88.104.27.2 (talk) |
DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →Accountability: sick and fucking tired of the harassment now |
||
Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
:The last of those requests was just reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=546416235&oldid=546407923] as "Rmv trolling". [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.2|88.104.27.2]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.2|talk]]) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
:The last of those requests was just reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=546416235&oldid=546407923] as "Rmv trolling". [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.2|88.104.27.2]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.2|talk]]) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say [[WP:INVOLVED]] (and they'd be right). This editor is either [[WP:CIR|incompetent]], a [[WP:DICK|dick]], a [[WP:TROLL]], or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== problems creating an account == |
== problems creating an account == |
Revision as of 23:12, 22 March 2013
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 77 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 74 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 74 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Soni (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 14 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- 6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 20 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 30 | 34 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 53 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 5 days ago on 14 July 2024) Already has absurdly unwieldy number of comments. Needs an experienced closer who is familiar with copyright policy for files. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 31 May 2024) No new comments in a week, discussion open for several months.CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 24 June 2024) appears this can be closed. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
User:Evangp unblock request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Evangp (talk · contribs) has appealed his block via UTRS, citing the standard offer. He claims not to have used any alternate accounts in the last six months, and would like to edit constructively on the subject of concert venues and related pages. A check by User:DeltaQuad revealed no current sockpuppets from Evangp's current range. I'm bringing the issue here for community discussion as per usual. I've also reenabled Evangp's talkpage access for the duration of this discussion, and will copy over any statements he wishes to make; please do check his talkpage in case I miss anything, though. Yunshui 雲水 08:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, while I didn't find any active socks on the range he was using, this does not mean that he doesn't have more than one range and have socks over there. CU can't prove a negative. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I found this message on Evangp's talk page: "Please unblock me. I promise to be good and edit constructively. I don't think it would be fair to block me forever."
- Unblock. By the standard offer. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock. Two years is long enough and I believe in second chances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock per the standard offer. One last chance to edit Wikipedia constructively doesn't hurt by a lot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock — As I look over Evangp's contribution history and block log, I get the sense that he is relatively young. He generally contributed in good-faith during his first period of activity, but was lacking in a basic understanding of notability, and was thus unable to assert the significance of the subjects for which he'd created stubs. After numerous warnings, he was eventually blocked for three months, which was subsequently made indefinite for evasion through sockpuppetry. My impression of him now is that he has matured substantially since 2010, and I would not be surprised if he has come to possess the competence needed to become a very productive contributor. I strongly support giving him another chance. Kurtis (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Part of "Standard offer" is, Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. It would help if Evangp could address the specific issues that led to the block - a) an understanding of the key requirements for an article (hint: read Wikipedia:Your first article), b) a promise to be civil, c) a promise to never sock again. I don't think indefinite blocks should be lifted just because someone says "I promise to be good". WP:SO says, administrators are not required to unblock you, especially if you do not provide any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Aside; are we doing CU's without a specific reason now? That happened with MF this week, and caused rather a fuss. The CU here looks like it was fishing. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry, per WP:NOTFISHING. We know that Evangp has engaged in sockpuppetry in the past, and by saying that he's not done it in the last six months, he admits that he did it at one time. In such a situation, it's absolutely appropriate to perform a CU on him: "trust but verify". Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- It depends what one considers "credible evidence" - in this case, the fact that someone socked 6 months ago seems to be the only consideration - I don't think anyone has produced any evidence to indicate socking since then, and the CU can only see back a few months, so that 'evidence' (that they once socked) doesn't have any bearing on whether they've socked within the time that can be checked. I don't necessarily think that it is wrong to CU people who have socked in the past, but I do think the policy needs to be clearer to avoid future DRAMA about whether a CU is appropriate. To me, the current procedural policy of evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry means that there must be something within the period we can actually check. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note, this isn't a great place to discuss this, so I'll post on Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Fishing? instead. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- It depends what one considers "credible evidence" - in this case, the fact that someone socked 6 months ago seems to be the only consideration - I don't think anyone has produced any evidence to indicate socking since then, and the CU can only see back a few months, so that 'evidence' (that they once socked) doesn't have any bearing on whether they've socked within the time that can be checked. I don't necessarily think that it is wrong to CU people who have socked in the past, but I do think the policy needs to be clearer to avoid future DRAMA about whether a CU is appropriate. To me, the current procedural policy of evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry means that there must be something within the period we can actually check. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry, per WP:NOTFISHING. We know that Evangp has engaged in sockpuppetry in the past, and by saying that he's not done it in the last six months, he admits that he did it at one time. In such a situation, it's absolutely appropriate to perform a CU on him: "trust but verify". Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Aside; are we doing CU's without a specific reason now? That happened with MF this week, and caused rather a fuss. The CU here looks like it was fishing. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support unblock per above - I had the pleasure of doing one earlier, I'll let someone else have the honors on this one. — Ched : ? 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- note: I can understand that some folks would have reservations about comments like "... STICK YOUR NOSE IN YOUR BUTT AND SNIFF !!". I'm not going to strike my "support unblock"
just yet - butI did leave them a suggestion on their talk. — Ched : ? 20:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- note: I can understand that some folks would have reservations about comments like "... STICK YOUR NOSE IN YOUR BUTT AND SNIFF !!". I'm not going to strike my "support unblock"
I humbly request that we wait for some response from the user, before taking action. A short delay isn't going to make much difference. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I too would prefer to wait until we have a statement from the user that addresses the behaviour that led to the block. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- copied from user's talk page by — Ched : ? 08:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) diff
- I realize I've made some immature comments in the past. I've learned to be more civil and understanding over the past few years. As I've said I promise to be more constructive with my editing. Evangp (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And of course I promise never to sock again.
