Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia: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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 126 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 123 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 35 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	23	23
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	36	36
AfD	0	0	0	12	12

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 111 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 111 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 105 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Charles_XI_of_Sweden#Requested_move_13_January_2024

(Initiated 104 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 2601:249:9301:D570:9012:4870:54CD:5F95 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 102 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 92 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 80 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 73 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2 World Trade Center#Split proposal 16 February 2024

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 9 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Policy question

WP:BLANKING says the following may not be removed by a user from their own Talk page: "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." Does the phrase "any other notice regarding an active sanction" include an active block notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would think so. If we wanted to allow removal of active block notices, I think we would need to make a specific exclusion. Ryan Vesey 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I recall this question being raised some months ago. I think consensus was in favour of prohibiting removal of active block notices, but I'll look for the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, Lothar, very helpful. I can now see in the edit history where the phrase "any other notice ..." was added. FWIW, the sentence should be reworded in my view as the added phrase encompasses the first phrase. It was that redundancy that gave me pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How does that work with normal talk page archiving? Obviously you can't create a talk page archive if you're currently blocked, but people with active Arbcom topic bans who aren't blocked are able to archive their talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. Checking user's contributions clearly shows active blocks, no need to force editors to maintain a badge of shame on their talk pages. Nobody Ent 00:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not? People don't generally go to the contributions page to find out about an editor, they go to the talk page first. A block may or may not be a "badge of shame", it all depends on the circumstances, and the talk page can provide a lot of additional information which can help put the block in context. The block log has no context, just the naked facts - and strictly from the admin's point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct that any comments related to the block but not in a template can be removed? Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Excluding the block notice if it wasn't given in template form. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding -- only the block notice itself cannot be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my case, the user blanked the entire Talk page. I restored ONLY the current block notice. I haven't seen an answer to Nyttend's question. I also agree that current block notices should not be removable. Checking the log isn't an easy matter for most users, and I don't see why we should have to. It only has to stay in place while it's active.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know what people do? All I know is what I do -- user or talk page then immediately bounce to user contributions. Look at page of last contributions (what have they been up to?), then go to earliest (see how old account is) and then down to the toolserver edit count (total number and distribution). That's all real data.

If an editor is blocked I don't understand why vultures editors need to be circling around their talk page -- they can't do any harm to the encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody Ent is 100% correct about how it should be, but as I recall there was no clear consensus on this issue the last time it was discussed. I know that for blocks that I make, I don't care if the user blanks the block notice, and if some Rulz Enforcer comes in and replaces it, I'll revert them. For cases like this where there's no consensus, I guess deferring to the blocking admin seems a reasonable compromise (even when, if they disagree with me, they're wrong). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, I'd be happy to agree with you when you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for review from uninvolved editor

Hi, I have been accused of edit warring on a controversial article Liancourt Rocks and so I would like a review by an editor that has had no previous involvement with this article or any related article. I have removed text from this article which claims administration of the islets by South Korea as none of the sources given actually state this. My reverts are based on Wikipedia guidelines, however I will not make any further edits to prevent an edit war. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a valid warning -- at a minimum, you should be explaining your reasoning at Talk:Liancourt_Rocks Nobody Ent 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the warning. I'm asking for a review of the edits I've made and I've just added a section on the talk page. Clover345 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Divineabraham

Divineabraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Divineabraham is requesting the removal of his present indefinite block, which was levied a year and five days ago after an SPI. The user seems to have socked more after the block; he last posted an unblock request in January, after the most recent discovery of a sock, but was given WP:OFFER and told to wait six months. After not editing for more than six months, he just now posted a request for unblock:

I believe that I deserve to be unblocked, its been more than 6 months. I think I have gained some maturity as well.

I declined the request procedurally, since I don't think that this type of block should be removed unilaterally, but I promised him I'd submit his request to the community. I am neutral on this specific situation. Please offer your input so that we can have a solid consensus on this user's future. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally commensurate with an SO response, I expect the user to explain what they did wrong that got them blocked in the first place, what the intend to do differently, and what areas of Wikipedia they intend to contribute to. Saying "I've waited and now I'm not going to be bad" isn't usually enough. If he can make it clear that he knows why what he did was wrong, and can explain why Wikipedia needs him around, that would go a long way towards gaining my support for an unblock. --Jayron32 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder about the vague assertion: "I think I have gained some maturity". There should be a greater certainty expressed that maturity has increased, what the previous bad behavior was, and that the behavior will not be repeated. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Divineabraham produced several unblock requests between August 2011 and January 2012; you may want to read them to understand his thinking more fully. I've invited him to participate by using the {{helpme}} template, so it's possible that he'll respond to what you say here. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived, since this probably should get more discussion. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally, lack of discussion = lack of community interest in unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I virtually never participate in these things, and to me it seemed right to get someone to close it, among other things. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

They've repeatedly been told to review WP:OFFER, I don't see any indication they have done so. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Limited unban request for Peter Damian

Background

• Peter Damian (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian/Archive#21 November 2011)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification : Peter_Damian
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44#Request concerning Peter Damian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Peter Damian and FT2
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Peter Damian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive209#Good faith (towards Peter Damian)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive214#Proposal to unblock Peter Damian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Peter Damian block violates WP:IAR
• message by Peter Damian to the Foundation-l mailing list on 2011-10-24

Request by Volunteer Marek

Over at Wikipediocracy the topic of the Core Contest has recently been raised (in a positive manner). User:Peter Damian, who has been banned on Wikipedia, but who is a specialist in the field of late 13th century philosophy indicated that he would be interested in massively improving the Duns Scotus article for the contest. Duns Scotus is one of the top three medieval Philosophers, along with Aquinas and Ockham so the article definitely falls within the purview of the Core Contest.

It is my understanding that Peter was originally blocked for some mutually problematic interactions with another particular, single, user. Notably, AFAIK there has never been any question as to the quality and integrity of his content related edits in the Philosophy area, and importantly for this request, the “other user” involved in past conflicts with Peter has never edited or shown an interest in that particular article.

Hence, I would like to propose that Peter Damian is provisionally unblocked for the sole purpose of improving the Duns Scotus article. Effectively Peter would be “topic banned from all of Wikipedia EXCEPT the Duns Scotus article and its talk page” (and also his own talk page, since I think he’s not blocked from that either). He would work on improving the Duns Scotus article, hopefully get it up to GA or FA status, and then submit it to Core for review. If he does edit anything but the Duns Scotus article and its talk page, his block can be reinstated.

