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

Request for the lifting of editing restrictions

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment I have moved this discussion from the ArbCom to this venue for community input.

Initiated by —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ at 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Koavf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

• Suggestion: Repeal all.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Other user templates:

Koavf (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

• I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

Amendment 1

• Initial RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf; details of community sanction: User:Koavf/Community sanction

Statement by Koavf

I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:

1. Limited to editing with a single account.
2. Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
3. Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:

1. I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
2. I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
3. This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Discussion

• I don't see any major issue with lifting these restrictions. Unless another user brings up significant concerns over this issue, I see no reason why the restrictions should continue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• I received a ping on this because I was involved in the arbcom case somehow (memory fails me how). I'm not in a position to offer any opinion either way, unfortunately, but I don't have any particular objections either way this may turn out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• I will mirror what Swatjester just said. Kaovf has stayed off the radar for a long time, so I don't really have much of an opinion on his editing history over this time, which is probably a good thing. I can't come up with a reason not to rescind the restrictions, at least #1 and #2. I think #3 may be a good idea going forward, since its still a check on backsliding to former problems, but I'm not too attached. --Jayron32 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions Timeline

Each of the numbered are blocks or enforcement of sanctions in relation to the user.

1. October 2005 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
2. Feburary 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
3. August 2006 - blocked for disruptive pointiness

   unblocked as it was unintentional and he agreed to use AfD and other venues to bring attention to his concerns

4. September 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
5. September 2006 (6 days after the previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
6. October 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
7. October 2006 (11 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
8. October 2006 (3 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
9. October 2006 (8 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast (he was making up to 10 edits within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less)
10. October 2006 (5 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast
11. November 2006 (9 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
12. November 2006 - block extended to indef for exhausting Community's patience

    Early 2007 - Koavf privately appealed to ArbCom

    May/June 2007 - ArbCom lifted ban and imposed 1RR on him (details). Although concerns were expressed at that time that community members were not notified, those concerned also respected the outcome decided by those arbitrators in the interests of assuming good faith. Did the outcome work?

13. June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
14. June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
15. July 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR

    unblocked to allow user to help correct problem and make show of AGF

16. September 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
17. April 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
18. May 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
19. September 2008 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring

    Community ban discussion initiated due to 19th block; 12 users endorsed a site ban; 7 opposed.

    Community sanction proposals put forward; unanimous Community support for sanctions.

20. November 2009 - probation measure invoked to prevent disruption relating to categories

    March 2010 - appealed successfully

21. late April 2010 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring ([1] [2] [3] adding the characterisation of 'demo' instead of 'compilation'). See his original unblock request, and the then amended unblock request with the administrators reasons for declining it [4] followed by his response which maintained he would revert upon the block expiring [5]. Another editor told him not to do so [6].
22. October 2010: within the last few days, he has been using AWB in the same way he was warned not to in the past (making up to 12 edits using AWB within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less).

    appealing the Community sanctions in total.

Although I was ready to accept his March 2010 appeal regarding the categories specific enforcement, I'd certainly oppose lifting the probation altogether. I don't mind lifting the account restriction bit, but really, that's dependant on the Moroccan/Sahara topic ban, and I'm going to leave it to others who encountered issues on that particular topic to decide whether the scope of any such problems can be dealt with via probation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Striking per my comments below - although I'd have favoured keeping probation (term 3) in place for 6 more months, I don't oppose the lifting of the sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect What would I have to do for you to be comfortable with lifting these sanctions? Should they be in place forever? For that matter, I honestly don't understand what the purpose is of the third clause, as this stipulation would be true regardless--if I was making a series of disruptive edits to (e.g.) Western Sahara-related articles, I could be topic banned from them again (more likely, I would have a more serious punishment, considering my block log.) Having this as an editing restriction seems redundant as any user making a series of disruptive edits to any set of articles or topics could be barred from editing those topics.

Regarding my AWB usage, I see nothing in the documentation about speed of use other than to be careful (correct me if I'm missing something here.) The initial reason for the request to make slower edits with AWB was users who check Special:RecentChanges. This was years ago, and if anyone is manually checking that today, it's impossible to keep up with the flood of new edits from all users and my contributions are a drop in a bucket. If someone is using Huggle, then I am whitelisted anyway. In point of fact, I got a barnstar from one user precisely because I was rapidly tagging these talk pages with AWB. I can't see how adding tags to category talk pages at the rate of (e.g.) 17 a minute is really a problem, but I'm willing to concede that it might be if you can explain to me how this is unhelpful.

Finally, while your assessment of the final block is not inaccurate, it is (unintentionally) misleading, as you omit the fact that I did not revert as I planned after my block was lifted for precisely the reason that you cite. (And the edits I did make were reverted as "vandalism", even though that was a false charge.) We ended up discussing that issue on talk and found an acceptable version of the page. Again, this is the difference between my editing five years ago and today and I would like to think that it shows that I am a mature enough editor that I don't need any active restrictions or patrolling of my edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, should you make disruptive edits again, then:

• if probation remains in force, an administrator will ban you from certain pages/topics and only block you for violations.
• if probation is lifted, an administrator will block you for the edit(s) and/or the Community will ban you from editing Wikipedia (due to the history/context/pattern here).

