Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KumiokoCleanStart (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 22 April 2013 (→=Discussion at ANI: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If it is more appropriate to comment on another talk page please do so and let me know. If possible can you please supply links to the topic in question. That will make it easier for me to follow up your comments. And please use a neutral tone when posting on this page otherwise the comments will be ignored.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

TV articles of unclear notability

DYK for Wildlife of Vietnam

On 16 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wildlife of Vietnam, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the wildlife of Vietnam includes the saola (pictured), an antelope-like animal unknown to Western science until found in 1992 in the Bach Ma National Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Vietnam. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I think this is my first DYN credit! Anyway, I did not create it or substantially expand it. Can I keep the DYN credit anyway? Pleease... ( ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Shore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Alan, Got your message about my signature - but I don't know how to fix it. Offender9000 07:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are clear instructions at Special:Preferences and details are at WP:CUSTOMSIG. It has been changed from its default setting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You were recently blocked for one month for violating your edit restriction. When I looked at your edit history today, I was sad to see you have continued to violate the edit restriction since that block expired. As you know, you simply are not permitted to make category-related edits outside the main namespace. Accordingly, I have blocked your account for the next duration in the standard sequence, which is 3 months. To admins reviewing this block: please read the previous block message, which is archived at User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive_21#Topic_ban, March 1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I find a few things with this extremely troubling:

1. CBM rarely uses his tools except it seems in cases like this where it could be argued he is involved.
2. No other admin seems to find these edits to be a problem yet its always CBM that seems to be the one to "notice" them
3. Another glaring example of an extremely poor decision by Arbcom that is hindering improvement to the pedia. There are absolutely zero edits in the last week as far as I can tell that were not an improvement.
4. That CBM seems to be stalking Alan's edits now that Rich F has been banned from the project (Another example of an extremely bad Arbcom decision BTW)
5. It seems a little disengenuous to say he was "sad" when he admit to stalking his edits. If you notice one that's one thing, if you are intentionally looking for something to block the user for, there is no sadness implied.

It is examples like this where certain admins are allowed to act this way with impunity while other editors aren't even allowed to edit protected articles or see deleted content that really solidify the problems with this site and its culture. When our policies and unequal implimentation of policy only when it suits us hinder needed improvements, its time for some change. Its unfortunate that our culture also blocks the ability to make change. Some days I see things that make me wish I had the tools to help out more. Then I see things like this that are allowed to happen and it shows me that its better that I am not. I sincerely hope that either CBM changes his mind, Arbcom unscrews their decision or some other admin with the morale courage to undo this steps up. All of these are doubtful IMO. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No other admins are as fast as CBM to notice Alan's violations. And all of the number points above are misleading, if not actually disingenious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your probably right on the first point but then most of them aren't actively watching his every edit looking for something either. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This dysfunctional admin system has become the biggest block standing in the way of developing Misplaced Pages. It's very good at making uncompromising and unskillful blocks like this one. The only real remedy is to dismantle the system and start again, but a partial remedy would be some sort of mission statement or constitution settings out some underlying principles for admins. The most fundamental principle, however strange and revolutionary it may seem, is that admin actions should, always, be designed to facilitate the building of the encyclopaedia. This means there has to be at least a modicum of respect for the people who actually build the encyclopaedia. Certain other principles follow automatically, such as applying common sense and basic decency rather than thoughtless and rigid adherence to arbitrary rules imposed by admins themselves. Alan's editing style needed some shaping, and a skillful admin system would have done that. Instead, we lose future work from a prolific and overall valuable editor, and other content builders are yet again reminded that on Misplaced Pages they are devalued and powerless. How could the system be more stupid? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least anyone who has been an admin for more than 36 months should have to rerun. Maybe even 24 months. Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about Rich F. CBM was an enabler of Sandstein when Sandstein seemed to be falling over himself in eagerness to block Rich F. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've beaten up on Alan over categorization as much as nearly anyone. This block might even be warranted. Yet it would be hard to find an action more likely to raise counter-productive thoughts of admin bias than having Carl implement such a block. It looks far too much like a biased admin, rather than a real misdemeanour warranting a 3 month block. If this action was necessary, other admins would have picked up on it. If this action was warranted, Carl could have asked another admin to carry it out. Either of these would have been far better than this. Look at Alan's block log (which is admittedly unimpressive) – most of these are from one admin. Either one admin is super-efficient compared to others, or one has something of an axe to grind. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Very good points Andy. I hadn't even looked at the block log until you mentioned it. That is indeed troubling. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Very bad point. Alan is an efficient editor; if he starts making bad edits, he can do so quickly enough that it's impossible to get back. Possibly CBM should have sent the matter to ANI after the block, but there was a real danger of things happening too quickly to easily reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The wiki fire brigade deals pretty efficiently with high-speed trolls. Even trolls with scripts. I'm sure Carl could easily have rounded up a posse of neutral admins, if preventing some clear and present danger was needed. As it is, we now have an un-block. It's not a credible block, because it looks tainted. One whisper at ANI and it's gone (we've all seen that one before). So even Carl's urgently protective block isn't going to stick and we're still at risk from the dire menace of Liefting. No-one wins. Everyone has their time wasted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...

