is not the only frequent submitter to DYK whose writing and use of sources are problematic. DYK reviews and the following checks by the person who promotes the hook to the prep area and the admin who moves the prep set to a queue are all supposed to catch problems such as those cited, and in many cases have been doing. (In addition DYK encourages any editor to fix a problem, and I have in fact fixed what I could in two of Laura Hale's recent nominations to which my attention has been drawn through the discussion that led to this motion.) This is not the right approach. Working with the editor and reminding people at DYK that it's at least partly a workshop is more likely to be effective, rather than drive off a valuable and hard working contributor, as well as fairer. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is the responsibility of whoever checks and lets the DYK go ahead if bad DYK submissions are posted on the main page. Such a campaign seems simply harassing. --Cyclopia^talk 18:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. I have reviewed and copyedited quite a number of her DYKs and other articles. I do find that there are significant problems--with sourcing, with article structure (lots of athletic articles had long prose lists of results, for instance), and especially with prose. Sorry, this is harsh, but the prose is not good. Crisco may be right in that good writing is not specifically a DYK requirement, but decent writing ought to be a requirement for any article, and good writing ought to be a requirement for any article we put in the front window. I also think that a ban is possibly overdoing it--but then, while many a time Laura has thanked me kindly for improvements, there is no improvement overall. The issues persist. Athletes' articles are churned out one after another, all in the exact same way with the same weak spots, and this suggests to me (since I believe her to be of good faith) that she just does not see it. Some people don't understand the difference between good and bad writing. My mother doesn't--but she typed up bills and inventory, not encyclopedic prose. So I'm a bit doubtful that mentoring would help, and if there is a mentor, it would have to be a strict one who lays down the Law of Good Writing (yeah I know, there is no such law) and progress would have to be visible.

  Some other issues are pointed at here--DYK writing as a kind of workshop? I disagree--that's not how it is set up. That's not to say articles have to be perfect when they're nominated, but they shouldn't be drafts (or templates). I'm also concerned with parts of the process: many of those poorly written DYKs made it to the front page, they were not pulled when they should have been. In other words, I am concerned with oversight, and that's another kettle of fish. If there were strict(er) oversight then this might not be so problematic. I hope that there is a better solution here than a ban, but if we continue to believe, as I hear in some of the comments above, that "there is no problem", then we're kidding ourselves. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Low Countries are famous for their greenhouses but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The article chicken fried bacon was at DYK and reads more like an advert than anything I've seen produced for Gibraltarpedia. User:Drmies has written hundreds of articles and that one was just picked at random. Shall I go on...? Warden (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means, Colonel, go on. Don't let me cramp your style. But you may have noticed that I didn't say anything about Gibraltarpedia or about writing ads. If you want to pick another 'random' selection of my edits (you couldn't possibly have picked that at random), pick this series of edits, which has the benefit of being on point. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Clarifying - by "at least partly a workshop", I'm drawing attention to the historical culture at DYK of using the review as an opportunity to work together to bring the article to an adequate standard. I agree, reviewers should draw attention to problems; I'll also point out again that those who promote articles to the prep set and the admins who move prep sets into queues should also be checking for obvious problems. Articles should be ready when nominated, but in practice often aren't, partly because some submitters do have writing problems. That and the fact that at least the process leading to the article's being passed as ready for DYK should be in collaboration with the article writer(s) is why I say "workshop". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is regrettable that when Laura put herself up to review in Summer she got very little advise (actually, got advise to concentrate on DYK), whereas the problems which are mentioned in this thread apparently already existed. An advise at that time could have improved things. Right now, I agree that RFC may be the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This just seems a bit... hasty? --Rschen7754 19:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. This may have got to the point where an RFC would be in order, it has not got to the point where the RFC process should be skipped. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This thread is a perfect example why our process of "discipline by mob rule" is ridiculously broken. There's a vague allegation of somebody producing bad DYK articles, with no links, no diffs, no evidence whatsoever, no indication of prior dispute resolution, and people are seriously commenting about it? That's silly, and the proposer should be trouted.  Sandstein  21:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and close per Sandstein. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I third the motion to close: no ban is coming out of this, and thus this isn't a matter for administrators anymore. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Oppose per above. Also opposed to an RFC/U at this point, as they have too much potential to degenerate into witch hunts. At this point would just advise she reduces her output a little so she has more time to improve her prose. She looks to be too good a scholar to need a formal mentor, but maybe could occasionally ask others to look at their drafts and give them advise on better wording. (Id be happy to be help every now and then if need be, though Im sure their would be no shortage from the editors that normally work in her topic areas). FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not wanting to reopen this discussion now, but it is a pity that this discussion was taken out of its context, leaving people like Sandstein understandably opposing (and trouting me) because there was no evidence, no links, no diffs and so on. In the original discussion, which can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Rock, Porongurups, those diffs were provided. By only removing the subsection to this place, and without a link to the original discussion, people voting here didn't get the full picture or the context of my proposal. I'm not claiming that that context would have changed the outcome, but it at least would have changed the appearance of the proposal as being baseless. Fram (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support she has made many errors, doing radical reviews and citing her own guidelines (for example she states that the lead of lists should be referenced despite there are already tables below). Her hooks are almost always uninteresting about uninteresting articles and sometimes biased (in particular towards women), leading to accumulations of unreviewed proposals and a possible creation of systemic bias. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved

 – no reason given for early closing, AFD will run the usual 7 days. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm user:Libertasgov, and I'm requesting that the Deletion discussion for Monovia be brought to a close. I trust your descion will be wise. I'm sorry If I didn't put this in the right place, I'm not very experienced here. 90.219.51.197 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to wait for the discussion to run for seven days, after which an administrator will close the discussion.  Sandstein  20:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UTRS Request #4500, 82.24.227.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has requested the standard offer. I do not know anything about this case, so I am deferring it to AN. It does appear that six months have passed since the block was instated. The following is his request, which he agreed to be posted here:

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I believe I should be unblocked because I have already learnt my lesson. I have matured a lot over the many months I have been blocked and just want to start new and forget all of my old accounts. I have been observing editors whilst I have been blocked and know exactly what is accepted and what is not anymore. Although my block is another 6 months away, I would really liked to be unblocked now as I know I have learnt my lesson now and am just frustrated that I cannot correct certain pages. I know you may just think that I am being impatient but I have been waiting many many months and believe I have served my punishment time. Thanks.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Mainly music articles but any articles with mistakes such as grammar and non-up-to-date information.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Please unblock me, like I said I have matured extremely over my block period and really want another chance to prove myself. I will not constantly edit articles like before but just want to be able to edit some articles here and there. Thanks.

Reply message:

I would like to request a Standard offer if I may. I'm not sure where to find an administrator but I have read the rules clearly and as I said before I would like to move forward with my contributions to Wikipedia in a positive way for the future. I have waited almost 15 months for my lengthy block to expire and I know I have learnt my lesson and just want to move forward if I am given the chance. Thank you for your time.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basically this means that Iluvrihanna24 is requesting an unblock? Or am I misunderstanding something? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have updated the header to make that more clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First, this is clearly not a WP:CLEANSTART. They are either a) unblocked and used that account, b) unblock and the account can go through rename, or c) she is unblocked and permitted to create a new account, with proper permanent linkage to the old account. Second, have we verified they have not socked/evaded in the months since the block. Third, I see no real explanation of how they will avoid the behaviour that led to the block - what will really be different? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps their talk page access should be restored so they can reply? Nobody Ent 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have modified their block to allow them to post to this thread. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last cycle with Iluvrihanna24 was actually as PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was unblocked with some fairly strict editing restrictions. He proved quickly unable to abide by them and was reblocked quickly (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhoenixJHudson&oldid=486670745). I'd support an unblock under the same restrictions as before. Iluvrihanna24's real problem is the addition of massive piles of gushing details and edit warring when people try to trim it back. His restriction was specifically tailored to that, in that he was forbidden to restore material that he had added and another editor had removed. In fairness to him, he wound up with major problems dealing with Calvin999, who has since been dealt a few blocks for edit warring. If we unblock Iluvrihanna24 with that restriction again, we will need to be vigilant to ensure that other Rihanna fans don't abuse him.