- Great. I now support unblocking. Evangp, please remember to use reliable sources in your future edits. Best wishes. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- bump — Ched : ? 11:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic
Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([1]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.
- Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [2], [3]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [2], [3]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support
Opposehe was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC).I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offer — Ched : ? 18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)- Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go. little green rosetta(talk)
- I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Acoma Magic's comment
Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per this suggestion - [5] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
|
- If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)- If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)- I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked. little green rosetta(talk)
- I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban for Humanpublic
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the last months, the behavior of Humanpublic has been discussed repeatedly here. I won't include all the diffs of his long history of uncivil behavior as they can be found in previous AN and ANI discussions about Humanpublic, so I'm focusing on his displayed arrogance towards admins as well as his latest behavior.
- Already in mid February, an admin gave him a final warning for his behavior [6]. As can be seen, Humanpublic did not care one bit [7] and followed up by this message to the admin who warned him [8].
- A week later, after a discussion about Humanpublic's behavior at ANI, another admin issued the following final warning over his behavior [9]. Again, Humanpublic displayed his disrespect for the admin who warned him [10], [11].
- In early March, Humanpublic's pal Strangesad was blocked for edit warring, which caused Humanpublic to throw a rage, go straight to the article to repeat the edit warring for which Strangesad was blocked [12]. This was against the expressed consensus on the talk page, the following diff is the only contribution Humanpublic bothered to make at the talk page [13]. To avoid a block, he then decided to leave Wikipedia, again displaying his disrespect for admins [14]. At that point three more admins concluded that Humanpublic was not fit for Wikipedia [15], [16] and that a topic ban would be necessary if Humanpublic came back [17].
- Now, Humanpublic is back and behaves exactly like before, now even edit warring over both articles [18], [19] and talk pages [20], [21].
- So in short, Humanpublic's long history of disruptive behavior (not included here as it's been the topic of the discussions that led to the previous "final" warnings) and lack of civility led to a final warning by an admin in mid February. He expressed his contempt and continued, leading to a final warning by another admin in late February, to which he reacted with more contempt and continued until declaring that he leaves Wikipedia, upon which three more admins concluded that he was not suitable for editing Wikipedia, and that a topic ban would be necessary if he returns. It's no surprise that he returned quickly, so based on the above I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Christianity and Argument from silence.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I opposed this the last time, and I still think we can deal with him, but it's really becoming annoying. This assessment nails it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think the number of, er, "factual errors" in that might exceed Jeppiz's record. The "admin warning" is not from an admin, it is a template dumped on my Talk page by an editor with a historiy of reverting me, and who was warned on ANI for trying to censor me by forcibly archiving a discussion. I did not "throw a rage" and edit the article, I went there and reverted an edit that Jeppiz had previously made. THere was no concensus for any kind of topic ban, although Jeppiz has "forum shopped" and fished for that endlessly on ANI. My reverts to Argument from Silence were intended to undo a "BRD" edit by another editor.
- Jeppiz does nothing here but complain about editors on AN and ANI and forum shop 'till he drops. I really think Jeppiz is the one who needs the topic ban. Humanpublic (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Humanpublic's claim above that I "do nothing here but complain about editors on AN and ANI" is unfortunately typical of his tactic to always try to shift the blame. I've been on Wikipedia for years, and Humanpublic and his pal Strangesad are the only two users I can remember bringing to AN. Here are my 250 latest edits [22]. Some of them have been on AN about Humanpublic and Strangesad, but the overwhelming majority are not related to either AN or ANI. That being the case, I consider Humanpublic's quite blatant lie about me above as yet another example of his behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- About 2 weeks ago, Humanpublic requested that their account be vanished. Since vanished accounts are expected to refrain from previous behavior patterns, they have effectively stated their intent to leave these articles, which would make a topic ban unnecessary. However, since making that request they have continued to engage in contentious editing, so it is possible that they do not understand the vanishing process or have changed their mind about vanishing. Humanpublic, would you please reply to the message I placed on your talk page and clarify the situation? -- LWG talk 18:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support wider topic ban on articles and talk pages relating to faith and religion in general per WP:NOTHERE. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC) - Ammend - after further investigation, support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, Seb (who comments above) just showed up to revert me without comment on Talk. And previously Smeat showed up to revert me, without comment on Talk. Both following me there from Jesus, for absolutely no reason other than to revert me without discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's well-established that this editor has been consistently disruptive, based on the paper trail cited above. I guess the questions is: what basis do we have to expect any sort of improvement in his/her behavior? If the answer is "none", then I think the right decision here is pretty clear. MastCell Talk 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- You think wrong. The "paper trail" above is provided by an "opponent" in content disputes, who has cherry picked what he wants, often distorting (or lying) about the context, and omitted all of the context (much of it due to his own provocations). Here is a link I referred to [23], the others are on ANI. I don't know what policy there is on following people around from article to article, but I find it utterly disruptive and antagonistic. AND, I would like an explanation of what rule, exactly, I violated since returning to editing. Humanpublic (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can I ask if a policy or guideline applies to edits like this [24] and [25] in which an editor who opposed me on one article Jesus, and was involved in ANIs with me, follows me to other articles just to revert me? Which Jeppiz also did here [26]. Jeppiz is complaining about my recent edits to Argument from Silence here, but he's never actually said anything about them on the Talk page. Can I get some sort of "involvement" ban from these editors? Make someone else revert and complain about me, for once. Humanpublic (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support at least a topic ban if not block per WP:NOTHERE. User is here for one objective and it's not to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban per those above. — Ched : ? 