Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mccready (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 8 January 2010 (→McCready topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice


    ITN

    Would somebody please update Template:In the News with this item (blurb provided) which has consensus and has been updated at WP:ITN/C. I'm willing to notify editors etc, but editing the template requires admin rights. HJMitchell You rang? (archiving timestamp added) Fram (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    Jimbo requests block of User:7107delicious

    Resolved
     – user retired/remains blocked. Jack Merridew 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See here. GTD 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done by User:LessHeard vanU here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uneasy about this. An indefinite block for what appears to have been a rather dumb prank? Would a stern warning and maybe a block of a few days not have sufficed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing slash fiction about Jimbo sleeping with underage girls is hardly a minor offence! GTD 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure - I'd be tempted to endorse the block until 7107 explains him/herself. Ale_Jrb2010! 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this sub-page recently created or had it been sitting around for awhile? Seems like a fairly normal editing pattern so far. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with ChrisO on this one. Also, Jimbo seems to call for a block, not specifying indef or any other term. By all means demand an explanation etc, but perhaps do that /before/ jumping to the block? Where was the prevention? Looks punitive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good Lord, nobody but my priest would consider that story "pornographic" and the user never would have been blocked had the story not been about Dear Jimbo. The story (which has been hosted on the Wikia website Uncyclopedia for years) is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan. Absurd overreaction and most certainly not an attack page. --auburnpilot talk 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever your opinion of 'Dear Jimbo', I'd say it's definitely an attack page, so I disagree with you there. An indef is probably overracting through and unlikely to stand, so I agree with you on that one, I've decided. Ale_Jrb2010! 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion of Jimbo is irrelevant, and I doubt you'll be successful in finding a single diff of me making my opinion of him known. But thanks for attempting to make this something it isn't. --auburnpilot talk 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "...is about Jimbo going on a date with Wikipe-tan" Yes, about Jimbo going on a date with a sexualised child cartoon figure. Creepy GTD 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation both host images and stories of sexualized cartoon figures as "unofficial mascots"? That would seem to be a much more pressing issue. I'm not advocating that we restore the page, only that we act with a little more thought. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And given some of the other drawings created by the person who made the "unofficial mascot", this is a PR disaster waiting to happen GTD 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late about the PR thing. I saw a thread on this while viewing Wikipedia Review (along with some of the "artwork" by the cartoon character's creator - 1st time I've ever seen his drawings either, and I wish I hadn't). Makes me a little nervous that he's and admin (and potentially has access to IPs and addresses of underage editors) on the Japanese Wikipedia.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have become quite agressive quite quickly - I'm not the one making it into something it isn't. O_o I certainly never stated that you had an opinion of Jimbo, so I have no idea why I would be searching for diffs in that regard. Ale_Jrb2010! 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not an attack, then why was it done? It looks to be designed to at least irritate. Hell, it even irritates me. It's incredibly dumb. I'd find it pretty offensive if it were written about me, moreover it seems to suggest a little more than a date - with a dubious sex-kitten cartoon-child. However you look at it, it's weird. That said, an indefinite block seems excessive. A stern warning would do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unauthorized slashfic about an editor/BLP subject and a childlike character with explicit sexual references – while I am no prude, this is beyond the pale for userspace content. That said, I'm not sure upholding the block of 7107delicious on the sole grounds of hosting the material is fair. The blocked editor is unlikely to be the author given that the material was posted almost two years ago by another (yet unblocked) account. Furthermore, 7107delicious appears to come from a cultural background very different from that of most editors, and is among our younger contributors. They may not have understood how such material might be viewed by the rest of us. For a fuller picture, see this discussion of their alternate accounts, this autoblock, and this ANI thread.  Skomorokh  15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not realized how sadly askew my point of view was regarding Wikipe-tan as "normal" before the reminders above that she is a Manga-style cartoon character of ambiguous sexual promotion. "Controversial morality" would appear to be suggested by a date with "her", and the BLP/NPA/many issues would apply to absolutely any Wikipedia community member if put up in this light. To a certain Wikipedia demographic that might not seem 100% strange, but considering the niche reader group it appears to be either emulating and/or mocking? Either direction, I'd consider it attack-based without an explanation given. Even if it were me, knowing full well what the attempt at humor might be perhaps in ever high faith, I'd entirely object. I think I'll watchlist a handful of articles at the Anime and Manga portal apt to see related edits. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    e/c(outdent) As 7107's former mentor (I volunteered to help him) I am not surprised in the slightest that he has been blocked, although the manner of the block is a complete and utter surprise! He has irritated a lot of users, and blundered his way through CHU, ANI and users talk pages, so I expected that he would sooner or later recieve a ban preventing him from taking part in such areas. This fiction page is a completely new turn of events for him, compared with his previous edits.