If all goes well, this would be an opportunity for Peter to show that he is capable of non-controversial participation in Wikipedia and after the contest ends we could have another discussion about whether the ban could be relaxed further. VolunteerMarek 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think something worth noting is that the history of his talk page notes that if he wants his talk page unprotected and/or wants to be unbanned, that he contact ArbCom. I don't a simple relaxing here would be appropriate without contact with them first. Regards, — Moe ε 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• As per above, this is outside the remit of ANI/the community as a whole. dangerouspanda 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the (very quick) closure of the request here - Peter Damian wasn't banned by the ArbCom but at AN/I. Hence, it is within the scope of the community decision whether to allow this or not.VolunteerMarek 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history here it seems the last unblock discussion took place at WP:AN, which is probably where this request should go, right? VolunteerMarek 17:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unarchived; while Peter Damian was under arbcom sanction the ban was a community ban by ANI discussion. The community is per policy allowed to unban those it bans (arbcom is another appeal point, but we can undo anything we can do). Unarchived on this procedural basis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Should it stay here or be taken to WP:AN? VolunteerMarek 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Formally AN, but we've allowed discussions starting here to stay here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support conditional unban: Peter Damian (under whichever account he chooses - but just that one) should be allowed to edit Duns Scotus, over the next couple of weeks, upon which his efforts should be evaluated and a full unban should be considered.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. VolunteerMarek 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BEANS. We shouldn't condone editors evading their bans to disrupt Wikipedia to win a contest. Per below. Regards, — Moe ε 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude, chill out. He's not "disrupting Wikipedia to win a contest". He's trying to improve an important article. If it makes you feel better, we could just say that if he does somehow win the Core Contest, his winnings (which I think are like 20 bucks or something) will be donated to Wikimedia foundation.VolunteerMarek 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He's not? His article choice was rejected in part as it wasn't a tier 4 article, to which he promptly quit promising "mainstream press" about Wikipedia article quality, then reverted his edits to the article he intended to help by reinserting misinformation. What part of that is helpful? Regards, — Moe ε 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It was not "rejected" (I think it's hard to get an entry "rejected" from that contest) - someone just pointed out it wasn't on the Tier 4 list. The subsequent discussion on the talk clearly indicates that people think the article is certainly significant.VolunteerMarek 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, then. Peter felt it was rejected based on a judges opinion, to which he quit and then redacted all his edits to the article. Regards, — Moe ε 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but also easily correctable. This is a Wiki and editable. Why not try to talk to the guy. He obviously wants to play on the Wiki but is also pissed off at the shunning. Don't make it all some all or nothing, decide it now, drama. Give the man a chance and try to make it work.TCO (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support For this very specific editing purpose that I believe Wikipedia would benefit from, as Peter Damian can easily be acknowledged as being an expert on the subject of Scotus. I should add that he should also be allowed to edit the Core Contest entry page, obviously, and also be allowed to respond to any dispute resolution processes that are started directly about him. Silverseren^C 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's been years. Nobody Ent 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Subject matter expert wants to improve article. Please let him. Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. Looking through the behavior when he was banned, there seems ample evidence that this is somebody the encyclopedia does not need - and given that Quisquiliae (talk · contribs) he's still socking right now it's blatantly obvious that he has not reformed in the least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I will never support unbanning this editor. His past behavior showed a level of malice of the sort that does not go vanish over time, and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with - what, he shoots lasers from his eyes? VolunteerMarek 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He's way more dangerous than that. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I might just love you for that reference. Arkon (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support for a valuable contributor, provided Peter drops any vengeful agenda he may have against various editors and administrators. I've seen a lot worse than Peter get second chances...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for two reasons: 1) per The Bushranger - Peter has a long record of causing problems, and appears to be clearly acting in bad faith 2) if Peter wants his ban lifted, he needs to apply for it himself, and make appropriate commitments himself as part of this. VM doesn't state that he's acting as Peter's proxy in this matter, and even if he was this would be unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I linked to the Wikipediocracy discussion above, which should be sufficient. And I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be "unacceptable" here (did you mean "even if he was not"?) VolunteerMarek 01:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to be blocked, he can make a genuine request by emailing ArbCom per the usual arrangements for banned editors whose talk page has been turned off. His posts on Wikipediocracy makes no meaningful commitments to stick to a single article or behave in an acceptable fashion, and it appears that this is entirely about proving some kind of point about how foolish Wikipedia is by not letting him contribute. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• unban. Yeah, the dude is not perfect, but who is. This ban crap is much more about some sort of social forum shunning game than really defending the editorial content process at Wiki. Makes me sick. Let the guy in.TCO (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Peter Damian does not appear to understand why he is banned, and says at Wikipediocracy, "It would be newsworthy if I were blocked for trying to improve the Wikipedia article on Scotus." While it is unfortunate that the Scotus article has been neglected, I can forsee conflict. TFD (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose First, we should be considering the interests of the encyclopedia; it is obvious from this individual's statements elsewhere, that the interests of the encyclopedia are not why he wants to edit the article in question. Second, banned really does mean banned, and creating extra sockpuppets to get round a ban, does not result in the lifting of that ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, Hell, full-unban him and welcome him to the Re-Established Editors Association. PD's a sharp guy and will do good work. Remember? Project. Build Encyclopaedia. Anyone Canz Edit. I've seen a lot worse than 'Peter' editing without restriction. And nobody go and block him; ya might piss him off (oh, right, that would be the intent). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  nb: Article needs attention from an expert on the subject.

• Oppose, I was ready to support this, but revelations that he's still socking despite a ban scotched that. If he's not willing to follow the "don't edit when banned" rule, what other rules is he not willing to follow? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

• Oppose - Are we not yet tired of having our chain yanked by people like this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. Why should he get an unblock just for his own personal gain? Jtrainor (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

because in this case his gain is also wikipedias gain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've no opinion about this particular editor's history or merits, but on general principles, oppose unban of any banned editors who are actively socking (as per the section below).  Sandstein  14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Life can be very lonely if you live by such a black and white rule book. "I've no opinion...but rules is rules". Ceoil (talk)

• Perhaps Peter could rewrite the Scotus article in wiki format and post it, cc-by-sa, somewhere off Wikipedia (Wikipediocracy?). If it's an improvement, an editor in good standing may replace the existing article with it, or parts of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As a pro-WP active Wikipedian who also posts with some regularity at Wikipediocracy, I just want to share a couple thoughts for what they are worth. There are a range of anti-WP folk who post there who range from frustrated barred editors to out-and-out jihadists seeking the day in which they can dance on the grave of a completely annihilated Wikipedia. Do not act presumptively and treat them all like the latter, it only fuels the hatred. Strive for both calmness and rationality in decision-making. Even if the answer is "no thank you," make sure to do the legwork to provide a rational basis for that opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Note that he could remained blocked; he can then contribute from his talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment My take is that Peter is a very capable and knowledgable editor, who got eaten up and thrown to the wolves as part of a personality driven power struggle. Which is now irrelevant; it was friggin eons ago in internet years, and most of the principals are long gone. There is a clear need for people like him here, and any keeping the block in place is self defeating and feeds adigation. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. I'm shocked that this is even being considered. "Peter Damian" has behaved appallingly towards multiple editors, including myself. Even though he and I had never previously quarrelled, as far as I'm aware, he gratuitously and vindictively posted personal information about me off-wiki to assist the campaign of a banned editor who had carried out multiple campaigns of harassment against others. He knew perfectly well what he was doing and that he was likely to cause harm by doing so. He has never apologised or even expressed regret for his actions, which forced me to abandon my previous account here. If he had not already been indefinitely blocked, I have no doubt that he would have been for his actions. This individual is utterly unfit to be a member of this community. If someone is foolish enough to unblock him I guarantee that he will spend more time before Arbcom answering for his actions than he will on editing any articles. Prioryman (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• thats a fairly brutal accusation there Prioryman; lets me understand this correctly, once an editor is blocked, NPA is off, and you can say what the hell you like, with no need for diffs to back up the claims? My openion is you should be blocked yourself now, for this. "likely to cause harm". Jesus. "forced me to abandon my previous account here". Right. Your unsupported mud sticks tactic is getting tired. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• If he is unblocked then there will be evidence aplenty in an arbitration case against him. I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't have a leg to stand on. I'm not providing diffs here because of the privacy issue. As for NPA, truth is an absolute defence. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, ChrisO/Prioryman/Helatrobus continues his favorite tactic of accusing others of "campaigns of harassment." Prioryman used the same tactics on behalf of a friend in a recent arbcom case, rather amazingly avoiding fresh sanctions on top of his long history of sanctions under previous accounts. Good for him. Still sleazy as hell though. Here's how it ended for his friend, who favored the same tactics [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm with Prioryman on this one; this is an appalling idea. As has been noted, most effectively and concisely by Bushranger, this is not a teenager who has now matured. This is someone whose effect on the encyclopedia has been overwhelmingly negative, and I see no reason to think that would change. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support For the exact limited proposal. That some regard him as being on an eternal "anathema list" should not mean we never use him for limited purposes. Heck - the Pope even preached at a Lutheran church. We ought not be less forgiving, ought we? Collect (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the pope anology, there have been two active popes at times ;) Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - simply put, no one who is actively evading their ban should be unbanned. I'd be willing to consider an unban if Peter Damian could demonstrate that he understands and is willing to abide by our policies, but the fact that he's continuing to evade his ban using sockpuppets demonstrates his continued unsuitability for Wikipedia. If he's not willing to show any respect for us and our rules, why should we show any respect for him? There are some who are able to learn from their mistakes and change themselves, and some who aren't, and Peter Damian has sadly demonstrated he's in the latter category. Robofish (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've read a number of his articles and find them to be impressive. We need content editors of his caliber. I have no idea of the background. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - banned is banned, and this proposal is in direct conflict with that ban; the community weighed his contributions then against his behaviour and considered it an acceptable loss, so we really should stick to that consensus unless we actually intend to reverse it in full. Unfortunately, while this would be the place to discuss doing that, he apparently hasn't exactly made a very good case for himself in the meantime for that, either. -— Isarra ༆ 07:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Creating content is what we're here for, but the only way that works in the long run is if everyone plays by the same rules. AFAICS, PD is utterly recalcitrant and continues to either directly act towards or to agitate for disruption to the project. That is quite different from the likes of Br'er, whose return to good graces was due to his having ceased the behaviour which caused him to be originally sanctioned. There is nothing preventing PD from going that same route, and we essentially standardised the process years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• oppose If a banned user is currently (or quite recently) socking, they are basically letting us know they aren't willing to play by our rules. I'd favor the "standard offer" being open to this user, but those conditions clearly aren't met at this time. Even editors who have been abusive in the past (Jack/Br'er) are allowed to return if they can keep their nose clean for a good long while. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Can somebody tell me if hi socks are disruptive? If no, I see no reason not to extend WP:OFFER. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OFFER doesn't apply to users who are actively socking, he would need to stop doing that first. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this isn't a proposal to completely unban him. It's a proposal to just unban him for a single article.VolunteerMarek 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible sock