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Policy-violation since I returned to editing, with diffs, please. I've edited exactly one religious Talk page. Humanpublic (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you're volunteering to avoid areas that have caused you problems, then I'm fine with that as well. I'm not really inclined to go digging for things to build some sort of "case" against you though. — Ched : ? 20:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Policy-violation since I returned to editing, with diffs, please. I've edited exactly one religious Talk page. Humanpublic (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's just like saying you're unwilling to make the case that he should be topic-banned. Can you name an actual rule that's been broken in the last week? 2 weeks? 3 weeks? Strangesad (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose full block, Neutral on topic ban. Humanpublic's contributions in non-contentious areas have all been constructive. -- LWG talk 20:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- You wanna be his mentor? many people have tried explaining stuff to him... to no avail... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- LWG, I agree. That's why I proposed a topic ban from religion rather than a full block.Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- LWG: He has 20 article space edits to non-contentious areas. I think you should read WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer-term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia")." [emphasis mine].--v/r - TP 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Those 20 edits make up nearly half of his total article-space contributions. To give up on Humanpublic completely is unwarranted. -- LWG talk 03:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- LWG: He has 20 article space edits to non-contentious areas. I think you should read WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer-term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia")." [emphasis mine].--v/r - TP 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- LWG, I agree. That's why I proposed a topic ban from religion rather than a full block.Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Jeppiz has provided plenty of evidence - this user is either unwilling or unable to work with others in these contentious areas. (Which is especially bad considering they deal with the already touchy subject of religion.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. HP has edited one article in March: Argument from silence, which isn't religious. He explained his two edits there on the Talk page. They didn't violate policy. His only other edits in several weeks were to the Talk page of Jesus, none of which violated policy. Ched's refusal, above, to actually back up his comments is disturbing. Strangesad (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment That is not correct. First, HP has edited Resurrection of Jesus in March [27], and it's certainly a religious article. Second, HP has edit warred at the talk page of Jesus, repeatedly tearing up an archive [28], [29]. Third, the fact that HP is back at Talk:Jesus is enough. It was suggested already in early March that he would be topic banned after he had ignored repeated last warnings, but he ducked it by requesting vanishing. That implies that he does not return to the same articles, and certainly not in less than two weeks.
- Humanpublic's edits to this article are specifically related to his attempts use the "argument from silence" to promote his POV in articles about Jesus. It is not independent. Paul B (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- [30][31] Humanpublic makes it clear he is not talking about the article. Which means, he is in violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject", which makes him disruptive. He's there to argue that scholars that support Jesus are not scholars while acknowledging he doesn't have a source for that claim because he doesn't intend to write it in the article. That was yesterday. Humanpublic is he to express his POV on religion and battle an opposing POV. He's not here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Humanpublic's edits to this article are specifically related to his attempts use the "argument from silence" to promote his POV in articles about Jesus. It is not independent. Paul B (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment That is not correct. First, HP has edited Resurrection of Jesus in March [27], and it's certainly a religious article. Second, HP has edit warred at the talk page of Jesus, repeatedly tearing up an archive [28], [29]. Third, the fact that HP is back at Talk:Jesus is enough. It was suggested already in early March that he would be topic banned after he had ignored repeated last warnings, but he ducked it by requesting vanishing. That implies that he does not return to the same articles, and certainly not in less than two weeks.
Those diffs show a discussion about what sources are required for what edits. The edits to Argument from silence have nothing to do with Jesus. The diffs of HP unhatting a discussion he wanted to continue do not show edit-warring. This looks like a lynch mob. How rare around here. Strangesad (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment That is blatantly false. Humanpublic only started editing Argument from silence in reaction to how it is used in articles about Jesus. This is the first time Humanpublic discusses Argument from silence [32], only after finding it in articles on Jesus did he do his first edit to the actual article about Argument from silence [33]. His editos to Argument from silence are thus just part of his push for what he is convinced is the WP:TRUTH about Jesus. As already said, he is not here to build an encyclopedia.Jeppiz (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Those are comments about motive. That's disruptive and a violation of WP:AGF. The edits are not about Christianity. In the future, please comment on edits, not editors. Strangesad (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you misunderstand WP:AGF. While certainly true in most cases, it's quite natural that in a discussion on AN about a possible topic ban, the motives for a user to edit a certain article can be relevant. Outside AN and ANI, WP:AGF is very relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Those are comments about motive. That's disruptive and a violation of WP:AGF. The edits are not about Christianity. In the future, please comment on edits, not editors. Strangesad (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could I ask the people directly involved in this dispute (on all sides) to step back from commenting, so that we can actually get community input? MastCell Talk 22:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. I can understand the confusion because many people see Wikipedia as similar in nature to web forums where people exchange ideas and struggle to have their opinion dominate. However, that attitude is not compatible with the fact that this is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. One of the diffs above (diff) shows a classic violation of NOTFORUM two days ago. Would someone who opposes a topic ban please provide evidence of helpful contributions in the area. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support a top ban on Christianity-related topics. I think the evidence shows that his conduct has been pretty disruptive. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone name the recent rule-breaking, with diffs? And document the alleged disruption across a large swath of "Christianity-related articles"? There is not a single documented case of disruption of any recency. There is a lot of Jeppiz's usual distortion and lawyering. Strangesad (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Still waiting for recent policy violations with diffs. Also, still wondering why editing the Talk page of one article related to Christianity equates to topic ban on all religious articles. Johnuniq. that diff is misleading, as it omits the context--I responded to someone else's comment about disputing the divine. And it's hardly something you'd ban people over anyway. Humanpublic (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- As Humanpublic expressedly asks me to comment on his policy violations I write this comment, though I agree with MastCell that this is not the venue for Humanpublic, Strangesad and myself. I've already provided diffs of edit warring [34], [35]. What is more, the fact that you're back editing Christianity-related articles is enough. I cite from my proposal for a topic ban "At that point three more admins concluded that Humanpublic was not fit for Wikipedia [36], [37] and that a topic ban would be necessary if Humanpublic came back [38]. Nothing you've done since you came back (if an absence of less than two weeks can even count) is in itself enough for me to propose a topic ban, true. However, you have been consistently disruptive at Christianity-related articles since 2012. You had several "final warnings" and you've disregarded them all. That is why it was already suggested (by an uninvolved admin) that you should be topic banned if you came back. You're back, you're editing the same articles, you're edit warring at Argument from silence and you're even edit warring at the talk page of Jesus.[39], [40] even though several others have informed you that Wikipedia is not a forum. So the proposed topic ban is not based exclusively on your edits in the last days, but on your whole history at Wikipedia. Taking a break for less that two weeks (and doing so in this way [41]) does not give you a clean sheet, especially not when you return to continue as before.Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Still waiting for recent policy violations with diffs. Also, still wondering why editing the Talk page of one article related to Christianity equates to topic ban on all religious articles. Johnuniq. that diff is misleading, as it omits the context--I responded to someone else's comment about disputing the divine. And it's hardly something you'd ban people over anyway. Humanpublic (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't ask you to repeat what you already said--and distorted--once. The first two diffs do not show edit warring--and if they did you would have to be equally concerned with History2007, was adding material and mathematically must have been edit-warring if I was. You are not so concerned.
- Your comment about prior calls for a topic ban is distorted. You implied that 3 admins called for me to be topic banned and that I am not fit for "wikipedia." Actually, one admin suggested that, and the phrase in question was "not a good fit" and the context was my own decision to try and leave.
- Neither of the cases you describe as "edit warring" meet the definition of edit-warring. The cases of "forum" you keep citing do not meet the definition of "forum" They are my responses to topics or edits raised by others on the Talk page. You have completely distorted the context, misrepresented the edits, and essentially been on a witch-hunt for months.
- This the fourth time you--and no one else--have proposed a topic ban. You did it twice on ANI, got no response, and switched to this forum. Your first edit to Jesus was to revert me. Your first edit to Christ myth theory was to revert me. Seb's edits to those articles and Argument from Silence have exclusively been to revert me--with almost no discussion in Talk. You have complained about my edits on Argument from Silence--and not once have you made a single comment on Talk. Nothing compels you to follow me around to articles that interest me, and revert me, and complain about me to administrators. If you don't like how I edit LEAVE ME ALONE. Humanpublic (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support indefinite block. A topic ban is a waste of the community's time. I see nothing worth salvaging here. The evidence in support of HP not being here for anything but to push an agenda is somewhere between substantial and overwhelming.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no agenda, except disgust for judgemental people. Humanpublic (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Jeppiz has provided a lot of evidence that Humanpublic is not here to build an encyclopedia and is pushing an agenda. He is unable to work with others in the contentious areas. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban, or preferably a block. Although Jeppiz needs to check who is an admin and who isn't, the diffs at the top of this section indicate to me that Humanpublic hasn't been able to learn how to edit in a collaborative environment, and that this pattern of behaviour isn't about to change in the near future. This looks like an issue across all articles, not just religious ones, so I would prefer a block to a topic ban. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on all faith and religion articles broadly construed.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Out of the edit count for Humanpublic, 17% is edits to articles - a total of 49 edits. The rest is talk, user talk and administrative notice boards. After just 15 edits, he tried to modify the lead of Jesus! Of edits to that article, at least 5 are attempts to add a statement that is taken out of context from its source. That it is out of context is clear from the discussion further down the page at Jesus#Ancient_sources_and_archeology. Add to that a few reverts and several edits to related articles ... I don't even need to read the talk page discussions to conclude that Humanpublic is stubbornly pushing a point of view and causing a remarkable amount of disruption for such a small number of edits. --RockMagnetist (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
ANI
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [42].
I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [43], but that was reverted [44].
I asked why it was reverted [45], and that was reverted too [46]. And again [47] [48] and again [49] [50].
Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- "I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.
- So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Block of 88.104.27.2
I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty845 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.
- And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Accountability
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for unblocking.
Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.
The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [51] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [52], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [53].
A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.
B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.
Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [54].
I asked BW to explain the block [55] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [56]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [57]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.
BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)
I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- The last of those requests was just reverted [58] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
problems creating an account
Why doesn't the user name work for me. Where do I start? Every name I come up with . The text says: the name has been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.143 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. It's a very good idea to create an account. My first thought about your problem, is that when the text says, a name has been used, it actually may have been used. There are currently over 18 million accounts on English Wikipedia. So just be creative and original when choosing a new name. You may choose a multi word name. Please ask again if you keep having a problem. If you mention a name you have tried, we can check whether there currently is a user with that name. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a very common problem for new users registering on many different types of websites. Wikipedia is about ten years old now so the chances of using some names is going to be difficult.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- A couple of ideas: You could add some random numbers before or after your preferred name, but the existing editor with the "root" name could make a complaint if it's too close, or if you edit in similar areas. You could also choose a random, nonsensical username (user:TreeWizardBaseball is available, for example), and then after a few months of good, productive editing, you can request to usurp another existing username that is more to your liking, as long as it has been abandoned by the original owner. So it might be worth checking the activity of the Username(s) you like to see if that might be a possibility. Ultimately, the name is not as important as simply being registered. See WP:USURP for more info. Ditch ∝ 21:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The article Hideki Tojo was disappeared after User: Anthony Bradbury moved the page from Hideki Tōjō to Hideki Tojo per RM. Please help to resolve the problem. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Article ban request
- I would kindly ask administrators to look at the conversation on the talk page of Jan z Jani and article ban ColonelHenry (talk) from further editing on that page. Reason: We faced a dispute regarding correct spelling of the name but the discussion move on forward in good way, the subject is quite difficult and we wish to reach consensus i matter. However, in last post of ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) the input is insulting me personally. ColonelHenry use words like polish Czy rozumiesz teraz, półgłówek? whitch can be translated to Do You now understand halfbrain or similar. Furtheremore, no statements of ColonelHenry have any given source or can verify or backup his statements. I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion. camdan (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the pot calls the kettle black. This is ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Look at the tenor of his replies at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Jan z Jani, and Talk:Jan z Jani if you want to see the true character of this "complainer." --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I welcome administrators or anyone to look at what have been posted. As You can see, I do not agree in most of what ColonelHenry is posting and I question academic value of his comments that I believe are of more personal character. The discussion can sometimes be hard and I also understand this but calling people by names is rude and not acceptable. I do not think that this board is for ColonelHenry or me to discuss this matter further since I asked administrators to overlook this question to come up with conclusions. Please respect that and let other persons come to their own conlusions. Thank you.camdan (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no view on whether ColonelHenry should be banned from editing the Jan z Jani article. I do note that shortly after receiving two warnings and the threat of a block for personal attacks on other editors [59] [60], ColonelHenry referred to me here as "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty" and continued by harassing me on my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
- Xxanthippe, you trolled a GA review to rehash old grudges on material that had no place per policy in the article, and then lied about something that could be easily refuted. And my only comment, that you call "harrassment" was to point out that the grudge rhetoric wasn't constructive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Lied" and "trolled" can be added to the list of insults. Spoken on an administrator's notice board, no less. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
- Xxanthippe, you trolled a GA review to rehash old grudges on material that had no place per policy in the article, and then lied about something that could be easily refuted. And my only comment, that you call "harrassment" was to point out that the grudge rhetoric wasn't constructive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know enough about the backstory here to offer an opinion about an article ban, but I think it was inappropriate for ColonelHenry to refer to camdan (or any other editor) as a "half-wit" (Google translation). An apology is in order. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, even if it was improper, neither party is blameless--although I doubt the other user, camdan, is willing to admit that or reciprocate...which makes his complaint rather disingenuous.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like we have a blame game going on. I think it is disconcerting that after calling someone a half wit and being told that does deserve an apology that you can't just offer it. If you can't just say "I'm sorry" than how can your words here even be trusted.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, frankly, I'm not inclined to apologise to someone who spent the previous three-days being disrespectful and condescending. What's worse is that apparently none of the comments take that user to task for their previous incivility, but just because I call him a "half-wit" for being obtuse, I'm automatically demonised. The best that's going to happen is I'll ignore him/her and the ridiculous hypocrisy of that user's complaining here when their previous statements were more abusive. I could care less, I commented on a requested move that ended up getting me notified when the matter was brought to WP:DRN, and there User:camdan has rather rudely said:
- Your emotianal input have no sources and no value at all,
- Your lack of knowledge in this subject is obviouse
- Furtheremore, this subject is not about what You think since You do not have any academic degree in subject.
- anyone that write on the subject should have academic education and those that do not have such education shuld actually reflect on what they are writing since it is just pure reflection of subjective mind and not scientific or academic.
- That would be end of discussion! Please comment if You can provide any academic source on subject - Your translation of wiki rules are just trying to defend knowledge in subject that You do not have.
- You certainly do not have any academic education at all in such subject, Your input is pure emotional (Note: I have two doctoral degrees, so his assumption was as baseless as it was wrong.).
- You throw latin just to make people think that You have knowledge in subject that You do not have. You reference to french spelling is just embarrassing
- Despite what User:camdan thinks, my statements on the matter at WP:RM, at WP:DRN, Talk:Jan z Jani were correct and backed by scholarship (For more information, see Wright, Roger. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. (London, New York: Routledge, 1991); and Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. (Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1982).
