Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 25 March 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Brews ohare's topic ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: Moved from WP:ANI. –MuZemike 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Appealing user

– Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Tznkai's extension of Speed of Light sanctions as stated below:

• Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Above ban reviewed and continued, available for another review four weeks after 10 December 2009. Discussion archived atMisplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Brews_ohare_restriction_review.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed the sanction (consensus not required, nor obtained)

Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diffof that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. As I am blocked, no notification can be given. It appears that Tznkai is presently inactive, and returned to WP only after a direct request by ArbCom for commentary.

Individual statements

Statement by Brews_ohare

Tznkai indicated here the intention that these requirements were not intended to be long-term, and recommended that I undertake this appeal. The intention of these restrictions was to cut short debate over procedural issues. I had undertaken to engage on Talk pages about WP policies, and some editors viewed that engagement as somehow attempting to escape the original ArbCom sanctions about "physics-related Talk page discussions". I did not have such an intention, and I certainly pledge to avoid any policy discussion that could be seen as somehow pleading a case for lifting the SoL restrictions and doing an end-run around an appeal.

I wish to point out that in the recent action against Trusilver I have expressed my views in his support. I do not, however, consider that to be an obstructive or disruptive action, but to be a normal part of such proceedings. I was an invited party in this action.

Presently I am blocked by Ucucha as violating Tznkai's extended sanctions as a result of suggesting a change in wording of a resolution. He also has suggested these sanctions should be reviewed. I would assume that repeal of these sanctions also would result in lifting this block.

Statement by DESiegel

I have no view as yet on the merits of extending or lifting these restrictions. However should they be extended, since they include a prohibition on editing the Misplaced Pages namespace, and in line with the currently proposed Misplaced Pages:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations, I suggest an exception for edits to AFD pages of articles where Brews_ohare is a creator or major contributor. Reasons in principle for such an exception can be found at the linked proposal page and its talk page. DES 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

With the proviso that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, this does not seem problematic. However, any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering and so on will undoubtedly cause this to be reviewed again. I don't think Brews has understood and accepted the problem identified at arbitration, which was largely, to my view, about arguing the point long after it became obvious that he was in a tiny minority - WP:STICK applies here. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis. You're refighting the arbitration case. Again. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis again: you are not helping to fix the present problems, it's pretty clear to me and several others, including sitting arbitrators, that you are part of the problem not least because he seems to understand things a lot better than you do. With every word the "Brews crew" write you reduce Brews' credibility and chances of success. With friends like you he has no need of enemies right now. Sad but true. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Brews_ohare

I wrote some big replies to Guy which I have just removed. I originally though that Guy was serious, but that was not the case. I have inadvertantly added to noise here by replying to Guy's trolling, sorry for that. See the soapbox thread below about Brews started by Guy below for what I mean. The following subsection are more relevant responses. But perhaps it is more important to consider what Brews has recently done for Misplaced Pages:

(latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

05:42, 5 March 2010 (hist | diff) Attitude (geometry) ‎(add image) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (hist | diff) Strike and dip ‎(add image) (top) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (hist | diff) Lehmann discontinuity ‎(add image) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: adjust image size) 06:06, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: clear up origin of figure) 06:04, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(different source) 06:02, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(fix author's name) 05:57, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: rephrase) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add image; comment) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: more specific section title) 22:57, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(link in caption) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: link) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(extra period) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 22:52, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add to caption) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: rearrange links) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(re-order Earth sections) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: link) 22:42, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→Seismic waves: add to caption) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(reorganize sections of Earth) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) P-wave ‎(→P-wave shadow zone: add connection to seismic waves) 22:11, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Lehmann discontinuity ‎(link) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(format text) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(add depth to caption) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(add url) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add figure for seismic wave velocities; source) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→Characteristics: extra 's') 18:58, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(link) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(note on Venus) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(more details; another source) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(correct terminology) 17:52, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(clarification on nomenclature) 17:49, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(Second LVZ & source) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) N LVZ ‎(Create redirect for LVZ) (top) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Mantle (geology) ‎(→Structure) 17:28, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle (geology) ‎(→Structure: link) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(delete repeated "the") 17:24, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(clarification) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(word change) 17:19, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→See also: link) 17:15, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(typo) 17:14, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(add source; alternative models) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Hawaii hotspot ‎(→Hawaii hotspot characteristics: link to lvz) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Valles Caldera ‎(→Geology and science: link to LVZ) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) m Low-velocity zone ‎(→See also: typos) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (hist | diff) Low-velocity zone ‎(→References: See also section) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle plume ‎(template: spell out some details in present template on citations)

17:09, 20 February 2010 (hist | diff) Mantle plume ‎(→Role of the core: link)

Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting all the crap he's done because he can't abide by the terms of his ban, or refuses to back back down. Out of Brews 500 most recent contributions, THREE (, , ) were not related to his fighting his bans. A productive editor does not have a signal to noise ratio of 0.6%. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But most of that noise happens precisely because Brews trips over some procedural obstacle imposed after the original ArbCom case leading to a huge volume of discussions, like this very discussion here. My opinion is that in most cases nothing substantial happened apart from the fact that he crossed a procedural line drawn in the sand. You can then have endless arguments about that, which is precisely what is happening right here.

A simple solution would be to relax the namespace ban allowing Brews to contribute to essays but not on Admin and Arbitrator's noticeboards unless invited to do so. Then no one active on such boards has to cross Brews' path. If Brews agrees with this, then the problem is solved, I would think. A statement by an editor in which he promises not to do certain things is worth much more than trying to impose some sweeping rule.

If anyone is familiar with User:GoRight here, then I can assure them that solving the Brews' problem so that he can contribute constructively to articles is far easier than getting GoRight to do the same. E.g. so far no one has posted on Brews talk page to ask him what consessions he is willing to make to move forward. In case of GoRight there was a flood of Admins pleading with him to find a solution to address his endless Wikilawyering on Global Warming pages. I haven't heard any Admin complaining about the effort being invested there being a problem, though.Count Iblis (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If Brews wants to edit articles productively, then all he has to do is edit articles productively (physics ones excluded). However that is not what Brews is interested in, Brews is interested in fighting his ban and banging his drums at every possible occasion and framing himself as a modern martyr. Letting him edit the Misplaced Pages namespace means letting him soapbox even more than he already does.

This situation is akin to someone getting himself thrown out of a bar for disruption and told to not come back for a month, then going back there the next day arguing with the bouncer that he was unfairly thrown out. So he get thrown out again, and told to not show up for two months. The next week he sneaks in the bathroom window, and the bouncer catches him buying cigarettes next to the bathroom and throws him out. He protests, saying he's only banned from the dance floor, and that he should be allowed to buy cigarettes because it is legal to buy cigarettes. And so on and so forth.

If Brews wants to be allowed back in the bar, then all he has to do is stop throwing a hissy fit at the bouncer every day, while trying to find ways to sneak past the bouncer when the bouncer says he can't come in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews is also interested in contributing to articles, otherwise he would not have edited all those geology articles and made figures for them. Brews' main expertise is, however, physics. So, it seems to me that we could end this drama by simply talking to Brews and getting him to agree to some compromize everyone can live with till the end of this year when the topic ban will be completely lifted.

From your more sceptical perspective, you could think of this as "calling Brews' bluff". Why not do that and see what happens? Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Brews ran out of it a long time ago. I did, and I still do, support Brews productive editing efforts. I supported him when he wanted to edit mathematical physics articles even though someone wanted him to be blocked for it, I support him when he wants to edit geology articles even though one could certainly interpret the ban as to mean he's not allowed to edit these topics either. What is NOT productive however, is him (along with Tombe, Likebox, Hell in a Bucket, etc...) trying to "fix" Misplaced Pages because their editing style and views conflict with a low-drama environment (domination of talk page, incessant fighting of restrictions, trying to amend policies, comparisons to Stalin, Hitler, and other famous despots, comparisons to literary figures such as Inspector Javert, rants against Arbcom, Admins, and wikipedia editors in general, appeals to Jimbo, personal attacks, accusations of censorship, and so on and so forth). Totaled together, "Brews' side" has well over 50 blocks for disrupting, arbcom violations, edit warring, personal attacks and the like. So you'll pardon me if I and others have a hard time seeing this as the actions of reasonable people concerned with Misplaced Pages, rather than the actions of fanatics who sees Misplaced Pages as a battleground and who are trying to avenge their fallen comrade and canonize him as a saint.

You, and Brews, and Likebox, and Tombe, and Hell in a Bucket, and ... have been told several times now that the quickest way to get these bans lifted would be for you to back off, stop fighting the ban every two weeks, and cease being a bunch of drama queens. You chose to not back off, keep fighting, and create a bunch of drama. And so you've hurt your cause much more than anyone else ever could, and now the bans are probably there to stay for the rest of the original year. And you know what? If you keep fighting them, it's very possible that they'll get extended.

The ball is in your court. Play nice for six months, or keep ripping the scab off the wound. The former leads to Brews being able to edit physics articles and Misplaced Pages space, the latter to other ARBCOM cases, and very possibly blocks, including indef-blocks, and topic bans for people who didn't previously had any. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So far there has been only one initiative by Likebox to appeal the topic ban. So, this idea of a fight every two weeks to lift Brews' bans is nonsense. All the discussions at Admin or Arbitration level are initiated by Brews' opponents. In these discussions we also make some proposals. Sometimes David uses language that is inappropriate. But you cannot just point at that and then say that we all have to shut up and that only you can give your comments'.

So, no I won't shut up making statements along the lines of: "let's get Brews to agree to a voluntary topic ban on AN, AN/I and Arbcom pages and let him edit articles from some approved list of topics, physics related or not, that list being periodically reviewed". Such statements do not contain references to Hitler or Stalin. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IP writes

Brews really should be editing under guidance from a mentor

That was proposed by me some time ago, but rejected out of hand, and not at all because I proposed unacceptable mentors. I proposed that Headbomb or Finell could be his mentors. Then the IP goes on to write that I should not be involved with Brews, which is rather strange. I'm WP:AGF here and will assume the IP has read about the original ArbCom case form a biased source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr IP, you are clearly not familiar with my contributions on this issue and you conveniently ignore what I wrote above. This text here is what some people claim applies to Brews. But the editor in question to whom the text does apply is not constantly persued in the way Brews is. His work on Wiki articles is virtually nonexistent. Nevertheless if you look on this very page at the thread about Abd, you see some not so constructive postings by this editor, that do not trigger much outrage at all. This editor is also under a topic ban, but for a much shorter time and much more targeted toward the problem area.

The official position that engineering Prof. Brews has to be restricted from all physics articles because Misplaced Pages has such enormously high standards and Brews is not 100% perfect is thus simply untenable. What is really going on here is that there is an ownership issue problem with the dispute resolution processes. Some Admins are more interested in being involved with one type of dispute than in another disputes.

What then happens is that if the unpopular dispute comes up, that is seen to be disruptive. If you defend the editor in question here, you let the discussion go on for longer and then very soon you'll be seen to be part of the problem too. Some Admins want to control what disputes get discussed and you're then disruptive for not letting them do that.

The opposite happens when the popular dispute comes up. E.g. when Ottava Rima started a thread on AN/I accusing an Admin he run into of using drugs, that Admin was told to get a thicker skin (Jehochman wrote that, if I remember correctly). In these cases, there is almost unlimted patience to discuss things. Count Iblis (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Headbomb

This is all speculation. Why not discuss with Brews and try to get him to agree to some compromizes like e.g. that he will not start AN/I threads himself, that he will not comment on cases where he is not involved as an editor etc. etc. Then Brews can contribute to his and my essay in peace without causing trouble. Almost all of the perceived problems with Brews are cases where someone else referred him to AE because of an infraction but that would not be a problem at all had Brews not been under a restriction. Then Brews has to present a case and you get lots of discussions at ArbCom or Admin level about basically nothing. In this case it is Brews posting on namespace territory. But had Brews not been under a namespace restriction, there would not have been any problem at all, as what he wrote was not offensive or otherwise problematic.

So, I don't foresee any trouble if the ban is lifted. But if others are concerned, there are still ways to address those concerns (e.g. by getting Brews to agree to voluntary restrictions as I explained above). Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Tombe

One of the main problems with Tznkai's additional sanctions is the fact that Tznkai is no longer active on wikipedia, and that one of his last comments on the matter suggested that the sanctions had run their course. The exact words are here.. I know that Tznkai's words fall short of actually formally revoking the sanctions, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that no event has occurred that would have been likely to have altered Tznkai's intentions. And indeed when Tznkai made an appearance at the recent appeal to have Brews's sanctions lifted, he spoke very highly about Brews and suggested that everybody should shake hands with each other. David Tombe (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Yet again we find ourselves in the same situation we always are. Coming to contest a bullshit block that shouldn't have happened. When will arbcom realize that the process is flawed. How long until you make changes? This block is in answer to percieved usurpation of the powers directly resulting from the last arb case. If you want David, Count, Brews or myself to go away do something that makes sense and look in the mirror regarding your own behaviors and see the problems melt away. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Let's ask ourselves the question, "What edits would Brews make assuming the namespace ban lifted?" Given the long history of disruption, failing to get the point, and trying to change policies to accommodate his behavior rather than change his behavior to accommodate policies, I think is is safe to say that Brews' would use his newfound freedom to further soapbox against ARBCOM, ANI, behavioral policies, his topic ban, proposed new levels of bureaucracy to rectify the "great wrongs" that's been caused to him. Just look at his recent bans log. Blocked on Feb 28 for getting involved in a physics dispute and violating the namespace ban. This created a whole lot of ruckus with the Trusilver case. Then, knowing full well that he ban still applied, he went on vote in the de-adminship process (March 5), ranting against "arrogant admins". Then after that blocked was lifted, he again (March 15) went to edit the admin noticeboard, again as part as his campaign to right the great wrongs caused to him.

Brews et al. have been advised several times that the best way to get the ban lifted would be to drop the stick and focus on him being productive rather rather than thread all over Misplaced Pages screaming how much ARBCOM idolizes Stalin, that Hitler dreamed of having an army of Misplaced Pages-admins to enforce his policies, and that I'm some banana republic dictator hellbent on crushing dissent. Yet, they steadfastly refuse to do so, and keep fighting tooth and nail with a liberal amount of accusations of Stalinism, Tyranny, Nazism, invoking French literature, legal terms, philosophical essays on the nature of civilization, and the list goes on. Just ask JzG who first met them at Jimbo's talk page.