I am a bit disheartened that his unblock request doesn't acknowledge the existence of PhoenixJHudson, but it was 6 months and 3 weeks since that account edited.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll conditionally support an unblock pending a checkuser to check for sock activity in the last 6 months. Assuming no socks, I'd support unblock with no restrictions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given his history of edit warring and sock puppeting, I think unblocking him with no restrictions would be foolhardy.—Kww(talk) 07:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have been allowed to give my opinion here now. I am glad that people are seeing my point about the user Calvin999 as that was a very big factor in my comments made before towards him as he reverted every edit I made which became extremely annoying. I did forget about my different identity's block periods but as kww stated the minimum it has been is almost 7 months which I believe is a very long time to have thought about my mistakes. As I have previously stated, if I was unblocked, I am not going to edit large chunks of information, all I would like to be able to do is correct certain parts of information that have bad grammar or have non-up-to-date information if I could. Thanks for your time. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if my comments are seen here or not, are they coming through? Sorry. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are visible to everyone.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I'm trying not to be persistent. I know all of the users here are holding the cards, I am just wondering how long this decision will take. As I said I am really not meaning to nag, it's just I've given my opinion and promise of what I will do if I am unblocked and would appreciate a reply considering your decision. Does there have to be a mutual decision between users? I've given all I can give to persuade you. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed I am allowed to edit articles now without logging in. Last time my block ran out and I began editing again, users didn't believe me and I got blocked again even though my ban had expired. I am notifying you now to say that it is allowing me to edit, so to show you I have changed I will edit only a few articles. Please don't view this as me violating my block as earlier I was blocked from editing by my IP address and now it is letting me. I am only doing what I have been wanting to for several months. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not letting me edit anymore as it says there is a filter saying my edits are unconstructive. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no Don't edit articles yet. You were only unblocked to post here and on your talk page User talk:82.24.227.215. The decision might take a day or two. Nobody Ent 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've was reinstating the block while Nobody Ent was responding here. I'll copy any of Iluvrihanna24's edits to this discussion if needed. It is this kind of thing that makes me extremely hesitant to unblock without an extremely short leash: an eagerness to change things while not apparently reading fairly simple statements directed at him.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that despite it being explained to him multiple times, he never has accepted that he is not supposed to edit while his account is blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 82 needed to be blocked ... 82 didn't actually edit any articles and I think King of Hearts set up a filter Special:AbuseFilter/201 to prevent him from editing anywhere but here or there. Nobody Ent 03:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No details per WP:BEANS, but the filter doesn't block everything that a block does. Filter 201 does show that he tried to edit.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go so far as oppose an unblock, but I've striken my support. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support The impression I'm getting from 82 is much more of lack of understanding rather than malice. If and only if they were willing to take a mentor and a volunteer could be found would it make sense to unblock. Nobody Ent 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to this comment made on the AN page, I am definitely willing to take on a mentor or volunteer if that is what it takes to be unblocked, definitely. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an objection, I'll unblock with conditions similar to those I imposed last time (with some clarification based on the last go around):

1. Only the Iluvrihanna24 account will be unblocked.
2. No alternate accounts, and no anonymous editing.
3. Cannot restore any material that he has added and another editor has removed. This includes material added in the past by any sockpuppet accounts.
4. All additions of material must include inline citations to reliable sources.
5. Violations will result in a one-week block on the first occurrence, a one-month block on the second, and returned to an indefinite block on the third.

I'll do this on Nov 8 unless someone says not to before then. I'll set the block on 82.24.227.215 back to a soft-block at that time.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored this section because it archived one day before I expected, and one day before my deadline for opposing comments.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Unblock, stop biting and stop pointless blocks/bans. - John Galt ✉ 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I suggest we remove ArbCom from power right now, install a caretaker ArbCom and hold elections for a new ArbCom based on a different set of rules later. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]