- So, unless User:camdan is taken to task, any criticism of me lacks credibility. I really don't care if someone abuses me, I've never really had a thin-skin and I take a punch better than most. Until I said "half-wit" I was incredibly civil and willing to discuss the scholarship, despite being told by User:camdan I was essentially an uneducated idiot. And in the interest of the "pot calls the kettle black" school of thought:
- I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion
- Tu quoque. Go figure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do seem to be a rather intelligent person to me. I am sure you can figure out why the above is not on the same level as name calling. Look, I doubt anyone is going to be topic banned here, but furthering the conflict in the manner you did was not appropriate. If someone makes accusations that just not accurate about your education that is pretty bad, but it is because we don't know each other here and sure, the other editor should not be discussing you in this manner. It was an act of escalation on their part. But you jumped right in and began making it worse by not just cooling down and making your case. I think this is a matter for both parties to simply back off from each other for the time being. Pretty simple...if you both can do it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, frankly, I'm not inclined to apologise to someone who spent the previous three-days being disrespectful and condescending. What's worse is that apparently none of the comments take that user to task for their previous incivility, but just because I call him a "half-wit" for being obtuse, I'm automatically demonised. The best that's going to happen is I'll ignore him/her and the ridiculous hypocrisy of that user's complaining here when their previous statements were more abusive. I could care less, I commented on a requested move that ended up getting me notified when the matter was brought to WP:DRN, and there User:camdan has rather rudely said:
Questions about removing autopatrolled status
Could someone please clarify for me under what circumstances an editor's autopatrolled status can be removed, and how recent violations need to be to justify removing someone's autopatrolled flag? Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't even seen firm rules. But I'd say any [single copyright violation, unsourced BLP, or poorly sourced negative BLP], or [a couple of poorly sourced BLPs], or [several unsourced or poorly sourced articles or promotional articles].--v/r - TP 13:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to remove the autopatrolled status of an administrator? Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's called Arbcom.--v/r - TP 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- So that's a "No" then. Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is technically trivial to debundle the right. Whether that would gain consensus on the other hand... Crazynas t 14:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure it would be technically trivial to unbundle all the user rights, but politically unacceptable. The point is though that in this specific instance a non-admin would be treated more harshly than an admin, as I doubt anyone believes that an administrator would be defrocked for a single instance of copyright violation, or poor sourcing of a BLP. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Technically trivial, politically improbable, but the real impossibility is getting a dev to actually take the time to do it. I would hope that any given administrator would have more sense than that but I'm positive someone would dispute the sense of administrators (to include fellow administrators who would dispute the sense of me even continuing this discussion).--v/r - TP 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, that's pretty much correct. Of course, even if the right was unbundled, autopatrolled can be granted or removed by admins, including to themselves, so I don't really know how that would work. I mean, technically, edit filter manager is also not part of the admin bundle (and incidentally, it's a much more potentially destructive right than autopatrolled), but since admins have the ability to grant or revoke it, they can grant it to themselves at will. disclaimer: I've done this myself for EFM. So, if autopatrolled were to be unbundled (which on its face is a reasonable idea; I'm not sure I want it for myself, for example), then the userright that's able to grant or revoke it should also be looked at. TL;DR: It's more complicated than it may appear at first. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't regranting oneself EFM (or hypothetical autopatrolled) after it had been removed by another sysop be considered wheel warring?Crazynas t 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so, not wheel-warring: wheel-warring is defined as the third mover (i.e. in a sequence of remove-restore-remove, only the last removal is technically wheel-warring). It would be considered using an admin tool while involved, though. I kinda changed points in the middle of my post there, so bear with me. What I'm really trying to get at is this: if we don't trust someone with autopatrolled themselves, we probably shouldn't trust them with the ability to grant or revoke autopatrolled, either. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Put it this way. You granted yourself EFM. User:'Hypothetical sysop' sees that you just instituted a (hypothetical) edit filter that disallows all edits containing the letter 'e'. That user stops the edit filter (of course) and removes your EFM right. Now if you restore your EFM that would be considered wheel warring right? I understand where you're coming from on the basis that autopatrolled is inherited, so removing it is only the first action, but restoring it yourself after it was removed makes you involved. (although by that standard shouldn't it be policy that sysops be required to go through the same process to get EFM that every other user does?) I think, with autopatrolled and EFM, that we can say, we trust this user with the bit but their articles need occasional review (or they really shouldn't be setting edit filters). That is a different standard then saying they don't have the clue to not grant themselves a right there is no consensus they have. Regards, Crazynas t 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Rather similar to an administrator unblocking him or herself I'd have thought, which seems to be frowned on. But them we're only talking about the paltry user rights afforded to regular editors, so who cares. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Crazynas:like I say, it would certainly be a violation of involved (just as unblocking yourself would be), so it's still not allowed; I'm just not sure it meets the stricter definition of wheel warring. The difference is kinda academic, though.