    In case anyone is interested, have a look at the version on the 5th December 2009 of the mentor page before it was deleted, to get a feel of what he was doing, and what I was trying to stop him from doing. I ended the mentorship because it ended up being too much work trying to pick up the pieces from his edits (both on and off the Wiki). Had he stuck to the restrictions, I would gladly have spent all my time trying to help him, but he wouldn't.

    A couple of things though - I think it would be fairer to give him a temp block, and give him a chance to explain himself. Also, I seem to recall that he created a second account to use at school, but the name of that account escapes me at the moment. Stephen! Coming... 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's only indef because that allows it to be lifted as soon as the matter is cleared up. The content was scurrilous fantasy, of course, but it invoked a real person without their permission and made implications that, even if obviously presented in an unbelievable context, is potentially extremely damaging to Jimbo and everyone associated with him - and that would be me and you, folks. My action after blocking D7107 was to suggest that they contact Jimbo and explain themselves - via me if wanted - to get this matter sorted out. I am not Jimbo's greatest fan, but I am fairly certain that after a little discussion this matter will likely be resolved amicably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand where you are coming from there LHvU, but why does he/she/it need to talk to Jimbo? When there is, for example, a legal threat block that person only has to convince the blocking admin they retracted/never made the threat; they do not have to convince the person who felt threatened. If it is a personal attack, then they don't need to apologise, just convince a reviewing admin. Why must we go 'It is Jimbo!' and suddenly run away from established procedure? It does neither him nor the rest of us any good. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (EC)[reply]
    If I inferred a real-named person had a sexual attraction for children, I would expect to get blocked. At the very least. What is the debate here? GTD 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fairly active on the blocking of editors following personal attacks, and I usually consider the sensibilities of the target when making a decision on block length. In this instance I thought it appropriate that the person dealt with Jimbo himself. I would point out also that I have reviewed the subsequent discussion at Jimbo's talkpage, where it is apparent that the content (which I also reviewed) is not D7107's own original work. The question is why they decided to hold it in WP space. If they have a good explanation, why not present it to Jimbo? If he is satisfied, as the effected editor, then there is no need for D7107 to remain blocked. Under the circumstances as I read them, I felt this the most appropriate way in dealing with the issue.
    Finally, as an admin I am answerable to the community. If the community feels that I acted too severely in protecting another member then by all means alter or reverse my action - I will not oppose even if I do not approve. I would say that, outside of the "talk to the man" bit, this would be how I would deal with unusual personal attacks; get the views of the attackee before taking further actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the community decides to do with 7107, it should also be applied to his alternative account he created for use at school (User:Das Sicherheit) and his original account that he has retired, but is still available for use (User:RuleOfThe9th). Stephen! Coming... 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is it the editor who is blocked, or the account? If the former, then shouldn't the alternative accound also be blocked? Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Account only. I was not aware at the time of alternate accounts, and am not now - given this discussion - minded to pursue blocking of other accounts without community consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm probably one of the users User:StephenBuxton is referring to as having been irritated by 7107; mostly it's covered on 7107's talk page. I didn't see the 'story' but am unsurprised that we're here. Before anyone gets too far down the good-faith unblock road, please review his total history. You'll find an immature and disruptive user and little else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LessHeard, thanks for clarifying that. IMO, the block was reasonable. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. 7107 may be able to convince an admin to unblock him if he demonstrates he has learnt from the block and the actions that led to it. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Jack Merridew - as the most found editor on the talk page - some weeks back - I am rather concerned that all this has the sense of feeding the troll - regardless of the outcome - he wants the attention - this specific conversation in most parts is conducted in AGF and unfortunately and unwillingly I suspect we are giving the needed attention (give him an opportunity to explain himself? - read the talk page and edit history surely is enough)- if you read the user page history and the talk page history carefully he actually talks about being blocked for his editing - I personally see no point in giving him any further chances - having endured his talk page antics.
    I am suggesting an unblocking of this editor is simply providing wikipedia with further excitement in what can i do next to disrupt wikipedia? - it is well beyond AGF now folks - 3 different user names and the edit history is enough surely?
    However for those who are concerned I might be biased - please look at the editors specific edit history, and the comments at the talk page - my pedantic ramblings notwithstanding - and actually look at the editors work - rather than get lost in the actual detail here at this noticeboard - it is far too easy to get lost in the arguments here - than the actual edit and talk page history - in question.
    I would suggest that if there is a reviewing admin of the block and the circumstances - there are Wikipedia Indonesia issues that might surface as well - and possibly at the German project as well. Also for some strange and a not easy to prove reason - there are possible signs that the account is used by more than one person - but it is also possible that the differences in comprehension and writing during the lifetime of the accounts are the work of one individual. SatuSuro 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    7107 has now responded on his talk page about the block, and I have informed him of this thread. Stephen! Coming... 11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just spent some time ploughing through this thread, the user's talk page and the childish (in both senses) story on jimbo's page, I see no reason at this time to unblock. I would suggest that the user is invited to apply for unblock in, say, a year's time, when he might possibly have developed a degree of the maturity which he clearly at present lacks. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As 7107D has indicated that he is emailing Jimbo, I have dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page about this discussion - depending on what we hear should help us determine the length of the block. Stephen! Coming... 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His own attitude about this on his talk page is surprisingly uncaring. But by all means, just as long as he apologies, he should be un-blocked. It doesn’t matter what you all think about the Block, but what Jimbo himself said about the now deleted attack page.--Misortie (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What we should consider is what we would do if anybody other than Jimbo Wales was the subject of that page (assuming it's an attack page, on which I can't comment since I don't know of the story and I'm not an admin so can't access the page). Would 7107D be indefd if the subject had been me or you? If the consensus is "yes", then the block should remain and 7107D can appeal it in a reasonable period of time (at least a month). If the answer is "no", the block should be lifted. I've no opinion on the outcome, but I would hate to think that undue consideration is given to the subject of the page and not the behaviour of the editor. HJMitchell You rang? 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Had it been an editor with no constructive edits, then regardless of subject, indef would be appropriate. For editors with constructive edits, then a temp ban would be in order. This user has been high maintenance, and does not seem to have learned from his past mistakes, even though he does contribute to the project. It is when he tries to do things like warning people, or conversing on talk pages that he usually ends up annoying someone. I think Anthony Bradbury made a good suggestion - block for a year, to give him a chance to develop the degree of maturity needed. Stephen! Coming... 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the third or fourth time I've seen him put that sign up (lost count), but given that he is indefinitely blocked, I think the retirement might be staying up this time. Stephen! Coming... 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily Mail Category