Well, I just found this: Quisquiliae (talk · contribs) Sporadic edits between 2010 to now, including edits to talk page of Jimbo. Peter Damian writes on Wikipediocracy on August 9: "I'm thinking about entering on behalf of the beleaguered article on Duns Scotus (T-H-L). Not actually listed as vital, but current academic view is that Scotus ranks in the top three medieval philosophers (together with Ockham and Aquinas) in terms of notability, and probably is in the first position, so it should be there." The same day on August 9, Quisquiliae returns to editing and writes in User:Quisquiliae/sandbox: "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy both agree that Scotus is up there with Aquinas and Ockham as the three most important philosophers of the High Scholastic period (c. 1200-1350)." and then proceeds to make sweeping changes to the Duns Scotus article mentioned, entering it on Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries for the above mentioned contest. He also messaged Casliber [2], another participant in the Wikipediocracy thread, about editing the Scotus article. WP:DUCK seems to be quacking with this one. Regards, — Moe ε 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock confirmed, User:Quisquiliae is banned editor User:Peter Damian posting on Wikipediocracy "Oh well Scotus has been disallowed [3]" and "So this towering giant of the Western intellectual tradition is not allowed on a list that includes Bing Crosby" in reply to his message as Quisquiliae. Any administrator willing to block this sockpuppet of Peter's for evading his ban? Regards, — Moe ε 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to be a fairly poor idea to block Peter Damian or his sock for trying to improve the article which is the topic of his professional expertise. Bound to send a bad message to potential expert editors. Has User:Quisquilliae caused any problems on wiki? Any disruption? Any block worthy behavior? Would we really be helping wikipedia by blocking him, or might this be one of those occasions where adherence to the rules are an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • • • "Any block worthy behavior?" How about being a block-evading sockpuppet of a community banned editor? That's all the reason needed, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If he's banned, he's banned. There's no point in having a banning policy and community ban discussions if we're just going to close our eyes to violations of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • • Au contraire There is no point in keeping people banned if their not being banned would benefit the encyclopedia. The rules are useful when they are useful - when they are not they are not. In this case it seems to me that disallowing an expert from editing the particular topic of his expertise will be harmful both to wikipedia's content and its reputation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
        • • Letting somebody who disrupted the encyclopedia to the point of being given the boot by the community freely sockpuppet and get away with it scot-free will harm Wikipedia's content and reputation far more than blocking the block-evading sockpuppet ever could. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
            • This is plainly silly. And false. Letting somebody who sockpuppeted to improve an article, actually improve that article "legitimately" will clearly NOT "harm Wikipedia's content and reputation far more" than, well, than pretty much everything else. How exactly would it? This is just empty hyperbole. Look, not all sock puppets are created equal. Some people sock puppet to insert vandalisms into articles, some sock puppet to win a content dispute, and some sock puppet to gain an admin-ship after being disgraced. This is none of these. This was sockpuppeting just simply in order to improve an article. "Full stop". You can scream "them's the rulez!!!" as loud as you want, but mostly you just make yourself sound close minded and silly, especially since commons sense (and WP:IAR) clearly indicate the opposite.VolunteerMarek 00:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't believe accusing Jimbo of enabling theft is exactly the most appropriate behavior. On wiki, that is probably the only unhelpful of edits (all the edits in that conversation to be exact). Off-wiki is another matter, because he gives his intention to cause disruption to Wikipedia on the Wikipediocrasy thread because his article wasn't chosen. He was banned in the first place because he was disruptive and he caused disruption with sockpuppets to the point the community got sick of him. Since his article wasn't chosen for the contest, he went and reverted all his edits to the article back to a previous revision. He only wanted to participate in productive article writing since there was an award incentive and since he can't win, he doesn't care anymore. He has no intention of helping Wikipedia, it is quite apparent, and Quisquiliae needs to be blocked for evading his ban. Regards, — Moe ε 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • However, if he's unbanned by community discussion, that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Until then, Quisquiliae needs to be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be best to lay out the previous discussions (has no-one linked to them yet?) So we have a community ban discussion here from this enforcement request from this discussion. There will be more. I do think it needs to be considered with all the background on the table. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Been thinking about this as this has been discussed by the arbitration committee at some point (can't remember exactly when and I need to refresh my memory). It is worth noting that many of the discussers of the community ban are no longer actively editing, and this issue could be considered as deriving from an arbitration process. Furthermore I think some history needs to be absorbed by folks considering this. My initial question would be whether the community wants further discussion to be by the committee or by the community. So that'd be a good question to sort out first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of material from the Arbcom mailing list on Wikipedia Review. It should let you find when things happened.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to think that ArbCom need to be involved at some level, since that was the root of the issue, and there seems to be a bit more than meets the eye going on. If he was socking (which has not been "confirmed" as far as I can tell, at least per the standards at WP:SPI/CU) that would complicate matters. I don't have an opinion on the unbanning although I'm obviously for bringing back highly skilled (but policy respecting) editors, but I think it does need more than a day's worth of chat at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a lot more than meets the eye, here. Casliber was quite right above. This is one of those things that has years of accumulated history. I put the background in above — because I had the same thought as Casliber at about the same time. There are several things that I did not put in. Some will just stir up issues that I'm sure we're all sick of hearing about. But others are things like Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian III (talk · contribs), Peter Damian IV (talk · contribs), Peter Damian V (talk · contribs), and Peter Damian VI (talk · contribs), only one of which is even on the SPI casepage, notice. The SPI case isn't the whole of the matter, by any means. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure why nobody else was willing to block this self confessed sockpuppet, but it is done now. Obviously I oppose unbanning anyone who is actively evading their ban. We set a very bad precedent here recently by letting someone get away with this. I said at the time that it would only lead to more banned users and WP:LTA cases trying the same thing, and here we are already. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I will give notice here that if "Peter Damian" is unblocked I will bring him to arbitration for his off-wiki campaign of outing and harassment against me. This is not just a sockpuppeteer, people, there have been very much nastier things going on here. Prioryman (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting position, indeed. Collect (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Especially considering Prioryman's own history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from Quisquiliae

He left a final response here. To some extent, I agree with him. Silverseren^C 11:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was he banned?