And this is what is happening with the current restrictions. If anything, we should consider increasing them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved 66.127.52.47

This may not yet be the time to formally lift the ban, but I think the enforcement admins have been too hair-triggered lately, especially about article space. They do have discretion and Brews is making decent efforts to edit within his restrictions. If Brews is making reasonable contributions the admins might informally decide to back off a little bit. When those contributions appear intended to test boundaries (which some of them do) and the admins feel they have to respond, they could choose more proportionate responses, e.g. talkpage messages or short (6 hour) blocks, instead of the longer blocks that don't appear to have much preventive value, yet cause enough drama to be viewable as POINTy. OTOH, I have to agree with John Blackburne that Brews's activity at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bivector/Archive_1 was not pretty (I didn't examine the article edits directly, but I don't have any reason to think that the talkpage discussions are inaccurate). The "pseudoscience" arb finding about academically demanding subjects seems relevant there. -- Brews should tone it down. Brews really should be editing under guidance from a mentor who would be able to interpret the restriction and have some authority to relax it, and also to act on behavioral issues even when they aren't under the formal restriction. Has that been explored yet? Also, he should dissociate himself from Count Iblis, David Tombe, and that crowd. They are not good examples for him to follow. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Trusilver: There is a tendency in WP dispute resolution to describe any drama-prone personality as an "excellent contributor" if they've also done some edits that are not actually block-worthy. Brews has made some nice diagrams and some other useful contributions, but I prefer to reserve a term like "excellent" for those who actually, you know, excel. I think Brews is potentially reformable into a good editor but that's about as far as I'd go. He causes too much hassle (including in non-physics parts of article space, see talk:bivector/Archive 1) to be considered better than marginal right now. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Count Iblis: I don't doubt Count Iblis's good faith but I'm quite familiar with his contributions to this saga and I feel that his judgement (and that of several of his compatriots) is so poor that Brews is better off staying away from them. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Likebox

Unban brews.Likebox (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Martinp

This whole situation appears to have sufficiently exhausted the community's patience that few uninvolved people are commenting here. (There do appear to be plenty of comments from those involved in the situation overall, some of which are not helping). The admin who placed the discretionary sanction is not around to shed further light on his(?) intent or provide perspective, and based on the dearth of discussion no one else is really following with an unbiased eye except for rather mechanical (not a criticism) AE blocks. So clearly the status quo is not working. The diffs brought up by Headbomb are in and of themselves not past the realm of normal wiki discourse and disenfranchising contributors from appropriately voicing their opinions in meta-discussions is not something we should do lightly.

As someone uninvolved, let me propose for discussion the following, based largely on the 1st para of Brews' statement and JzG's comment:

Brews' restrictions on discussions on physics-related topics are maintained at the present time(I know some people don't like that, but that appears contentious and I want something we can all work with). However, Brews' blanket restriction from commenting in the Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces is rescinded, with the strong recommendation that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, without any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering, or "retrying the case".

Given that the current restriction has degenerated into much drama, if Brews proves unable to participate in Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces productively (or self-police himself to avoid participating if he cannot), the only reasonable solution will be a community ban. On the other hand, if Brews does participate at an appropriate level and productively, this may lay the groundwork for further relaxation later.

As an infrequent contributor and nonadmin, I cannot offer to follow through on any monitoring, so by posting this I am primarily hoping to restart stalled discussion towards a win-win solution. Martinp (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Trusilver

I don't think it can be disputed that Brews Ohare is an excellent contributor to the project. His level and quality of contributions make me much more inclined to overlook some of his issues in the past. The problem I have with the sanctions against him is that they have gone far beyond the scope and the intent that they were originally intended. I see no reason that they should remain, but a reasonable compromise would be for someone uninvolved to take up a coaching position and offer feedback to Brews on his projectspace edits.

Every opportunity should be made to resolve this without the need for sanctions. Unfortunately, the entire dispute around Brews' topic ban and this subsequent projectspace ban has become so convoluted and dysfunctional, that everyone needs to take a few steps back and just breathe. Trusilver 21:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Brews_ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The preceding is cross-posted by yours truly from . Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I would suggest that we simply extend the Brews_ohare topic ban to a full Misplaced Pages space topic ban. I've seen enough from this user in the recent weeks to fully support this. I therefore propose the following restriction.

"Brews ohare is placed on an indefinite topic ban by the Misplaced Pages community. He is banned from editing any page in the Misplaced Pages namespace along with any page in the Misplaced Pages talk namespace. Further, he is banned from discussing on any page anything related to physics, broadly construed. Should he break these restrictions, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to one month for repeat violations."

Discussion

• There, that should be relatively unambiguous and stop many of the problems we've seen. Support. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as utter bullshit a non reasonable extension. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we please have a list of diffs that shows exactly what is so disruptive about Brews' edits in recent weeks? To place things in the right context, what do we make of Guy's thread below about Brews that attacks me and Tarc? Is that ok. because Guy has a licence to engage in soapboxing on Admin noticeboards? Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per RyanPostlethwaite. Although I doubt this will make any difference, considering this is simply restating the existing bans, which Brews et al. are fully aware are still active, and which Brews keeps violating every chance he gets, while being encouraged by the et al to do so. IMO, an indef-block is in order. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose continuing or strengthening the ban on Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages namespace participation at this time, no opinion on the Physics part. Examining Brews' recent contributions at WP: and WP talk: does not seem to uncover anything which would be clearly disruptive (one can hardly call commenting on an RFaR in which you are a named party disruptive...) (I went as far back as Feb 17). In view of the mess around this situation, I would err on opening the door to see what happens rather than continuing something which has become rather Kafkaesque, even with the best of intentions. See my suggestion going the other way above. Martinp (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hell in a Bucket. In addition, rebound sanctions for all those proposing pointless sanctions, following the ancient wisdom of I'm rubber, you're glue.Likebox (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

At risk of all the parties coming forward and continuing this (please don't. Count Iblis, Likebox, Guy, Headbomb, etcetera.. you've all had your say, repeatedly above) I detect that there is no consensus for widening the restrictions, but neither is there consensus for removing the sanctions.

I would like to offer a suggestion for moving forward. If Brews ohare shows he can comply with the existing sanction (physics and related Wikpedia/Wikipedia Talk areas) for a set period of time (I would suggest 60/90 days), and if there are no further issues, then at least the restriction on Misplaced Pages/Wiki Talk areas can be dropped, and I would be willing to look favorably at an Arbitration amendement request to amend the remaining sanctions/restrictions at that time.

Everyone's tired of seeing the same people fight in the same way. Let's get some normalization here and then look at moving forward. Ok? SirFozzie (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that relaxing the wikipedia space restriction now, followed by a review of the physics restriction after a suitable period (60/90 days) would be a better option. As far as I can work out, the problem with Brews' edits in the wikipedia namespace are currently related to breaching the restriction. If that is lifted the actual comments seem rather anodyne. This would also give Brews a good opportunity to demonsrate whether or not the issues leading to the arbitration finding have been addressed. Spartaz 08:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would rather see improvement in Brews's editing pattern before I am comfortable in seeing the restrictions dropped. To have to have gone through this three separate times in less then a month (blocks on 2/22, 3/5 block, and 3/15) does not show willingness to go forward in such a manner. Let's see improvement in his current editing pattern, and a willingness to back away from pushing boundaries and then move forward. But to move forward without such improvement is not a good idea. SirFozzie (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, since this is the status quo anyway. Follow the terms of the ban, don't kick in the hornest's nest every two weeks, and then a review is made, lessening the bans if appropriate. Three months would be the minimum IMO, considering the incessant limit testing we've dealt with so far. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose continuing sanctions as is. I would support Spartaz option. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Come on guys, this is exactly what I was talking about above in the same people in the same way statement! Let some new people talk.. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support This cycle needs to stop. Keep the ban in place for 3 months, then do a review if there have been no problems. If he doesn't comply with the letter and the spirit, a ban for three months then 3 months more under the current restrictions with a review following. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (and small comments by me, Headbomb, Likebox et. al. should be ok here, detailed arguments go elsewhere, otherwise this would be a censored poll). As Misplaced Pages is primarily about writing articles and not about talking on talk pages, surely the physics topic ban should be reviewed first? Count Iblis (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support in the spirit of moving forward with clarity. However, I would recommend a shorter continuation of the status quo, for instance 2 weeks or maximum 30 days (these were the timelines originally imposed by Tznkai), prior to revisiting. The goal of the restriction should be preventative, not punitive...the goal is to lessen some of the noise and prevent disruption, not disenfranchise a contributor for extended periods of time. And Brews, noting that your block expires tomorrow, please comment briefly, ideally on your own talk page, and don't wade back in with long screeds and edits pushing the boundaries. Regardless of how Kafkaesque this has become, the goal is to demonstrate that you can participate in way that doesn't make most other community members hit the scroll down arrow with their eyes glazing over, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Vomit in disgust at the amount of time and energy expended dealing Brews and Tombe over the last 2+years. Support any process/restriction/ban/deal/whatever that will reduce the drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox puts it very well. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have anything to do with this annoying mess but have unavoidably stumbled across it on a couple of occasions. To my mind an extraordinary amount of time and effort has been wasted on what is ultimately a trivial matter ("the question of Brews ohare," or something) which is not really acceptable. SirFozzie's suggestion is good and does not require any official consensus per say as it amounts to little more than saying, "no, we're not changing anything right now, come back in three months if you've held to the restrictions in the interim and we'll see" (I support 90 days rather than 60, but really who cares so long as this goes away for awhile). I would recommend that some uninvolved admin step in very soon and say that the appeal is not successful at this time, close the thread, and advise Brews to take note of the suggestion by SirFozzie which has been endorsed by others (again it doesn't need consensus, it's just a suggestion and the status quo is maintained). Clearly nothing else is likely to come out of this discussion and it really deserves to be put to bed. Finally I would echo a point made by some others, namely that some of Brews' ardent defenders have actually been hurting rather than helping that editor's case with their (at times strident and repetitive) commentary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I too have kept coming across this mess and I fully agree with Bigtimepeace. I do not like turning away expert editors, but experts have to learn how wikipedia works. It is clear to me that Brews has not done so. If he can not learn that, he will be happier elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would suggest 60/90 seconds. This is going to stop the drama right away. --Dc987 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Having watched on the fringes throughout the whole SoL Arbcom and related materials, Brews refuses to get the point and should be given a short leash. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Based on this section and the one below, where Brews says "I am not engaging in this matter further," I think we can archive this entire thread. There seems to be support for SirFozzie's suggestion: i.e. Brews complies with the existing restrictions for 2-3 months at which point a lifting of said restrictions could again be considered. I am uninvolved but have now commented here and below, so I'm hoping another uninvolved admin can fill out the result section above and archive the thread. There's no need to spend any more time on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: When a user is up for banning, all their opponents come up to speak, because they all want to get the ban. There is no selfish reason which would ever motivate someone to speak against a ban, so when a banned user has supporters, that's a minor miracle. Brews ohare did nothing wrong. The correct thing to do is lift his sanctions completely. If you do this, all the noise will go away.Likebox (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't support for a removal of restrictions at this time (I'd say there's a good chance there will be later) and Brews seems willing to let this go for now so I suggest you do so as well. Your preceding comment is also wrong on a couple of points. One, while I can only speak with certainty regarding myself, I think most people who have commented here have had nothing to do with Brews and are certainly not his "opponents" (I do not edit on any science articles and as far as I know have had absolutely no previous interaction with Brews ohare). Two, folks speaking against a "ban" (which is not really what we are talking about) might be doing so simply because they like the person in question and/or have worked well with him or her. That's fine, but to suggest that, in any situation, editors who argue for some sort of restriction are partisans while those who argue against are objective observers is frankly ridiculous. Again, you really need to drop this matter, let it rest, and allow us to revisit it in a couple of months. I assure you I'm doing Brews much more good by advising him to let it go for awhile then you are by pleading his case over and over again until the cows have become too bored to even try to come home. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my summary. I wouldn't go so far as to talk about partisans here. I would say that I find the impatience of administrators to bother with this appeal dominates their interest in making a good decision. Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Once a ban is in place, there are always voices to keep the status quo, and there are always people who interpret activity against someone as somehow having been instigated by the banned party. These people are not partisans, they are good-faith editors. But many people only want to side with the majority, and siding with a banned user looks like it is siding against a majority.

In any organization, it is very easy for people with ideas to rub somebody the wrong way, and dislike is a strong motivation. For an editor to have a supporter is rarer--- support doesn't do anyone any good. What do I gain from this nonsense?

I didn't like Brews ohare's edits on speed of light (neither did Count Iblis), and I argued with him on other pages, where I thought his edits were similarly wrongheaded. It would have been very easy to say "Ok, good, he's gone." But I know that even though I disagreed with his ideas, he actually had reasonable ideas, and he debated them honestly and tenaciously, and this is an asset to any organization. To ban such a person because you disagree with their position is not just counterproductive, it is lunacy.

Everything I said above applies just as well to David Tombe and Child of Midnight, who also were opinionated people. Abrasive opinionated assholes are the only good content contributors. Only these people have something nontrivial to say. This is why it is important not to ban someone because they are disliked, but only when they break clear-cut rules. Brews ohare never broke any rules at all.Likebox (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On “Moving Forward”

If Tznkai's restrictions are overturned, will my behavior change? Will I stop making suggestions to authors to reconcile, to write more clearly? Will I stop asking ArbCom to phrase their resolutions in a more friendly fashion?

Are these actions really awful, damaging attacks on WP?

I don't think so. But they are precisely the actions that have led to the blocks imposed upon me. Apparently they are violations of Tznkai's requirement that I avoid all "namespaces", whatever that means. That is why I have requested lifting these sanctions.