I never know whether to not reply or to make a stand, but I think I am buggered either way. I should have expected this new block because I got a bit carried away tidying of some of the WP admin categories.

Carl, have I pissed you off at some point in the past, because it sure looks like you got it in for me. You do very few edits yet you take the time to check up on what I have been doing. As has been said above maybe you should talk it over with another admin. Or do you like the power that an admin has of kicking someone with repeated blocks? I am having trouble assuming good faith here. Another thing, why not IAR - as I have been doing - if it means there is an improvement to WP? Do you think there has been an improvement to WP with my edits? I like to think so. And it seems that the community are not concerned about my edits (under the topic ban) since they don't get reverted.

Arthur, you also had it in for me but you seem to be mellowing. I think. I am not sure if I get the gist of what you said above.

Epipelagic, something certainly needs to be done about how WP is administered. There are huge problems in virtually all areas of WP administration. Sometimes I am surprised we manage to get anything done around here! BTW, I am curious to know why you think my editing needs some shaping. None of us are perfect and that is the beauty of collaborative editing - all the wrinkled get ironed out. We can end up with the nicely ironed and pressed featured articles. Meanwhile, heaps of more important stuff goes undone. But that's another story.

I wonder if we should get get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation? One that uses rationality to make decisions rather than irrational aspects of human behaviour.

Hey! Maybe a three month break will cure my wikipediaholism! And Carl, you have managed to do what my partner cannot do - namely getting me away from the computer!

Anyway, we should all move on. You lot have got an encyclopedia to build. I will get back to the real world and get some more chores and projects done. See you all in three months. Or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also an admin and I agree with Carl's block. You have been given plenty of warnings and were well aware of the potential results of your actions. If you don't respect the consensus of the community, you shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. This is a collaborative project that requires cooperation. Openness is a double-edged sword. It allows great freedom, but also requires people to take responsibility for their actions and respect the consensus of the group. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Alan Liefting and long blocks". Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The takeaway from this is that it is ok for an administrator to closely follow, in perpetuity, the edits of an editor who is under restriction and enact blocks in accordance with that restriction. WP:HOUNDING needs to be modified to note that administrative actions are immune to this policy when an editor is under restriction. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it more a case that admins who fail to enforce community sanctions should be reprimanded? Alan's "technically" broken the rules of the community sanctions against him time and time again, and therefore Carl's slow and steady block increase seems entirely in keeping with someone charged with preventing disruption to Misplaced Pages, most particularly when it comes to upholding the community's consensus. Either actively seek Carl's de-sysop or stop whinging, HOUNDING is entirely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, I agree and I have just updated it. Since I am only an editor and therefore a second class citizen of the community (regardless of my 8 years and 400, 000 edits here) I wouldn't expect my actions through of invoking both WP:Bold and WP:IAR to last for long and I expect a message on my talk page soon.