- @Malleus: I care... Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Put it this way. You granted yourself EFM. User:'Hypothetical sysop' sees that you just instituted a (hypothetical) edit filter that disallows all edits containing the letter 'e'. That user stops the edit filter (of course) and removes your EFM right. Now if you restore your EFM that would be considered wheel warring right? I understand where you're coming from on the basis that autopatrolled is inherited, so removing it is only the first action, but restoring it yourself after it was removed makes you involved. (although by that standard shouldn't it be policy that sysops be required to go through the same process to get EFM that every other user does?) I think, with autopatrolled and EFM, that we can say, we trust this user with the bit but their articles need occasional review (or they really shouldn't be setting edit filters). That is a different standard then saying they don't have the clue to not grant themselves a right there is no consensus they have. Regards, Crazynas t 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so, not wheel-warring: wheel-warring is defined as the third mover (i.e. in a sequence of remove-restore-remove, only the last removal is technically wheel-warring). It would be considered using an admin tool while involved, though. I kinda changed points in the middle of my post there, so bear with me. What I'm really trying to get at is this: if we don't trust someone with autopatrolled themselves, we probably shouldn't trust them with the ability to grant or revoke autopatrolled, either. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't regranting oneself EFM (or hypothetical autopatrolled) after it had been removed by another sysop be considered wheel warring?Crazynas t 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any single standard privilege associated with adminship is ever taken away. Either you're an admin or you're not. Thus, in some instances, different standards will apply to admins than to non-admins, depending on the privilege. (There is also a distinction between the permissions that automatically come with adminship but can also be accorded to non-admins and those tools that belong only to admins.) That said, when there is written guidance on when a right should be removed, there's still usually discretion on when it should be removed. When there's no written guidance, there's probably - and unfortunately IMO - even more discretion. So, TP's view on removal of autopatrolled status is TP's view. Whether there would be a consensus in support of it, I don't know (I have no opinion at this point), but if an admin removed the right from a user, then the user could always ask for a review of that removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and I did preempt my opinion with "But I'd say...."--v/r - TP 15:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I knew you weren't expressing your view as gospel. I just picked on you because you were bold enough to respond. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- But the point remains, you're suggesting a harsher treatment for non-admins than for admins. I rest my case. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, Malleus. I'm not a dev and the question wasn't about administrators.--v/r - TP 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- The question was about removing autopatrolled status, which it's now quite evident can only be done to non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Although standards overall are a bit murky, that's probably true for all permissions that are not admin-only tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Bugzilla would be where you can go to fix that.--v/r - TP 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a software fix that's required, it's a fix to WP's ossified culture, and that's never going to happen. MalleusFatuorum 15:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well now you're getting into words too big for my puny administrator mind so I'm going to go find something else to do than argue here. Maybe I can find a constructive FA writer to block to make me feel better.--v/r - TP 16:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ossified culture is when a lab culture becomes contaminated with a fossilized Wikipedia bug. This generally happens cross-space, i.e., a bug from admin space is redirected to a bug in non-admin-space. The usual remedy is to quarantine the lab culture until a proper tool (a special tool that is found only in alternate realities) is found to nuke it. (Nuking is different from blocking and banning - see WP:NUKE, which I didn't know even existed until I typed it just now and it was blue - I was expecting it to be red.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well now you're getting into words too big for my puny administrator mind so I'm going to go find something else to do than argue here. Maybe I can find a constructive FA writer to block to make me feel better.--v/r - TP 16:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think the 'bug' is one line change, that the devs most certainly won't do, unless there is consensus for it here first. Crazynast 16:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a software fix that's required, it's a fix to WP's ossified culture, and that's never going to happen. MalleusFatuorum 15:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Bugzilla would be where you can go to fix that.--v/r - TP 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Although standards overall are a bit murky, that's probably true for all permissions that are not admin-only tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- The question was about removing autopatrolled status, which it's now quite evident can only be done to non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Objection, argumentative. Objection sustained. The jury is instructed to disregard. (The jury subsequently reached a verdict in favor of ... well, it's not clear whom it was in favor of ... what are we talking about again?) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can think of more than one administrator who might still be an administrator had they not ever had the autopatrolled user right, and no reason to suppose that every vandal fighter ought to be granted that right automatically at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think Malleus has a very good point here. There is really no reason Admins should always have "autopatrolled" (in fact, I didn't realize that they did). I can see why rollback would be default for admins (one would hope all admins are capable of telling vandalism from non-vandalism), but this seems like a different situation. Since article creation isn't a prerequisite for adminship, and some admins have little experience with it, there's really no reason to assume that all admins are necessarily competent at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, we have all of the rights that can be granted non-admins. Malleus is singling out one right in particular. The fact that a particular admin may not be "competent" to take advantage of that right doesn't mean that they shouldn't have it. The idea is that an admin is trusted to act competently or not act. I have no experience with the right. I don't use it. If I wanted to use it, I'd have to figure out how it should be used responsibly. That's my burden. Not conferring the right on an admin is a structural change and I'm not even sure how such a change would be agreed upon or what the forum would be to discuss it and implement it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- From memory, I think that autopatrolled is only handed out to editors who've created 70 or 80 articles, which would surely rule out the majority of administrators. Why the difference? Why do administrators need autopatrolled? Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Bbb23 I see what you're saying, and off the top of my head I don't know of any admins who are abusing the right. (I never patrol newpages though.) But I think the structural change would be a good idea, and it might be worthwhile to pursue that option. I guess this isn't the right forum though, maybe Wikipedia_talk:Administrators would be better? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I could give you the names of a few who've abused it, and I'm sure if you cast your mind back a few of those names will occur to you as well. In general this notion that admins are automatically given every right that can be granted to non-admins is patently ridiculous, but it's institutionally entrenched, and no amount of discussion anywhere is going to change that world view. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:Village pump (proposals) would probably be the best place to propose it. As far as I can tell, there's no technical reason autopatrolled couldn't be separate from the standard admin flags like the edit filter manager flag is. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I'm getting confused. I didn't realize there were some rights that can be granted non-admins but that admins don't automatically get. Is there a list somewhere, not of admin-only tools, but of those non-admin rights that an admin automatically gets? There may be one, but I don't know where it is. When I look at my rights, all it says is "administrator", which is not very illuminating. Also, it seems weird that I can grant someone else edit filter manager rights but I don't have it myself. And, as long as I'm on a roll here, why do I automatically get autopatrolled permission but not edit filter manager permission? Was there some decision made about who gets what and why? Makes me dizzy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:User access levels#Table has some of that info. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- And with such pretty colors, too. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:User access levels#Table has some of that info. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I'm getting confused. I didn't realize there were some rights that can be granted non-admins but that admins don't automatically get. Is there a list somewhere, not of admin-only tools, but of those non-admin rights that an admin automatically gets? There may be one, but I don't know where it is. When I look at my rights, all it says is "administrator", which is not very illuminating. Also, it seems weird that I can grant someone else edit filter manager rights but I don't have it myself. And, as long as I'm on a roll here, why do I automatically get autopatrolled permission but not edit filter manager permission? Was there some decision made about who gets what and why? Makes me dizzy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:Village pump (proposals) would probably be the best place to propose it. As far as I can tell, there's no technical reason autopatrolled couldn't be separate from the standard admin flags like the edit filter manager flag is. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I could give you the names of a few who've abused it, and I'm sure if you cast your mind back a few of those names will occur to you as well. In general this notion that admins are automatically given every right that can be granted to non-admins is patently ridiculous, but it's institutionally entrenched, and no amount of discussion anywhere is going to change that world view. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, we have all of the rights that can be granted non-admins. Malleus is singling out one right in particular. The fact that a particular admin may not be "competent" to take advantage of that right doesn't mean that they shouldn't have it. The idea is that an admin is trusted to act competently or not act. I have no experience with the right. I don't use it. If I wanted to use it, I'd have to figure out how it should be used responsibly. That's my burden. Not conferring the right on an admin is a structural change and I'm not even sure how such a change would be agreed upon or what the forum would be to discuss it and implement it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think Malleus has a very good point here. There is really no reason Admins should always have "autopatrolled" (in fact, I didn't realize that they did). I can see why rollback would be default for admins (one would hope all admins are capable of telling vandalism from non-vandalism), but this seems like a different situation. Since article creation isn't a prerequisite for adminship, and some admins have little experience with it, there's really no reason to assume that all admins are necessarily competent at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can think of more than one administrator who might still be an administrator had they not ever had the autopatrolled user right, and no reason to suppose that every vandal fighter ought to be granted that right automatically at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, Malleus. I'm not a dev and the question wasn't about administrators.--v/r - TP 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and I did preempt my opinion with "But I'd say...."--v/r - TP 15:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure it would be technically trivial to unbundle all the user rights, but politically unacceptable. The point is though that in this specific instance a non-admin would be treated more harshly than an admin, as I doubt anyone believes that an administrator would be defrocked for a single instance of copyright violation, or poor sourcing of a BLP. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is technically trivial to debundle the right. Whether that would gain consensus on the other hand... Crazynas t 14:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- So that's a "No" then. Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's called Arbcom.--v/r - TP 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is it possible to remove the autopatrolled status of an administrator? Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be proposing nothing, anywhere, as the idea of removing any admin rights would go nowhere. Added to which, removing a right that admins could easily grant themselves should they choose could only be a Pyrrhic victory at best. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a set criteria for users having autopatrolled status. According to Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, new page patrol is mainly used by users browsing Special:Newpages so new pages can be checked to make sure they don't fall into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. One would hope that admins aren't going to create pages that would be speedily deleted for the typical reasons, like copyright violations, non-notable bands or personalities, kids writing articles about themselves (like Ethan Phenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), pure vandalism, or just general crap. Now, if we're appointing admins who don't know how to write their first articles, that could be a problem. Given that passing an RFA seems to be as difficult as obtaining sainthood, though, I don't see that happening. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- But they do Elkman, and they have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Pyrrhic or not, I think this is an idea worth acting on, so I've proposed it at VPP. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is backlogged
Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? RNealK (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Baring my inadequacies - who here knows about histmerging?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, I need some help here. I'm currently ambassadoring a course with the Wikipedia Education Program, and a slight problem has arisen which I'm not confident enough to solve on my own.
Basically, a number of students have copied material from their user sandboxes into mainspace Wikipedia articles in the last 24 hours - which wouldn't be a problem, except that in most cases the sandboxes had multiple, significant edits from more than one user. To retain attribution, it seems to me that the sandboxes' edit histories need to be merged into the article histories (this would also make the job of the course instructor substantially easier when it comes to marking).
Frankly, histmerging gives me the heebie-jeebies: despite many, many rereadings of the page I'm still not convinced I get how it works. If I take a crack at it myself, I'll probably cock up spectacularly, lose everyone's work, accidentally desysop myself, delete the Main Page and block Jimbo in the process. If you have a decent understanding of how the history merging process operates, I'd really appreciate it if you could drop me a line on my talkpage so that we can look at what needs to be done. Many thanks, Yunshui 雲水 08:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Determine which versions of which pages belong in the history of the target. Note that histmerge isn't always an option - if a page is created by concatenating separate pages, then there'e no way to histmerge. It can only work if there is a clear sequence of pages, when someone copy-and-paste-ed each one to the next.
- Go to each page in turn, delete the page (CSD G6), and restore the revisions which need to be histmerged into the final target. (Skip for pages where all revisions are needed).
- One at a time, move the pages to the target. As an admin, you can have the move target deleted automatically when moving a page. If the source page has been anything but a redirect since the copy-and-paste move, you may want to not leave a redirect (also something admins can do).
- Delete the final version of the target page.
- Restore the relevant revisions for the history of the current page.
- If any revisions deleted in step 2 are possibly still relevent, restore them.
- I hope this answers your questions here. See what I just did with Wealth condensation and Wealth concentration. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thnaks to Od Mishehu and Someguy1221, I reckon I get it. That was so much more comprehensible than the content of WP:HISTMERGE... Thanks to you both; feel free to close this thread. Yunshui 雲水 10:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
TAFI on Main page
Bumping thread for 10 days. Ushau97 talk 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Main Page deployment to finalize adding Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. This is just an announcement for all admins so that nobody is left out of the discussion. --Ushau97 talk 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)