That is, in the case of the latter, you must remember: these 3 measures were imposed as a last chance good faith measure so if these are lifted, the Community is unlikely to contemplate coming back and going through a full discussion to reimpose more of the same if there are any relapses; it would come back to discuss it if a site ban is the only way to get through to you or the only way to deal with the disruption. On the other hand, obviously, if there are no issues, then that's the most ideal outcome for all.

Absent any concerns about 2, I was not going to stand in the way of 1 or 2 being lifted, but I was going to suggest that the third term operate for another 6 months in which you time you should edit without other issues (that is, without anymore blocks/bans due to disruptive behaviors). But if you accept the likelihood of what will happen in case things don't go to plan, then I'll strike my oppose and not stand in the way of the appeal (which means I would not actively oppose all 3 being lifted now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah Now I understand your position. I am confident about lifting these sanctions because any "disruption" that I would make at this point would not be the type of inflammatory edit-warring or WP:POINT-style POV-pushing that I would have engaged in in the past. Anything that would constitute disruption on my part now would be bold editing that is misguided. If someone simply asks me to stop or explain myself, I will (and I have.) As far as six more months go, we would still be in the same boat then, right? The only difference is that I could say I waited six more months--that's fine, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary nor that it will do anything in my favor in case there is some issue in the future. In sum, my problem in the past was edit-warring and I'm not going to deal with that now. If you prefer a six-month trial from this point forward or immediately lifting restrictions, either is fine with me. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that he was blocked 4 years ago for using AWB too fast seems irrelevent here. Both AWB and the mediawiki software has changed so much in the past four years that the conditions which would have led to the AWB throttle have changed drasticly. I can't see where this behavior, of itself, is a problem. If THAT is the only actionable objection to his behavior in the past 6 months, then I don't see that as a problem. --Jayron32 02:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What happens in the present cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They're informed by a context, either of a pattern of behavior or history - after the history we see here, I'd have expected the disruptive behavior to stop after these measures (short of a full site ban) were employed, and it should be clear; the 3 sanctions being appealed at this time were the alternative remedy to a full site ban that was to be imposed two years ago; it was a good faith last chance. That is, one should try to avoid engaging in the same disruptive behaviors; unless an unjustified block was made, or a sanction was imposed unjustifiably under the probation, there should not have been any other issues. Incidentally, misuse of rollback (if it occurs) is a lot easier to handle than the other problems encountered so far. In November 2009 (a little over a year after the probation was imposed), the sanction was invoked to prevent certain behavior that was disruptive. Incidentally, if we'd lifted the ban after a year, and he engaged in this behavior afterwards, he probably would have faced a harsher outcome than the sanction that was imposed on him. Still, by March 2010, we accepted his assurances and removed the additional restriction.

A month later, in April/May 2010, he was disruptively edit-warring and was blocked. The main issue I find is this block (which was imposed less than 6 months ago); I think that is a problem. If the block was unjustified, and either the blocking admin, the admin who declined the appeal, or even the community are ready to come to that view, or at least there was not a strong consensus in support of imposing a block (despite the context), that needs to be considered. If the mitigating factors are sufficient that another editor should also have been blocked, that may also be worth considering (but unless I have missed something, the issue (again) was Koavf disruptively edit-warring in April/May 2010). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am grateful for the thoroughness of Ncmvocalist's analysis, but I'm not certain of his bottom line. I agree with Ncmvocalist that Koavf's block in April of 2010 (and the ensuing unblock dialog) are a concern because it suggests that the old problems from 2006 and 2007 have not entirely gone away. I myself would be OK with the lifting of all the restrictions, but suggest that Koavf voluntarily observe a 1RR regarding Western Sahara articles and be aware that any renewed problem in that area could lead to bad consequences. I didn't see any actual violation of the AWB terms of use but putting project tags in article talk space is not recommended by some projects, and I recommend that he consider whether all his AWB changes are truly valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure I would be fine with being extra vigilant about my Western Sahara-related edits (as a strictly practical matter, I have to, or else face some certain disciplinary action.) As far as the tagging goes, I have checked these WikiProjects and they do not have any guidelines about not tagging non-article namespaces. In point of fact, the other person in the discussion that you cited acknowledged that there was no precedent guideline for this and changed his mind about the tagging based on this fact. The only other person who responded to me about this was from the Simpsons WikiProject, which also had no guideline about tagging and still doesn't, in spite of the fact that there banner explicitly includes an NA parameter, as well as one for books. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, the wiki-past is gone. Now, could you tell admins on this board that you are serious enough about observing the 1RR rule and wp:consensus? So far you've just talked about how you have been respectful of sanctions and restrictions. I am asking you this is because all what has been talked about here is your editing style but it seems that the discussion has ignored your attitude toward WP:CONSENSUS on talk pages. Probably because you have not been explicitly sanctioned for it but the 'consensus' issue is still bothering me. It's a core policy of this business. Officially, it is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. If you still believe that one single user has the right to sabotage a consensus of 9 nine other users and still insist that he's within his rights then we'd surely have problems in the future. I'll appreciate if you could offer some assurance regarding this point. After that, there'd be no reason for me as a concerned user to object to your appeal.