@TRM, You and I both know that administrative reprimands are stupendously rare and generally can only be given by Arbcom. So that occurs what, once or twice a year out of the hundreds or thousands of policy violations performed by admins. But I do not for a second beleive that Carl is doing this to benefit the pedia nor do I think that the project is benefited in any way, even slightly, by Alan being punished. This is merely a block for the sake of proving a point and nothing else. I should also clarify you are one of the relative few admins on here that I do have a high degree of respect for so please don't take my comments as being directed at you. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, Carl is just doing what is required. I have to say that when I have encountered editors who have a reasonably troubled record, it is natural to check from time to time that they aren't being more troublesome or, in this case, breaking the terms of the community sanctions placed upon them following agreement from the community. I have defended Alan in the past, for the one or two "sanction busting" edits he makes, he probably makes one or two thousand good edits. But when the sanctions kick back in, there's no sign of any apology, which would probably go a long way to relaxing the enforcement of his block. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is required. I just wish it wasn't Carl doing it every time. It would be much more convincing of the justification of throwing around 3 month blocks for non-vandal editors if there wasn't the appearance of hounding. Other admins could cover this perfectly adequately. – and I speak as someone who has already been accused of hounding Alan for seeking this topic ban in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) @RM: Thank you for accusing me of whining. It certainly serves to improve the tone of discussion. Now, as to the points you raise... Carl has been asked, even begged, to seek another admin to perform these blocks. He has refused every opportunity to do so. It simply isn't necessary for Carl to hound Alan in this way. There are plenty of other admins quite capable of clicking 'block'. WP:HOUNDING is entirely relevant. CBM's conduct here is not collegial. It's not a question of him being desysopped, and I never asked for that. It's a question of him doing the right thing. CBM has applied six blocks of increasing length to Alan, and has failed to get his point across. It is time, long time, that someone else picked up the baton. CBM's methods are failing. This is irrespective of Alan's conduct. I made no comment on Alan's conduct, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@TRM, I think Carl did fine until about block 3, after that someone else needs to step in. No one is going to think anything other than they are being hounded when the same person keeps shoing back up. Especially when they rarely edit as is the case of Carl. If one admin does an action its less likely to be a problem. When that same admin keeps showing up and is the only one for 5 or 6 successive blocks its human nature if you are the individual being blocked to not take that person seriously. Impressions mean a lot so if the admin wants to be taken seriously then they need to act seriously and be professional. There is nothing trustworthy or professional in doing very few edits and then in the few times you log in to do something you check 1 user and then logoff until the next block. Its shady and defies the trust the community has placed on adminship.

Also I understand I have been harping about admin abuses and the us and them mentality that many of the admins have lately and people are getting tired of it. But the problems exist and they aren't going to be fixed unless the admin folks and people in positions of power like yourself admit there is a problem (which some have) and take some action. As I said before I have a lot of respect for you and I think that you have a lot of integrity and I think you have seen what I am talking about. Not all of the admins do and those that do either don't want to admit it or won't. Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hammersoft, it was "whinging", not "whining", subtle difference. If anyone thinks Carl has misused his tools they should seek to have those tools removed, or else stop the "whinging". Hammersoft seems to not really understand the point of a community sanction, i.e. one where an editor is asked to not do certain things by the community. Doing those things despite being asked not to is "not collegiate". Carl's "methods" are not really questionable here, he's just reinforcing the community's wishes. If you, Hammersoft, or anyone else thinks the community's consensual ban on Alan's edits is no longer valid, please make a proposal at the appropriate place rather than just "whinging" about it here. That won't solve any problem, will it?