    Placed here in lieu of finding any other noticeboard for this type of issue.

    One editor has repeatedly placed Category:Nazi propaganda on the Daily Mail article. The apparent purpose of the category was to group German language clear propaganda subjects together, and I rather think placing the Daily Mail in that group fails to recognize the reason for the category, and is intended primarily in the same vein as the redirects "Daily Heil" and the like were used on WP in the past. As POV-pushing of that ilk was deleted from the redirects in the past, I would suggest the category ought not be used on the article about a British newspaper. Collect (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, it's best discussed on the user's talk page after he's blocked for it. Discussion on article talk pages is for things which might improve the encyclopaedia; we will be adding that category right after Satan finishes his snowball fight. The Daily Mail is an arsewipe but that is not an excuse. This is RMHED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a long record of disruption, his talk page is dominated by warnings for disruption and other inappropriate behaviour. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are getting soft Guy. If I had read this ten minutes earlier he would already be blocked on the basis that there is no plausible explanation for his edits other than intentional disruption in article-space - it's within a hairs breadth of what we would usually classify as vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is vandalism, and disruption, and I'm in no doubt that it's deliberate given the user's history. Feel free to block him, it's certainly deserved. Choosing something which is close enough to the borderline to spark a really long debate is the mark of a good troll. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Far be it from me to jump in to defend RHMED, but jumping in to defend RHMED - its brief period in the 1930s as a Nazi propaganda sheet is one of the best known pieces of the Daily Mail's history, so it's hardly out-of-the-blue trolling. The leading academic work on Nazism in Britain takes its name from a Daily Mail headline. – iridescent 10:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, but the addition is still deliberately disruptive for reasons which are, I think, obvious. It is not currently a Nazi propaganda sheet (although it comes close on occasion). Guy (Help!) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of interest, what are the current Nazi propaganda sheets? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The category tag is almost certainly not appropriate. But not by a great distance, and I think it is at least plausible that I could be made to stand corrected if a good RS were produced. There is nothing, as far as I can see, to indicate that this is trolling, and it is something that can be adequtely dealt with on the talk page IMO. The issue of whether the DM needs to be currently a Nazi propaganda sheet for the cat to be applicable, for example, should be determined there rather than here.--FormerIP (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (out) The above comments made me look up that editor -- with not just a checkered career on WP but a slew of them which were found. Including "Garibaldi Baconfat" overtly above. Will an admin put an end to this farce? Collect (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect, your case has support on the talkpage and it looks very unlikely that the edit in question will be allowed to stand. In the event that RHMED perists in repeatedly adding a category that everyone else objects to, then you'll have my backing. But at the moment, I can't see why you think admin intervention is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It5's needed because he keeps doing shit like this. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with his past history. You obviously don't like the cut of his jib, and I think I can see why. However, in the current case he has made an edit that, whilst it is undue and POV-pushing, is vaguely defendable (ie it looks to have been made in good faith). He looks to have only performed one revert and he is now participating in talk. It does not look like a situation which requires any immediate admin involvement. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually two reverts. In short order. Do a search on him and pseudonyms. The two admins above appear to be well familiar with him (IIRC, he stood for ArbCom this last time out - getting a net negative 394 votes). Collect (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike his tendency to disruption, choosing something which is borderline defensible is exactly what you do if you want to maximise drama. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, part of the problem is that the category doesn't state exactly what it covers. I'm not up on my between-wars history, but if the DM was a known Nazi supporter at the time, then I can understand the inclusion of the article in the category, even though the DM doesn't take that stance today. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one point has been missed: there was a historical period where the newspaper could have been fairly described by that category. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's a perfect way of trolling. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one reason why I'm dissatisfied sometimes with the concept & practice of the category aspect of Wikipedia. Even when someone is acting in good faith, it's too easy for categories to end up being a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. Categories are good for top-level grouping - Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom, for example, or Category:Taoisigh of Ireland or some such. For minor or historical facets you can't beat prose, and I'm sure this is covered well in Nazi propaganda. Anything that requires explanation or generates a "wtf?" is likely a bad fit for a category. This is not new. Obviously if this were adding Category:Thieving bastards to any past or present Chancellor of the Exchecquer then we'd have no argument, since that is uncontentious. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, that's not a real category. Shame on you! ;-) llywrch (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    May Grundle2600 suggest changes to articles covered by his topic ban at his talk page?