Yet people really stand there in the open and say my suggestions are to "vomit in disgust" over, and that resisting crazy blocks brought for these actions is "drama" and "kicking the hornets' nest"! Am I supposed to sit there and be squashed? Trusilver reversed one block for cogent reasons, and was desysopped over technicalities. Is there a single cited diff, any evidence, demonstrating disruption? Not so far. I can't follow the mindset. It isn't factual, isn't common sense, isn't in the interests of WP. Indeed, I do have "to learn how WP works", as it appears to be, shall we say, counterintuitive.

The reasonable thing to do is to lift Tznkai's namespace restrictions and see if my so far innocuous behavior on "namespaces" suddenly transfigures into horrible disruption. If it does, you know exactly what to do next. There is no need to predict the future (a talent no-one has) and to take preemptive action.

Lifting Tznkai's namespace restrictions has no effect whatsoever on the sanctions originally imposed by ArbCom on "physics-related discussions". Brews ohare (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people understand your argument. However a good number do not agree that it makes sense to lift Tznkai's restrictions at this time. What is being suggested above is that you simply let this issue go and hold to those restrictions for 2-3 months. Honestly, is that really so difficult? Surely you can tell that you (and some others) have exhausted the patiences of many who read these noticeboards. It's not a question of whether that is fair or not, it has happened. In such a situation it is often best to simply drop the matter and go off to some other part of the project and do good work. Implicit in the "follow the restrictions without complaint for a couple of months" suggestion is the idea that, if you do so and then refile a request to have the restrictions lifted, the request will likely be supported by most. Your best response at this point is not to continually argue your case when clearly people disagree with you, but rather to show that you understand there is not consensus to remove the restrictions at this time. While you disagree with that (obviously), you would honor that fact, agree to hold to the restrictions, and return at some future date to again ask editors to examine this issue at which point you would reference this thread. We're talking about a 60-90 day absence from project space which should not be a big deal. Try to put your own feelings about how right or wrong this whole situation is to the side and instead consider showing a bit of willingness to compromise by letting the matter rest for awhile. That will do you considerably more good in the long run, trust me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I agree that there is no consensus about lifting Tznkai's restrictions, and of course, I can do absolutely nothing about that fact. I recognize that no argument however cogent and reasonable, can change that matter. Unfortunately, no behavior on my part, however proper and extended that may be, can possibly sway those inclined to "vomit all over me". After all, there really is no problem at issue for months already, other than Wikilawyering actions by Headbomb, supported by Sandstein and Jehochman. We will, of course, find out in due course whether more amusing diversions surface. Brews ohare (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole does not help your case either. No one said they wanted to "vomit all over you" (???) or even that you were going to make them vomit. The statement to which you refer clearly expressed disgust at the amount of time being spent on this entire matter, and as such was not even directed at you personally, so there's absolutely no need for you to take it as some sort of personal affront. And as I said above with respect to your overall arguments, we get it—your arguments and actions, cogent and reasonable and proper; actions and comments by certain others, Wikilawyerish and drama inducing. You have adequately made your point, so continuing to complain that not everyone sees things as you do and lashing out at other editors is only digging a deeper hole. It's time to drop the stick and indeed this entire matter for at least a couple of months. In fact I'd suggest that the only additional comment you should make here would be to say that you are going to do precisely that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I will add your requested comment: I am not engaging in this matter further, and do not believe either actions or arguments will have any effect upon my detractors, who will remain adamant. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Following a further exchange with Bigtimepeace on his talk page, I would like to summarize my view of this proceeding.

The appeal is found here. It is an appeal of namespace restrictions added to the SoL bans by Tznkai.

I have made no comments of any kind on namespaces since Tznkai's restrictions that would cause any concern of any kind were it not that they were technical violations of Tznkai's restrictions. The appeal to lift these restrictions is therefore of zero risk to WP, and no diff anywhere in namespace of a tendentious nature can be found to contradict these claims.

To take the view of SirFozzie and others that blocks raised against me because of these technical violations are in themselves indications that I have made problematic comments in namespaces is invalid. If Tznkai's namespace exclusions were not present, no-one would even think of filing a block request. In other words, the filing of these blocks is an example of this form of Wikilawyering:

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

So far, administrators have not addressed any of these obvious points, and have stressed instead their impatience with this formal proceeding, and stressed also their desire to express this impatience. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews, you were banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace because you couldn't let go of the ARBCOM case, kept trying to weaken the policies related to your ARBCOM case, or proposed to increase the bureaucracy related to these policies by orders of magnitude. The edits that got you banned are exactly the same kind of edits that got you that ban in the first place (My ban is unjust! / My ban didn't apply in this case! / Policies need reform! / Why is no one listening to me!?). By now you were told multiple times to drop the stick, and not just by me. We heard you, and we neither agree or care.

So keep doing what you've done for the last several months, pick at the scab, annoy the hell out of everyone, and get nowhere. We told you 6 months ago, 5 months ago, 4 months ago, 3 months ago, 2 months ago, last month, and this month, that if you kept poking the beast you'd get nowhere, or worse off. And where are you now? Nowhere, and worse off than you were 6 months ago. Or drop the stick, let wounds heal, stop wikilawyering, prove to us that you're willing to let go of things, and we'll see in three months where things are. Your call.

And this doesn't apply just to you, this also apply to your friends, who so far have given you just about the worse advice possible, and create a whole lot of ruckus on your behalf. Advice which you seem to think is sound, and ruckus which you seem to endorse, which in turns does nothing to convince the rest of the world that it is wise to lift the bans on you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb: I would like to reach some amicable settlement with you, and have indicated so directly. The present appeal has nothing to do in the least with Arbcom or its decisions, or with "dropping the stick". It has to do with Tznkai's namespace restrictions added to the Arbcom decision. Quite frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about above. It all seems like wild statements that could not be supported. I suggest you take this off-line and engage in some e-mail exchange with me, where the absence of onlookers will allow some calm. Brews ohare (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, even from your own take on the events, it is also time for you to look in the mirror and ask if your general attitude toward enforcing policies is too provocative, leading to counterproductive results. The recent infraparticle dispute with Likebox is perhaps a good example. That is not to say that you are not reacting to someone violating policies and that something does need to be done.

What I'm getting at is that if some repressive action repeatedly does not yield the desired result, then blaming that on the person against whom the action was taken is besides the point. The whole point of taking a repressive action (e.g. a ban) is to get a result when you do not want to depend on the good will of the person anymore. If you do want to depend on the good will of the person you are dealing with, then more repressive actions are the last thing you should think about.

But all this is just my opinion.... Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing to be learned from the infraparticle dispute is that Likebox has ownership and civility issues and his reaction to civil criticism is a personal vendetta against the critic. Likebox isn't here to build an encyclopedia, he's only here to discourage others from doing so, right the great wrongs of Misplaced Pages, and create drama. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You have found that Likebox has issues and you want to intervene. The question is how best to intervene. How to judge if an intervention is working or is not working? It seems to me that if it is not working and instead only leads to escalation, you are not going to re-evaluate your method. The escalation is actually used as an argument why you should continue. So, it looks to me that your method has a potential instability and won't always lead to the situation converging to the desired solution. It may sometimes diverge out of control. Count Iblis (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to mention me, I might as well comment: I have no ownership on infraparticle, I didn't write any of it! What I do have is respect for out technical physics contributors, especially User:Phys.

User:Phys wrote technical physics articles of the highest caliber, and is almost certainly a highly respected expert in the field. The user left around the time that somebody challenged the existence of E9. It is very discouraging to try to write an article about E9, only to be told by someone who hasn't done a lick of research that E9 doesn't exist.

This is the reaction of many people to unfamiliar technical content--- I haven't heard about it, so it must be OR. This reaction must be suppressed (this probem is actually covered in policy--- "I haven't heard about it" is specifically not a criteria for deletion)

This reaction led you to delete most of infraparticle. I agree that it looks just like crackpot material, precisely because it is a good technical exposition of an unfamiliar topic. A few hours of thinking and reading were sufficient to convince me that the article is by and large correctly written, and a few minutes of searching were sufficient to find the original source.

What I object to is the deletion mentality of editors. Don't delete stuff you don't understand! Don't delete stuff you haven't heard of. If you want to make an article more focused, move the material you take out to a new article. The more information is provided by text, the more difficult it is to write. Good detailed technical exposition is approximately twenty times more difficult to write than good prose, and should only be deleted in cases where you know with some certainty that it is original or incorrect.Likebox (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, my reaction to Brew's conduct after the ArbCom case is different from Headbomb's. Brews weakening policies? ROFLMAO. How on Earth can the heavily guarded Wiki-policies be weakened against consensus? Brews proposing something on the policy talk pages? Who cares unless he is doing that by completely dominating those talk pages, which he never did.

Brews' friends have succeeded in keeping Brews here on Misplaced Pages. Brews would have left right after the SoL case were it not for the fact that we supported him by not shooting down the things he was still doing here. Today, Brews is in fact editing physics related articles (also with your support), due to a sort of "don't ask-don't tell policy" in which ArbCom accepts violations of the physics topic ban, provided it happens discretely. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP, SPAs, a proposal

Per the investigation and discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations I propose as follows:

1. user:John Quiggin and user:TimLambert are cautioned not to edit articles, especially biographies of living individuals, where they have a pre-existing off-Misplaced Pages dispute with the subject. Suggestions for improvement, comments regarding potential issues of editorial conduct etc. should be raised on the talk pages or appropriate noticeboards taking care to assume good faith and ensuring that comments about named individuals are kept neutral and supported by evidence.
2. The individual who has edited as 99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is a single-purpose or agenda account and is banned from commenting on or editing articles in respect of or relating to user:John Quiggin (John Quiggin) or user:TimLambert, including John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), John Quiggin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This topic ban applies to the individual not the addresses and will continue to apply should the user choose to register an account.
3. Serenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose or agenda account and is banned form editing the article John Lott, constructive suggestions for improvement to the article may be made at talk:John Lott iff supported by reliable independent secondary sources.

• Support as proposer. I know the IP raised a partly valid concern but he did so in a way that was grossly biased, tendentious, failed to recognise obvious issues with his own conduct, failed to follow the normal processes for dispute resolution instead going straight to escalation, was reported in an inaccurate manner, and at the same time engaged in conduct which was also indicative of an undeclared off-wiki agenda. The style and substance of the complaints mitigated against speedy investigation and resolution, and no credible attempt was made to address the issue with the user directly beforehand. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have gone unnoticed, but I did discuss this issue directly on Quiggin's talk page on March 2. Quiggin was not interested in discussing the topic. As to your other concerns, could you offer a diff as a supporting reference? Thanks. Also note that the listed contribs for me are anything but SPA and show a broad and rich edit history, as did the contribs I provided, including article creation. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be a sensible solution. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - There's a clear conflict of interest concern, and when we have BLPs at stake that makes it much worse. -- Atama頭 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose #1, but support #2. COI, even if it exists, does not preclude the editing of the relevant articles - guideline (not policy) merely states that the COI should be disclosed and that the edits still need to observe NPOV etc. Yes, care should be taken to cite all relevant text to reliable sources and to maintain a neutral tone. But cautioning John Quiggin and Tim Lambert not to edit articles is an overreaction.radek (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see what you're saying but we should be sure that we maintain a "clean hands" approach in respect of BLPs, I don't think either will find it hard to persuade others of genuinely valid edits on the talk pages and if my reading is right this is roughly what Jimbo thinks about this particular issue. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• The COI guideline also has suggestions regarding how to handle disruption caused by editors who have conflicts of interest, see this section; the first proposal above is only a minor expansion of what is already suggested for COI editors. -- Atama頭 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support generally. With the first one `I'd prefer to see a form where they can still edit the article, but only after taking the proposed edits to the talk page and obtaining consensus for them (with the obvious corollary that no consensus defaults to no edit). This is how past COIs have been managed. Orderinchaos 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all 3 - #1 is too weak, what is this "cautioned not to edit" business? Either they are allowed to edit those articles or they are not. If not call it a topic ban. If so why say anything? #2 and #3 seem unnecessary as there is no prohibition on being an SPA as JzG is aware (I am only assuming that they are SPA since I haven't personally checked their edit histories). --GoRight (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal does not prohibit SPAs. It restricts two specific SPAs who have evidenced problematic behavior. MastCell  05:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I guess in my attempt to be terse I was being unclear. JzG appears to be (based on the description above) seeking to impose sanctions on these editors based solely on their being (allegedly) SPAs. I am not aware of any policy that forbids SPAs from editing the pages he has listed. If their status as SPAs is not at issue why is it being raised?

      Having read the associated sub-page I believe that the IP was raising valid points and we should not be shooting the messenger, especially one pointing out valid (I assume since JzG is warning Lambert and Quiggin) BLP concerns. Likewise writing glowing comments about Lott doesn't seem to violate any particular policy either, does it? There is no checkuser confirmation that Serenity is Lott, is there? So why are sanctions being proposed here without evidence? Refer the matter to SPI where it can be handled properly if sock puppetry is suspected. --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The irony of sanctioning one set of BLP violations while condemning another set is what gets me the most, I think. JzG's proposal at least treats both as problematic behaviours needing to stop. The elephant in the room is that one is left-wing editors attacking a right-wing one, while the other is a right-wing IP attacking two left-wing editors. Let's leave the baggage at the door and be fair minded Wikipedians here. Orderinchaos 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the whole left-wing vs. right-wing dynamic is certainly may be in play here, as you point out, but in this instance at least I think that there is an important distinction to be made. The (alleged) left-wingers have been engaging in questionable activities to attack their ideological opponents in a manner that (arguably) negatively affects the quality and the credibility of the main space articles of the project. The (alleged) right-winger, on the other hand, is engaging in legitimate WP:DR to attack his opponents by merely pointing out the damage that they are doing to the project and to try and put a stop to it which (arguably) serves to improve the quality and the credibility of the project.