Could someone give an executive summary of why he was banned? (But a somewhat longer summary than him being a nuisance). I remember trying to figure this out after I came across a note by a valued colleague who stated he left WP because, among other things, the "situation with Peter Damian," but soon gave up after having to follow a whole mess of linked discussions. I wasn't even able to figure out whether he left because PD was banned or because he wasn't banned soon enough. (Upd.: I'm now pretty convinced it was the former.) The discussions Casliber mentioned above also seem to be from after the situation had apparently escalated. —Ruud 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• He was banned several times for a variety of reasons; however enough time has passed - he has a clear capacity to create high quality content - and the time has come to give him another shot at editing with perhaps a few provisos from arbcom. That seems fair given the recent return of a couple of problematic editors who are now making significant and positive contributions again, (thorny persona and all)...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem here of course is that history is repeating itself. See archive 214 of this very noticeboard. What happened there is what's happened here: An unban is requested by a third party. People discover that sockpuppetry to evade the ban was ongoing at the time. They object because of that. Peter Damian withdraws the request. It happened there. It's just happened here. History has repeated itself more than once on this, and not only when it comes to the unban requests. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. No-one can do that. There is, at this point, some six years of history here. Peter Damian's first edit using an account was in June 2003 and things went bad in 2006. The six years since cannot be boiled down into a short "executive summary". The history here includes a whole lot of things including (a) the Wikipedia-promotes-paedophilia dispute, (b) Peter Damian's interations with other editors, (c) a ban by Jimbo, (d) the whole FT2 incident including accusations levelled at FT2 and legal threats, (e) the Foundation-l mailing list ban, (f) the current Ash/Fae incident, (g) currently ongoing disputes over images at Commons, (h) currently ongoing disputes with Wikimedia UK, (i) breaching experiments (reported by SlimVirgin in 2010), and (j) the off-wiki "destroy Wikipedia" incident. With the best will in the world, Ruud Koot, the only answer here is to do the reading. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that "further reading" only shows how ridiculous Wikipedia can be at times. For example the "destroy Wikipedia" incident, from the comment by the closing administrator (and current arbitrator) User:Xeno: Peter has been unblocked and has been asked not to destroy, or attempt to destroy, Wikipedia. Similarly, several folks have admonished Law for blocking a user for off-wiki hyperbole. Nothing more productive shall come of this discussion. Note also that of course, Law who did the blocking of Peter that time, got desysopped, sock puppeted, got adminned again then had to be blocked and desysopped again (and original account indeffed [4]). Of course THAT user is still merrily editing away as if nothing happened. I think Peter has much to contribute, so why doesn't he get another chance? What's the difference? Lack of powerful friends?

Additionally, like I said in the proposal, while there was some trouble with FT2, FT2 has *never* expressed interest in the Duns Scotus article, so that shouldn't be an issue. VolunteerMarek 22:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you try to drag the whole Law/undertow thing into this. You left out the part about the undertow being banned for six months, and the two admins we lost because they did not reveal that they knew he was a sock. So the real precendent here is that we do not put up with block evasion, even if you do have so called "powerful friends." Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ironic" how? It was brought up by someone else above, more or less as a "you should look into the background" kind of thing - so yeah, the background should be looked into. But it's apples and oranges. One guy - Law/Undertow - was evading a ban (with full knowledge of some "powerful friends") in order to essentially get the admin powers back so he could start abusing these privileges. The other guy - Peter Damian - evaded a block to ... improve a freakin' important encyclopedia article! And that's what he did. Do you have your priorities straight here? This ain't facebook, it's still an encyclopedia.VolunteerMarek 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume the irony would be if you were aware of his socking. In that case you'd be bring up a case where others were punished for not reported known socking of a banned user. Not sure if ironic is the right word though... Hobit (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that it is possible to eliminate the problems regarding interactions with other editors. Just keep him blocked and giving him access to his talk page, so that he can put whatever he wants to edit there and someone else can take move that to article space. Count Iblis (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a reasonable proposal. VolunteerMarek 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps whitelisting pages for him to edit via requests on his talkpage? If he wants to edit something (mainspace or otherwise), he can make a formal request on his talkpage to be reviewed by an admin. If he edits a page without approval, he could be subject to varying warnings and sanctions. Idk, maybe a bit bureaucratic, but might alleviate concerns of renewed disruption. But that would be just an editing restriction; any unban should come from community discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked from user talk page

Is there a serious negative to allowing Peter to edit his talk page for the purpose of rewriting the article? Let's face it: it wouldn't exactly be difficult to reblock him, even on flimsy grounds, given his history here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I think that there is - he's been socking, and this 'request' from him appears to have the motivation of proving some kind of point (from what I can be bothered reading on Wikipediocracy, he seems to view his ban as evidence that Wikipedia is unwisely preventing supposed experts such as himself from contributing). As such, enabling talk page access would validate his approach. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's time to let this vindictiveness go and move forward in a positive direction - if he screws up again - he'll be closed down again; let's have some light and lighten up here...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't just about socking, he's also participated in deliberate off-wiki outing and harassment of Wikipedians. There's no way that he should be allowed to resume any involvement in this project without at the very least an apology and a guarantee that he will never do it again, and even then, to be honest, I would be leery. Prioryman (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add that Prioryman is correct here. Earlier this year he was banned from UK Wikimedia chapter-run events (excluding London meetings) because of this. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be a little careful; I believe Peter disputes those assertions heavily, and that the emails in question were removed from the mailing list archives because they were, basically, slanderous. I have no idea of the merits of his case, or his ban, but throwing out such comments - which people far more "in the know" than you or I judged a legal risk - seems, at the least, a case of poking the bear. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that he has been told that he is welcome to attend WMUK events. John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I may not have kept up to date, I'm just reporting what I have in my emails. If he's actually been told he is welcome to attend WMUK events, I apologise. I'm not trying to stir and I know that he has had friendly contact with the chapter more recently. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing with chapters is that they do not consider blocking or banning from any WMF project as a reason not to deal with somebody who might have money to donate. I can't believe things have devolved here to the point where we are once again considering letting an active sockpuppeteer, in this case one whose stated purpose is to try and embarass this project, get unbanned by violating the terms of their own ban. We are giving him exacrty what he wants by even having this discussion. Until he is ready to stop socking and to use the proper channels to request a lifting of sanctions I don't believe we should even be talking about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We should focus on the editing of Wikipedia. It is precisely because other irrelevant things are taken into account that Wikipedia can be gamed so easily. Assuming that Peter cannot be let back in because of the problems mentioned above, if he can work on some article via his talk page in a constructive way, we should let that happen. The lifting on sanctions requiring a change of attitude from him should be considered a separate matter. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox; I know nothing about the circumstances (and no one has posted any detail, apart from a very hand wavy overview) so I can't comment on whether he should be unblocked. However I was aware of the situation with WMUK and was commenting on the allegations made here, which the charity has (as far as I can make out) rescinded. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Manning