    Unresolved
     – While the proximal situation is resolved per the editors' commitment not to create further such threads, I remain curious about the question in general, though perhaps this is best reserved for WT:BAN. –xenotalk 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC), User agrees not to. Jehochman Brrr 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! There's a template for everything! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to a thread at User:Grundle2600's talk page (User talk:Grundle2600#Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? / permlink), I would like to solicit opinions as to whether such threads are appropriate (see also a previous thread, "I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?").

    While they don't appear to violate the letter of the topic ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600: continued problems and User:Grundle2600/Community sanction) they surely seem to violate the spirit. However, I am not a regular in terms of handing down or enforcing community sanctions, so additional input would be appreciated. –xenotalk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, in that the wording of WP:PROXYING there appears to provide a clear exception to the assume good faith guideline. So the banned user suggests an edit, someone does so and is challenged on it, the burden of proof will be on that 2nd editor to prove that they acted in good faith; there would be no assumption first. IMO Grundle, you're going to put other editors into jeopardy by acting on your suggestions, esp if they are not exactly in good standing (cough) to begin with. Advice? Stick to the areas outside of your topic ban, 100%. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc, I agree with you, because I do not want to put other editors in jeopardy. Thanks for commenting. I will stop making such suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this discussion should be "unresolved". Grundle should be able to propose things on his talk page. That's an ideal place for discussion. It doesn't interfere with article work in any way and no one is compelled to read or respond to his suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagging unresolved per your request to gather more opinions. –xenotalk 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose we create a separate talk page to discuss whether or not this issue has been resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who "proxied" an edit for Grundle, I think it depends is an important answer to the initial question. For example, Grundle posted a source which he claimed refuted something in an article, and wanted the article changed. Actually, the source he provided supported what was in the article, so I was able to use his source to provide additional support for the statement he wanted taken out. If Grundle is providing sources which other editors can read and judge critically and decide one way or another, independent of Grundle's wishes, how to incorporate that information that should be fine. If Grundle simply posts his desired changes to his talk pages, and other editors are simply enacting his wishes uncritically, that is a very different thing. Its all about the notion that Grundle's proposed changes should be filtered through more trusted editors. As long as that filtering goes on, I see no reason to disallow changes based on Grundle's suggestions. If there is evidence that edits are being made without such filtering, and are happening automatically without any critical analysis of Grundle's proposals, then that would be a problem. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron, I think that's an excellent example of why this shouldn't be that much of a concern. He's just tossing those things out and it's up to other editors to take it or leave it, and do whatever they want with it. Pardon the crude metaphor, but if people are able to use manure to grow a garden then what's the harm? -- Atama頭 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He can post ideas all day long and no one is compelled to act on them. And he might come up with something useful and neutral, i.e. worthy of inclusion. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of a topic ban is to separate a user from an area where they are causing problems. This has two main purposes as far as I can tell: to bring calm to the articles, and to help the user to drop an obsessive interest on a given topic. Allowing the user to make suggestions on their talk page violates both parts of this. It obviously doesn't help the user to move on, and it also brings the user and their (usually) problematic content agenda right back to the articles from which they were topic banned, with a fair likelihood that the locus of disputwe will simply be moved to the user's talk page instead. Allowing people to walk round topic bans by making comments on their talk page seems to me to break the spirit of the topic ban pretty comprehensively. Inability to let go and move on is also not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone does want to start a discussion at WT:BAN, this recent WP:VPP discussion (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_70#Banned_users) might be of interest. Rd232 talk 11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So long as the suggestions remain constructive, I fail to see how the project is damaged. Anyone choosing to act on a suggestion bears the burden of those edits. Grundle is being transparent and, it seems to me, acting within his topic ban. It seems to me if anyone is unhappy with the particular POV that Grundle posts on his user page, then perhaps they should just ignore it. Ronnotel (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. This is an open invitation to people to evade a topic ban, solicit editors to proxy on their behalf, solicit only those editors who are sympathetic to their POV, and in sundry other ways is antithetical to the idea of banning. If someone is topic banned it's because we don't want them getting involved in that topic. It only happens when there have been significant problems. Do we really want to actively encourage people to grandstand on their talk pages in the hope that someone will come along and take up the cudgels on their behalf? I think it's a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The archived VPP proposal was designed exactly to avoid solicitation, and instead to get neutral editors to review suggestions. The motivation for bothering is partly that topic/banned editors can easily email sympathetic editors - and if there's no onwiki outlet for their thoughts, that's more likely to happen. Which is bad for transparency, amongst other things. Rd232 talk 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the "give clean needles to addicts cause they're just gonna shoot up anyways" approach, which I do not particularly agree with. As noted above, topic bans are handed down because a editor has demonstrated to the community a complete inability to function within that area. Being involved in a topic means a great deal more than simply hitting "submit" on an article, so topic bans should remove someone from the arena completely; no grandstands, no sidelines...not even the nosebleed seats. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, this is why there is a distinction between 'page' and 'topic' bans, and why both have been used to deal with disruptive editing. As the names imply, the former applies to specific pages (or groups of pages), while the latter applies to specific topics. If the community finds that an individual's editing at a particular page is harmful, the damage may be contained by a page ban. (Perhaps an editor frequently files frivolous or vexatious 3RR reports; a page ban from WP:AN/3RR may be in order.) On the other hand, if the community feels that the approach of an editor to a particular topic area is problematic then it may issue a suitable topic ban. We have both tools in our toolbox, to be applied to different situations as deemed necessary.
    Encouraging an editor to evade his topic ban through userspace posts and the like often doesn't solve the problem. (It may defuse the 'lone wacko' problem by moving ranting away from useful talk pages, but that isn't generally the trouble where a topic ban placed.) Typically, the topic banned editor is surrounded by a constellation of (typically fringe or minority) supporters, plus a coterie of self-appointed Defenders of the Downtrodden (who are usually much worse wikilawyers than they realize, and who often very effectively entrench the community's support for a ban). Instead of the directly disruptive editing taking place on the article or it's talk page, the disruption becomes a travelling circus that spreads across an assortment of user talk pages and administrative noticeboards. The topic-banned editor figures he has little more to lose, and his entourage is filled with stubborn, self-righteous indignance. It's not a good thing.
    A topic ban is a topic ban. If we meant page ban, we would have said page ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am keeping my promise to no longer make such recommendations on my talk page.