P.S. I'd have liked to be notified since I was the user who brought the complaint to AN/I which resulted in the community sanction in question. Justin, everytime you appeal for something you miss notifying concerned users. It's just a courtesy matter but it has to be mentioned since this is the third time it happens. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus As a for instance, the last disagreement I had with an editor, I counseled him to speak with the appropriate WikiProject(s) to reach consensus about contradicting a guideline. (The other half of the discussion is on my talk page.) Other recent examples of my editing raising a red flag and me respecting consensus include User_talk:Koavf/Archive021#Edits_to_November_18 (where consensus was against me, and I ceased editing) and User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Categorization (where consensus favored me, and I continued editing for several weeks.) Alternately, here is an example of me following consensus and asking a user to do the same with the resolve to respect that process: User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Category:Jews_is_correct. And these are all examples of boldness on my part rather than POV-pushing or sheer recklessness. I haven't had anyone complaining about me flaunting consensus lately and I don't do it.

In terms of reverting, I don't have much of a recent history for it or the prospect of it due to the types of edits I have been making lately—that is to say, I have been doing a lot of maintenance, such as categorization, tagging, etc on pages that I do not watch rather than substantial edits to the text of articles. Off hand, I cannot remember any instances within the past six months where I've had a prospective edit-war, and I certainly haven't actually engaged in one. This prospective 1RR restriction would be self-imposed and (apparently) limited only to Western Sahara-related articles, so for this, I guess you have my word and your gut.

I really didn't know who to alert about this, since I don't have anyone on Wikipedia who would be directly affected by this—no one with whom I have had any Western Sahara-related edit-wars is still on here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Justin. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved from archive I have copied the above discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218 for a fuller discussion and deleted it from that same archive. I have done this per a discussion on the main IRC channel by "killiondude", "SpitfireWP", and "Sky2042" (not necessarily their usernames on en.wp.) Please post any further comments below this horizontal break. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

---

So, what are we doing now? Move forward, wait for more discussions? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More input I "recruited" two admins to take a look--one of whom I have had good relations with, the other of whom has had to rebuke me a little in the past (but we still get along just fine.) I hope that someone will close this matter after having decided that some consensus exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Proposed partial removal of restrictions on Δ/Betacommand

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

---

Δ (talk · contribs) (previously User:Betacommand) is currently under a series of community-imposed restrictions (listed below, see also original list here and discussion that led to them here):

• Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand [Δ] must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand [Δ] must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
• Betacommand [Δ] must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
• Betacommand [Δ] must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
• Betacommand [Δ] is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

I am proposing that the first two of these restrictions be rescinded, and the third be amended to read "Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time while editing under his primary account." The reasons for this are several. Firstly, Δ is most valuable to the project for his work on bots and automated scripts. He has done outstanding work in these fields in the past, and remains one of the more experienced bot operators Wikipedia has. While it is in part the operation of these automated tools that led to these restrictions, this brings me to my second point. Δ has demonstrated that he is able to maintain and operate a bot within the expectations of our community. As a result of a community discussion here and a subsequent Arbitration Committee motion here, he manages User:Δbot, which does a good job of clerking the (frankly overcomplicated) pages at WP:SPI. Thirdly, these changes to Δ's restriction continue to restrict him from operating scripts from his main account, which in large part was what led to difficulties previously. Δ would still be required to obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group (and/or ArbCom, as appropriate by their previous motions) before operating any other accounts or adding any more tasks to his existing bot.