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

---

Hello I believe my edit is correct because it doesn't say Bradley Manning leaked the info it just states that there was a leak which is not in question and User:Srich32977 thinks that his belong I have no malice towards him I just don't want edit war.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind discussion opened on the talk page. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and best dealt with on Talk:Bradley Manning where Srich attempted to start a discussion with you earlier but you have either missed or ignored and reverted him anyway. None of this merits an ANI over and I'd watch that you don't shoot yourself in the foot with an edit-war claim. Have you notified him of this thread?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I applaud your self-revert as moving in the right direction.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I didn't notice the discussion until just now I am making no claim against him of edit warring and I even revert my edit until such time as the discussion is complete with a consensus.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Unban request of User: Shakinglord

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

---

As per a discussion on User: Muzemike's talk page, I publicly reveal that I, User: Penguin 236, am actually a sockpuppet account for User: Shakinglord. I am very sorry to any editors disturbed by this fact. I have come to AN to request my unban. I believe that I am a substantial editor, my goal is not to disrupt Wikipedia at all. I come wanting to improve Wikipedia, like each and every good editor here. I merely made one fatal mistake, and that ruined my career editing Wikipedia. I would like to clarify the matter of my socking, a matter that is seen as "strange" to my blockers. I admit that my first socks were bad. I was both depressed and paranoid and I wanted to arrange a test as to whether people cared about me on Wikipedia if someone ranted about me. I was blocked, and the rest are simply just the spawn of panic, out of a sort of need to edit and improve Wikipedia. I know that banned editors are not supposed to request their own unbans, but please, hear me out on this one. I firmly believe that I can make decent edits to Wikipedia. I do NOT want to return to Negapedia. I feel that I can better improve Wikipedia here. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion at his talk, Muzemike refers to checkuser data (he's a CU) connecting Penguin with Shakinglord, so we can take it that Penguin is telling the truth and not trolling by pretending to be someone else. No opinion on the unban request. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser wasn't even necessary. All one had to do was make the connection with his old account here. --MuZemike 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I happened on this by accident and assumed that you connected the two with CU. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of morbid curiosity, what is actually true about who you say you are on your user page?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the user boxes, those are my real views and hobbies. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I'm sorry, but lying which you have been persistently in the past does not signify any change in my opinion. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for that, I was simply fearful. My intentions are good. I do have to admit, my socks are not. I am simply trying to say that a clean slate will alleviate the problem. That is all I want. Then, I will acknowledge that my previous transgressions are bad and I will never sock again. Isn't this what WP: ROPE is for? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is that you still tried to deceive us again. If you were truly, keyword, truly deeply sorry for your actions, then you shouldn't have tried to pull off the same stunts as last time. You blew the previous chance you gave yourself with, threatening legal action and trolling. Let's not forget this which is essentially the same as this situation. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. The time-wasting silliness of this, among other things, tells me that the standard offer would be a wiser course of action. WP:NOTTHERAPY is pretty apt here as well, I think. 28bytes (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That, again, was a mistake. I was simply freaked out that I may not be able to help Wikipedia. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a a correct way to request to be unbanned, but he choose to use a sock instead so I don't see how we can trust that he will not disrupt Wikipedia again.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us examine the possibilities. If I am unbanned, why would I further sock or disrupt Wikipedia? What do you have to lose by unbanning me? I am a good editor, had I not posted that I am Shakinglord, you would have not thought of me as problematic. True, this has turned into a bit of a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I simply could not keep living a lie. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, I implore you, let us forget those horrible, foolish mistakes. Those were awful, yes, but there is no need to dwell on them. I can do good, and you know it. Please, if we leave my past mistakes, I promise that there will be no more sockpuppetry, lying, or disruption of any kind. And, on the first sign of disruption, you can block me forever. Also, if I am unbanned, I promise to stay off ANI and AN unless the discussion directly concerns me. You really have nothing to lose. Quoting ABBA, take a chance on me. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice try with the popculture quoting and flowery appeals at forgiveness. I don't think that's gonna change the attitude of people towards you given what you've done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I find myself somewhat annoyed that I spent the better part of an hour last night attempting to assist you with determining the nature of your block and with how to request an unblock, only to find that you knew perfectly well why you were blocked all along. I did start to smell "something" along the way, and I even strongly suggested that you grok the implications of the attention you were about to bring upon yourself. Although it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of this discussion, I don't know if you realize that your actions have (among other things) resulted in a complete block of an entire school from editing on Wikipedia. That kind of impact is FAR more detrimental to this project than pretty much anything that you did as an editor. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not your ban should be lifted, that will be for others to determine. I do have an opinion that your actions in the past have been severely detrimental to the project and create a high bar to overcome. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor could have created a new persona and tried to quietly edit and help the project without fanfare. Instead, he has been prominent in recent discussions on ANI, calling for blocks and bans on other editors. This is a strong indication that his motivations are far from clear, that his intent is not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia, and that he cannot be trusted. Follow the Standard Offer and come back when you have done so, to ask again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Hell no and block the sock until the discussion is finished. --Onorem♠Dil 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's a good thing Penguin owned up as a Shakinglord sock, but that doesn't excuse a circumvention of a block on sockmaster. I agree with BMK and TD's votes. After screwing up with all those edits, to trust this sockmeister again is an issue of concern to the project. Rebuilding a reputation via the original account and not socking ever again seems to be too steep a road for this guy...what's Negapedia anyway, some Newspeak-version of WP?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and block the sock When an editor is blocked (especially one with the history of Shakinglord), we occasionally grant them WP:OFFER. When that happens, and someone does unblock as per WP:OFFER, that is the WP:ROPE. One may not simply seize a rope of their own, using their own rules, and of their own accord. Evading a block is evading a block, period. dangerouspanda 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We had this public appeal at 01:56, 12 August 2012, yet at 00:10, 12 August 2012 Penguin had still been lying about it and would clearly not have come clean if not caught. A period of honesty of just 106 minutes between the last lies and the unban appeal is nowhere near enough to convince me of good faith - I'd recommend a minimum six months of no socking and no lies, as per WP:OFFER, and block this latest sock at the conclusion of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are channels to go through and socking is not one of them. Yes Robby/Penguin revealing himself is a good sign, but let's not forget it was only inevitable before it MuZemike or somebody CUed him. GiantSnowman 10:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Blocks prevent disruption. Bans formalize block-on-site of long-term disruptive editors who have exhausted community patience. This editor has again demonstrated that he is not willing to comply with site policies but instead to disrupt and waste many others' time. Therefore I see nothing to gain with unbanning an editor who causes us to waste more time and refuses to obey policies. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shakinglord's final contribution to his account on November 21, 2011: "I formally retire. I ask that no one disturbs my userpage, in memory of me. Farewell, perhaps we will meet again someday." Prophetic but too often true of a sock. On April 24, 2012, SL created the Onepier account. On June 3, 2012, when the Penguin account was created, SL said on this board: "Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here." ([5]).

Since being here in his new guise as Robby, SL has trotted around like a self-important puppy, spending most of his time here and at ANI, making pronouncements on all sorts of things as if he is already an administrator with 10 years of experience. When told by many that he should spend his time elsewhere ([6] & [7]), he ignores the advice and continues to do what he likes best, game-playing drama. I actually think he doesn't necessarily care whether he's doing "good" or "bad" as long as he's entertained. He's a precocious, emotionally immature boy (I'm assuming he's really 15) who has no boundaries in his behavior. He states above that at the "first sign of disruption, you can block me forever." I submit that his responses here are just as disruptive as the rest of his conduct and we should accede to his request. His contrition is absolutely hollow, and he has exhausted this community's good will.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think we all are just wasting our time with this discussion. and that a Admin should just go ahead and close this unban request per WP:SNOW. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • After the admitted ban-evading sock has been blocked, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek

Don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think this needs to be clarified. I am stating it in good faith.