There may be times when these roles have been reversed, I don't know, but in every such case we as Wikipedians should take appropriate action against those doing actual damage to the project and support the actions of those who have raised the issues and thus enabled us to do so. This approach would create a forcing function in favor of positive impacts on the project without regard to the whole left-wing vs. right-wing dynamic that is motivating the behaviors on either side. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Updated based on the commentary below. --GoRight (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is not Left/Right, the questions were raised after Lambert's blog was introduced to remove The Times of London as a reliable source. I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into that discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The concerns are neutral concerns regarding COI, indeed ample evidence of blatant COI violations is easily found - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for some of his friends and fellow bloggers at "Crooked Timber". . There is no grey area there. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Misplaced Pages. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd hardly call labelling one's opponents "brownshirts" as "engaging in legitimate DR". I'm also not quite sure how you'd characterise the blatantly misleading comments by the IP about the Australian media scene, either. The ironic thing is in the section above, they "impeach Lambert's blog as a RS" (correct) but have relied on idle comments by right-wing commentators in Online Opinion, a blog (which they claim is an RS and even a media outlet!), to base their own attacks. Selective amnesia/blindness is useful when one finds another's views ideologically agreeable, but it is not useful in productive conflict resolution. All three editors have issues. Two need to be restricted in some way. The other needs to be banned. Both conclusions are justifiable by their own actions and by policy. (I'd note I wouldn't even have had a view on this and would have dismissed it as lollish wikidrama had it not been for the actions of the IP in this direction - I think climate change is a great beatup and wish I could turn on a radio without hearing about it - but I'm totally against intellectual dishonesty in all its forms.) Orderinchaos 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made my main points and I don't wish to reopen the entire debate here so I'll simply agree to disagree and let you have the last word. --GoRight (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support generally per Orderinchaos. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• To be even-handed, upgrade #1 to a topic ban or downgrade #2 & #3 to a caution. —DoRD (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I have another idea. Quiggin and Lambert are banned from editing the BLPs of people they have already trashed publicly on their personal blogs, and the IP editor is congratulated from bringing this issue to our attention. Meanwhile, whoever made this outrageous proposal has failed to govern in the interests of Misplaced Pages and should be put on warning for poor performance. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, generally per Alex Harvey, but I do hope Mr. 99.1 decides to register an account. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pete, whilst you and I use our real names, the majority of editors don't. Maybe I am just misunderstanding something, but I haven't quite understood what difference it makes if someone chooses to edit anonymously from a static IP, or from an anonymous, registered account. In either case, one's identity is protected, and one can do whatever they please, without any fear of consequences. Anyone can, if they want, have two separate networks set up at home, with two different providers that assign IPs from two separate ranges. Sure, they'll geolocate to the same country, but big deal. On the first network, register account A, and call it Beeble, and on the second network, register a second account B, and call it Brox. Do this carefully, and consistently, you can run two entirely separate accounts and there's no way the Misplaced Pages Foundation will ever find out about it. I see nothing but hypocrisy in anonymous editors (yourself, therefore, excluded) calling on an the anonymous static IP editor to register. If Misplaced Pages is to grow up, it needs to ban anonymous editing, period. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating an account would make it a bit easier to appraise the totality of this editor's work. Right now, his contributions are spread over several IPs, with no straightforward way to collate them. In contrast, a registered editor would have a unified contribution history. Furthermore, in another thread it was suggested that this editor's IP has a habit of changing immediately after each time he's been blocked, which raises the specter of block evasion. If one were inclined to question this editor's good faith - which is not unreasonable given some of his/her behavior - then the changing IPs start to verge on avoiding legitimate scrutiny. Alternately, perhaps this editor has a record of solid, productive contribution which is hidden under a different IP, and which would cause his/her presence here to viewed slightly more positively. As to having 2 different ISPs at home, that seems like a rather expensive way to try to game the system, but undoubtedly Misplaced Pages has editors obsessive enough to try it. Such is life. MastCell  19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose And furthermore I think Guy should be warned not to use his administrative "oomph" to lessen sanctions against people with whom he has apparent off-wiki relations with while attempting to topic ban their accuser. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• You what? Against whom, exactly, am I advocating lessening sanctions, and what is my purported off-wiki relationship with them? All three have made edits which skirt if not violating WP:BLP, one (the IP) is here solely to attack an identifiable individual. The proposed sanctions address precisely that and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember very clearly that you, Tim Lambert and John Quiggin are facebook friends of another editor on here (linked from their wikipedia userpage). The fact that you've defended this group of people (e.g. another time you've used your administrative authority to defend your facebook associates), multiple times, strains credulity. It is clear that these people should be topic banned from the area not "warned" (but never enforced) and you should quit defending people with whom you have off-wiki relations with - at the very least it looks bad to outside eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! I have over 200 FB friends, many of whom are Wikipedians whose usernames I recognised when they friended me. I have no idea what other friends they might have, or whether Quiggin and Lambert, whose names I had never even heard before this started, have friends in common. Oh, no, wait, I just looked them up on FB. I know your problem here: the friend in common (there is only one) is The Antichrist Himself. A baseless conspiracy theory from a climate change denier - why am I not surprised? Guy (Help!) 22:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes well, it is clear from both your attitude, actions and attack against me that you are not a neutral party in this affair and shouldn't be involved in any way - much less the lead role you've (once again) taken upon yourself to defend these people. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, isn't it, how the comments in this section fall into two categories: people who support my proposal based on my detailed analysis of actual editing behaviour, and climate sceptics who want the IP to be given a free pass just because he found some marginally questionable edits by a couple of editors who nobody had taken the trouble to try to inform about policy. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be said that the comments break down into another set of categories: People who oppose your proposal because of the disproportionate sanctions, and global warming cheerleaders who want to give two BLP violators a pass because they agree with them. —DoRD (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• OpposeWhy is the ip getting topic banned for bringing such outrageous behaviour to light? Quiggen and Lambert should be topic banned not "asked to be good boys" The IP should be congratulated not punished mark nutley (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• The outrageous behaviour is coming here to pursue an off-wiki agenda against an identifiable individual from behind a cloak of anonymity. Most of his reports were stale or not actionable and he did not even try to do things the wiki way, he went straight for shit-stirring. We can do without that kind of stupidity where living individuals are concerned. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have calmly and patiently on several occasions pointed out, and supported with reference, that my discussing these concerns with the subject was rejected with absolute finality. I have also clearly shown I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.. Your unfounded and unsupported "claim" that I have an agenda regarding Lambert & Quiggin is becoming tendentious - as is your obvious pressing of an invalid complaint regrding my airing of this matter. Please recall the comments of the founder and Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation and his views on this very matter in regards to my, Lambert & Quiggins actions: My criticism of Lambert & Quiggin has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". There is no grey area there either. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Misplaced Pages. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Your unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this.99.142.1.101 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The diff you present is neither calm nor a good faith attempt to assist an editor in understanding policy, it's arguing the toss about your persistent removal from article space of the name of someone against you harbour an obvious grudge, with a side-order of WP:ABF and a garnish of vitriol. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your blind, unreferenced and unsupported "claim" that I harbor an "obvious grudge" is bizarre. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond this. Period. Your transparent effort to provoke speaks volumes about your character, and your pronounced and extended campaign harms the reputation of Misplaced Pages while threatening it's ability to maintain it's standards. It was not I that twisted their arms and forced them to violate foundational principles regarding the integrity of our process, nor was it I that forced a mouse into their hands and forced them to write BLP's claiming that in one case that their long standing enemy was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy "international tobacco industry" to fight malaria in order to divert the WHO from reducing smoking. This all has a quite the 'through-the-looking-glass' surrealness about it. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The two users named in point 1 have each shown a good ability to hear advice and to react in an appropriate manner. The individual in point 2 damaged their case by pushing an agenda too hard. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per proposer's blatant bias, unless #1 is upgraded to a topic ban rather than a wee slap-on-the-wrist. —DoRD (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - a reasonable wrap up of this situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd - Community sanction proposal

Having read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Abd, I've been persuaded to make the following proposal:

Abd (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction (probation) that consists of the following terms:

1. Abd is restricted to posting an absolute maximum of 1000 words per 48 hours to any discussion of a particular topic or article - this restriction covers all pages on Misplaced Pages except his userspace. The word count shall not include his signature/timestamp. Abd is advised to interpret this as a general maximum of 900 words per 48 hours, with an 11% allowance. Wikilawyering will not be considered.

2. Abd may occasionally request an exemption from term 1 to post a particular comment to a particular page, or in rare cases, be exempted from particular discussions altogether; these requests are to be made to the Arbitration Committee by email - granted exemptions will only be effective after being logged at User:Abd/Community sanction#Exemptions. Should the Arbitration Committee deem that an excessive number of exemptions are being made at any given time, this exemption term may be suspended for an appropriate period of time. The suspension of this term shall take place once a sitting unrecused arbitrator has posted a notice on his talk page, and logged it at User:Abd/Community sanction#Exemptions.

3. Should Abd make edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page, and it has been logged at User:Abd/Community sanction#Log of page bans. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. Should Abd violate this restriction, he may be blocked for a short period of time, up to 1 month in the event of multiple or repeated violations. Blocks are to be logged at both User:Abd/Community sanction#Log of blocks and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks and bans.

5. The maximum block length shall increase to 6 months after 5 blocks have been used to enforce this restriction and/or the case remedy.

6. WP:AE is to be used to report violations of this restriction, or to make appeals regarding the enforcement of this restriction.

With respect to term 2, if ArbCom are unwilling to deal with this, or are not ready to pass it off to BASC, then we can come back and reconsider an appropriate mechanism for exemptions (with a group of editors or administrators) later. But I think this considers the more fundamental issues covered in every other term. Even if this doesn't pass, at least we can find what issues are in dispute (if not all). Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds a bit too complicated for my taste. I like simple sanctions. I am especially not sure whether it is a good idea to apply such a complicated and wikilawyerable sanction to an editor whose principal problem appears to be wall-of-texting and not getting the point. Can you imagine the long discussions about what is "one discussion"? A straight project namespace or site ban would be much easier to interpret and enforce, if this conduct by Abd is indeed widely considered to be disruptive. Also, procedurally, WP:AE is part of the arbitration process and should/may not be used for non-arbitration enforcement purposes.  Sandstein  06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If he wikilawyers or is unable to follow this last attempt, then as the sanction suggests, it will be to his own peril and a site ban will be all that's left to exhaust (as a project namespace ban cannot address the core issue). AE has been specified due to the unique interaction between arbitration remedies and community sanctions; I expect any reported violations regarding the case will also include violations about the community sanction, and I don't think it would make sense to create 2 separate discussions or bring too many arbitration matters over here. Of course, if ArbCom is not willing to deal with term 2, then it'd be like any ordinary community sanction and term 6 would also be ineffective. It's purely a courtesy thing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I honestly don't see the issue with him writing long spiels, he now tends to collapse the full text and leave a summary. No one is forcing anyone to read the whole thing, frankly I see some of the compaints in this area, not NcmVocalists which I believe is well intentioned, to constitute bad faith actions. Unomi (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Abd seems inept at sticking to any sanction put forward to him. He's been to arbitration and was given a tight restriction yet he's shown unwilling to work with it. Abd has now become a process time sink. Forget the additional sanctions, they won't work - go ahead with a full ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a problem with his long screeds? Yes. Collapsing them does not help because very often these long screeds include begging the question and other rhetorical devices, or include commentary that shows he has (once again) interpreted criticism as support or is (once again) making claims that have been rejected many times before. Frankly any dispute with Abd involved is going to take five times longer than one without, which is why the sanction was introduced. He seems to want to Wikilawyer round that sanction now, which is just more evidence that he doesn't things take on board. If he could just keep to article space everybody would be a lot better off. It's not time for the banhammer yet but I suspect we are now into escalating block territory. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• This is too complicated. Abd is already wikilawyering a relatively simple restriction. And this ban allows him to comment on any dispute he wants to, which is bad. He is supposed to go to quiet articles and work there constructively. If he isn't capable of doing that then he won't be able to comply with this restriction either. P.D.: The purpose of Arbcom's restriction was keeping him out of disputes, and this restriction does not do that. Instead, it gives him a wide door into any dispute of his choice. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears from your third sentence onwards that you believe this probation replaces ArbCom restrictions - it does not; these are additional restrictions. If he continues to violate the remedy in the ArbCom case, he'd still be blocked in accordance with the ArbCom case provisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I stroke that part. I think that this puts another layer of complication in the restriction, and would make it enforcement more difficult. I think the problems from the increased completion will outweigh the benefit. Others in this section have described better the problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• After looking at his recent behaviour on wiki, and some of his activities at WR (which I've not looked at before), it seems clear Abd isn't here for the good of the project. I'd support these additional restrictions as a second choice, with my first choice being an indef block. Verbal chat 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• One wonders how much thinner the community's patience can get before the seemingly inevitable happens. I think he's deliberately setting himself up to be a WR martyr, a rather foolish objective. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• What happens on WR should be irrelevant for any Administrative decisions to be taken here. My opinion is that Abd is a good editor and his leaving would be a loss for the project.  Dr. Loosmark  22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Abd has made his views clear on WR, and he has confirmed that both accounts are his. His editing and behaviour is enough to justify a ban, his WR descriptions of his activities here just confirm it. Verbal chat 23:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both accounts? Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Abd's actions off-wiki are absolutely relevant, particularly when they include personal attacks, failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors (both things he was admonished for in the same RfAr) and even a recent attempted outing of an administrator in response to his most recent block. -- samj _in 15:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal, while understandable, is too complicated and will a> create more enforcement effort for other editors and b> give ample opportunity for wikilawyering. Abd has demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept his existing editing restrictions and unwilling to contribute uncontroversial edits. An additional project space ban may be helpful, but I think we've passed that point already. As such I'd support an indef block, at least until such time as Abd unambiguously states that he's willing to play by the rules. -- samj _in 02:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• That you can even suggest sanctioning someone for writing to much beggars belief, that you further propose that someone should be limited to a daily wordcount takes this into the realms of Stalinist era mock trials. You should be ashamed of yourself.Amentet (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Counter Proposals: MYOB sanctions for Ncmvocalist who has a long history of sticking his nose into other people's disputes just as we see here, and Topic ban Enric Naval from discussing Abd anywhere on-wiki to put an end to this continuing disruption and harassment. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Stricken since this may be considered a disruptive comment, although I believe what I said on both counts. The actual disruption in this case was not caused by Abd, but rather those in pursuit of him. That's all I have to say on the matter. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, guy, the only thing more impressive than the sophistication of your arguments is the breadth of you vision. --Ludwigs2 13:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You really don't have a leg to stand on GoRight. Tossing this red herring in here is exactly the type of disruption MYOB sanctions seek to prevent. I note that you have just been warned by your unblocking admin for this very comment. -- samj _in 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight may not be the right person to raise this matter, but don't shoot the messenger just yet. He may be on to something regarding Ncmvocalist and his long history of long proposals. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case GoRight should follow the usual process by raising it in a separate thread rather than making threats and distracting "counter proposals" - Abd/GoRight discussions have a strong enough tendency to veer off course as it is. Content length restrictions seem generally problematic to me and the best way to deal with WP:TLDR contributions is to ignore them. -- samj _in 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Yep, and Yep (except when they're in some context where you can't ignore them), in that order. ++Lar: t/c