I have asked Δ to come and explain what he would like to do on the project if these restrictions were lifted, although he has stated that he will have intermittent internet access for the next few days, so please be patient if you have questions for him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I really would like to be able to say I support this, but I have reservations. On the one hand, Beta (or Delta now. Whatever greek letter he wants) has skills which are very useful to the project. On the other hand, Beta has two very serious problems related to the running of his bots which led to the above restrictions. The first is that he has, at times, made poor decisions regarding the running of his bots for sometimes nefarious purposes (such as making thousands of dummy edits to make a page undeletable under technical limits of the Media Wiki software). He also has shown, in the past, problems with personal interactions which are not helpful in a bot operator. Basically, he doesn't interact well when asked to explain his actions, his attitude seems to be "I know better, so leave me alone". This sort of inapproachability is part of the reason for the civility parole. I have concerns about expanding his bot-running privileges given these past problems. I would like to hear from him directly, and especially would like to hear about what he has learned from his troubles and how he intends to operate differently. I am open to being convinced here, I am just not there yet. --Jayron32 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive spent a long time reviewing my past actions, Ive also spent a considerable amount of time reflecting and analyzing both my actions and the communities (actions and re-actions) and have learned quite a lot. I've since adjusted my approach, and I have changed quite a bit personally. If you would like we could take this to a private conversation off wiki. (I do not want my personal details public). I could write several essays about what I have learned, and about how I fucked up and what I could, (and should have) done differently but my skill with a pen just is not there to give it proper justice, so I would rather just go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: These restricitons cause nothing but problems Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, this was never asked for at VPR, and 50-60 edits in 10 minutes from 20:28-20:37. Relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Unauthorized bot: Δ again. I was fairly forgiving because I didn't know his restriction, but I'm not happy to hear about it now. I'm going with no; if you can't edit according to the already agreed sanctions, you shouldn't have your previous ones lifted, because we can't trust you. Period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Jayron's initial sentence. How many times has Δ/Betacommand been given an inch, only to take a mile? There have been too many secondsecondsecond chances here. He can continue editing under these restrictions (though as Magog points out, he actually hasn't), or he can go elsewhere. → ROUX ₪ 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Generally per Jayron32. I'm OK with "triangle" and have asked him to help collate information in the past (when he was just Betacommand), he is really quite skilled in that area or at least has a decent framework to execute tasks on. I've seen no positive indication that he will interact better with the general community though, Hersfold, can you point to a successful execution of a WP:VPR request for leave to make a series of edits? Did that ever happen once? Franamax (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• As with others, I have reservations. These restrictions were put in place to protect the community, and certainly not without reason. He drained far, far too much from this project in the past because he had useful skills, and I have no desire to go down that route again. As of yet, I've not seen compelling reason to lift these restrictions, and in fact has broken one of said restrictions just recently. Resolute 05:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Based upon the available evidence, Betacommand/Δ seems no more trustworthy now than he was when the restrictions were enacted, so I oppose. —David Levy 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per problematic history of unauthorized bot activity, incivility, and negligent operation of automated and semi-automated tasks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've detected absolutley no change in attitude that would justify this as yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of order — further information about this request, need a statement from Delta; please. I'm a bit confused about how this request came to be here. I don't see any discussion between Delta/Beta and Hersfold on their user talk pages about this request, though I gather that there was some communication between them in other fora. It's rather unusual for an unblocked, unbanned editor not to make requests for changes to paroles and sanctions on their own behalf. It also seems less than helpful – and kind of disrespectful to the community, Hersfold – for such a third-party request to be made while Delta is going to have limited connectivity. (Why couldn't this have waited a week?) At this point, there's no visible participation at all by Delta in this process; we don't have any information about what he wants, or why he believes that this request should be granted. I'm disappointed in Hersfold for bringing this forward under such inopportune circumstances, in Delta for going along with it (presuming he agreed) and with the editors above for being willing to jump to judgement without input from Delta.