Kumioko, I think you and I understand one another. As I said above, I've defended Alan, but when he's given the chance, he doesn't seem to want to help himself. He doesn't respond to this in a collegiate manner. But naturally, I'd like to invite you (and any other interested party) to initiate discussion at AN/I or elsewhere to bring in more opinion, and to head off Hammersoft's repetitive complaint about Carl's reasonable block pattern, i.e. to get other, uninvolved people interested. I'm sure Hammersoft has done that, although I can't find any evidence of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right Rambling Man, I don't understand. I'm just the village idiot. But, it seems to me, insane as I am, that if you keep doing the same thing over and expect a different response there's a breakdown somewhere. I'll point out once again (because it appears I need to) that I have not commented on Alan's restrictions. The point is Carl's actions, which are considerably out of line with community norms. Oh wait, I don't understand the community norms. I dunnno, I guess it's ok to repeatedly do something over and over and over and over and over and over (is that six? I lost count) when it doesn't solve a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's the point you're not getting. Alan has been warned, and blocked, for the same thing, several times. I don't know where you live Hammersoft, but if you committed the same crime six times in a row, but after the third time someone said, "stop it, if you do it again, you'll be in trouble", normal people don't do it again. Not another three times either. Maybe Alan needs some help understanding what he's doing and some assistance in interpreting his block conditions (which were discussed by the community). If Alan isn't prepared to solve this problem, he's no longer part of the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well for whatever else is true, no amount of discussion will ever make CBM admit he made a mistake nor will it make him change it. Its also quite obvious that several admins all think there is a problem, which seems unlikely since most of them would find any reason to support another one, were just wasting time and hard dive space by continuing to talk about it. Its so exceedingly rare that admins are held accountable I/we really should have known better than to think that would be the case here. Since its even more uncommon for Carl to admit he made a mistake (never as far as I know) and he never shows any remorse for the affects of his actions that I don't really feel there is a problem to call attention to those actions. Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Rambling Man: I don't know, call me an idiot, but it seems I am discussing CBM's conduct, and you keep justifying his poor conduct by way of Alan's poor conduct. I haven't discussed Alan's conduct. If you wish to continue discussing Alan's conduct, feel free to do so but it has precious little to do with what I am discussing. I'd appreciate it if you would stay on task, but if you choose not to do so we're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Carl is enforcing a community-sanctioned ban on certain edits. Alan keeps breaking the terms of that ban. I don't see what Carl has done wrong at all. I do see what Alan has done wrong. I'd appreciate it if you could stay on task too, this about enforcing a community-sanctioned block on Alan's proclivity to tamper with things he's been asked not to (following a community discussion which resulted him being banned from certain editing areas). Please define what "mistake" has been made here in an admin enforcing the wishes of the community? Of course, if you feel like continuing this whinge-fest, I'd suggest you open a thread at AN/I (again.... ) because I doubt many people are watching this page. Moaning about the various injustices and malpractices you perceive here won't serve you, Alan, or the community well. Centralise the whinge, and we'll carry on there. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• TRM, you are very much focussing this on Hammersoft. But Hammersoft, as you can see in this thread, is not the only person who thinks that CBM should have left this to other admins to enforce the ban. And you can add me to that list. CBM is practically the only admin who is enforcing this restriction, practically hounding Alan. I see even one of Alans proponents here complaining that it is only CBM who is enforcing things, and that is an editor who is in favour of enforcing the restriction.