    That being said, simply because I am curious, I would like to point out that there has not been any official answer to my request of a clarification of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users, which says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

    That bolded part means that topic banned editors are indeed allowed to make suggested changes on their own talk page. I am sticking to my promise to avoid making such suggestions. But I am still curious to hear a clarification of the bolded part from an administrator.

    Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the purpose of that language isn't to specifically allow for what you want to do (make suggested changes) but to inhibit Wikilawyering. I can imagine a situation where an editor wants to make a change to an article, on his own initiative and for a good reason, but isn't allowed to because a banned user just happens to support that same change. Also note that the language only applies to what a non-banned editor does, not what a banned editor does. In other words, it allows someone to add material to an article that falls under your topic ban, but it doesn't allow you to make the request in the first place. -- Atama頭 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this marked resolved again? There appears to be an active discussion with several editors noting that allowing Grundle to make proposals on his talk page is appropriate.
    Secondly, the numerous personal attacks and smears in this thread are unfortunate and ironic. It does show that there are many problems here that have nothing at all to do with Grundle, and this kind of abusive and uncivil behavior towards a fellow editor working in good faith is not acceptable.
    I haven't seen any policy argument for disallowing an editor from making suggestions on their talk page. And in fact it's a very good way for an editor who has had difficulty to get feedback without interfering with article editing (the purpose of the ban) and it is completely transparent unlike the e-mail campaigns and cabalism that go on here.
    Many of those speaking out in opposition to Grundle being allowed to make suggestions on his talk page are editors who disagree strongly with his perspectives. Going after editors because we disagree with them is abhorrent, and no one has provided a good argument for how the project will be disrupted by allowing someone to discuss content and sourcing issues on their talk page. That is exactly what talk pages are for and it is a great way for an editor to get input and feedback on their content building ideas. It should be noted that Grundle has been a good sport about enduring stalking and harassment by a large number of POV pushing stalkers hanging about on his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is precisely why this user is the subject of an active RfC; butting in to toss around accusations of bad faith, insinuations of cabal activity and the like. No one here is "going after editors because we disagree with them", and this boilerplate ChildofMidnight attack like is getting rather pathetic, quite frankly.
    As for the matter at hand, IMO I don't think WP:PROXYING had topic bans in mind when it was written, as it seems to be more focused on editors who have completely lost access to the Wikipedia, and not just a narrow portion of it. A user who is barred from a topic should be barred completely, with no wiki-lawyering around the edges. If the section on proxy editing needs to be adjusted to reflect topic bans, than that is the direction to go here. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A choice comment from the RfC, made by Grundle: "I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it." An absolute classic. Of course there is no conceivable good faith reason why the terrible people should not be censoring Wikipedia to remove relevant and well-sourced material, because having decided that the material is relevant and well-sourced any removal is naturally motivated solely by a desire to censor the content. Oh, sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record as it were, and as some well know, this "other people kept erasing it" complaint has been going on for 7 or 8 months now and is at the core of the problems with Grundle's editing, but in a slightly different way than JzG suggests above (though the cry of "censors!" is also obviously incredibly problematic). It entails one of the more stunningly inaccurate (and stubborn) readings of NPOV I've ever seen, and despite repeated efforts (as in dozens of times) by multiple editors to explain the problem to Grundle he persists in arguing along these lines. This goes back to at least May ("An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote"...!!!!!....those are my exclamation points, I needed them!) and has come up repeatedly since then (e.g., "Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff"). As the comment in the RfC suggests, I do not think this attitude of Grundle's has changed at all, and it obviously is pretty much the exact opposite of what writing in an NPOV fashion is about (and forget about the brevity problems if "everyone gets to add what they want").
    Given that Grundle has been misreading our most fundamental policy for well over half a year and that any attempts at explaining it seem to bounce right off, it's rather amazing that Grundle is still around. I think we're beyond last chances at this point, but unfortunately most people don't know the sheer amount of time and effort that folks (including me, but a lot of others too) have put in trying to get Grundle on the straight and narrow, all to no avail. Nothing is going to come of this particular incident, but we'll be back here again, and I for one am quite sick of trying to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd Dramaout starts in two weeks