Hersfold, you should withdraw this request until such time as Delta is able to participate fully in it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I discussed and requested Hersfold to do this for several reasons, He was a mentor of mine for a year, He has always been better at drafting request that me (I make the same points but just not as well worded), I have been doing quite a lot of gnoming lately and I have noticed several areas where I help improve the encyclopedia in some of these cases automated processes would drastically improve the process, and I have also seen quite a few Bot requests go stale due to a lack of qualified willing bot operators, while I sit around twiddling my thumbs. As for my connection issues, I let Hersfold know that I would have intermittent connection for a short time, (knowing he would post the request soon). That ended last night, however when he posted I was already offline for the day. As I stated above I just want to go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. I have a project Im working on right now that appears to me a fairly large task (15k+ items) that Ive been slowly working on for the last few months manually. I know my actions of the past have caused drama and that is something I don't like, and I am trying to avoid as often as I can. As I have stated I want to go back to my roots (running non-controversial, useful bots) and avoid the drama that led to my burnout (dramafest). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it's more likely for specific exceptions to be agreed for specified tasks than a blanket lifting of restrictions, if you can show that the tasks have community support and how the restrictions limit your ability to do them. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We did that for the SPI bot, and I see no reason why we can't also consider another exception for your "fairly large task". Define this task for us and we can consider it. Resolute 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "I want to perform an unspecified task comprising 15,000+ items, so please turn me loose!" (scare quotes) is hardly the best approach. —David Levy 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent this, I am not asking to "be let loose", rather just the freedom to file request for approvals for tasks that cross my path. Each task will then be assessed by the community, and BAG to determine the feasibility of each task. I am not asking for blanket approval on any bot activity, rather the ability to seek approval through the normal methods. As for my current project, a full listing of affected pages can be found here which is just over 15,100 pages. It is a listing of all articles which include deleted/non-existent files. I've been going though that list slowly for the last 6 months doing the cleanup myself. Ive got several other ideas on the drawing board but no clue if they will ever leave that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions in question were enacted with very good reason. Please explain what has changed to warrant their removal. How will you behave differently than you did before? If someone objects to an ongoing task, how will you respond? —David Levy 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at my response to Jayron32. As for objections, that is a loaded question, it really depends on what the objection is, almost no two objections are the same and thus cannot be responded to in the same manor. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Beta, but vague statements about having seen the error or your ways don't cut it anymore. Not after all of the chances that you've been given. —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You could perhaps take the time to discuss the objections (without causing trouble in the process) and coming to an agreement with the editor. Then you could ask for input from a third party (WP:3O) if you and the other editor cannot come to an agreement. That's just one possible route to take, though, and I'm sure that each objection will have a different best practice for dealing with it, however, most of the time, what I recommend here (civil discussion) would be involved somehow. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats just one of a dozen different approaches that could be taken depending on the user, their objection, and why they are objecting. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My point was, in essence, that of the many different paths you could take in dealing with an objection, civil discussion must be involved. I raise this point because of some editors' concerns seen above about civility, and not necessarily because of my own opinion (I haven't looked deeply into the recent or far history of this, and so I do not have an opinion to share on this request attm.) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for you Beta, that's the only approach to take. The big question is, if someone objects, will you stop your bot? Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With any issue there are always multiple resolution solutions, however like Ks0stm stated remaining calm and civil is key. I actually used to have a feature enabled in my code that shut the bot off when it received the orange bar of death, I ended up shutting that off due to abuse. But with the ideas and tasks that I have planned, re-enabling it shouldn't be that much of an issue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For me to even consider supporting the proposed modifications to your restrictions, you would need to agree to stop your bot immediately upon receiving a complaint from a user in good standing, not restart it until the issue has been resolved or a community discussion has resulted in consensus that it is not grounds to halt the task, and revert any changes that the community deems harmful (irrespective of whether they were approved in advance). —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that David Levy's suggestion is a good one; there needs to be assurances that, when reasonable objections arise to a bots activity, the bot is stopped until such time as the objections are dealt with. Given Beta/Delta's past, we need to take the default action to be to stop the bot activity if there is ANY doubt about what the bot is doing. Unlike David Levy, I am very willing to be convinced that Betacommand's restrictions can be relaxed in limited cases. To be fair, other than the recent glitch noted above, he's kept his nose clean since his return, insofar as I haven't seen his name on the dramaboards at all. At some point, given a long period of good behavior, we need to consider slowly relaxing restrictions, regardless of our personal problems with Beta. I would be the first to admit that, especially in the past, I did not like him. I will not mince words on that issue. Still, my own personal tastes need to be put aside, and we need to consider what can be good for the Wiki. It would be good to see some trial relaxations. One posibility I could propose would be that all bot requests at WP:BAG would need a notice posted to WP:AN, so that the wider community could review his requests; more eyes would be a good thing. --Jayron32 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually am quite willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet; Beta's statements have been far too vague. Given his propensity to exploit technicalities (both real and imagined), it's important to eliminate any ambiguity. —David Levy 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As am I, which is why I would rather we moved to discussing the specifics of what BC/Beta/Delta hopes to accomplish. Discussing lifting the sanctions in vague terms accomplishes very little. Resolute 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My first major task, which I have manually been working on is removal of deleted/missing images, as I stated above, my goal is to file a BRFA for missing/deleted image removal using AWB. (I cant seem to figure out a good regex myself for removal). I was hoping for general relaxing of the restrictions so that I could avoid a majority of the knee jerk reactions that people have when me and bots are brought up. I actually think Jayron32's proposal above makes good sense. One of the main reasons Ive avoided VPR is just like this discussion, there are a flood of users who regardless of what I may say or do, just think that I should be banned from bots forever, regardless of how the circumstances may change. For the most part its just not worth the drama fight necessary to get small scale projects done. (Ive privately poked a few bot ops with ideas in the past). If anyone would like clarity on anything specifically let me know or just ask for it. Also if anyone wants to see how I respond to objections draft a situation up and an objection and it can be "role played" though. Short of someone objecting its the best case example that I can come up with. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, if someone wants to see how you respond to objections, they can check e.g. this discussion on your talk page from just one month ago, where you reacted to being called "Betacommand" with "Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help people to extend good will to Delta if he had a link on his Talk page to his archives. The current revision of his talk page no longer contains that thread, which from the page history was archived here. (Further, the name of that archive page leads one to suspect there are even more talk archives in Delta's userspace, which would require anyone wanting to evaluate his behavior since his name change to do some determined fishing in order to find them.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and troutslap anyone who proposes such a thing in the future. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In sum, if Delta follows the terms of Restriction 1 and proposes his specific task at VPR, he can as part of that proposal explain why restrictions 2 and 3 would be a particular limitation for that task, and ask for them to be relaxed for that specific task. A general lifting does not seem on the cards, at least at this point. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, is not able to handle objections in a reasonable way (see e.g. the link I gave above). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons above. Don't think lifting them would be a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I admit that I may not know all the history and I understand the misgivings that many of the above editors have but I am going to be bold and be the first support that I can see and be willing to see this user get another chance at redeeming their honor and this is a worthwhile task that he wants to perform to do that. Remember, This is only to rescind the first 2 of the 4 restrictions. Although I am not sure myself how to stop a bot from making more than 4 edits a minute. The bot and its operator are still restricted to no more than 4 edits a minute and they are still being watched. Otherwise my advice is that someone else on this page needs to step forward and volunteer to perform the task that he is recommending. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - per Rd232, and that the user has a very hard time following community norms and restrictions placed by the community. I have no issue with task specific relaxation of specific sanctions, but only through a proper bot review process. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Request uninvolved merge-discussion close