• Looking at the support section of above WP:RFA, I can figure out that it has a devoting effect of regionalism. As, the candidate is from India. Major supporters are also from India, who are supporting with a formal rational.(i.e. Voting in the RFA after long time, or more perfectly voting for the first time) I think these activity could change the results of RFA and also the consensus. Possibly, I could be wrong about this perspective. but, It is the thing that needs to be clarified. GiantBluePanda (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that this best belongs at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

At least say few words about it. GiantBluePanda (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as nobody is engaging in canvassing or sockpuppeting the votes are perfectly valid. I trust that the bureaucrats can distinguish between "Support - He's Indian", and "Support - <other reason>". (Disclaimer: I supported Ekabhishek.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• But, It could be non-wiki canvassing. (Please I am not assuming bad faith) You can easily figure out that half of Indian users have voted in support, while they have rarely voted to any RFA in past. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, please ban editors from WP:INDIA from participating in any RfA related to members. It's a simple solution really. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you think this is an issue. Obviously editors monitoring the talk page of the candidate and/or the various nominators would know about the RfA and would be motivated to !vote in it. If this brings more editors into the RfA process, that's a good thing. And, should we really be monitoring ethnicity of editors? --regentspark (comment) 12:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, we shouldn't. Rfa's are some of the more highly watched WP areas so I don't think any action is necessary. Nobody Ent 12:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Wow, please say you were being factious with that comment, I literally choked on my coffee when I read that. I find that patently offensive to even suggest (joke or not), and certainly a violation of policy and common sense. I can confidently say that we will NOT be monitoring the ethnicity of voters, and not barring good faith votes based on any Project the participants belong to. That is a strike-worthy comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No more offensive than the OPs suggestion that I supported the candidate because I'm Indian. —SpacemanSpiff 12:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, I wasn't aware of your ethnicity, so the sarcasm wasn't obvious. I would agree that both are equally offensive, yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have to say this all seems in bad taste to me - if someone works extensively in India-related areas, they will be well known to other people working in India-related areas, who will be more likely to !vote in an RfA than people who don't know the candidate - and (surprise, surprise) a lot of those will be Indian! Although a candidate's ethnicity does not play a part in my decisions, I am pleased when I see good candidates from other parts of the world than the Western/American/British culture that forms the great majority - it's the best (and probably the only) way to address the systemic bias that is unavoidable in a project dominated by one culture/ethnicity. What matters here is whether Ekabhishek will make a good admin, and people's !votes should be assessed on their actual words, not on their ethnicity. (Mind you, did you see the number of Americans who supported Dennis, and Brits who supported me? What a disgrace!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• GBP, how do you determine that many of the supporters are from India? Simply their activity? You'll notice that I've done a good deal of work on Liberian topics this year, but I've never been to Liberia and am ineligible for citizenship there. The whole RFA appears to be devoid of problems. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:GiantBluePanda

Furthermore, GiantBluePanda (talk · contribs) appears to be some sort of troll intent on disrupting RFA, RefDesk, and Bwilkins (talk · contribs). See especially these edits: [8] (he claims to be a cleanstart account; he should know this), disruptive question, disruptive question, disruptive user talk post, disruptive question, questions BWilkins's autochecked alt account, CU violates privacy policy, nominating people for adminship [9] [10], desysop Bwilkins #1 & #2, and more in his edit history. This is in addition to the initial CU misfire (visible on his user talk page, which he currently has at MFD) and bumping into checkuser blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct in that this is an odd looking contrib list, the question on user rights that you linked [11] is particularly telling, as that isn't something you stumble across accidentally as a new user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a false alarm. Please see [12]. I asked Bwilkins' advice on my behavior. I was confused whether my behavior was disrupting or not. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)It's a cleanstart account, not a new user. Nobody Ent 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That doesn't preclude them from being a a troll, and his added diff doesn't disprove that either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I have e-mailed Coren my previous account name. User:Reaper Eternal has fired too many questions at me. Dennis! I am willing to explain all your doubts, if you have. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• [13] This isn't a disruptive post, neither [14] is. You can call this [[15]] a adult question. Ask the user himself about [[16]] whether it is disruptive or what. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I held myself back from using the word "troll" to describe GBP more than once. Their unhealthy fascination with me (on both of my accounts) indeed has raised some concerns. Unrelated to that, I actually believe the original block on them was correct, based on WP:DUCK alone. Clearly, they have been around awhile - whether it's a valid cleanstart or a block-evasion, someone else can find out. Overall, they're a pain on the project so far - an unfortunate net-negative based on their entire editing pattern - not including the surreal attention I have garnered from them dangerouspanda 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have intention of disrupting the project.If I had, I wouldn't have asked advice from you.My problem is, I am trying to adjust my self returning after 1 year. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note on Coren's talk page. I'm not inclined to offer any more good faith in this situation and think his input as CU is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen talk of getting checkuser input, but what exactly is it that you want us to do? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• • The user started their career with a checkuser block, which was then reversed due to a possibility of it being in error. I was wanting a second review, per contribs. Since Coren has received an email from the user and knows the circumstances best, I was thinking he would be the best to re-review. The contribs here are quite arguably trollish and Coren might be able to shine some light on the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have very little confidence that this editor is legitimate. The user contacted me after my original block giving a plausible explanation and naming an account as his past account after a clean start. His story was just coherent enough to give an AGF unblock – and no more. There are a number of other indicators of trouble and connected accounts that make the situation smelly enough that I had discussed the case (after my unblock) with the other functionaries in case someone recognized a long-term abuse pattern. While nothing concrete popped up, it's not clear how reasonable continued good faith remains reasonable at this point. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked - Based on the evidence here, including the opinions of ES&L, Reaper, myself and Coren, I have reinstated the original indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the block, unfortunately ... but expect a loud whine in 3...2...1... dangerouspanda 15:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And he requests an unblock, while not logged in, and geolocating in the exact same geolocation and ISP as previous socks, thus further proving the sock issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanstart revocation

From the above, is it a reasonable assumption that this isn't a CLEANSTART candidate? If so, how does one go about piecing together the paper trail from whatever account was abandoned under a cloud to start trolling as GiantBluePanda? Is it as simple as assuming he's a sock of the puppetmaster that he geolocates to? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Coren know his past identity. GiantSnowman 10:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

More precisely, I know of an abandoned account GBP claims to have been his. I'll be keeping an eye on it, and I'll pipe up if it wakes up, but I see no way to reveal a link that may or may not be true between the accounts at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of topic ban

I, User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) am under a temporary ban from starting new articles until I go through past entries to look for copyrighted material that are too long for fair use. I have been through my archive and reworded passages that were too close to the source material or that were cut and pasted that were too long to be considered fair use. I am hoping the ban can be lifted so I can create new content. Hundreds of entries from the Library of Congress collaboration have not been added because of the ban. I am much more careful so that I do not add copyrighted content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is helpful if you link to the original ban discussion (so we can see the original terms), as well as link to some of the articles you fixed, so that a determination can be made with full information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• original topic ban thread at WP:AN November 2011
• Block discussion for violating topic ban July 2012