    Just a quick reminder, the 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout begins in exactly two weeks from now. Any admins who want to participate just sign up at the page and keep an eye on the date. Hopefully we can make this event even more successful than the first one. :) -- œ™ 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The irritating thing about about this program is its presumption that everything outside of article space is wasted time. People can focus on content without preening about it and without putting down their peers who resolve vandalism, etc. It's more than a little hypocritical. Durova394 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    McCready topic ban

    As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [1]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban imposed here [2] and here [3]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [4] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [5] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [6]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [7]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [8] and Virtual Steve [9] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [10]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion should be at [11] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [12]. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).
    This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[13], including with an IP[14][15] (see checkuser results).
    I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[16]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.
    sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[17] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

    None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

    As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[29], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)
    Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick Summary

    I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

    The bot for this page archived [30] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [31]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [32] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [33]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.
    The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)
    Richard Dawkins (8)
    Ubiquitin (8)
    Osteochondritis dissecans (7)
    Talk:Water fluoridation (7)
    Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)
    Missy Higgins (6)
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)
    Fiat money (5)
    PubMed (5)
    Lee Myung-bak (5)
    Karl Kruszelnicki (5)
    User talk:Collectonian (5)
    Silicosis (4)
    Antireligion 4)
    Meningitis (4)
    New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

    There are also plenty of examples of my collegiate editing on my talkpage. Will you please do me the courtesy of reading them. I have tried assiduously from the time of the ban to avoid wikidrama and now it is old enemies who want to create it. My recent record shows I just want to get on editing.

    Now will you try to address the question. Even supposing the ban was validly placed (and that is disputed) it is false to argue that normal sanctions cannot be applied if I step out of line. You will also notice, will you not, that the POV pusher who has come out of retirement again and who is behind this from the start, has failed once again to come up with the goods on acupressure. He objects to scientific material being placed in areas where he edits (I can give a list of these off wiki because we wouldn't want to identify him would we?) Finally, will you investigate canvassing by him? A simple yes or no will suffice. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)
    Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    11 users have now commented. Only Middle8 appears to have read the full history and users can make their own judgment on his views and motive for doing so. One user has declined because links weren't provided. Since the links were on my talkpage and I requested people to look at them, and indeed they have been provided above by other users, users can again make their own judgment. Others have alluded to the possibility that the ban doesn't exist. Others have commented on their past views but have not reviewed my edits since the ban. One user has commented at greater length on my edits since the ban but has not responded to my further questions. In summary there is no consensus to support Middle8's views. So, unless others want to support Middle8's vendetta (and please address the original question with a more purposeful focus if you do), I intend to resume normal editing. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is false - I also read the full history and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The ban exists, this is not in doubt. I have said that I would not support lifting of the ban. Others agree, and this does not seem to be restricted to those who are on the opposite side from you in respect of fringe and pseudoscience content. ArbCom has said it will leave the ban status to the community, so you need to persuade people. The best way of doing that would be a sustained period of unproblematic editing on other topics. Your edit history shows that when you are not editing the articles in question you are largely inactive, so it is natural that some of us will be sceptical about lifting the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite obviously I disagree Guy on many points. To demonstrate that you understand the history let's take this one step at a time. Please provide me with the diff which led to my block after which a discussion morphed into a unilateral "ban" which I could not even participate in because I was blocked at the time. Over to you. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this allowed?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.111.156.219&diff=prev&oldid=336310894