You're both right here, obviously. There is an existing request for enforcement against Abd, that needs to be dealt with first. Actually I think that simple enforcement of existing restrictions is probably enough to be going on with, especially since Abd seems to have no intention of abiding by them right now. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too complex and not likely to be workable. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Lar that these proposals are not workable. As arbitrators have commented, regrettably Abd does not yet seem to have found a quiet article or set of articles to work on. Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Despite this being complicated it can work within a mentoring agreement. The official restriction will formally be that Abd is placed under mentorship. The understanding is then that the mentor will try to get Abd to stick to certain types of restrictions like the one proposed by Ncmvocalist, at the discretion of the mentor, in order to minimize disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good idea, but a mentorship clause was enacted by ArbCom, and it had to replaced with non-mentorship restrictions. The other thing about mentorship is that it's voluntary, be it from the mentor or the user being mentored - I'm not sure both could be achieved here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Its value is strongly dependent on the mentor, the only suggested menotr I can recall was spectacularly inappropriate, more of a WP:AMA-style advocate. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• My recollection of this was similar, but very vague; we probably should find the relevant links to it so others know the context. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fritzpoll. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Guy is referring to when GoRight offered himself as a mentor. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye, that's the one. Fritzpoll is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy or Ncmvocalist could also mentor Abd. Count Iblis (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cough, splutter, ... Back on topic, remember Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Abd, MastCell's report at WP:AE, and Abd's subsequent RfC here , which resulted in a motion removing any mention of mentorship. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to review

In closing Yorkshirian's ban discussion Friday, I also blocked him with talk page disabled. He has emailed me asking to have access to it restored so he can make a statement. I've declined, as I don't think prolonging the inevitable is in anyone's best interests. However, since this is probably not my call and my call alone, if someone disagrees, they can restore his access to his talk page without the need to talk to me first. If no one disagrees, then I guess this gets archived in 2 days and we move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer a consensus, since it is probably best that no one admin should decide. I feel that providing the request was made in appropriate tones, I see no reason for it not to be granted. The content then posted can be reviewed and allowed to remain, removed, deleted or oversighted according to policy. The ban discussion regarding Yorkshirian noted that they were generally more subtle than to post diatribes, so I would not expect an invective filled rant. Under the circumstances, what is the harm? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LHvU. AGF and allow access to talk page. If reason is given by Yorkshirian to remove the access then the case for doing so will be much stronger. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to have any effect so I don't see any reason to hold out false hope. I mean, sockpuppetry, multiple past indefinite blocks, an ArbCom ban and now a community ban all for pretty much the same stuff, it's really not very likely that he's going to be able to say something that will persuade us to let him come back, is it? Guy (Help!) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk access is supposed to be removed only for abuse of user talk access. WP:PROT#Blocked users refers to "extreme cases of abuse". Rd232 09:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read that three times, and I think you are suggesting the talkpage access should remain blocked. Please correct me if I am wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear. I don't care either way but I think the blocking admin should be careful not to hold out false hopes. The sockpuppetry alone would normally be enough to qualify for a ban and that was not the worst of his problems. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Guy, that's my concern, and the reason I blocked access to begin with; IMHO talk page access would be pointless and likely to simply prolong the beating of a dead horse. Yorkshirian still has email, and the email address of ArbCom. If any admin thinks restoring talk page access is a good idea, I won't stand in the way, but I'm not looking for a consensus here that I'll enact. I've already done what I thought best. Since I'm only 90% sure it's the right call, I've thrown it out to others.--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We usually don't stop banned users using their talk page unless they actually do abuse it. That said, given that he's actually banned not just blocked, you could easily defend it on precisely the basis you give. So, it could be defended either way, and the main thing is that if he wants to appeal he is given the opportunity for a fair hearing by ArbCom, however they might prefer to do that. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Restore talk page access. If then abused, remove. Jehochman 13:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with abuse, I'm concerned with pointlessness, giving false hope, and wasting Yorkshirian's time. He's banned, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very fifty-fifty since it's already been done. There's not much harm in leaving it in place, but it's true it may only serve to prolong matters if access was re-instated. You can appeal a ban by email even if you have your access to the WP email system revoked because WP:BASC posts their email address for just such a situation. I say leave it for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Banning policy

I began Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Protection_of_banned_users_talk_pages a while ago, but it seems nobody watches that talk page, as nobody has commented yet. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone can edit

I was tooling around, and noticed some inaccuracies in the Madonna article. I asked why it was, as there appeared to be no vandalism or ongoing edit-warring occurring, and was informed by Buzzsherman that: "This page will not be unlocked", He thoughtfully provided a link to the protection log for the article.

This article has been since 9 July of 2009, the reasoning being offered by the admin performing the semi-protecting: "(the) High profile article that will always attract high levels of vandalism. Needs indefinite semi)".

I get that vandalism is a royal pain, and reverting it grows tedious, but locking an article indefinitely seems to run counter to the idea of an encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit - even us unregistered users. I was going to point this out to Enigmaman, but I cannot, as I have to be not just a registered user, but an "established" registered user. I am guessing that means I have to have a certain number of edits before I even earn the right to question his administrative protection. So, my next step is here, as Enigmaman is an administrator.

I have some problems with both an admin who cannot be contacted by the rank and file as well as an article being semi-protected indefinitely. I am guessing that this sort of action is not in keeping with the Third Pillar about Misplaced Pages being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This means we must put up with the hassles of reverting vandalism and sometimes even locking an article until the vandals get bored. Locking it indefinitely is wrong, plain and simple. It keeps the user who chooses to participate anonymously - but positively - at arm's length. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, so if you want to edit it, register, otherwise, edit one of the 3 million articles that aren't semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately some articles have to be protected indefinitely as they're vandal magnets and amount of vandalism from IP accounts would always vastly outweigh constructive IP edits if the protection was lifted (as new vandals would keep hitting the article there's no prospect of them getting bored and going away). Moreover, reverting this predicable vandalism would be a waste of editors time', particularly in light of the widely reported decline in the number of active Misplaced Pages editors. As such, the semi-protection of the Madonna (entertainer) looks sensible to me. If you'd like to edit it please register an account. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested to Enigmaman that he creates an unprotected sub-page of his talk page so that unregistered and new editor are able to contact him. I've also informed the IP of the {{editsemiprotected}} template and how to use it. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't even know there was such a template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The semi-protection experience for unregistered (or non-autoconfirmed) users could be improved. Co-incidentally, see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Make_it_easier_to_submit_edit_requests. In addition, I think MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext could be made substantially clearer and friendlier by reorganising it. We don't need to quite go MediaWiki:Welcomecreation, but it could definitely be more inviting. Rd232 08:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the textbook example of why we need to have FlaggedRevisions installed for all BLPs ASAP. (X! · talk)  · @489  ·  10:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the tedium of reverting vandalism, but does anyone have any solid proof that of all the IPs editing Misplaced Pages (the English language one), that most of them are vandals? I ask because I am getting this vibe of 'what's your problem? Register an account and be done with it' - one of the reasons some people flee the Project, or don't bother getting involved in the first place. My first 20 edits had two different, established editors calling me a vandal and threatened me with a block, despite the fact that none of my edits could even remotely be perceived as such. There is a definite - prejudice seems too strong - lack of good faith for IP edits. I'm just wondering if there are real numbers regarding constructive IP edits versus vandal IP edits.

Thanks for letting Enigmaman know about the issue with his usertalk page. Is there any way to check and make sure the rest of the admin populace doesn't have the same issue? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:HUMAN 80% of IP edits are good and aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but conversely 80% of all vandalism is done by IPs, so semi-protection, even permanent semi-protection, is a legitimate technique to help reduce vandalism, especially when it's targeted to specific pages shown by their history or by recent activity to be magnets for vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Someone did a review some time ago and got many of the semi-protected user talk pages unprotected. The vast majority of admins can be reached by any user. However, by dint of being the person who has the block/delete/protect button, some admins get a lot of abuse from people with a lot of time and a lot of proxies on their hands. My user talk page was not permanently semi-protected; rather, it was semi'd until hopefully the vandal whose ire I earned got tired of finding open proxies to use. I'm afraid that contacting me in this case will not change my mind. Until flagged revisions are implemented for BLPs, it is simply unreasonable for some pages to be open for all. There are millions of examples as to why they should not be. If you'd like, you can check the article's history to see what it was like before I semi-protected it. Finally, if you believe the article can be improved in some way, you can simply go to the article's talk page and use the aforementioned editsemiprotected template. Someone will review your proposed change within the day. Enigma 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See WT:Protection Policy discussion its not clear that that is the consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

207, all we are trying to do is point out that there are advantages to registering an account. We can't force you to register and you are within your rights to remain an IP editor if you wish. Constructive editing is always welcome, wherever it comes from. By posting here, you've learned a bit more about Misplaced Pages, and will know how to deal with the situation the next time you come across it.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that edits by IPs do tend to get closer scrutiny by some editors. Although over 80% of IP edits are good edits, a high proportion of vandalism is also done by IP editors. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Enigmaman pointed to a study that indicated that most of the vandalism was done by IP addresses. I'd like to see a reference for that, if I may. And to be blunt, if you are an admin, you must make yourself accessible to any who would want to contact you - it is part of the job. If you don't agree to be such, you can always turn in your badge and tools. I know that comes across as a lot more harsh than I am intending it, but you shouldn't have the tools if you aren't prepared to accept the weight of them.

I am unclear as to this "flagged revisions" suggestion, so I am unsure of its weight as an argument against setting a time limit on protection of articles. Understand I am not saying that we should never have protection; I am stating it should not be indefinite. This is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, not just the registered accounts. If there is something in the Foundation material that explicitly states this, please point it out to me.

Practicality does not and should not trump our guiding principles. Either the encyclopedia is for everyone to edit, or it isn't (and we are excluding vandals of course). And the edit-protected template being utilized in an indef protected article is like asking mommy for a cookie; no matter how reasoned the arguments, Mommy decides if you are going to get that cookie.

Articles are created (within the scope of our policies and guidelines) by consensus. Filtering any changes through an admin who has an apparent view of the article in question seems to run contrary to that foundational principle. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as that last sentence is concerned, I think you may be confusing semi-protection with full-protection (which in the latter nobody but sysops can edit a page). With that being said, the practice is that editing is a privilege and not necessarily an inherent right. If abused, that ability can and should be taken away (hence our protection and blocking policies). I hate to be hardline (and I hope you don't take offense), but if an article you wanted to work on was protected from editing because of vandals or spammers, you have them to blame for the protection because they were the ones responsible for having editing privileges on a certain page taken away.

With that said, I'd personally like to see more reviews on those articles that have been semi-protected, especially those that have been the longest (i.e. those ones protected indefinitely) and see if protection is still needed. This can be particularly important now, as we have more tools that deal with certain vandalism patterns such as the edit filter, more CheckUsers than what we used to have, vandalism-tracking bots (for both on-wiki and on IRC). Just as with indefinitely-blocked users, the same (perfectly-natural) mentality of "lock, throw away the key, and forget about it" applies to indefinite protections. –MuZemike 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(←) I sympathize with you, 207. Protection of an article is something not done lightly and I've given a lot of thought before I've done any page protections. In the cases I've dealt with, I've semi-protected only when a person or persons are causing a lot of disruption at an article using multiple IP addresses or newly-created accounts. You can block them all one at a time but it's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with your bare hands, not to mention the time it takes to revert their actions over and over again. A semi-protection of the article stops all of the abuse at once with one action, and sometimes it's the only thing that works. Some articles are so prone to such attacks that we have to keep them semi-protected on an ongoing basis, because each time you try to unprotect them the flood starts all over again. It's never a good thing to protect an article, but sometimes it's the least terrible thing you can do. It's unfortunate that well-meaning anonymous editors are prevented from improving those articles directly (you can still make talk page requests for fixes) but that's why we give a lot of consideration to how necessary the protection is, and how long it should be for. Pages that are indefinitely protected are usually unprotected every once in awhile to test whether or not it's "safe" to do so. -- Atama頭 17:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Madonna article was unprotected twice that I saw in order to "test" whether protection was still necessary, but the IP vandalism started up immediately both times. Unless the person in question somehow became less relevant, you usually are going to have the same problem as you did when it was first protected. Vandalism problems on the Madonna article, or the George W. Bush article, or the Barack Obama article aren't temporary. It's not that some block-evading IP decided to persistently vandalize it for a week. It's that a large number of different users, from all kinds of locations, like to vandalize the article. When it's a BLP, it typically involves a large amount of defamation/libel. Enigma 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can see that, especially in light of the Seigenthaler nonsense. However, i am willing to bet that Chase didn't add the material as an IP editor. I am concerned with the growing distrust amongst regular members of any IP editor. No one has addressed that study that Enigmaman pointed to as proof positive that most of the IP edits are vandalistic in nature. Practical experience aside - since most folk who delete a lot of vandalism deal with IP- and red-text vandals - this is a wrong-headed way to look at the issue. If I might suggest, perhaps limit all BLPs to registered users. No one's career or reputation is impugned if some vandal adds "Freddie is teh gayst" in the I Love You, Man film article, or one on Quantum mechanics. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This article about "who writes WP" might be of some interest--it says most of the top contributors of actual text (not edit count) to articles in the study (in 2006) were IP addresses rather than named accounts. From my POV (habitual IP editor) it's not nice like when an article stays semi-protected for a long time (it should be unprotected once in a while to see if the vandalism returns), but I can understand the reason for it, especially with BLP's (which I'd deal with even more radically). For occasional issues it's no big deal to just leave a message on the talk page without any special templates. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientizzle is too biased

If you look the History of Younus AlGohar & MFI related articles, it will be revealed that Disputed articles that Administrator Scientizzle is too biased as he is clearly supporting Younus AlGohar & MFI as he is not listening to other party and keep on blocking the other side and encourage one party to go ahead and do anything as a result they are using wikipedia for advertisement. Kindly do something to stop Administrator Scientizzle as soon as possible.--119.160.39.120 (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked. I see some serious disruption from sock puppets. Also, what looks to be a lot of confusion about WP:SELFPUB and WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of Scientizzle, any bias you may be seeing in his behavior is not as clear to me as it is to you. In fact, having waded through several talk pages, I'm inclined to congratulate him for being willing to involve himself in that mess. If you have persistent concerns, I would recommend being specific and supplying diffs. --Moonriddengirl 11:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:PETARD case to me. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there some blocked/banned user who also used the Scientist moniker? It isn't unheard of that some malicious yet stupidly arrogant fool would create various accounts using the same theme. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, meet the newest IP sock of Iamsaa (talk · contribs)...excuse me while I go block it. — Scientizzle 19:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you suggesting that I am a sock of a blocked user? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm...no. That would be 119.160.39.120 (talk · contribs), the original poster. I have no reason to suspect that you are. Should I? — Scientizzle 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, No; I haven't the time to sock. Your comment came riding in on the coattails of mine. It seemed you were accusing me of being a sock. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Too biased" - love it. Orderinchaos 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I prefer to think of myself as having the optimum level of bias. ;) — Scientizzle 13:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock-l list could use additional help

The unblock-l mailing list, which is one of the places to which we refer blocked users to appeal their blocks, could use a couple more administrators to respond to requests.