• Oppose No thank you. You're were back at it very recently, even though you were under the restriction. dangerouspanda 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bans aren't supposed to be permanent punishment but are to be used to curb active bad behaviour. If I have gone through my material as requested, what then is the purpose of the topic ban? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No thank you. - En Wikipedia has plenty of rubbish content without your cut and copy paste creations of low note subjects - better if you go and improve those that are already created and ignored by editors.Youreallycan 16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out a "low note subject" that I copy and pasted? If a subject doesn't meet GNG it would have been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the creator of a massive amount of articles, yes? - they mostly will be of low note - that is just a basic fact - all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes?- you have been copy pasting content to the En Wikipedia project , yes? - so ... Youreallycan 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Terang Boelan, a mid-importance Indonesia article (higher if there were a Cinema of Indonesia project) was just created yesterday. That blanket statement may apply about topics regarding the West, but certainly not worldwide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out at least one "low note subject" that I copy and pasted, instead of using the false logic you use above? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of topic ban. Support someone with more administrative oomph than I have reminding Youreallycan that there's no need to be so sharp about it; a simple "no" would suffice and would not contribute to his already-notable history of unpleasant behavior in discussions. GJC 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that YRC's comment was rather harsh, but you don't necessarily need an administrator to tell someone that they really ought to reflect on the potential ramifications of their words before saying them. Nevertheless, he is currently facing the prospect of an arbitration case over repeated comments of this nature. "Warning" him not to be so brusque at this point is not likely to alter his dispositions. Kurtis (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose given that you were blocked less than a month ago for violating the topic ban, removing it would appear to be attempting to achieve this via an alternative route. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the recent block. GiantSnowman 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — per recent blocks and extensive block log. Thine Antique Pen (public) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Entirely too soon after coming off a block for violating the ban. You shot yourself in the foot by doing that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Given that this was a ban with a specific "ending" condition, if that ending condition has been met, are we now changing the ending condition? A topic ban shouldn't be used in this way IMO. If the issue with the topic is resolved it should be removed. If there are issues that exist outside of that topic, we should be blocking. If we _are_ going to extend a topic ban and _if_ the topic ban's ending condition has been met, we should specify the purpose of the ban so we know when to lift it. Hobit (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So if someone subject to a topic ban ignores it and violates it, it is ok then? Particularly since they have been blocked twice in the last month, including for violating the topic ban? When someone disregards the terms of their sanction, it isn't a good place to complain about the completion of the said terms. It is understood that if you violate the terms of a sanction, those sanctions may be extended until a time the community feels comfortable removing them. Maybe next week, or next month, but not today. Violating the terms is yet another form of disruption, and since the purpose of any sanction is to prevent disruption, extending the ban for a while longer seems consistent with policy. Had he not violated the ban to begin with, this entire conversation would be moot, so be sure and point the finger in the proper direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Not saying it's okay. I'm saying a topic ban shouldn't be used as punishment. Does it really make sense to extend a topic ban because the topic ban was violated? "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." I'm not seeing any evidence that extending this ban will be in service of that. But consensus is clearly toward continuing the ban thus far. Eh, if nothing else this will make a really good RfA question about how to appropriately use blocks and topic bans. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the topic ban is to prevent the problematic behavior and give the user a chance to demonstrate that they can contribute without engaging in the banned behavior. If they instead demonstrate that they cannot it serves a legitimate preventative purpose to uphold and extend the ban. 99% of users are not under any type of editing restriction, it is not that hard to avoid. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant CCI case is here - it does not appear to be anywhere near cleared. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RM backlog escape

Resolved

 – closed now, but still plenty of stuff in the backlog. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. I'm posting this request here following a referal from the teahouse. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a form I can fill to get this thing going? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to get some attention here. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd recommend posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, if you haven't done so already. Patience, Grasshopper.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because, a) It's an RM, not some general discussion and is already in the proper backlog, and b) There is only one poster in Requests for closure, suggesting it is effectively deserted. Do you have any other ideas? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, getting more exposure wouldn't hurt. Maybe drop a line at WP:AN/I as well. Not within the scope of the board, yes, but at least it'll have a chance of being seen (even if only to be turned away officially there). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not important enough for me to get disruptive. The teahouse sent me here and for now I'll stay. While we are on the topic of getting admin attention, did you ever consider the fact that the first hit on a google search of bureaucracy is a Wikipedia page? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

W/e, not too worried about it. Just another system to learn the ins, outs, shortcuts, and hidden passages of. Ain't that life.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The following is addressed only at the 1,465 members of the admin class: What is wrong with you people? This is a clear consensus routine RM execution on a high profile page. You don't even bother to look? You sure seem to enjoy executing your powers in other cases, why not this one? No chance of block implies no fun? As an economist this is quite clear to me, without incentives there is no reason to expect effort. As a humen being I can't help but be somewhat disappointed and find the loops you guys jump through to protect your lifetime appointments quite tasteless. And please don't answer me. I am not here looking to make conversation. Just get the job done! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Be patient, mon - this has been here but a day. Someone will get to it when they get to it, and even though there is a pretty chart, anyone actually closing the discussion would still need to look at the actual comments and read through the thing themselves. This takes time, and that there is a backlog of these requests in general is evidence of that, but they do get done. Meantime why not go poke some other backlog youself? -— Isarra ༆ 06:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• And being abusive to people (who are all volunteers) is really not an effective way of asking them to help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I went ahead and closed the discussion. Have spent a week trying to avoid doing so (who needs grief and, for Yaniv256, a 'slow to close discussion' usually implies that admins are trying to avoid grief) but somebody's gotta do it. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative. Action was needed. I am just curious about one thing, is there any particular reason why you considered participating in the debate inappropriate? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, action was not "needed". Last time I checked there was a queue of over 200 RM's waiting to be closed. Articles can still be edited whether they have the consensus-based title or not, so an RM is not an urgent action. Nobody's RM is any more important than anyone else's RM. Because there's no time limit on editing or renaming articles, patience is indeed a virtue. Using up your "get out of jail free" card on an RM was a waste dangerouspanda 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that what I used? I was positive I put in my "get into jail free" card on the table, but have been known to err in such matters. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

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

---

Can somoeone put this debate out of its misery? I attempted WP:SNOW closure a while ago but someone reverted, and since then it's only garnere even more keeps, with 5 days still left to run. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

With 24 edits (currently), you attempted a non-admin closure of a controversial AfD without marking it as a non-administrative closure and without even signing your, uh, decision. And someone reverted you? Gee, what a shock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What's controversial about it? It's tanking keep. It was when I attempted closure, it still is now. The revert was only made on the basis that they believe it's not a SNOW case, it had nothing to do with the fact I failed to sign it or anything else as far they were concerned. Do you see something to gain for Wikipedia by letting the article be tagged for a further 5 days? Bearing in mind it's one click away from a number of links exposed to the masses via the Main Page both right now, and in a short time too. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

From the definition of controversial: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Several editors !voted delete in that AfD, so there clearly is disagreement (controversy) in the AfD. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But the argument now is that a keep consensus has been established after the initial snow close. It might have been too early then but is sure as hell (mind the pan) justified now. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

HeCameFromTheShadows, please tell us who you are a block-evading sock puppet of. --MuZemike 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ad-hominem. Address the argument, not the man, or take it to a proper venue. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Given that his very first edits were to remove the cleanup tags and then close the AfD, I think this user owes us an explanation. --MuZemike 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering and rules-parsing by a "new user" to retain articles? I'd bet a plugged nickel on A Nobody. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally a fast learner, but this time I am a bit slow: Why a plugged nickel? Either you bet something of value or you avoid speculation. Otherwise you are plain rude. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think, however, that you'd lose your nickel in this case. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I only take virtual nickels. Tarc, why don't you make yourself useful and pick the nickel in the section right above us? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a SPI created a couple days ago in which this editor was mentioned; but it wasn't created correctly, so isn't listed at WP:SPI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In other news, I have closed the discussion as snow keep. Bencherlite^Talk 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• In other, other news, the reporting editor has been blocked as a sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin help needed in ARBMAC area