    Specially since user doesn't have an static IP and it's an IP he haven't used in many months. -- m:drini 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't know why he thought it wasn't necessary to provide a reason/summary in the appropriate box... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved it back. –xenotalk 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It's odd since that page is all about he warning himself (under other sock) not to vandalize himself, and then he warning himself about sockpuppeting. Weird, given yesterday he got unblocked for sockpuppeting. -- m:drini 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking it his contributions, there a whole load of redirects as well. Should we undo those? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to nominate an article for deletion but I am not a user

    Resolved
     – meta-discussions over the benefits of creating an account aside, the IP can contact User:Jayron32 or User:Tedder or User:LadyofShalott to request the AFD files be created for them--Jayron32 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MV Shonan Maru 2

    My rationale is that the vessel itself is not inherently notable, even if the incident in which it was recently involved is.

    Please could someone submit this on my behalf? Regards, Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.90.45 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has an "under construction" template on it, and seems to be currently being worked on. It may be worth it to wait a day or so, and if it STILL does not appear notable, then nominate it tomorrow. As an aside, if you want to nominate it for deletion tomorrow, just buzz me on my talk page tomorrow, and I'll set up the relevent pages so you can comment. --Jayron32 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally held at WP:SHIPS that ships are sufficiently notable to sustain their own articles, subject to WP:V via WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without judging the merits of the page itself (Mjroots has a good point), the solution here would be.... for the IP to create an account. Tan | 39 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of an policy restricting Ip's from nominating articles for deletion.--Jac16888Talk 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think IPs can create pages, so that would present a technical - if not policy - issue. –xenotalk 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tested it, you're right. Do we want that?--Jac16888Talk 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been that way for as long as I can remember, to prevent vandalism and such. –xenotalk 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean wikipedia space pages--Jac16888Talk 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be very hard (I imagine?) for one of our programmers to create a bot via which IPs could request the creation of an AfD page, although this might not be regarded as a very good idea, thoughts? Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bots can't differentiate good faith noms from bad. –xenotalk 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but why should a user be any less capable of making a bad faith nom than an IP? SpitfireTally-ho! 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems it is only notable for the collision with a famous boat, and the incident is adequately covered on the other article. However, this article does offer a description of the technical characteristics of the vessel which might be of interest to those reading about the collision, and it would look odd if they were included on an article about different vessel. My reasoning here is that the collision is certainly notable, and this may well make the technical characteristics of the other vessel notable which means the article about the other vessel satisifes notability criteria. I personally think you can make the argument either way so it would be better to keep the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict, reply to xeno and Jac) Yes we want that restriction. IPs cannot vote in RfAs, AfDs, etc. I don't think Jayron should have volunteered to do what he offered - what if an IP said, "hey, can you !vote on this AfD for me, I don't have an account"? Meatpuppetry, pretty much. If the user feels strongly enough about the article to want it deleted, he/she can take the simple, non-exclusive, non-discriminating step of creating an account. Tan | 39 18:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, Ip's can !vote in Afd's, there is no restriction against that--Jac16888Talk 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I think you're mistaken there Tan. I've created AFD pages-by-proxy following good-faith requests from IPs in the past. –xenotalk 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, mea culpa. Took the wind out my argument, didn't it? I still don't think an AfD-by-proxy is appropriate at all, but I suppose I have a much weaker stance now. Tan | 39 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm McCulloch. As you can see it's not MEAT because I did not actually weigh-in, I simply created the page using the IPs nom statement. –xenotalk 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of this point from wp:afd - "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). ". I guess it's a good thing I am not active in AfD anymore. I suppose I still personally frown on creating AfDs at the request of IPs; the solution should simply be to direct them to create an account if they are so inclined. But, YMMV. Tan | 39 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is accepted that IPs can vote in AfDs, but the practice of AfD-by-proxy is questionable. It is in the class of 'procedural AfD nominations' where the person who does it doesn't actually believe in it. (If there is no actual registered editor who sincerely believes that the article should be deleted, then what is the harm in waiting until there is one?). IPs are able to do PRODs and I think that's where the limit should be drawn. It would be different if the IP had been able to persuade Xeno on the merits, to open an AfD and actually vote for Delete. I would not consider that to be WP:MEAT. It is perfectlly normal for users to bounce around ideas on whether articles deserve deletion, prior to a nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (moving left) I create 2-3 AFDs per week for IPs who have submitted them in good faith- in fact, my userpage has a little copy-and-paste snippet that I include when I do so. WP:GD says "Anyone can make a nomination, though anonymous users can not complete the process without help from a logged-in user." tedder (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have completed nominations being made apparently in good faith by IP users. I have sometimes agreed with the nomination; other times, I immediately turned around and voted keep. I don't think there is anything wrong with that practice. LadyofShalott 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The metadiscussions on the merits of creating an account (WP:WHY covers that quite nicely) aside, there is no injunction against IPs creating or commenting at AFDs. There are atleast 3 people here who have volunteered to create the AFD for the concerned IP address (me, Tedder, and LadyofShalott) so at this point, I'm marking this one as semi-resolved. If the IP still wants the AFD created, they can contact one of us at our talk page, and we will take care of it. --Jayron32 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the best way to do it is to star the AFD (with the AFD template on the article page), post your rationale on the talk page. It'll get posted to User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD within a day or two. tedder (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Neustradamus

    Resolved
     – At least while editor is blocked. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    I have a problem with an IP address which revert my change.

    It is 91.187.66.243.

    In the same time, I wish you an happy new year 2010 !

    Thanks in advance, regards — Neustradamus (✉) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would appreciate it if you could inform me of this discussion you started. I have replied to you on the talk page of the article Talk:Free software licence. Thank you. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like a debate because all license is a license (it is official), you can see for example : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html and other... — Neustradamus (✉) 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no debate. Articles written in British English are kept that way per WP:ENGVAR. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, technically per WP:RETAIN, but this editor has moved on to other disruptive WP:MOS changes, and I've warned that this should not continue. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some irony here, given this editor's command of English... Tan | 39 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've previously warned him; this has become disruptive, and/or incompetent, and I've blocked for 72 hours. If he comes back after that with the same stuff... Rodhullandemu 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you. The drama is down a notch. Do admins have a special tool for quickly reverting / undoing en masse this guy's edits to lots of different articles? I could do them all by the Undo button, but it will be painfully slow. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rolled back most of them, possibly the odd false positive, but most of the damage has been mitigated. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also reverted a few of his moves where he included a hyphen when there previously wasn't one. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your help. There was one more which I undid. I think that's the last one. I think I will follow his edits when he gets back from his block because I wouldn't be surprised if he continues given his intransigence. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed change for Template:Unblock reviewed

    As per what was said here, I used the {{edit protected}} template on the unblock request talk page, but it was declined. Can we please keep this section from archiving so we can actually get consensus on the matter?— Dædαlus Contribs

    As I commented intimated at the archived thread, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a solution to a problem that occurs very rarely). The template gives admins an idiot-proof code segment to copy and paste, so they won't get the parameter wrong. Those that do should be trouted =) –xenotalk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't say that in the archived thread. What you said was that it shouldn't such a big deal to bring to this noticeboard, and that I should just request it through {{editprotected}}. You also asked for an instance when it happened, which I provided. What precisely you said can be seen below:

    It seems just to be adding some alternate names for the parameter? No big deal - should've just been proposed thru the {{edit protected}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xenotalk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    — Dædαlus Contribs 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes you need to read between the lines =) –xenotalk 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting input for abuse response project

    Before I start, please know that abuse response has changed. It is no longer the ineffective, slow, and messy project it was in the past. Several volunteers have taken many steps to revive and revamp the project. We believe abuse response has the potential to help curb long term abuse on Wikipedia and provide outreach to school administrators, and we have taken steps to reach those goals. I am not asking for support for the project or anything like that. I am merely asking that the community give their input on this issue. So please voice your opinions on the new proposal (actual proposal located here). This is part of the general 2009 revamp of the project. Thank you. Netalarmhappy holidays! 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The work you do

    While this would most likely target administrators in general, this is a message to all Wikipedia editors in general.

    I do not edit Wikipedia but I felt that it was about time that somebody reinforced the appreciation literally millions of people around the world owe all of you for your hard work here. I know that many are drawn away from Wikipedia because of those who add false information onto Wikipedia, vandalize pages, or otherwise do things to this website against morals and the media has come down hard on Wikipedia more than once for many reasons over the years such example as the recent claim of someone dying in Hawaii and there are several reasons why Wikipedia is often subject to critism and sometimes even controversy.

    I just wanted to let you all know that no matter what the media wishes to say about Wikipedia, there is a reason the website is one of the top six most visited places on the world wide web - it is essentially a free encyclopedia for people, made by people. You all work for a good cause and many of us who use Wikipedia regularly for research and other things, never really take the time to extend our appreciation for the hard work you all put in. I am aware that plenty of you dedicate several hours of your time each day to help this well-intended project that many of us have so long taken for granted.

    Basically, I just wanted to personally express me appreciation for Wikipedia, and remind you all that work so hard that there are people out there who will support Wikipedia until the very end and are always grateful for all that you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp Light (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You're quite welcome. --Jayron32 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, in fact thank you for making me smile, not often a post on here does that--Jac16888Talk 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What "...very end"? What do you know? WHY WERE WE NOT TOLD!!! - Heh, heh! Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=336604767"