Typical e-mails that come into the list include the following:

• Users who have been blocked for whatever reason, and have chosen to e-mail the list instead of posting an unblock request on-wiki.
• Users whose on-wiki unblock request has been denied and would like further review.
• Users whose talkpage editing has been disabled and are seeking review through the mailing list as an alternative.
• Users and would-be new users who are caught in rangeblocks and need accounts created or exempted.
• Users who have been ArbCom or community-banned and need to be advised of the correct procedures to be followed to appeal their bans (if any appeals remain open to them).

The requesters span the gamut from good-faith users who made a mistake, to bewildered would-be users, to out-and-out trolls, and it probably takes a good degree of patience for an administrator to self-select for this particular activity. The work of the admins who spent significant time working on unblock requests (both on the list and on-wiki) is appreciated, and as indicated, we could use a few more of them. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• On point #3, I believe there is an unwritten rule among CAT:RFU responders to block talk page access after the 3rd unblock request - regardless of whether unblock requests have been disruptive, etc. Personally I'm not a fan of this - and it may explain why unblock-en-l is getting more requests than usual. –xeno 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's not a good general rule; me, I'll block talk page access after even one really obnoxious unblock request, but asking politely three times is hardly a reason to shut the blocked editor down. --jpgordon 22:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep, and I've seen someone's talk page access locked after 3 civil requests. At the time I didn't bother chasing it down, but it's also not a hard-and-fast rule, so... –xeno 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the obvious solution? Block fewer editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I think we'd all prefer it if there were fewer vandals, sockpuppets and griefers to block. Perhaps flagged revisions would solve some of the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The amount of prospective editors caught in ip blocks has increased lately, so even just processing those is a good help! — xaosflux 00:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Keepscases erroneously blocked indefinitely

Keepscases (talk · contribs) just got indefinitely blocked a few hours ago, due to an investigation on Meta which showed that he was a sock of various other users, grouped together as TownDown. I remember reading a discussion somewhere (I have no idea where) in which Keepscases and a third party happened to mention that there is another Keepscases on commons who is not the same person as the Keepscases here, and the account is not unified according to VasilievVV's SUL utilities page. I don't know where to go to bring this to wider attention, so I come here, even at the risk of looking like a fool if it turns out Keepscases was socking all along. I think it deserves at least a second look both here and on meta. —Soap— 01:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a local checkuser look into this. Wouldn't Keepscases have been picked up in one of our sweeps? –xeno 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked the stewards to take another look at it. The blocking steward responded that Keepscases on enwiki is the same one who has been socking on the other wikis. Don't think there is anything more to do here. NW (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Apparently I didn't have all the facts; investigation still ongoing, I believe. NW (Talk) 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting, then. The Keepscases on commons was very knowledgeable, and skillful in images, while, the other one here is a Wikignome, and is an active RfA participant. He had also stated that he "was not the same person I'd been consulting with on Commons", and asked me if I thought that the sockmaster was trying to impersonate him. (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kingoomieiii) I think there's more to this. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should he upload a camera photo so that he can distance himself? I've searched through the commons user's contributions, and he hasn't uploaded a photo (of the latest 500 edits) but he might have uploaded a photo of his own. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, our Keepscases (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to the Meta and elsewhere one, far as can be seen. I just had an extensive discussion with the Meta checkusers and the data simply doesn't line up, and we repeatedly checked through it. Per agreement with them, I'm going for unblock on technical evidence - Alison 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all your help. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only person stupid enough to be wondering to himself "What was so urgent about this that a steward needed to block Keepscases here anyway?"? It looks that way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No big deal, mistakes happen. Thanks all. Keepscases (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel really sorry for this mistake, I talked with Keepscases and I apologized, and I apologize for the error to the enwiki community. @lestaty 03:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Where was the discussion on en.wiki opting into global blocks of named user accounts? –xeno 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet another case of incompetent, heavy-handed admining. There was no checkuser evidence for this, and if one looked at the talk page contributions of the banned user Towndown one found that he was either a (poor) speaker of English as a second language or someone who was language impaired. The Keepcases here is clearly either a native speaker or a very accomplished speaker of english as a second language. Five minutes of checking by a competent admin would have found grounds to seriously doubt the same user was behind both accounts and would have held off for CU confirmation. Par for the course around here.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly note the user was not blocked by an en.wiki administrator. –xeno 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Tan | 39 13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, an en.wiki user was blocked by someone who was clearly incompetent in this instance. What steps will be taken to prevent that from happening again?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that steps should be taken. However, I did find your rant amusing, given the lack of understanding behind it. Tan | 39 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that en.wiki ever agreed to have stewards place blocks on named users in non-emergency situations, so I would gather a specific WP:VPP confirming that we would prefer they hand these off to local checkusers to vet. –xeno 13:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What did i fail to understand? Did someone with "admin powah" not wander in and block someone foolishly? What did i fail to understand? Honestly puzzled. Remember, for the unwashed masses our experience of admin actions like blocking are identical no matter who takes them, or who is empowered to do so. Keepcases doesn't seem to much care, but as a basic governance question, this is something that should be addressed.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have much to do with governance on the English Misplaced Pages, but it has highlighted a grey area of jurisdiction upon which we should shed some light. lestaty made an unfortunate mistake; that was investigated promptly; that was reversed promptly; for which he apologized; and for which the injured party has no grievance.

Now we can explore the deeper issue of whether we want stewards blocking named users here. That should take place at one of the pumps or perhaps WT:GlobalBlocking (though as far as I understand this wasn't a global Block in the technical sense but it did originate at the m:global blocking venue). –xeno 14:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - why do we need meta.Stewards making poor blocks, when we have an entire cadre of rubbish sysops to perform bad actions? I've been waiting for ages to get my chance at another useless block/protection/move - and some non EN-WP functionary gets it instead!! For shame!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've initiated a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Shall stewards be permitted to place blocks on en.wiki named users following requests at m:Global blocking?. –xeno 14:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time this year that a Steward has overstepped their authority in doing things on en.wp. From the en global policy page - Misplaced Pages:Global_rights_policy#Stewards, "Stewards generally should not use their global rights to perform tasks that could be performed by local users. In emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act, stewards are asked to use their global rights to protect the best interests of Misplaced Pages." Where's the emergency? Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't any. However, I don't see any need to discuss this from a policy standpoint or from a stratospheric level. Lestaty fucked up; he/she has been a steward for three weeks and apparently doesn't understand the policy. This conversation/notification should be on their talk page, as a "by the way, you didn't follow global policy - please don't do that again" sort of thing. Tan | 39 14:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed and looks like this was done by Hipocrite, so no further discussion is necessary here, methinks. –xeno 14:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed - this block appears to be out of steward jurisdiction. This is perhaps a training or communication issue, we should request that a reminder be placed at m:Global blocking that named en.wiki users are not to be blocked by stewards except in clear emergency situations. (now Done) –xeno 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Twice? We must come up with ten policy pages immediately. And force Jimbo to make a personal statement. The fact that ArbCom have not already ruled on this is a disgrace and clearly the entire committee must resign en masse right now, that goes without saying. Or perhaps, you know, someone was just doing their best to protect against abuse? No, that can't be it. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I know. Indefinitely blocking an editor with no reason is something we should ignore until it happens, say, ten times. And their motive for protecting against abuse should absolve them of any liability, and we should apologize for even pointing it out to them. Tan | 39 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode in which one teen asks another, "Are you being sarcastic?" and the other replies, "I don't even know anymore." Indef-blocking is a big deal, yes. Once is enough to be a problem. We should leave the pitchforks in the barn for now, but let the stewards in general know that this isn't cool. I think that Xeno's suggestion about the reminder is reasonable, don't you, Guy? Especially since Lestaty stated that the handbook doesn't cover this sort of thing. -- Atama頭 17:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an error made in good faith and for obvious reasons, the user in question has been offered an apology and has accepted it with good grace. I don't see why we have to make some kind of constitutional crisis out of it. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 23 March 2010

Your continued hyperbole is unhelpful. –xeno 23:25, 23 March 2010

I'll bear that in mind if I'm ever tempted to engage in it. This was not such an occasion. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 24 March 2010

We must be operating with different definitions of hyperbole then. You do realize each time you add unproductive remarks to this thread you reset the 48 hour countdown for it to be archived and forgotten, yes? –xeno 18:00, 24 March 2010

Heaven forfend that I should posit that we might be using different definitions of productive here... Guy (Help!) 22:04, 24 March 2010

It should also be noted that the steward in question has only been a steward for a couple weeks, and is likely still a bit green. Just FWIW. –Juliancolton |  18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is still being debated? Gosh! —DoRD (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No action on Move Page. Problems?

 Done I created a new posting "User:AnnaSomerset/Laimes" that requires an Adminstrator to Move to make live. I thought I had asked for a move back on 9 Mar. but have seen or heard nothing since. Have I not followed the right procedure or made some other error to hide me beneath the radar? Any help, suggestions would be appreciated. AnnaSomerset (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it for you to Laimes deleting a redirect. This may need a hat note. Someone closed your requested move because they thought you could move it yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I closed the move, apologies for misinterpreting you, I had assumed you had requested the move as you wanted feedback/a viewing before it was moved into the mainspace, thus I recommended Articles for Creation. Sorry for any inconvenience, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to learn fast but I stumble. Thanks to all, sorry for any confusion caused. Great outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaSomerset (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ElEditordeWiki (talk · contribs)

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Discussion on IP block lengths

Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking IP addresses#IP block length and comment. Thank you, –xeno 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections.

YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've reported a number of cases of YellowMonkey not following the protection guidelines first to him and then to RUP All of them have been unprotected on RUP and none of them really had enough vandalism for them to be protected at all in the first place.