This is not about whether CBM is right or wrong, this is not about whether this was a violation of the restriction and that Alan should be blocked for it, this is about whether CBM, if he was to see the edits happening, should bring this to the attention of other admins, those who had no other involvement with the situation, and let them evaluate this (and that has been said to CBM as well). Or are you, or is CBM, afraid that a totally, completely uninvolved admin (that is, one who has never had any interaction with Alan), would not enforce the restriction, so it is best to do it yourself so you're sure that it gets enforced properly. --Dirk Beetstra 05:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• @TRM: This is now the second time you've decided to accuse me of "whinge". I grow tired of this. If you are incapable of mounting an argument in opposition to mine without resorting to personal attacks on me, you have no argument at all. Please stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For all those whingers above, and anyone else who think Carl's actions need to be looked into, please start a thread at AN/I or put up with it. This bluster is entirely pointless. Carl has enforced the block regime technically correctly. If you think he hasn't, do something about it rather than just use this page as a chat group. I see nothing going on here which we "solve" the "problem" that any of you believe exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• And the third time you've accused me of being a "whinger". Nice. I don't think anyone (could be wrong) is saying Carl isn't technically correct. That's not the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I chose my words carefully, read it again. If you consider yourself to be one of "those whingers above" at this point, well the cap fits. Alternatively, you may think Carl's behaviour needs to be looked into. If neither, the above was clearly not addressed at you. Having said that, what do you actually hope to achieve with this recent swath of edits of yours (solely to this talk page)? You certainly seem dedicated to the "cause", but the "cause" is unclear, Carl will correctly keep blocking Alan every time he breaks his community ban, what do you want? I don't think you'll get it in this forum, so please, let's see it centralised at AN/I or elsewhere (again) and we can then agree a way forward. In the meantime, all the complaining here is simply wasted. Do something constructive about this situation or move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point it seems clear to me and should be to all that this solidifies that admins are exempt from the policies of WP:involved and WP:Harassment. If the repeated harassment of an editor by an admin is condoned and accepted, which it seems to be in this case, then the culture of Misplaced Pages is truly as toxic as I had feared. People wonder why folks would want to "collect the hat" of adminship but they shouldn't when we cement in our community the standing the admins are above and beyond the policies that they are supposed to be protecting and upholding. When an admin can continuously stalk an editor without any fear whatsoever that they should consider the ramifications of their actions, then that action, or lack of action, is perpetuating the myth that admins are a class above regular editors. To me, this sort of incorrect reasoning is as much a part of the problems with Misplaced Pages and its editing subculture as the vandals and policy violators we try and protect the project from. I would also add that since CBM blocked Alan they yet again dropped off from editing If the only time an admin does an edit is to login and check on one editor and then logoff, that to me is a sign that the allegations of harassment are valid and not just a couple of editors "whinging". Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • @TRM: I fully understand you chose your words carefully. That you would nevertheless engage in such uncivil behavior is therefore even the more troubling. A number of people have raised reasonable concern regarding CBM's actions here. Your response has been to belittle and insult them. I understand your position fully. You may consider my response to you at an end until such time as you to decide to behave in a civil manner. If you feel it necessary, you may of course respond and insult me again. I'm confident it will have the desired effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, why isn't anyone here actually taking some action about this rather than filling up this talkpage? If someone feels the block is bad, AN/I is the place. If someone thinks admins are acting out of their scope, AN/I is the place. If someone believes there are "valid concerns", AN/I is the place, not this talk page backwater. Please, do something. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just found a thread in the AN archives which was opened and closed over a couple of days (I miss so much when I have a long weekend away), about this very subject. I see the closing (non-admin) comments were: "There is no reasonable expectation that any admin is going to overturn a legitimate block which was completely justified by the very clear topic ban which the community imposed. The editor will have the opportunity to appeal that block at the end of the month should he choose to, and the community can then remove the sanction if it wishes to. In the meantime, this is merely another thread for the same-old people to dredge up the same tired complaints and re-air them, despite their never having gained any significant traction in the past from the community-at-large. For these reasons, I am closing this thread." Oh well. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was closed after barely 12 hours, so it's no surprise you didn't see it.

Thou shalt not criticise the admins, for They Are Infallible.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Andy I agree and to TRM, anyone familiar with ANI and the Admin vs. editor dichotomy here in WP know that any attempt to bring up admin abuses are dismissed as hogwash. Time and time again these things are shot down even when the abuse is blatant and deliberate. I could list a dozen just in the last couple weeks. All of which were dismissed because Admins are infallible and above policy. The community it seems can be trusted with electing an Admin for life but in order to remove an abusive one it requires action by Arbcom and in order for that to happen it takes weeks and hundreds of man hours of debate and a consensus of abuse which is extremely rare and only happens a couple times a year. Kumioko (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been mostly avoiding this thread. However, I want to respond to one comment by Hammersoft, namely, "A number of people have raised reasonable concern regarding CBM's actions here". I do not see any such reasonable concerns.