Two merge discussions at Talk:Longevity myths#Merge discussion and Talk:Longevity myths#Merge counterproposal appear to be over. As per WP:MM, would someone please determine whether they should be closed and archived, or relisted somewhere to restart discussion? There are also larger issues involved, and, after performing this minor request, it would be useful to consider contributing at WP:FTN#Longevity-cruft or elsewhere, or to request additional links. JJB 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached in the next 48-hour bot-enforced limit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJB 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass redirect deletion request

Can a kind (and deletion hungry :) ) admin please delete some 30-odd implausible redirects listed at Talk:List of settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Mis-merged villages? Thanks. No such user (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some are still liked in to articles. I see no pressing reason to delete these. They are harmless at worst.--Scott Mac 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, none should be linked to -- which exactly? Those entities simply do not exist. Besides, every redirect is harmless, but we do have WP:RFD and CSD R3. No such user (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few using Special:WhatLinksHere: for example, Zavalje i Zlopoljac (Bihać#Settlements) and Vršani i Zagoni (Bijeljina#Settlements) are linked from their municipalities. Oddly, Bijeljina#Municipal subdivisions has Vršani and Zagoni separated, but Zagoni redirects to Zagoni (Bratunac). Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New AfD tool

I have had an AfD parser available for a while, but due to some toolserver configuration changes it has broke, Since I am unable to fix the issue that caused the break I re-wrote my parser so that scans all active AfDs. A full listing of all parsed AfDs can be found at tools:~betacommand/reports/afd, However in the process of re-writing the tool I have also implemented a summary tool, its WP:RFASUM but for AfDs which can be found at tools:~betacommand/AFD.html if you have any questions,feature requests, or bugs please let me know. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PS please note that you can sort that table by any column. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already been finding this the best way to scan quickly the thousand or so open AfDs. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot running wild?

Resolved

 – Sfan00 IMG is not a bot. Use his talk page first before filing premature AN reports. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is breaking down very quickly. Discussion was intense yet collegial over the past few weeks, but today has turned into a series of edit wars and personal attacks. I request not that some action be taken here, but that a senior editor or administrator please try to calm down that situation. NW (Talk) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Image restore

A request for an admin to undelete File:National Organization for Marriage.gif as it was deleted for being orphaned when a user who meant to remove the Unbalanced tag also inadvertently removed the article's infobox containing the image in September and no one caught this mistake until I just did now. Thanks.   allstar✰echo  19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allstarecho, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Phil.   allstar✰echo  20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's {{pd-textlogo}} anyway. Someone change the tag, find an SVG version, and transfer to Commons. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it pd-textlogo, though? I think it's a debatable case, but I think interlocking rings may be unoriginal enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Margareth Tomanek W55 Record

I just created the page: Margareth Tomanek W55 Record. It should have been named Template:Margareth Tomanek W55 Record to avoid unnecessary challenges for deletion. I don't know how the word got left off this version of a bunch of templates but I need admin. assistance to rename the article. Trackinfo (talk)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please create Talk:.ไทย and add {{WikiProject Internet}} and {{WikiProject Thailand}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting rfc closure

Hi, I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin close the Rfc at WT:UP regerding userspace drafts and FAKEARTICLES, thanks, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
• Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requests for permissions

Resolved

 – Cleared out. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There are currently requests over a week out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. Could someone take a look there? Netalarm^talk 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob

User has agreed to step away from CC for a few months. I'm hoping that can avoid yet another CC thread. Maybe some others need to voluntarily leave this issue alone for a while. Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it.--Scott Mac 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A few hours ago I blocked [[::User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk · contribs) for 24 hours in response to a 3RR violation [7]. Upon further investigation, I found a lengthy series of problematic edits (see below), previous blocks, and at least one attempt at editing restrictions. He was previously placed on a 5 week 1RR sanction, which he stated he might continue of his own volition [8]. The blocks since [9], including the present block, seem to indicate a continued problem. In light of these, I wonder if there is community support for a permanent 1RR restriction for Off2riorob. Some evidence of problematic edits: April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. archived discussion The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve [10]. August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring [11] and again promised to desist in the future [12]. His block was again reduced[13]. July 2010: Personal attacks [14] (deleted edit), which resulted in a block. October 2010: Petty vandalism [15] when questioned about recent reverts (archived discussion). My block for 3RR on William Connelley. Keeping in mind he is currently blocked, does anyone have thoughts or suggestions on this? --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC) User notified --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Proposal: 1RR restriction Regarding his most recent block, I didn't see a block notice that is customarily given when a block is issued. Did I miss it? Regarding the sanctions, I would support a 1RR sanction. In addition, Rob has been identifying as vandalism content disputes and using Twinkle in an inappropriate manner. I would also support removing his Twinkle access for now. Basket of Puppies 06:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) See [16] for the block notice (plain text, not a fancy template - I suspect per WP:DNTTR).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oh there it is! Yeah, I just missed it. My eyes are much too tired. Off to sleep! Basket of Puppies 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with the proposal above by TeaDrinker and the comment by Basket of Puppies, and support a permanent 1RR sanction. (Note: Off2riorob was previously blocked for engaging in disruption at a GA-quality article that I wrote.) I would also support removing Off2riorob's access to Twinkle. -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Support both. doesn't this belong on ANI? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 06:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Support the proposed permanent 1RR restriction/sanction. Defer to others on Twinkle. I also note that in this November 2009 AN/I, the great bulk of his support was from ChildofMidnight, who has since been banned from Wikipedia for a year.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) … which is both irrelevant and outdated. (We have an article on what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called transfer explaining why ChildofMidnight's endorsement is not relevant to Off2riorob's actions.) One could equally try to call Off2riorob a single-purpose account based upon what Cirt said in the April 2009 AN/I discussion. That's clearly outdated now, too. If the compelling evidence for action here is discussions from 2009, then I suggest that people take a look at Special:Contributions/Off2riorob. Early 2009, late 2009, and 2010 are not the same animal. We should not institutionalize hanging onto grudges like this. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not in principle opposed to a restriction, but what's wrong with the standard method of escalating blocks? If he doesn't comply with 3RR, he's not much more likely to comply with 1RR. If a restriction is to be imposed, somebody would need to spell out what exactly is being proposed here (one revert per page per 24 hours, I suppose?). Also, since the current edit war is in the climate change topic area, discretionary sanctions are also a possibility.  Sandstein  06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) One revert per page per 24 hours seems most reasonable. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Agree that 1-revert-per-pg per-24-hours seems appropriate. As to escalating blocks, I note that Off2 was blocked for 24 hours (March 2009), 72 reduced to 48 hours (April 2009), 72 hours (April 2009), 1 week (April 2009), 24 hours reduced to time served (July 2009), 2 weeks (July 2009), 3 weeks (reduced on promise to desist edit warring in the future; August 2009), 31 hours (July 2010). All prior to this 24-hour block. Per our standard method of escalating blocks, which Sandstein refers to, it strikes me that the current 24-hour block is too low — it would have been appropriate for a first-time offender, but this editor has been blocked numerous times in the past year and a half, up to 3 weeks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Support I agree with the 1RR restriction. Off2riorob has also got into lengthy arguments and edit wars on the British National Party and other articles about the British far right, which he thought were written from an anti-BNP bias. TFD (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose And the BNP argument holds no weight with me. Too much sounds like "let's get even" with a valued editor. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Proposal: Climate change topic ban Overall 1RR may be fine for Off2riorob, but one revert per day is 'too lenient for a CC articles. One revert per week is more in line with the type of editing restriction needed to get CC articles to have stability. Otherwise, the result will be tag team edit warring that would be supported by the editing restrictions. I suggest Off2riorob be put on a stricter restriction for the CC articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Completely stepping away from the CC topic (and any other areas where Off2riorob gets heated and loses control) is a better restriction than a blanket 1RR which allow too many problematic edits on controversial topics and perhaps too few where otherwise needed. If there are overall problems beyond reverting then that needs to be determined (maybe with a RFC or ArbCom case) and further editing restrictions or bans can be imposed. So, I support a complete CC topic ban for now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I think now would be a good time to ask Off2riorob to step away from the climate change topic entirely. For technical reasons it is not possible at this stage to propose a topic ban at WP:AE, but the conclusion seems reasonable. He is by all accounts a very productive editor elsewhere, but as he admits himself he has a bee in his bonnet about William M. Connolley. --TS 12:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose A 1r restriction on an editor who mostly works BLP`s and the BLP noticeboard would hamstring him from the productive work he does. Everyone make`s mistakes, he ought not be overly punished for this one. mark (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --TS 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Making multiple reverts shouldn't be required in BLPs any more than anywhere else; remember that removing contentious, unsourced information about living persons is one of the exceptions to 3RR and by extension to an imposed 1RR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Yes but there`s the rub, what if it is sourced but not written in a NPOV manner? Or as an attack piece? We see such on BLP`s all the time, if he is restricted to 1r he will quite simply be unable to work the BLP noticeboard. Why not a simple restriction of 1r on this one article? I think that would be more suitable given the nature of this offence mark (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --TS 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tony Sidaway, and I suggest that people look away from AN/I to all of the work that Off2riorob does at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The slice of history presented here purports to cover a year's worth of editing but is very limited and one-sided, and really isn't the whole picture by any means. It reflects, I suspect, the area where Off2riorob is influenced to err by (a) xyr perception of climate change POV-pushing and (b) the proximity of a subject to Wikipedia itself. Contrast that to xyr work at (to pick just one BLPN example) Ed Miliband where xyr work has been edits like this one and efforts to stop our article from labelling Miliband (who has stated for the record that xe does not believe in God) as "the Jewish leader of the Labour Party" and having religion=Jewish in an infobox. When the biography is not climate-change related or close to Wikipedia, there's a rather different Off2riorob here. There's also a significantly different Off2riorob now to the one that Cirt characterized in April 2009, the discussion of whom is being used as evidence for action here. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that in considering Off2riorob's editing history we must look at this work at BLPN - I'd be sorry to lose his help there. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Would a community topic ban from Climate Change articles, following the wording of those recently applied to various editors by ArbCom, and a permanent ban from the William Connolley article suffice? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think a full topic ban for CC is best for now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose(ec) Off2 was not mentioned in any CC arbcom discussions, and imposing a topicban is absurd over-reaction. He is a valued editor, and all of this is simply going to be a matter of "let's remove anyone we disagree with" type rationale. In other words -- why not openly say "anyone with any position on CC whatever is to be topic-banned ab initio" as the easiest way to deal with the topic? Nope. Draconian solutions generally do not work, and all this will do is make that more abundantly clear than ever. Meanwhile the BNP is so far rremoved from any reasonable argument on this as to be quite nicely irrelevant - we ought not have personal disagreements with anyone dictate banning a good editor who, as I noted, was never even mentioned at the arbcom discussions on CC. Collect (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It's not about opinion, it's about behavior. He edit warred on a BLP in a topic area that was under arbcom-imposed sanctions. The only reason he isn't being topic banned at WP:AE is that arbcom sanctions require prior formal notification. The community has the opportunity to say "enough is enough." --TS 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to allow for editing restrictions for users not named in the ArbCom case. So, this editing restriction is perfectly reasonable given his edit warring on a CC related article within days of the case ending. I see no problem with discussing this here since this is where the discussion started. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Questions Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Why can't ArbCom discretionary sanctions deal with the CC related matters? Why does the Community need to relitigate this aspect here at WP:AN rather than WP:AE? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Metadiscussion Question Why was the above discussion archived? I understand that Rob has agreed to modify his editing, but the consensus seemed to be in favor of a 1RR restriction and, possibly, revokation of Twinkle. Basket of Puppies 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Because it seems more urgent to de-escalate the CC fiasco, than to worry too much about the rest of it. Besides, after Rob had agreed to step away from the immediate flashpoint, nothing else needed urgent admin action. If you want to pursue more general complaints, then I suggest a user RFC is the normal way.--Scott Mac 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It's been closed because the issue was resolved and, as Doc has correctly stated, the community is sick and tired of the subject. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I am only confused as to why this discussion was closed, seemingly out of process. Isn't it against consensus to close a discussion where a consensus has nearly been reached? The underlying issue of Rob's behavior isn't much of a concern to me as the issue of prematurely closing a discussion. Basket of Puppies 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) And doesn't this belong on /Incidents anyway? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Shrug* Basket of Puppies 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) It is in the interests of this project to allow issues associated with CC to cool. Rob has seen that, and we should thank him for it and drop this. Sanctions are always a piss-poor substitute for getting agreement and peace. The technicalities of which board and broken process are worthy casualties of drama-ending. Now, walk away. This has ended as well (indeed a lot better) than any other possible ending. And I, for one, don't wish to waste any more time on CC and those who can't let it go.--Scott Mac 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) That was unnecessarily dramatic. Basket of Puppies 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I disagree with the closing of the thread. Way too early. And there is no reason to roll it up, other than to conceal its contents from future searches. I don't believe Scott's action in in line with the sentiment of the community on this page. And I don't think his and editor Tasty (who is "sick and tired of the subject" after under 1,000 edits) are reflecting the sentiment on this page in suggesting that we should sweep it under the rug because of their sense that the community prefers that. Rob has made agreements before, which triggered sanction reductions -- and which he has just violated with his edit warring here. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Have you discussed your concerns with Rob? If so, unless there's need for urgent admin action, I'd suggest that a user RFC is the place to take ongoing concerns. (For your info Tasy = User:Tony Sidaway, not that the edit count should really matter).--Scott Mac 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Let's be clear here. This was quid pro quo. Scott Mac did exactly what he promised, shut down discussion, on the basis of Rob's consent. My personal opinion is that's entirely OK and within the scope of administrator discretion to "talk someone down" like that, but I think that Scott should have been a bit more open here about the deal he offered and concluded. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question Why was this thread again archived when the discussion is ongoing? Basket of Puppies 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. However, the user that hatted the thread, noted he did not read it at all: "discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at." Most inappropriate to archive and declare something as closed, which one has not even bothered to read. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• This constant hatting of discussion without notification or warning is leaving multiple users (myself included, and i'm not even involved in the discussion) with a sense of bad faith toward the hatters. Silverseren^C 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine

Resolved

 – I got one, and User:Horologium closed the other. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I closed the first one, but I had a personal opinion on the second, so I commented instead. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and maintenance tags

I invite participation at a discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Maintenance tags. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned users and their userpages

At this deletion discussion, an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.

I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? Or is my memory failing me? :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment here, so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2009-September 2010

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Earlier today, I advised Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes [17].

Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ([18] [19] - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ([20] changes spacing around header for no reason; [21] capitalizes template for no reason).

It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.

This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough

This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal here, which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. –xeno^talk 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. –xeno^talk 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Good enough. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is agreeable, this has my support. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc. Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about discussing with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion doesn't help if he ignores objections and continues full-steam ahead without stopping to gather consensus for his changes. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Policy already exists to prohibit these changes (WP:AWB#Rules of use #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. –xeno^talk 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? Mr.Z-man 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose is already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making any bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also support this alternative proposal after the original one. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)