• Archived talk page discussion Anuruddha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archived talk page discussion Nguyễn Văn Thiệu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archived talk page discussion England cricket team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archived talk page discussion Army of the Republic of Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk page discussion Thaipusam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk page discussion Devaasuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk page discussion Freedom of religion in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk page discussion Freestyle swimming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk page discussion Dural, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A general challenge for review has been also been done and this hasn't gone anywhere (and has in fact been archived). As the admin in question has made several hundred indefinite semi-protections over the past year can these be reviewed please? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the existing WP:RFPP process has already dealt with this. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As the administrator who unprotected several of the articles in question, I think at least a statement from YellowMonkey would be nice. In my opinion, many of these weren't even given a rudimentary explanation. Tan | 39 18:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I do admit YellowMonkey's responses to you on his talk page are pretty concerning, and that a few of those protections seem to be excessive. Perhaps there's a good reason for them, but at first glance none of his explanations on his talk page justify indefinite protection (or in some cases any protection). ThemFromSpace 18:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Of note, I didn't try particularly hard to find these articles for unprotection - it is almost certain that there are many more articles that are as deserving as these for unprotection. Only the first two that I found aren't from YellowMonkey's last 50 protections. Its probably fair to say I've had a reasonable go through the last 50 and I've picked ones that looked promising there, but not any further back in time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would guess this is probably a function of burnout. –xeno 19:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), have you notified YellowMonkey of this AN thread? -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno notified the user a short time ago. As an admin who unprotected one of these articles after 3 days had passed, I sympathise with YellowMonkey, and agree with Xeno that this is probably a function of burnout as IP hopping vandals who are willing to wait for short protections to expire before resuming are very frustrating. However, the protection policy states that protection should not be pre-empative, thus these indefinate protections seem to be over the top, potentially penalising legitimate editors because of one vandalism incident. --Taelus (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm disgusted by the comments here. This is not a function of burnout; it's a function of common sense. If "no rudimentary explanation" was given, you talk to the checkuser administrator - you don't just unprotect on your whim and expect one later. Just because you can't see the disruption so obviously doesn't mean it's not been occurring on a high scale level across articles under the India WikiProject. All of you are most welcome to come watchlist every single India article to ensure this vandalism does not occur and I'd like to see how long you last before you realise that the disruption is outweighing the need to allow "potentially legitimate editing". You just don't understand how disruptive editing occurs on these articles. YM is doing a thankless job and all we have is nitpicking by a group of users who seem to be acting in a manner that enables this disruption to continue. If you have a better way, go right ahead, because so far, it's not worked in practice . Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC) modified slightly. 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Tan | 39 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy has worked spectacularly so far to deal with the problem, so I must be "fucking kidding" you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Five of them don't even relate to India in any way, and Thaipusam is borderline, I saw it in Penang, Malaysia... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Like the Vietnam article? . And when did this stop? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A perfect example of how blocking an IP would have been much wiser than blocking all new users indefinitely from editing this article. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrators who've tried to deal with this type of issue have given up due to the humongous timesink as the comments below have illustrated, and the project is worse off for it. Like I said, "If you have a better way, go right ahead, because so far, it's not worked in practice." Deny it as much as you like; it won't make it any less true. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, good. I hate to see that you are "disgusted" with a perfectly civil conversation by people concerned by a lack of transparency. In other news, Freestyle swimming isn't a part of the India Wikiproject. Tan | 39 19:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1 article; it's better I keep this civil rather than commenting on this discovery. The summary by the admin who unprotected at least appeared to show some understanding . Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not one article. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know; was sticking to the ones that were pointed out here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Getting tired of dealing with vandalism in the usual way, instead using indefinite semi-protections right off the hop isn't burnout? –xeno 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinite is not permanent; it's for the period of time where the disrupting entity is active. It actually does go inactive when it's prevented from editing the article for a sufficient period of time; otherwise, it continues popping up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wouldn't indefinite protection just cause them to move to another article? I don't understand why the usual gradual increases in length won't be as effective as an indefinite. –xeno 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• If I interviewed a regular vandal, I'd obviously be able to answer this better, but based on my experience - at first, yeah, but it seems to stop when it seems like too much work and seems like too long to wait before it can strike again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately semi-protecting articles is not without a downside for Misplaced Pages as a project. There are good reasons why we have a policy in place, and according to it many of YellowMonkey's protections are blatantly inappropriate. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection is there to stop degrading of articles, and in the cases I locked, almost nobody cares about them if not none at all, apart from drive-bys piling extra bits on incoherently, usually spam or vandalism YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you haven't read the views below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In which case I'd be seeing a large number of unprotections (i.e. significantly more than 3) by YellowMonkey in their protection log along with the more than 340 indefinite semi-protections in the last year. If that was the case I wouldn't have bothered to bring this to WP:AN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify this for me? When and where did you make the effort to remind him to review the many protected articles in his log? I mean, if you have a concern, typically you ought to give that user an opportunity to respond (and even address) the concern regarding his actions. You do agree that he may have unprotected ones which no longer warrant protection in his opinion if the concern was raised clearly and properly? All I could see was you objecting to a few articles on his talk and then escalating here - perhaps because you found that there are too many for you to look at (and opine on) personally, and because of your belief in the relevant guideline/policy. I mean, I could understand if he wanted or needed help with this task from other users, and we should make every effort to help out in that case, but if he wanted to sort some out based on the evidence (including CU evidence) which he has (and the rest of us don't), perhaps you jumped too soon? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See this (as linked at the top). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me; it seems the IP and you jointly did this, at one point. You waited a week...and then escalated it here. It seems I looked at the wrong diff. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, may I bring up that what we were all looking for was explanations. We wanted YellowMonkey to pop in here and maybe give us a heads up as to why he indef protected a shitton of articles, including ones not even remotely related to the India Wikiproject. I'm not against indefinite semiprotection; I did it to a ton of articles per the Bambifan vandal. But I didn't include other articles I indef protected just because of some random vandalism under the blanket of that reasoning, and I try to explain to people what's going on when they ask. What we weren't looking for was a third party expressing his disgust at our questioning, and trying to explain everything under the India WP problem (which it clearly isn't). Tan | 39 19:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a third party; and my disgust is not directed at the asking questions or hoping for transparency. I probably should've clarified my earlier comment; not all of the articles fall under the WikiProject India banner, but a large portion do, and I vouch for the fact that in the case of many of them, methods short of protection have been or were attempted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conficts)Well this has taken a bit of a sour turn... I would like to clarify that my usage of the term "burnout" was not meant to infer any negatives here, quite the opposite infact! As I said previously, I sympathise with YellowMonkey and the fact that vandals are so persistant in evading our protections by simply waiting for them to time out, and I would like to thank him for all his work in the area. I cannot comment on the India articles as I haven't been involved with them at all in relation to these protections, but I do think that perhaps the first time protections on some unrelated articles could be toned down to not be indefinate. If the vandal resurfaces right away after the protection expires and is evading blocks and such, we can then impose longer protections. The protection policy says we shouldn't protect indefinately pre-empatively just in case there is repeated vandalism. If there is additional evidence that I am unaware of I would be happy to hear it, and said so previously when I unprotected an article and notified YellowMonkey, asking to be informed if there were any circumstances I was not aware of. Apologies for any misunderstandings here, --Taelus (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologise also; I did not wish to create further misunderstandings by expressing my own frustration, and fear that may have resulted here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

@Tan: As I do a fair bit of vandal/sock fighting and protections on India and cricket articles, I'll say that many times indef is required. I generally don't go the indef route myself, but the day after the protection expires, it starts again. Equivalent to Bambifan is Nangparbat, after a while, even logging actions in that page doesn't seem necessary. Every page from Cauliflower to Srinagar is targeted by him and there are "counter Nangparbat" socks too (User:Mrpontiac1 is one). These are never caught on early, unlike with Bambifan, there are at best three or four editors who clean up after these and very often, the edits just slide by. Then there's the caste articles, see the history of Nadar (caste) before protection in March '09. Not very different in the cricket articles either, too much regionalistic POV pushing etc. And take the case of Siddharth Narayan, I semi-protected it for a month, the day after it expired, the same changes to birthdates happens. Most of these articles are not watchlisted and these things just happen. Very often they are not caught until one of us does the weekly vandal sweep of categories. Indef may not be ideal, but what's the alternative if there isn't enough interest/bandwidth to clean up these articles within a short duration of the vandalism? —SpacemanSpiff 20:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Only one of the articles mentioned above had anything to do with Nangparbat in its protection description (Freedom of religion in India) EDIT: and it was only vandalised once, if it had been vandalised significantly I wouldn't have bought it up for unprotection (or here). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

@Spiff: Awesome, but I never said anywhere that I have an issue with the idea of indefinite semi-protection. Tan | 39 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on a slightly unrelated note, YellowMonkey does seem to generally avoid using the pp-semi template on the article's they protect. Using those would be nice so its clear that the article is protected. I had to add it to Cauliflower along with several of the other pages I've looked at to request un-protection for. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nangparbat is one of the socks who might justify very long protection for an article. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat for the background. He is a sock who may restart the nonsense when protection expires. Since he has been abusing Misplaced Pages since his account was created on 4 August, 2008 and since he is relentless and immune to all discussion, semiprotections of up to two years in length would be reasonable. (He hits too many articles to expect the protecting admin to keep them all watchlisted). Semiprotection is used because it is not practical to stop him with rangeblocks. Multi-year protection can be reasonable, but indefinite protection is something I don't often see a need for. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The SPI investigation is only the tip of the iceberg actually. The people who kept logs for NP like Hersfold, Thegreyanomoly and myself stopped. I stopped because it was too much work since he uses so many socks. I've also been reporting NP socks to Nishkid64 and YellowMonkey. This is why the SPI isn't updated. NP is the one of the biggest sockpuppeteers in English Misplaced Pages if you count IPs. Jarlaxleartemis, Scibaby, or Bambifan101 are the only other people I know who come close and I have some doubts on Scibaby and Bambifan having more socks. Rangeblocks are completely out of the question because one, the range is too big and two, collateral damage is very high. Long term semi-protection is the only thing slowing him down. Elockid 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you protect too much you risk him "winning" by having so many pages protected :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Besides, although I appreciate the burnout factor, one cannot possibly justify all this murder under the single umbrella of Nangparbat. I mean, did you actually look at the list?

I don't think Nangparbat was interested in cricket, Australian schools and places, Vietnam, etc.

Some protections are 1-2 minutes apart, barely enough to click on the history of the article. 118.7.212.11 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that 6 out of 9 of the articles that are on this list are recently protected, only the first 2 I found and the one you found are older. If its more than burnout there should be a decent number of articles to challenge the protection status of there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Maybe Misplaced Pages has to take legal action if its really that serious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The NP articles were not protected to win a war or a dispute. They were done to prevent further disruption from him especially with Kashmir related articles. Also protected to keep the other banned users from editing: he likes to edit war on those types of articles especially with banned users like Mrpontiac (currently active) and Hkelkar (personally have not experienced but there's some threads on ANI on this) who also edit the same articles as Nangparbat. Time and time again has shown that short term semi is not effective on NP. A good example is Jammu and Kashmir (everything from October 08 and now is because of him) or the SPI. Abuse reports have been filed, but they've been rejected. Elockid 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd be challenging Semi-protection for being too weak if Jammu and Kashmir wasn't indefinitely protected - its such an obvious vandalism target. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above its the major part of a complex disagreement between two major world powers both of whom have large proportions of the population which speak English - its highly likely to be a big vandalism target, sock or no sock. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

would agree with others that nangparbat has been a major source of disruption on many India related articles and since a rangeblock is out of the question and legal action against him by WP does not look like a good possibility either I think indefinite semiprotection definitely makes sense for articles he hits. he has a dynamic IP and his address changes very frequently so blocking him each and every time consumes too much resources to be efficient. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So assuming Nangparbat doesn't cease his activities, wouldn't the number of indefinitely semi-protected articles grow indefinitely? There must be a better way. –xeno 02:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. An edit like this cannot possibly justify an indefinite semi straight off, Nangparbat or not Nangparbat, else we really are in trouble. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to find out who he is and tell his mom. It worked last time.... Hesperian 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think that contacting his ISP should be considered though I am not sure if something like that has ever been done and what wikipolicy governs that. though as an avid NP reverter I do think he might be slowing down partly as a result of YMs efforts and also thosse of Nishkid64 was taking care of bulk of this work previously.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I doubt his parents would care. People with strong racial opinions usually inherit them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the semi-protections of articles such as Cauliflower and Financial Centres are justified then I think its highly likely they will care as its affecting more than just a small number of articles. Getting an official letter from the ISP telling you to stop is damn serious, as you could then get your internet cut off. I'm sure BT (or whoever his ISP is) would rather do that than get an article in the press criticising them for not blocking a vandal who is affecting that many different articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I strongly disagree with the "indefinite-is-not-infinite" argument that regularly pops up. First of all, it's as preposterous as claiming that the term of a 6-month protection is not 6 months (just because it could be undone earlier). Secondly, what matters is that in practice indefinite is pretty much infinite, because protecting admins tend to forget about their indefinite semis. YellowMonkey's case eminently illustrates this point. I don't see many instances in which he revisited a protection without being asked, despite our protection guidelines suggesting that "The only way to determine if ongoing semi-protection is still necessary is to remove the protection and see if the vandalism resumes at previous levels". 205.228.108.57 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why haven't you got an account? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why are 3% of your last 500 edits - dating back a month - to articles or article talk pages? Tan | 39 04:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you have something to say, say it, Tanthalas39. In fact, humour me and open an RfC if you're really curious; maybe my time has finally come. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for an RfC; it's pretty obvious what the problem is. Tan | 39 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't think there's a need for many things when it suits you; and it's clear that it has nothing to do with tiredness. Oh, you going to ask if I'm "fucking kidding" you again? Gee, I'm sorry, I must be going significantly off topic. Feh. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, grasping at straws, are we. That's okay, I'll disengage and you can continue doing.... well, whatever it is you're here for. Tan | 39 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When an admin is incapable of appropriately responding to criticism about his own conduct, it's not grasping at straws. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Response by YellowMonkey (& convenience break)

1. Schools. I do a weekly sweep of all the high schools in Australia by using RCL on the cats. 85%+ are just spam/vandalism/students abusing/bragging about their school or reverts of it. Reaction time to vandalism is often half a day or more for a large proportion. Nothing lost by liberally semiprotection, as almost all edits are worthless. On another note, most schools apart from the famous government-run examination-only schools that produce a lot of scientists/mathematicians, and sandstone private schools that produce a lot of political/business leaders etc, and dominate the school compeitions, have almost no indept sources and all the content is personal knowledge or school website fluff, and should be nuked, but V, RS, NPOV isn't mostly secondary on AFDs, but that's another story. Either way, most content, even if not vandalism, fails V and RS anyway.
2. Subcontinent. The average article here is very poor, much worse than random stuff on other countries, regardless of some FAs. Most regulars only tend to their personal collection and the community service levels are much lower than in other WikiProjects, and has been so for 4 years at least. Vandalism software and prompters only catch obvious vandalism but not non-obscene stuff, fluff, spam etc so manual locals and scanning people are needed. As an example, this and a check of the articles on large cities/districts of 500,000 or more reveal fossilised spam/vandalism piled up everywhere; I'm not going to bother starting all the lists of Punjabi ppl etc, these are full of vanity additions, or the caste articles, full of POV and fluff and random additions. As for politics eg the ruling Nehru-Gandhi family it's not uncommon to see articles on Prime Ministers sometimes vandalised for a day or more, or in late-2006 someone added to Rahul Gandhi that he was a rapist and it lasted multiple days, simliar for corruption etc. On Australian articles, vandalism, unsourced slurs on ministers and political parties get rolled back within 10 minutes; not here, they can stay for extended periods and get stuck in here, hence the more liberal protection in this area. A very large part of WP:INDIA PAK etc are nothing more than dumping grounds as random driveby incoherent/unencyclopedic additions almost never get reverted. To put things politely, the average established subcontinental editor is very very placid, except for the casteist/regionalist/religious factional editors. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Cricket. The rate of semiprotection here is very, very much less than in the two categories above as there are a lot of enthusiasts who roll things back quickly. Only the most infamous/confrontational players who provoke strong feelings from fans are locked, eg those who always fight. The denisty of participants in cricket is much higher than those in India and schools, where vandals, spammers and hatemongers are much more prolific. Just trawl through a cat of schools or Indian politicians/geographic entities and a very high proportion, 40%+ have entrenched spam/nonsense and most edits just pile on more layers YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Australia. Not much protection here, due to lots of active people checking more than their personal articles. Except the schools. Unlike people who are interested in certain sports or politics, and check the whole cat, I don't know of any people who like reading lots of books about various schools and so forth. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Banned users in UK eg Nangparbat or typically really noisy Indian ranges with 50+ semi-regular editors. Blocking is not very useful on Indian IPs unfortunately, so sprotection is the only way, and not a bad way given how obsessed with spam teh average subcontinental IP/casual is YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If people want to truncate the protection, that's up to them. I'm not a politician who goes around claiming to be the head of any wikiporject or claims credit for the success of that wikiproject (eg other people's FAs) and trying to find disciples and build up a personal following etc, so if the situation deteriorates I won't have much to lose since I wasn't taking credit for the better times, or getting a free lunch out of others' FAs. I'm not referring to anyone here, but it isn't hard to work out what I'm getting at. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is much ado about nothing. I've unprotected a few articles that were indef semi-protected by YM (though I would defer to YM and Spiff on their India article semi-protects) and he has never objected or questioned the unprotection. So YM has a strong semi-protection policy while I have a weak one, but, as long as no battles break out, I don't see why the two policies can't coexist on wikipedia. I suggest requesting unprotection at WP:RFPP whenever you believe a different opinion is warranted. --RegentsPark (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't cover Army of the Republic of Vietnam for example which looks to me like the reason it was protected was because someone self-reverted a test edit. I also think his reaction to my requests weren't as polite as those to you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a big deal by any standard.