• Alan Liefting violated his edit restriction and was blocked in accordance with policy. In this instance, he made more than 50 prohibited edits over a period of two weeks, and there is no doubt he violated the restriction. He wrote above, "I should have expected this new block because I got a bit carried away tidying of some of the WP admin categories."
• WP:INVOLVED specifically states that an administrator does not become "involved" by taking administrative actions. It says, "This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I have dealing with this edit restriction at length on behalf of the community, and doing so is completely appropriate.
• If Alan Liefting is concerned that he has been blocked too many times by the same person, the simple solution is for him to follow the edit restriction, so that he is not blocked by anybody.
• The reason edit restrictions are imposed is that the community has grown tired of discussing a particular editor over and over at ANI, and wants to avoid spending even more time on such discussions. It would be counterproductive to post each block to ANI, because the entire purpose of an edit restriction is for the editor to be blocked without further discussion when it is violated. If a discussion is needed before each block, then it is as if there is no edit restriction at all.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • As with TRM, you are justifying your actions by pointing at Alan's actions. I have not discussed Alan's actions. This is about your actions. You have an opportunity to involve other administrators in blocking Alan. You've been invited on multiple occasions to do so, and have refused to take the opportunity. Whether or not there is a vendetta on your part, whether or not you are hounding Alan or not, the simple reality is that to a number of concerned editors this is the appearance that is being carried. It is very simple to sidestep this issue and allow for the same functional result (that of blocking Alan); if you see actions of his that you feel require there to be a block, bring it to WP:AN/I and ask another admin to step in. It is blatantly clear that your attempts to convey the message to Alan have failed. Whether the fault for that lies with Alan, with you, or both is immaterial. It's long past time you allowed another administrator to pick up the baton and remove doubt that it is your manner of approach that is contributing to the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your feedback. Ideally, Alan Liefting will begin to follow his restriction, and no additional blocks will be needed. In the case that one is needed, the next block will be for a period of one year, so I don't expect it to be much of a recurring problem in the future either way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec)As I stated above, it was naive of us to think that CBM would admit to fault and in fact historically even those rare few admins who lost their tools didn't think they did anything wrong. I also agree wtih Hammersoft that you are just attempting to justify innappropriate action and bad judgement in being the lone ranger in this quest to ban Alan. I can appreciate that it must be frustrating from an admin standpoint when your decisions and motives are questioned. Its also frustrating from an editor standpoint when an admin who is supposed to upholding policy so blatantly violates it and then tries to justify it with Wikilawyering. Its unfortunate that in our online society that someone with a couple of extra buttons is thought to be more trustworthy than others who do as much or more for the project and have been here for a long time are treated as though they don't understand policy. Its also frustrating when an admin violates policy and then is supported by others attempting to justify a bad decision. Wikihounding, involved and harassment operate in principle if not by rule exactly like 3RR. If the action is being done repetetiveily by the same individual over and over, especially when that individual does few other edits aside from the harassment, it gives the perception of innappropriate action. Even if the action was perfectly valid it absolutely does not give that impression. You can continue to justify it with Wikilawyering and try and kid yourself into thinking we are actually stupid enough to believe it, but we are not. And I think we all know that you will watch Alan's edits for any indication that you can block him "broadly construed". Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec) @CBM: Do we have your assurances that the next block will not be conducted by you, and that if you feel such a block is warranted you will bring it the attention of other administrators via a noticeboard? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • My belief is that an edit restriction may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator, and per WP:INVOLVED I am not "involved" in this case, because taking administrative actions does not make an administrator "involved" - "because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." If this block was not invalid, there is no reason to think that an additional block would be invalid. If you would like to argue that this block was invalid (although there was already an AN thread about it ), I encourage you to take the advice given above and open another thread on a noticeboard. I am not planning to reply further here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • So the response is precisely what we thought. You don't feel you are involved nor do you feel that you are harassing Alan nor do you plan on stopping. I truly wish there was some venue to take this too that had any changce of being heard but unfortunately admins protect each other here and I have little hope that any suggestion that an admin is harassing a regular old editor would be anything other than futile. If Alan was an admin we would have admins lining up to protect his rights but not here. I for one was hoping you would do the right thing but I knew better based on our interactionsn in the past. Truly disappointing but not unexpected. Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

• I have opened a discussion at ANI about this situation. Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

CSD Declined

Hi. I have declined your request for speedy deletion of Omeida Language College as educational institutions are not legible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. If you still believe that it should be deleted, then I suggest you nominate it for WP:AFD after your block has expired. Stephen! 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Portal bars

Alan,

When you get back, I found this edit. I have reversed it. Every article should have portals.

The "right" (or rather, best) place for a portalbox or portalbar is the "See Also" section, but until that opens up, they should be in the external links section. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Backtalk