Cross wiki POV pusher added unconsensus map to the ARBMAC area Kosovo article. I restored original neutral map that was in the article for years, and after that, several reverts occurred, last one by highly involved admin. Kosovo article is under 1RR parole, so i am asking for a some neutral admin to restore original map until talk page discussion is over. None is allowed to push its own povs without agreement, especially when nationalistic causes are fuel. So, admin should restore old consensus map, and wait for a new agreement on talk. We must follow rules. Old map must stay in article until (if) new map is agreed on. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the substantial difference between map #1 and map #2? Obviously I see the topographical elements in one of them, but I mean: why is one neutral and the other not? Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The one added by Hannover95 gives Kosovo a bit of extra territory to the north and east. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that until now, but yes, you're right, the grey one does chop off quite a bit of area from the diamond shape that every other map depicts. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, restore old consensus version! That is essential wiki rule. After we agree on new one, we can easily put it in. This old map is also a default one, as seen in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Each entity should have the same map. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is already extensive discussion on the article talkpage. If that discussion doesn't go your way, coming here to ask for somebody else to revert on your behalf (allowing you to sidestep 1RR), as well as taking it to AN/I is really not a good idea. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that was great idea. Without neutral editors, who cares about wiki neutrality, Kosovo article would now be pro-RoK altar of nationhood, with coat of arms and Albanian heroes/freedom fighters all over fighting for use of Wikipedia as propaganda tool. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Worrysome

[17] This might be of administrator interest, since it would be a massive copyright violation. Since Penguin 236 is indeffed and also has no TPA, I'm not quite sure if I should notify him or not. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. 98.213.109.159 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Where's the allegation of a planned copyvio? Remember that we're set up to permit copying, and some policies that harm the quality of the encyclopedia, such as no-noncommercial-licenses and no-WP-only-permissions, are in place specifically so that others can copy our content without difficulty. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there would be a copyright problem if they start copying every article. They would be considered a mirror or fork at that point. You are free to copy information from site to site, or wiki to wiki, as long as you attribute where you got it from. Wikipedia operates under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. So if they don't hyperlink where they got it from on Wikipedia, or attribute the authors on the talk page, edit summary or otherwise, it would be a violation. At that point, you would go through the process of having their content taken down. Since it is a Wikia site, the proper thing to do would notify someone on there to notify them instead of going through the steps of sending a DMCA takedown notice. Regards, — Moe ε 09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have to say I'd be pretty surprised if a schoolkid could get the server capacity needed to host a full Wikipedia mirror. And if he copied 1,000 pages a day it would take him more than 10 years to copy just the articles we have now, before he even started on talk pages, project pages, archives... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Psst! This is Negapedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I saw it - 140 pages so far! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have a sneaking suspicion Penguin 236 is not the only account Mr. Shaking Lord has been using. Any checkusers about? 28bytes (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Extensive copying of enwiki content can also cause problems with circular sourcing &c in future. (I could point out a case where an editor made up a bunch of stuff, it got removed but not before being scraped by a third-party site, then the editor came back and restored the content, citing that third-party site as a source). However, I wouldn't lose much sleep over a site with 140 articles (some effectively blanked), one active editor, and no googlejuice. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The only active editor being..da da dun..Shakinglord himself. And as of today, they've given up on their silly little project. Blackmane (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Poo. Regards, — Moe ε 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

TPA is a write right, not a read right, so I think parties ought to be notifed, even if they have no TPA.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmies needs to be banned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request to ban Drmies denied. Requester blocked for edit warring on, of all places, WP:ANEW. Courcelles 03:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drmies is falsifying reasons in order to remove legal notices. Should be dealt with.Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this is the diff in question. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk · contribs) for 24 hours to stop the disruption they were intent upon delivering. I believe this individual is not here to edit constructively, but I've been wrong before. Tiderolls 03:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • They're now blocked indefinitely. Of course, if I do get banned, I got a whole drawer full of socks, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Role of admins in Pending Changes

Hoping for feedback from fellow admins; I think there's a danger here, for WP and for us individually, and I'd like to see us get out in front of this instead of being swept along with the tide. A recent RFA candidate was defeated largely over biteyness issues on one of their 50K edits. I couldn't help but notice that, in slightly different circumstances, the edit they reverted could have been seen as a negative unsourced addition to a BLP article, and in that case, not only would their revert have been okay, it would have been mandatory per BLP. What this has to do with Pending Changes is that the proposal that seems to have the most support at WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers puts the burden on individual admins to revoke the new userright if someone is misusing it, which I assume means warning them first. It seems to me that, since different admins draw the line on both BITE and BLP in different places, very active reviewers are going to see their talk pages fill up with warnings from admins that they're in danger of losing the userright because they leaned too far in one direction or the other. The problem is that this type of warning, even if it's accurate, is likely to discourage and push away otherwise productive WPians; we're not just talking about a warning that an edit was wrong, we're talking about a threat to take away a userright that's being handed out like water, which is almost certainly going to be viewed as a slap. Even if we get 100% consensus and we all perform our warning and revoking duties perfectly, my sense is that we'll still get burned ... a lot of raw feelings have been generated over the last five years and more of squabbling over Pending Changes. So: what are some other ways reviewership could be granted and revoked, at least on an experimental basis? - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is any different than rollback, which operates in the same easy-come-easy-go manner. Yes, sometimes users feel that having their rollback removed is a slap in the face, and yes sometimes rollbackers have their rights removed because they have a very different idea than admins of what constitutes "vandalism". But that's...sort of how it works. Rollback-granting operates on the basis of "when you can show you understand how to differentiate a rollback-worthy situation from a non-rollback one, you can have it [back]". Is there any indication that this would be different for Reviewer? Would Reviewer, once removed, not be re-granted once the user can show they've fixed whatever the reason was that they had it removed? I guess I don't really understand whatever the important difference you're trying to highlight here is, Dank. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe so, I mention some things that seem pretty different from rollback to me above, and in my last comment at WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the reviewer right be removed from administrators, many of whom are frankly not competent to judge on matters of content, and all of whom were promoted before this right (in its present form) was introduced? Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At one point that was possible, but somewhere alomg the line it was decided to bundle it with the admin toolset. I don't know how that decision was made but I would imagine if a consensus to overturn it became apparent it would be technically possible. It would also be possible to "topic ban" admins who had misused the permission evn if there was no technical limitation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That'll be a "No" then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem rather odd that it is a bundled sysop right... clearly that needs to be stopped before things go "live". Also what we should do is set up a community process for receiving/removing the right that is lightweight and involves content editors able to judge when someone needs the right added or removed. Then an admin can flip the button at their behest. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether the reviewer right ought to be bundled in the sysop bit is an interesting question, but t=one that should be raised separately. If we can return to the issue at hand, I agree with fluffernutter that there are some similarities with Rollback regarding how the removal may be viewed, but I think there is a fairly clear community understanding of what is eligible for rollback and what is not. Given an particular use, I think most admins would reach the same conclusion about whether the use was appropriate. In contrast, dank points out the interesting situation that one might identify a nontrivial class of edits where some admins would admonish a user for reverting, and potentially leading to removal of the right, while other admins might insist that the revert was necessary—not simply allowable, but required by policy. It would be most unfortunate if holders of the right were admonished by some if they did the revert, or faulted by others, if they failed to do the revert. (Of course, it is hard to detect that someone failed to revert an edit, so there might be a preference for letting BLP violations go. That would not be good.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)