We have an admin who, in good faith, is so desperate to fight vandals that is recurring to inappropriate tools to do that. I am even prepared to believe that WP does not offer better alternatives, but if this is true then we have to come up with something quick.

If it isn't, I do not accept that all these protections can be shrugged off just as someone having a lower threshold, because then we might as well take WP:PP, with all the blood that has been shed on it, and throw it in the bin. Granted, we are not here to decide an absolute, rigid threshold that applies to all cases, but if YM's low threshold is considered acceptable, this sets a dangerous precedent and makes our project at risk.

We are talking about 350 indefinite protections in a year. This is more than 12% of all current indefinite semis in the English WP. In other words, one in eight current indefinite semis has been granted by YM.

This is not a witchhunt, YM seems selfless and open to discussion. I think we just need to help out someone who is trying to do the right thing, but seems confused about the significance of indefinite semi-protections and their rules of engagement. 118.7.212.11 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the type of article that YB semi-protects gets 12% of editorship traffic, then that is reasonable. YB is not "fighting vandalism" by sprotecting articles, he is limiting damage to rarely reviewed articles that are the target of vandals; a nuance apparently lost to some commentators. Likely the most review some subjects, those relating to the Indian subcontinent for instance, is within the recent changes arena - and I know from experience that editors who are not familiar with nationalist, cultural, religious, local political, caste (I should not think the majority of En-WP editors are aware that caste distinctions are as much a potential for dispute as religion/nationalism in some areas of the subjects), gender (yup, there is that also), etc. considerations are only effective in combating obvious vandalism. Until the majority of editors are prepared to immerse themselves into the cultures and interests of these low visibility (to the editorship) subjects then we need to understand that those few who do are employing the only measures that maintain some reasonable standard of reliability for these articles. That some ip is unable to update a local cricketers domestic statistics is a price worth paying to stop another vandalising the article by saying that the subjects mother was from the untouchable caste - and I don't think that the majority of editors would even understand why such a comment might be so offensive. As for my fine words, I only know the subjects that YB patrols well enough to recognise that there are these problems, but not sufficient to be able to resolve them; I am not knowledgable enough. If editors care about the reputation of WP outside of the privileged nations (and sometimes you have to ask if they do) then we should be grateful that there are a few that do their best with the tools available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That argument would hold more weight if 5 out of the 9 articles didn't have anything to do with India whatsoever, and the Buddhism article and Thaipusam aren't totally mainstream India related topics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be were the "those relating to the Indian subcontinent for instance" (my underlining) disclaimer is noted - not all YB's edits are to India, but also other non mainstream topics. There is simply a shortage of English language editors interested in reviewing a great many of them, even if they do read all of the content. I simply used the example of India since I am aware of the issues, although not knowledgable enough to assist to any great degree. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just indefinitely semi-protect all stubs in the whole encyclopaedia? Clearly no-one watches any of them, so vandalism could stay for ages. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not that undeveloped articles aren't watched. Heaps of people (enthusiasts) patrol entire cats of science, footballers and cricketers etc, whether the article is developed or not and revert problems on the articles. It's certain topics (people tend not to be "school fans" and only many only patrol their old high school/uni) where nobody patrols the topic with a decent breadth. Or just some Wikiprojects where people are totally communally disinclined wrt cleanup stuff. I know some FA writers of yesteryear in India who did nothing else and said that patrolling the non-elite articles, so to speak, was pointless and that passing FA was the only useful and meaningful guarantee of POV (well 2006 FAs were poor and many passed on WikiProject pileons in those days, many with people from teh same country with the sam ePOV worldwview so it doesn't guarantee rough NPOV at all); for many of them, having a lop-sided prominent article on PMs etc didn't matter. Just a check of the topic editors at WP:AWNB and WT:INB using the revision history counter (as well as the fact that the latter is more afflicted by hopeless drivebys), and looking up the edit history of the main contributors, shows a clear difference in how much removal/cleanup of vandalism/spam-prose/vanity lists/unencyclopedic stuff is done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great, what about the other five articles I bought up that have nothing to do with India? Or the two that are fairly international. That the India project is dysfunctional is very sad. But that doesn't mean the same level of protections should be applied to other articles - and to semi-protect whole classes of article means that its impossible for new editors to get into those projects. We'll see what the community has to say on schools, I'm tempted to say its a reasonable idea so its possible that it will pass, its one of the reasons I didn't actually challenge any schools. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Confused? YM? I think that his mountain of content work and succinct and detailed summaries of the articles he's involved with above show an ample degree of clue and far greater degree of analysis than I have seen to date, especially in pointing out differences in areas of the mainspace that no-one else has to date in this argument. Ultimately no system is perfect, and yes every semiprotect risks driving away IPs, but I think his notes on secondary schools and less-monitored articles are worth considering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And they are good points, however they largely don't apply to the specific examples that were bought up here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think that if schools articles are going to be protected more carefully that is fine, but the Misplaced Pages community does need to be given an opportunity to respond on it. I suggest starting an RFC on WT:PP. I also think that if one user has been responsible for 1/8 of all semi-protections and I've found 9 within a few days that are definitely incorrectly protected that needs to be looked at further.

PS Its clear that YM is a great contributor to the site, just look at all those FA's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your detailed response and continued vigilance, YellowMonkey. Hopefully flagged protection/revisions/whatever will eventually lend a hand for this particularly sticky situation. I may take a look at the older items and unprotect some iff I feel I can adequately watch for the subtle vandalism. –xeno 14:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind anything being unprotected if people watch it closely enough that the % of time it spends in a vandalised state is low. For a while John Howard was unprotected it was vandalised all the time but reverted within 2-3 minutes even if it was subtle and didn't set off a prompting tool. If ten people are willing to sign up to a group of articles so that it is well-covered then that's their choice even though it might be a waste of guard time if the disruptive IPs far outnumber a good-faith one YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still think that it's a pretty inefficient way forward. It sounds a bit like, feel free to fill in the holes I'm digging.

Can I suggest you consider one or more of the following please YM?

• Slow down the rate
• Revisit some of your recent indefinite semi-protections, because I think it's undeniable that at least *some* of them were inappropriate - or at the very least that's what the un-protecting admins thought
• Use termed (as opposed to indefinite) semi-protections where applicable (have a look at WP:PP for guidance on terms)
• Try to submit some of your WP:PP and see what response you get

Would it be possible to try some of these for ~1 month please, perhaps in selected areas? We can then reassess the situation more calmly. Thank you. 118.7.152.209 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC Closure

This is a request for a non-involved admin to check the RfC at Talk:Ghost#Is this a pseudoscience topic? and decide if/how it should be closed. The RfC has run for a week, and seems to have run out of fresh input. An edit restriction on Ghost is due to expire, and it would be good to close the RfC first. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Playing in being administrators

I am not sure this is the right place to post it. If it is not, please delete it. I'd like to start a discussion about some users, who like to play in being administrators while in reality they are not. I'm not going to name anybody in particular. I meant it rather as a general discussion on the subject. Those users are mostly contributing to administrators noticeboards, and rarely almost never to anything else. They get themselves involved in the situations they know nothing about. They try to look like they are there to help. In reality they often add fuel to the fire, which increases wp:drama and makes threads on the boards, most of all at AN/I, to last longer than necessary. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Rubberneckers. –xeno 22:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, this isn't the place for the discussion; that perhaps belongs on the AN talk page. --jpgordon 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please move it to whatever place you believe it belongs to.Thank you,--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Where the moon don't shine" is one possible option. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know when I make an ANI report, I pretty much appreciate all the uninvolved participation I get. On Misplaced Pages, the only people who actually have any power are the uninvolved observers. They decide everything. Besides which, that essay doesn't focus on non-admins at all. It's more about avoiding make unsubstantive comments, which I guess I can get behind somewhat, but doesn't really address the OP's issue. To address that, I don't think only admins should be allowed to comment on ANI incidents, if that's what you're suggesting. Some users do only end up fanning the flames, but that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Equazcion 22:53, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about the editors, who contribute to those boards occasionally once in a while. I am talking about the editors, who hardly are doing anything else, but contributing to the boards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to contribute to Misplaced Pages. It seems as if you've told two editors today to "butt out" today, one of which was on a reference board asking a question about one of your edits , the other on the Wikiquette Alert page for reverting you for trying to archive a thread you were directly involved in . Any discussion on wikipedia is open to any editor, whether or not they agree with you. Consensus comes through discussion, and sometimes people have differing opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is allowed to contribute to wikipedia. I shared my opinion about the users, who are doing nothing else, but contributing to administrators boards. IMO some of them are doing more harm than good, and I am glad that sometimes one gets blocked. About me using "butt out". I've just learned a new expression, and I liked it :) and with your permission I am going to use it, when I find it appropriate. It was my last post on that thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You certainly don't need anyone's permission, but telling users to "butt out" of public discussions probably isn't going to help the matter. As for the two users you've accused of doing "nothing else but contributing to administrators boards," Baseball Bugs has more than 13000 mainspace edits , and Ncmvocalist more than 2800 . If you have a complaint with a certain editor, probably the best thing to do is file a request for comment. Dayewalker (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, bad English :) I have thought that in the beginning of that very post I said : "I'm not going to name anybody in particular. I meant it rather as a general discussion on the subject", but now I understand that my English is way too bad for other users to understand that I actually accused nobody here. That's why I withdraw the thread, and will not post a new one before I learn more English. Promise. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See m:namespace shift. It's normal. Even editors who have "been there, done that" and try to stay away from these boards, sometimes get sucked back into them by some incident or another. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

More administrators required to handle requests for 'confirmed' permission

According to the this, there are less than 30 people watching Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. I would appreciate it if some more admins could add this page to their watchlist.

Given that there are several threads ongoing above and elsewhere about wide use of semi-protection, giving new users a front-of-the-line pass to edit semi-protected articles is one available remedy. 'confirmed' userright should be handed out liberally, but retracted at any sign of trouble. A handy link to watch the page is here: watch. –xeno 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about that page. At least at first reaction, the "remedy" doesn't sound obviously good. A major benefit of autoconfirm is to slow down sock farmers, which handing out 'confirmed' liberally tends to work against. "Retract at any sign of trouble" is difficult if the "trouble" is long-term POV pushing that is hard to detect in a user's first few edits. I've been editing from IP addresses for years and don't run into semi-protection issues often enough to consider it a big problem from an unconfirmed-editing standpoint. (It does tend to provoke user complaints when it happens). It might be reasonable in some special circumstances to fast-confirm some new editors whose real names are known and verified by OTRS, and who have some concrete reason to be creating new articles or editing semi-protected ones right off the bat. Others should just be advised to get some experience editing non-problematic articles before messing with problematic ones.

In the case of newbies hitting topical subjects that are vandalized due to high traffic, it would probably help to rewrite the templates that explain semi-protection. The new template would gently explain that while almost all WP articles can be edited immediately, a few (0.02% of the total, or whatever the number is) require the user to be active for a few days before editing, and that newcomers can instead use the (new) "request a change to this article" wizard. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

If an admin has some free time, it would be great if he/she could close or relist this one. If that one has already been closed, there are probably more here. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the TfD, I'd close that as a delete and substitute, based on Zunaid's and RL's votes, and/or using and propogating RL's navbox. However, I'm not an admin, so... Sceptre 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress website revamps, links broken

Today the Library of Congress rolled out a new website design. Apparently they haven't gotten the kinks out and most or all of the source links from Misplaced Pages are currently broken. Found out about this shortly after the close of the business day in Washington, D.C. So if anything needs verification from that site in the short term, please be patient. Durova 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimum Requirements check and deletion of an RfC

Good day, could the minimum requirements be checked for the following RfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. According to the Minimum requirements standards of the RfC community, it lacks the evidence of a second user attempting to resolve the issue. The user in question is User:RBCM (Who has neither a user page or talk page), who signed the RfC but failed to provide any "evidence showing that he tried and failed to resolve the same dispute." The issue in question was my alleged conduct problem in the Diablada article.

The RfC in question has been open for nearly 6 months, and so there has been plenty of time given for RBCM to provide evidence.

It is completely unfair for an RfC to remain in Misplaced Pages (even if it is currently closed) if it does not meet the minimum requirements.--MarshalN20 | 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ivana Kubešová crashing browser

I just looked at a vandal IP's contribs (User:64.25.210.131), and one of the article he's recently edited (with the last edit) is Ivana_Kubešová. Every time i try an view that article my browser crashes (i tried in Chrome too, and it crashes as well). I think it could be because of the IP. Can someone check that article out?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It has since been reverted by another editor. Looking back at the revision, it seems the crashing was caused by the fact the page size was increased to almost 425,000. It loaded for me in Firefox, although it took quite a while, so perhaps pages of that size simply refuse to load in other browsers? Anyway, tagging this as resolved for now. --Taelus (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that my puter is slow as a snail. Thanks Taelus.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Large cluster of cut-and-paste moves

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards