Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:22, 14 April 2013 editTheopolisme (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,598 edits →Resized file backlog: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:48, 14 April 2013 edit undoDangerousPanda (talk \| contribs)38,827 edits →Proposing indef block for Strangesad: closingNext edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:

	== Proposing indef block for Strangesad ==		== Proposing indef block for Strangesad ==
			{{archive-top\|1=There is no clear consensus for an indef block, yet (and the word "yet" might be key at this point in time). Misplaced Pages is ''already'' a social experiment, there's no need to introduce Thoreau into it because the rules/policies/etc are fairly set. Encouraging others to break the rules is, indeed, improper - consensus led to the policies, and unless you can get consensus to change them, do not EVER encourage that form of stupidity. Indeed, if they decide to follow your advice and subsequently become blocked for it, you WILL receive the same block for your part. For someone intelligent enough to quote wise philosophers, Strangesad's actions have been less than intelligent and less than wise ''to date''. For someone who clearly ''does'' have things to add, it should be noted that the ''means'' are not justified by the ''ends''. Although I do not recommend being a lemming, you will find that operating either ''within'' the envelope ... or at least around the ''edges'' of it will be far more successful and satisfying than operating within a completely different postbox. If you do truly wish to be blocked (as per your !vote), then please let me know directly and I will do so. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 12:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)}}

	If ever there was a case for a ], the thread above is it. As ] already pointed out, ] seems to be on Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of disrupting and picking fights. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing compared with arguing is revealing. Her latest edits here consist of repeatedly reverting an admin's decision and bascially telling the admin to get lost , . Edit warring at AN, on top of all the other problems, it's just getting out of hand. For the record, Strangesad was duly warned about the edit warring by the admin . True to style, Strangesad chose to continue edit warring ''and'' reporting the admin for edit warring instead.<br>		If ever there was a case for a ], the thread above is it. As ] already pointed out, ] seems to be on Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of disrupting and picking fights. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing compared with arguing is revealing. Her latest edits here consist of repeatedly reverting an admin's decision and bascially telling the admin to get lost , . Edit warring at AN, on top of all the other problems, it's just getting out of hand. For the record, Strangesad was duly warned about the edit warring by the admin . True to style, Strangesad chose to continue edit warring ''and'' reporting the admin for edit warring instead.<br>
	It's ironic that Strangesad is upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly '''encouraged''' Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. . Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks , , Strangesad consistently refused again arguing for violating the policies . Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot . Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad , , . In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself. Based on all the diffs above, I suggest it's time to indef Strangesad who wastes way too much time for way too many people. When Strangesad was last blocked, she came to ANI to explicitly state that the block would not change her behavior. She has then spent most of her time proving that she meant it. I already posted about this earlier in the discussion, pointing out that Strangesad only is on Misplaced Pages for fights of this kind. Her subsequent decission to open up the discussion after if was closed is just a bit too much, especially when it happens ''twice''. Misplaced Pages is much better of without an exceptionally disruptive who encourages sockpuppetry and wastes everyone's time in tiresome fights.] (]) 19:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)		It's ironic that Strangesad is upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly '''encouraged''' Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. . Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks , , Strangesad consistently refused again arguing for violating the policies . Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot . Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad , , . In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself. Based on all the diffs above, I suggest it's time to indef Strangesad who wastes way too much time for way too many people. When Strangesad was last blocked, she came to ANI to explicitly state that the block would not change her behavior. She has then spent most of her time proving that she meant it. I already posted about this earlier in the discussion, pointing out that Strangesad only is on Misplaced Pages for fights of this kind. Her subsequent decission to open up the discussion after if was closed is just a bit too much, especially when it happens ''twice''. Misplaced Pages is much better of without an exceptionally disruptive who encourages sockpuppetry and wastes everyone's time in tiresome fights.] (]) 19:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Line 158:		Line 158:
	* '''Quite obvious, could we move on''' Not only has a majority supported an indef block (''not'' a permanent ban), but even Strangesad herself has supported that she be indefinitely blocked. In that case, it all seems quite straightforward and we can move on.] (]) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)		* '''Quite obvious, could we move on''' Not only has a majority supported an indef block (''not'' a permanent ban), but even Strangesad herself has supported that she be indefinitely blocked. In that case, it all seems quite straightforward and we can move on.] (]) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
	:: Yeah, let's just "indef block" her and "move one". ''Really''? Do you still not realize how uncalled for that kind of block is? Please, I urge you to read again the comments by ], ], ], ] and ]. It should go without saying that we must be very careful with decisions like this, when they can potentially decide the future of other editors, and affect their ability to edit here. In my opinion, for this case even a 24h block would be too much, but if you really must satisfy your desire to see ] blocked, I would suggest that something like a 1-week block (or even a 1-month block), though still unfair, would be much more sensible. Truly, etc., ] (]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)		:: Yeah, let's just "indef block" her and "move one". ''Really''? Do you still not realize how uncalled for that kind of block is? Please, I urge you to read again the comments by ], ], ], ] and ]. It should go without saying that we must be very careful with decisions like this, when they can potentially decide the future of other editors, and affect their ability to edit here. In my opinion, for this case even a 24h block would be too much, but if you really must satisfy your desire to see ] blocked, I would suggest that something like a 1-week block (or even a 1-month block), though still unfair, would be much more sensible. Truly, etc., ] (]) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
			{{archive-bottom}}

	== "Speedy Deletion Wikia" feed ==		== "Speedy Deletion Wikia" feed ==

Revision as of 12:48, 14 April 2013

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive367#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 19 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 11 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 223 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 57 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 45 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing... —Compassionate727 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 38 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 16 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 8 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 88 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Chloe Melas#RFC on allegation of making a false allegation (resubmission)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 24 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	12	12
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	2	1	3
FfD	1	18	19
RfD	9	40	49
AfD	0	1	1

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 91 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 67 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 57 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Proposing indef block for Strangesad

There is no clear consensus for an indef block, yet (and the word "yet" might be key at this point in time). Misplaced Pages is already a social experiment, there's no need to introduce Thoreau into it because the rules/policies/etc are fairly set. Encouraging others to break the rules is, indeed, improper - consensus led to the policies, and unless you can get consensus to change them, do not EVER encourage that form of stupidity. Indeed, if they decide to follow your advice and subsequently become blocked for it, you WILL receive the same block for your part. For someone intelligent enough to quote wise philosophers, Strangesad's actions have been less than intelligent and less than wise to date. For someone who clearly does have things to add, it should be noted that the means are not justified by the ends. Although I do not recommend being a lemming, you will find that operating either within the envelope ... or at least around the edges of it will be far more successful and satisfying than operating within a completely different postbox. If you do truly wish to be blocked (as per your !vote), then please let me know directly and I will do so. (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 12:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

If ever there was a case for a WP:BOOMERANG, the thread above is it. As Bbb23 already pointed out, Strangesad seems to be on Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of disrupting and picking fights. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing compared with arguing is revealing. Her latest edits here consist of repeatedly reverting an admin's decision and bascially telling the admin to get lost , . Edit warring at AN, on top of all the other problems, it's just getting out of hand. For the record, Strangesad was duly warned about the edit warring by the admin . True to style, Strangesad chose to continue edit warring and reporting the admin for edit warring instead.
It's ironic that Strangesad is upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly encouraged Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. . Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks , , Strangesad consistently refused again arguing for violating the policies . Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot . Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad , , . In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself. Based on all the diffs above, I suggest it's time to indef Strangesad who wastes way too much time for way too many people. When Strangesad was last blocked, she came to ANI to explicitly state that the block would not change her behavior. She has then spent most of her time proving that she meant it. I already posted about this earlier in the discussion, pointing out that Strangesad only is on Misplaced Pages for fights of this kind. Her subsequent decission to open up the discussion after if was closed is just a bit too much, especially when it happens twice. Misplaced Pages is much better of without an exceptionally disruptive who encourages sockpuppetry and wastes everyone's time in tiresome fights.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that the admin is edit-warring, having made that revert 3 times. My objection is that he is taking action that requires an impartial party, when he had been arguing and taking sides in the very matter he was archiving. I don't think an editor should be able to to me ""As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP" and then archive the discussion as soon as I reply. And I don't think the rules on edit-warring should be different for admins. If I had archived the thread 3 times against Bbb23's wishes, I would be blocked right now. Are there equal standards here or not? Strangesad (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:NOTHERE is a strange thing to say when I just created an article and had it nominated..... Strangesad (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've followed a few more of Jeppiz's links, I'd just like to note what he omitted . Strangesad (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again, I did not omit it. As anyone can see above, I wrote that you "retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later". Kindly stop making false accusation.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

But why do you even bother coming here Strangesad? From what I have seen, your personal mantra seems to be about admin abuse, admin powertrippig, etc. With that attitude, and your claimed disregard for Wikipolicy, what is the point?. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Editor is obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Encouraging others to sock would be enough to warrant this. Treating Misplaced Pages as a Battleground seals the deal. MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:NOTHERE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support How can someone who says traffic laws can be ignored at will be given a driving license? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose this step at this time. Although Strangesad has engaged in some problematic activity as noted above—such as urging another editor to sockpuppet around a sanction, which is is not acceptable—this editor also has created at least one legitimate article. During a recent request for arbitration, although Strangesad's participation was unduly argumentative, he or she did correctly identify a mistake I had made in my analysis and lead me to revise it. Strangesad would be well-served to change aspects of his or her approach to Misplaced Pages, and a long block is a likely result if that doesn't happen, but I don't know that we need to go as far as an indefinite block at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I took that into account. That's why I did not bring up this issue already when Strangesad encouraged HP to start a sockpuppet, and it's why I first only commented in the discussion above. But the edit warring with an admin over a closure was just too much on top of everything else. Quite simply, the time Strangesad spends in arguments and vendettas is (I believe) far too much compared to other activities. Not to mention the time Strangesad makes others spend.Jeppiz (talk)

Support Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%). This editor appears to believe that Misplaced Pages is a debating society, and not a project to build an encyclopedia. Despite Brad's opposition, I see no reason for Strangesad to keep the franchise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I like hearing from you that a combative nature justifies a block, and then checking your Talk page to find "So, if you wanted to be CU'd, what the hell are you bitching about," "No apology will be forthcoming... Next time, reign in your hyperbole and don't behave like an over-active cheerleader." "OK, if you're going to be dense about the obvious difference, clueless about the quality of your actions, and naive about the nature of identity on the Internet, then there's nothing to talk about and this discussion is over. Bye." I do have to agree with History2007 and wonder what I'm doing in a place like this. History2007 and King of hearts, BTW, are involved in the disputes jeppiz cites in his complaint, and involved editors are not supposed to be part of a consensus to block. Strangesad (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I like hearing from you that a combative nature justifies a block, and then checking your Talk page to find

"So, if you wanted to be CU'd, what the hell are you bitching about,"
"No apology will be forthcoming... Next time, reign in your hyperbole and don't behave like an over-active cheerleader."
"OK, if you're going to be dense about the obvious difference, clueless about the quality of your actions, and naive about the nature of identity on the Internet, then there's nothing to talk about and this discussion is over. Bye."

I do have to agree with History2007 and wonder what I'm doing in a place like this. History2007 and King of hearts, BTW, are involved in the disputes jeppiz cites in his complaint, and involved editors are not supposed to be part of a consensus to block. Strangesad (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion on merits of percentage of mainspace edits as metric for evaluating editors NE Ent 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Re Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%) According to this, Newyorkbrad's percentage of article edits is about 11%. If you think 34% is 'weak', what do you think about that? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Incidentally, I think NYB is a great asset to the project. I just wanted to show how fucking stupid your statement was. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 6:44 pm, Today (UTC−4) I am sorry, but NY Brad is a very nice person who spends a lot of time maintaining order, talking sense into people, etc. and that is why his percentages look that way. I happen not to agree with him on this issue, but trying to diminish his activities is not the way to go about things. The point Beyond My Ken was making was that Strangesad has made all of 95 article edits and has been on AN, ANI, etc. many times now (I do not even know how many times) been blocked early on, etc. That is the difference. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Actually, History, I'd said exactly the same thing, after my comment - see . But it's been removed as an 'attack', and I've been warned . Ridiculous. I suppose it's because I used a 'naughty word', because there's no 'attack' there. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Against my better judgment, I'll comment. Your statement above, as with most of your statements since crawling out of the woodwork today, is at best a distraction. What History is saying and what you said are not the same. History is saying that Brad has many administrative responsibilities at Misplaced Pages that don't permit him to spend much time editing content. You were trying to draw a false analogy between Strangesad and Brad as Strangesad doesn't have any adminisrative responsibilities. That's what you meant when you disagreed (putting it politely) with BMK's statistical point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I agree this isn't the place for this. I can't discuss this here, because you've re-factored my comments. See ANI. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion on merits of percentage of mainspace edits as metric for evaluating editors NE Ent 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Re Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%)

According to this, Newyorkbrad's percentage of article edits is about 11%. If you think 34% is 'weak', what do you think about that? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Incidentally, I think NYB is a great asset to the project. I just wanted to show how fucking stupid your statement was. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 6:44 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I am sorry, but NY Brad is a very nice person who spends a lot of time maintaining order, talking sense into people, etc. and that is why his percentages look that way. I happen not to agree with him on this issue, but trying to diminish his activities is not the way to go about things. The point Beyond My Ken was making was that Strangesad has made all of 95 article edits and has been on AN, ANI, etc. many times now (I do not even know how many times) been blocked early on, etc. That is the difference. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, History, I'd said exactly the same thing, after my comment - see . But it's been removed as an 'attack', and I've been warned . Ridiculous. I suppose it's because I used a 'naughty word', because there's no 'attack' there. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'll comment. Your statement above, as with most of your statements since crawling out of the woodwork today, is at best a distraction. What History is saying and what you said are not the same. History is saying that Brad has many administrative responsibilities at Misplaced Pages that don't permit him to spend much time editing content. You were trying to draw a false analogy between Strangesad and Brad as Strangesad doesn't have any adminisrative responsibilities. That's what you meant when you disagreed (putting it politely) with BMK's statistical point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this isn't the place for this. I can't discuss this here, because you've re-factored my comments. See ANI. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Observation: That highlights an interesting and relevant phenomenon in crowd sourced systems: "turbulence generates further turbulence". There are now 3 ongoing discussions, one here, one on ANI and one on ANI/3RR that have resulted from ricocheted items from here. Hundreds and hundreds of lines of text will have been typed to deal with this. I think that confirms what Jeppiz said in response to Brad and what Beyond My Ken was implying as well, and what WP:OWB item 3 states: that at the end of the day, the accumulative results here are firmly in the liabilities column in terms of wasted effort. History2007 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per NewYorkBrad, and I would suggest an interaction ban between Strangesad and Jeppiz and History2007. Strangesad is shockingly incivil and combative, however Strangesad's areas of useful contribution do not intersect with Jeppiz's or History2007's at all and both of these editors need to review WP:MASTODONS. If unmodified Strangesad's current behavior patterns will undoubtedly lead to their being removed from the project, but it is time for those involved with this particular dispute to drop it and move on with their lives. -- LWG 01:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the need for any restriction on myself or Jeppiz. And I do not agree with the long presentation in mastodons - which is just an essay in any case - an overly simplified essay I would say, given that it suggests to "edit on a full stomach" - with no scientific basis for the assertion. Strangesad started the thread above here, and I received a message on my talk page to come spend this lovely time in this highly productive discussion. So again, we have a user with less than 100 article edits causing thousands and thousands of ricochet edits. And note that there is no "content dispute" here. It is her "dispute about a dispute". I do agree with your statement that "if unmodified Strangesad's current behavior patterns will undoubtedly lead to their being removed from the project." I think that is where that path is leading in any case. It may take various turns along the way, but the destination in clear. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad did indeed start the above thread, and an interaction ban would have prevented them from doing so, to the benefit of all of us. You were indeed invited to join this discussion, but you should not have done so. It is a waste of your time and you should be continuing your usual quality work on the wiki. I would suggest that you have a little faith in the ability of other editors to deal with Strangesad's complaints, and that you remove yourself from this situation which will only be a drain on your time and emotional resources. -- LWG 02:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is such a pointless discussion, why did you feel the need to contribute to it? (No reply necessary, I wouldn't want to drain you emotionally) 88.104.27.58 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I am not directly involved in the dispute, I can try to help resolve it without as much risk of hurt pride or frustration impairing my ability to be civil. By doing so, I can hope to de-escalate the situation and speed those involved back to productive editing, which is my and should be everyone's only goal here. -- LWG 02:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think being nice is part of your nature LWG. And believe me that I wish I had never been told about this discussion. But once formally invited, I was not going to refuse it. As you well know the Wiki has its own way of magnetically attaching users to the keyboard and the edit summary of "let the workers go back to work" just does not work that way. Once ANI starts, production stops - that is how it is. I wish I had never heard of AN or ANI. But I think anything short of an indef (or topic ban) for Strangesad will be a small band-aid that will fall off in time. Think of it this way, your statement about the drain on time and resources just confirms the ricochet phenomenon. I am sorry, but there is no way around that observation. That is just the nature of crowd sourced interaction. History2007 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Once Humanpublic's topic ban was implemented, the obstacle to you and Jeppiz's productivity was removed. It's true that Humanpublic took the ban badly and made numerous complaints and allegations afterwards, but that was not your problem and would have been adequately resolved without your involvement. Edits like this and this, while correct and reasonable, were wholly unnecessary, and coming from someone with existing conflict only served to escalate the situation and perpetuate bad feelings, which is what has led us here. -- LWG 03:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We could talk about that more if you like, and I could debate it with you, but why? As I said below, I think this will just eat time now. History2007 (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would Oppose an indef block at this point. Strangesad's behaviour has been less than ideal, but it comes after a case that had clearly caused some bad feeling, and I'd suggest the best thing now is for everyone to just walk away from this dispute and try to cool off for a while. I would advise Strangesad to tone down the combative approach to interaction, otherwise blocks will surely be forthcoming - but I don't think any drastic action is needed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so please issue a warning/advice/whatever to Strangesad to take it easy, just somehow close it and let us be done with this, for it seems that it is going to eat time like Pac-man now. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If I may, I would not have brought this to AN if it was "just" that Strangesad's outbursts came after "a" case. We now see this after HP was banned for being a sock, but we saw the same when there was a topic ban on HP, we saw it when HP was temporarily blocked, we saw it when Strangesad was blocked. In short, we see it every time something doesn't go Strangesad's way, not just this time.Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

However, reality must be accepted. This thread will not result in a block on Strangesad; just eat up more life. The best remedy, I think is to advise/warn/inform her to take it easy, and move on. And if something happens again, we will cross that Wiki-bridge when we get there. When Peter Lynch retired, a reporter asked him why he had stopped. He said: "On my death bed, if someone asked me 'would you have preferred to have spent another day analyzing a company or to have spent more time with your family?' what do you think I would have said?". That is how I think of these AN/ANI discussions. On our death-beds will we wish we had seen just one more AN/ANI thread? We know the answer. Time to move on. History2007 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

How about an explanation of my policy-violation in the previous thread? I was civil, I called for no sanctions on anyone, and I asked questions that sincerely conserned me. I reverted an edit that I believed (and still believe) was inappropriate.

I asked if announcing someone's IP counts as outing. I genuinely wanted to know, and the relevant policy has still not been cited.
I asked why Talk page access was revoked, when I saw no abuse.
I asked about a 2nd CU because Jeppiz had said there was one, DoRD had said it was fine with him, but I could see no progress or evidence that it had been done.

So when LWG suggests I should have an interaction ban to prevent such threads, and it triggers a proposal for a block from Jeppiz, I'd like an explanation. BTW, here and on ANI, Jeppiz has proposed blocking me 3-4 times in the last month, and proposed blocks/bans on HP 3-4 times, and not once has attempted an RFC/U, or any other less retaliatory approach to dispute resolution. Strangesad (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I really think you need to take Zebedee's advice and seek WP:Calm. I already gave an explanation of the IP on your talk page: "Regarding his IP, these are routinely used in SPI cases, and it was already discussed in his SPI case and that was how the IP was blocked by Rschen7754 a few days ago. The SPI case, and the ensuing block was visible by over 300 million internet users." So IPs are routinely discussed in SPI cases. But seriously, starting another debate about Jeppiz and yourself here will achieve nothing. I know how these things work, the way this thread is going, you will either just move on and it will end, or will prolong it with no benefit to the project. I also suggested to Jeppiz just above to seek calm and move on. I think Zebedee has been around long enough to know the trends, so the best way is to seek WP:Calm and move on; else it will just eat up time with no benefit at all. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Support per MarnetteD's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been waiting on this, but now must support this proposal based in part on this recent comment, and others linked to above. There's a major WP:IDHT issue here regarding the WP:ANEW thread, and general rudeness/gaming/whatever otherwise. I have ideas in me head about this, they just aren't coming out right now, so I'll try again later. gwickwire_editing 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDHT doesn't apply anytime somebody disagrees with you. I gave my reasons, which shows that I did hear what people said--and disagreed. On the other hand, I've seen no explanations of how my reasoning is bad. Strangesad (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem, you don't "see" any explanation you disagree with. To take but one example, different admins patiently tried to explain to you why encouraging sockpuppetry is bad , . All you did was to continue to argue that it's the rules that are wrong , . No matter how many times a large number of people try to explain Misplaced Pages to you, you just refuse to get it and to insist that everybody else is wrong. Your comment above just proves it once again.Jeppiz (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the recent discussion: the thread I started above, and my concern about Bbb23's impartiality and edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I think it's only fitting that my vote should be just under Strangesad's repeated accusation that I'm not impartial. There's a reasonably good legal analogy. A litigant makes a motion. The judge denies the motion. The litigant moves to disqualify the judge claiming she's biased. Another judge denies the motion to disqualify because dissatisfaction with a ruling isn't a basis for judicial disqualification.

I understand Brad's and Boing!'s points about whether Strangesad's conduct has risen to a level to justify to justify an indefinite block. Of course, deciding what level is necessary is a line-drawing exercise and reasonable minds can differ as to when it has been reached. The reason I conclude that it has been Strangesad has shown recently on this board and others that he still doesn't get it. If I saw any acknowledgment that he understands why editors object to his conduct, I would vote differently, just as I might be inclined to unblock him in the future if he showed that, upon reflection, he understands how things work here and what he has to do to work constructively and collaboratively in this environment. We know what his position is now, and it's unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at this, a day has passed, no further comments and as you said the issue seems to be one of "where the line is drawn". So perhaps the line needs to be drawn somewhere between an indef-block and a scot-free walk which would mean a clear warning to Strangesad to: not be combative, fully respect policy and not encourage breaches, or face a block pretty quickly. That would be somewhere between what NY Brad and Zebedee intended and what Louie, King of Hearts, MarnetteD, gwickwire, SJones and others intended. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you know it, but just a short note to point out that an indefinite block is not a permanent block.Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But the real issue here is the "determination of consensus". So, is there consensus for an indef? Maybe or maybe not. Is there support for a scot-free walk? Not that I can see. So if there is consensus for an indef, let it be. If not, some other measure would be appropriate given the views of the multiple users who supported an indef action. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And just a further related note that given that this whole issue stared about encouragement for sockpuppetry, the ensuing block, etc., let me just note here that based on this statement Arbcom looked at the technical evidence for the sockpuppetry, and decided to leave the block intact. History2007 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As expected, not that I think anyone doubted the sockpuppetry.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - I think that if all he wants to do is be a "Sole-Purpose Account" geared toward vandalism/picking fights, then he should go. 173.58.96.210 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose the idea that a few dozen volunteers who happen to weigh in can decide that a person, of equal dignity to us, can never edit here again, is mad. I do not support bans, and do not do so in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you oppose all bans (although we're talking about an indef ban here), and would never support one, your !vote can be entirely ignored, as you (apparently) never comment on the basis of specific facts and circumstances. This essentially invalidates your contribution. (And you, an admin - go figure.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh? "of equal dignity to us" whatever are you talking about. Encouraging other editors to sock and to edit war and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground are the actions of someone of dignity - equal to or otherwise. MarnetteD | Talk 01:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And is still arguing about the same issue ... History2007 (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed where Beyond My Ken was elected a bureaucrat. As has been points out, this was originally a block discussion, but the pitchfork and torches brigade wants a ban, which I believe ill advised. If it was a question of a block, I might reconsider. However, to put it as a ban takes it out of the hands of individuals who can review commitments to good behavior and deal with it accordingly. Reconfirm my opposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that anyone above has transformed the original block proposal into a ban proposal. Did I miss something?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, Wehwalt, can't trust us Yahoos in the community, we ain't got no class, no edumacation, can't think straight, we run on pure emotion, picking up the pitchforks and torches at the drop of a hat, not like lofty admins like you, who are always so perfectly rational all the time, and never disagree amongst themselves. I prostrate myself before your beneficence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is titled block. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's titled "block" – glad that's cleared up. So not a de jure ban, just a de facto ban. In all seriousness, few admins will overturn a community indef block. So, why is that the proposal instead of a one, or two, or x month block? Why no mention of editing restrictions, nor mentoring? Maybe it's truly not the intent, and I'll AGF, but it sure looks like those with ideological differences pushing for what will essentially be a ban. Mojoworker (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Newyorkbrad nails it again... Strangesad has been blocked once (for 24 hours) back on March 1st. And now a pack of editors want to jump to an indefinite? No discussion of mentoring? This is premature. See WP:ROPE. Mojoworker (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per NYB and Wehwalt. (although I have supported a few bans on rare occasions). — Ched : ? 07:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment. This is not intended to change anyone's votes but just a point of clarification. Although these kinds of discussions can get a bit chaotic, the original proposal was for an indefinite block, not a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for that clarification. As the person who started the discussion, I repeat that I'm suggesting an indefinite block, not a permanent ban. I do not doubt that Strangesad has the capacity to contribute and I've never intended a permanent ban. I have suggested an indefinite block to send the message that Strangesad's current behavior is not appropriate, especially not encourage sockpuppetry, actively challenging Misplaced Pages policies and too often picking fights. I do believe it is a problem that should be addressed, but I yet again stress that it should be an indefinite block and the idea of a ban has not even occured to me.Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If your intent is to send a message, wouldn't something else suffice, other than an indefinite block (which as I mentioned above is often a de facto ban)? Something such as an x week/month block, mentoring, editing restrictions, etc. Show some good faith and amend your indefinite ~~ban~~ block proposal, and I might even support it. Mojoworker (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - per WP:NOTHERE, I'm convinced by all the links and examples given my the nominator... Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Whatever the decision, I suppose an admin could close this. Long discussion over.Jeppiz (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, will make a request below. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for consensus determination. The discussion has taken place for some time now, and a decision on where the consensus may point based on the issues presented above is requested. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Encouraging editors to sock, and refusing to retract the disruption? No way. "Indefinite" is not synonymous with "forever"; a convincing show of repentance might let her back in. That is unlikely to occur while we adopt a "whatever, dude" approach to user conduct. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree.Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

While suggesting that an editor should sock is incredibly bad advice, can you point to a policy it violates? Framed in the context of the Thoureau Civil Disobedience discussion which Strangesad has initiated below, it may indeed have been an ill conceived application of WP:IAR in response to the perceived injustice of Humanpublic's block. I'm going to AGF... Mojoworker (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Strangesad (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

You support an indef block on yourself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

According to some accounts, Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied, “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?” Strangesad (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And if Thoreau showed up at the local hoosegow and asked to be locked up, they have would sent him on his way. If you don't want to edit here, don't come here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, users can request indef blocks per WP:SELFBLOCK. So she has the option. And I think she has correctly realized that as in this comment she has fundamental objections to how this website operates. So the Thoreau comment was quite apt. Yet it may be that she wants the community to impose the block as a symbolic act rather than requesting it herself, which would be like Thoreau requesting it. So the request may be a signal to start a policy change, but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Strangesad is referring to Civil Disobedience (Thoreau), and the second sentence of our article is "In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice." So, yes, the Thoreau comment was quite apt – sounds a lot like WP:IAR. Mojoworker (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This has, from the very start, been an issue of "following one's belief in what is right" rather than respecting policy. The issue on this website is that so many people's view of "what is right" point in so many different directions that using that dictum will result in chaos and wasted effort. That is why policy needs to be respected. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This has run long enough, block and move on. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm a bit late here, but this proposal to block User:Strangesad "indefinitely" also seems to me, from what I've seen, to be a very disproportionate "solution", indeed one that is unfortunately being taken too lightly. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose indefinite block. My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite obvious, could we move on Not only has a majority supported an indef block (not a permanent ban), but even Strangesad herself has supported that she be indefinitely blocked. In that case, it all seems quite straightforward and we can move on.Jeppiz (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just "indef block" her and "move one". Really? Do you still not realize how uncalled for that kind of block is? Please, I urge you to read again the comments by User:Newyorkbrad, User:LWG, User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Wehwalt and User:Mojoworker. It should go without saying that we must be very careful with decisions like this, when they can potentially decide the future of other editors, and affect their ability to edit here. In my opinion, for this case even a 24h block would be too much, but if you really must satisfy your desire to see User:Strangesad blocked, I would suggest that something like a 1-week block (or even a 1-month block), though still unfair, would be much more sensible. Truly, etc., DanielTom (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

"Speedy Deletion Wikia" feed

I don't know how useful it can be at large, but I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the existence of the Speedy Deletion Wikia, which automatically copies text from articles nominated for CSD... the purpose is dubious at best but not really disruptive so I guess in the end we don't care much. I can think of issues with attribution but CSD'ed articles don't typically have a lot of contributors. Anyways, I'm following their automated Twitter feed and thought it might be interesting for other admins. So I guess I'm just kinda throwing it out here in case anyone finds it useful! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What an incredibly bad idea. Now all the spam, children posting their personal contact details, and assorted other utter garbage we quietly delete is preserved ... for what purpose? I'm surprised Wikia was even willing to host this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the first attempt at something like this. Usually such sites shut down fairly quickly when they realize they are potentially liable for all the copyright violations, attack pages, and other libel we delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

They'll lose interest in a few months, then there will be piles of unwatched BLP material. The initial purpose of wikialpha.org (discussed here was to collect deleted material, but it was abandoned and has become a dumping ground for all things Transformers. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What a sad joke. Isn't there some linkage between Misplaced Pages and Wikia, so that the Foundation can shut down the site? Or not? Chutznik (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Jimbo himself is the sole link between the two, these days. Maybe ask him his thoughts? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevant link is relevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cushitic languages

As part of an effort of adding relevant categories to Wikiprojects "Languages" and "Africa", I tried adding their banners to Category:Cushitic languages. A script immediately appeared: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time.". Could someone add the banners to the category's talkpage? I doubt this would count as vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Because "shit" is in the title. I've created it as a blank page, since I'm very short on time and don't know the project banners' names; you'll easily be able to do it. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the banners. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we add "Cushitic" to some sort of blacklist exception? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan

BANNED There is sufficient support here to consider the user banned. I will add them to the list of banned users with a diff of this posting since we don't have a name for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposing a community ban for a long-time disruptive editor from Hyogo, Japan. A formal WP:BAN will make applying any technical measures and cleaning up the edits require less red tape. This individual has used the following IPs:

58.147.235.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (96 edits, 12 Jul 2011 - 8 Apr 2013) - probable "master"
114.160.219.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (19 edits, 27 Oct 2011 - 3 Apr 2013)
115.179.0.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (33 edits, 15 Feb 2012 - 9 Apr 2013)
115.179.1.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (31 edits, 6 Aug 2012 - 9 Apr 2013)
118.103.46.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (7 edits, 16 Feb 2013 - 28 Mar 2013)
118.103.46.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (19 edits, 9 Nov 2011 - 10 Nov 2012)
125.193.109.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (31 edits, 28 Sep 2011 - 27 Oct 2011)
182.249.43.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (1 edit, 8 Oct 2011)
219.122.39.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (45 edits, 28 Oct 2011 - 3 Apr 2013)
219.162.231.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (4 edits, all on 7 Oct 2011)

(It's possible there may be a named account sockmaster, probably blocked, but haven't run across it if so.) Typical behavior is (based on the warnings issued) mostly WP:BLP violations, WP:NPOV & WP:V/WP:NOR problems, and vandalism. The main account is used until blocked, then hops to one of the other IPs until the block is expired, then returns. The raw stats for the edits from across these 10 IPs are: 286 total edits, receiving 37 distinct warnings, and 15 blocks. Top three warning types are BLP (10 warnings), WP:NPOV problems (9 warnings), and WP:V/WP:NOR and vandalism warnings (7 each). There was at least one case where the individual's edits required REVDEL or oversight and resulted in a 2-week block. This works out to about 1 warning (and most often a BLP warning) for every 7.7 edits, and one block for every 19 edits, requiring attention from 11 different administrators. Clearly this individual is WP:NOTHERE and a waste of our resources.

A ban on the individual should be effective because the edits are easy to identify. They come from (almost always) static IPs in or near Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, which I would imagine is not a very common editing source location for en.wp, the edits themselves are in what I imagine is a particularly unusual subject area for edits coming from this area, and also have a distinct style. Typical BLP edits target individuals of certain (suspected) background, often include conspiracy theories, never include reliable sourcing, edit summaries often include ALL CAPS. Examples:

George Soros, added "He is reputed to have extremely reliable sources of "insider" information prior to assuming positions of interest, and had been briefed on the 1st report of fundemental design flaws (reported 35 years ago) of GE Fukushima Reactor.", edit summary "Added enhanced corporate foresight to IMPLICATION OF SOROS in GE ecological and humanitarian crimes"
History of the Jews in South Africa, added "Convicted criminal Alfred Beit financed Cecil Rhodes and worked under the cover of the Crown Charter to amass domination of the diamond fields in South Africa, which was then taken over by Jewish-bornErnest Oppenheimerin 1927. Beit, particularly influential in Africa, having divested himself from the Crown Charter, went on to deceive Lobengula and created Rhodesia. Solomon Joel, his brother Jack Joel were brought into the company of Beits main early fellow Jewish rivalBarney Barnato. Such influence and power as these men held is significant not only to African, but also to Jewish history.", edit summary "FOUNDERS AND FINANCIERS(dare one say robbers) OF SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA"
Jewish religious terrorism, added "Jewish Terrorism against the British Mandate Palestine: There were a number of attacks perpetrated by Jewish terrorists on British Policemen, Government Offices, Prison Guards, civilians, and foreign dignitaries in Mandate Palestine. Count Folke Bernadotte was murdered by Jewish Terrorists. The King David Hotel was bombed by Jewish terrorists who disguised themselves and entered via the staff-entrance.", edit summary "added MANDATE PALESTINE, do not hesitate to contribute."
Elie Wiesel, added "Wiesel was devastated having lost the bulk of his fortune to Bernanke Madoffs Ponzi scheme. To add insult to injury, he was the unwitting victim of telephone hacking/wiretapping by the Israeli firm Amdocs.", edit summary "victimised by double-whammy, BERNANKE MADOFF FINANCIAL CRIME and AMDOCS/Rupert Murdoch GLOBAL TELEPHONE HACKING SCANDAL"
Arms Trade Treaty, added ", in a possible reference to the Israeli sale of the US AWACS system to Chinese." adding unsourced speculative motivation for something Hillary Clinton said; also added "The current debate within the gun-control lobby in Washington, DC in draft documents, has been critical of the proliferation of large-calibre handguns and "assault rifles" produced in disreputable Middle-Eastern countries, such as the Desert Eagle and the Uzi, which have been glamourised in Hollywood. ... There has been criticism of Dimona-produced ] and cesium, which may have found its way outside of the middle-east, and has ostensibly been used in assassinations and the construction of dirty-bombs.", edit summary "Undid revision 548515610 by Parsecboy (talk) parsec boy is clearly misleading wikipedians, failing to mention his censure of Basil Zacharov".

Responses please. (Working on sending out notices now.) Zad68 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fifteen editors notified - ten of the admins who have blocked or warned the individual, five other editors who have issued multiple warnings, and also the individual's "main" IP User Talk page at User talk:58.147.235.216. Zad68 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support community ban as proposer. Zad68 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I ran into this guy at the George Soros biography which he vandalized repeatedly. The overall behavior is shocking. Clearly the guy is not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support to try and deal with the long term disruption, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - This guy clearly has an axe to grind, and seems to have no inclination to put it down, despite numerous warnings and blocks over the years. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment These are IPs, on a variety of subnets. How exactly is a ban supposed to work since some of the IPs they use are likely dynamic? WP:Banning policy doesn't seem at address this. Has anyone approached a CU about looking into this first? If the behavior is "shocking" and obviously needs to be reverted on sight (regardless of ban status), I'm at a loss as to the practical advantages of banning this user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis my understanding is that CU doesn't really deal with IPs without a named account to try to hang them on, and we don't have one here. I checked and every one of the IP addresses (I think except maybe one?) is a static-assigned broadband IP, and you can see by the regular reuse of them over months and months they do indeed stick around. The advantage of a de jure WP:BAN as is being requested would be that edits of banned users can be reverted on sight without counting toward WP:3RR, and that admins can block new IP socks without having to go through the normally-required warning process. Bans can work in cases like this where the edits have enough distinct markers that make them easy to identify with a low risk of false positives. Zad68 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A CU will look if they have a reason. They might not disclose any information in public afterwards, but if they find named accounts linked, they will typically ask an SPI clerk to make a block in private or do so themselves, as to not connect the name with the IP to the name. A CU can always look, they just can't disclose. Often, it is better to email them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you, some kind of CU clerk?

Good to know... still, let's say there is a named account master, that doesn't really help the current situation, which involves all IP editing. Zad68 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically, I'm 9 months into being an SPI clerk trainee, but we clerks essentially work for the CUs, facilitating them doing their work, clean up, handle the simple stuff. It is one of the few places around Misplaced Pages where an admin kind of works for another admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support and comment It's not the first time that an IP only user has been banned. There was the German ref desk troll and another user who only used IPs but always signed their posts with a name, which I won't say per WP:BEANS. For those familiar with these IPs, it's not hard to deal with, again per WP:BEANS I won't go into details. Blackmane (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've created a filter for this, Special:AbuseFilter/546. I don't know how many false positives we'll see, so I'm doing log only for now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool! I hadn't even thought of the filter as an option for enforcement, I'd love to learn more about how they work. I've downloaded files of the editor's diffs. If you think they'd be useful in providing the information you'd need to put together a more effective filter, send me an email and I'll sent the files to you. Zad68 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If technically feasible, support. Share the concerns about "enforcability" though (see Dennis). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Maybe it'd be useful to point out WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. The proposal is for a ban of the individual, the person making the disruptive edits through multiple IP addresses. The person can be banned separately from the application of any technical measures (blocks, filters, etc.). The ban of the person provides the go-ahead for us to use technical measures to keep the person away from Misplaced Pages, with a minimum of red tape. The support of the ban should be separate from support of specific technical measures used to enforce the ban. (Sorry if I'm going over things everyone here knows already but I was just getting the feeling people weren't keeping the ban and block concepts separate... if I'm misreading that I apologize!) Zad68 02:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I first came across this editor back in October 2011, and it is quite clear that they havent changed or learned anything in all that time, as the same nonsense can be found in edits from the master account as late as April 2013. Let us minimise the work needed to keep this guy off Misplaced Pages by instating a full ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support A formal ban seems a common-sense way to help admins respond to this unacceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Per proposal. User is obvious troll and has 0 desire to contribute constructively to the project. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Page delete and move

Fixed. The wrestling fans should be happy again. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).

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

I messed up when I tried to move Johnny Curtis to Fandango (wrestler). I tried Fandango (entertainer) as a test and now it is stuck there and all the wrestling fans are really mad at me. We did reach consensus on the talk page as that is the most common name he goes by now. Johnny Curtis can stay as a redirect but Fandango (entertainer) should be deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this is fixed. The bot should cleanup double redirects, but I'll ask you to review the redirects and cleanup as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will do all the 'what links here' and check the default sorts as well.

Resolved--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It got stuck..? LOL, moves are very slippery things. I've deleted the "entertainer" redirect. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).

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

I just noticed

Admins have taken a look, everyone's happy. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

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

that User talk:Tolea93, who seems to have been banned for a year, is making odd, sort of disturbing little changes in an article on my watchlist - and others. I will put the notification on his/her talk page that you want. Someone who understands this stuff probably should check it out. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically they weren't banned, they were blocked, and the block was recently lifted after a year (I haven't investigated their recent edits - this is just for info). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

{ec}They weren't banned so much as they were indef'd after 2 brief blocks. As listed on the block log, Tolea93 raised an unblock ticket on UTRS and King of Hearts unblocked. I'm afraid I can't comment on the edits as you're not very specific about what's "disturbing". Blackmane (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I checked a few random edits and I am not seeing the problem. Could you please:

Provide diffs of these "disturbing edits" so we can see what you are talking about
Explain why you came here first instead of at least trying to discuss the matter with the user directly
Specify what administrative action you believe is needed

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look, and they're making changes to population statistics, including the article White American - and it was problems with that article that resulted in the indef (ultimately 1 year) block. However, it looks like what's happened now is the original source is no longer available, and Tolea93 has provided a new source. The new source has slightly different figures, and so they've changed them - I've only checked Alaska, but the change seems to match the new source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They apparently got banned mainly for adding unreferenced figures to White American, but these are referenced. I checked out the figures — well, not all, but a number of them — and they were correct. (I didn't do the percentages, I'm a trusting soul.) I thought this was an updated source? While it seems a sort of creepy interest to have, as long as we have this article, I don't see any problem with fixing the figures. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC).

Thank you Boing and Bi. When I see subtle changes in dates or statistics from red link users I get nervous. When their record seems to suggest that they have a history of this sort of vandalism in the past I point it out to Admins. To take whatever measures they think are called for. I am not asking for anything other than some knowledgeable folks take a look. Which seems to have happened. If you folka are happy then I'm happy. Carptrash (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Cosmetic edits

#Complain about the waste of an edit.

Waste many edits.
????
Profit!

:) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Aren't edits like classed as cosmetic, because it doesn't do anything to the look of the page, and is therefore unnecessary? So, why are users still allowed to do this when guidelines state it is a waste of an edit? Even admins are using AWB for purposes such as this rather than doing admin tasks and helping people. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Since when was there a finite quantity of edits such that we need to worry about "wasting" them? polarscribe (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I fail to see the problem here, and I don't understand how this is an "incident". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Template redirects states said edit makes updating template calls less complicated and is therefore an acceptable edit. Rgrds. --64.85.214.200 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AWB Rule #4 might apply, although this being a template redirect, might not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I already closed this at ANI, nice forum shopping. what is it you want an admin to do about it, and have you tried discussing it with the user involved first? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Unblocking Colton Cosmic

User blocked by Spartaz. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

It's been generally agreed that Nihonjoe's unilateral unblock of Colton Cosmic was not the best idea anyone's ever had, and I don't plan on rehashing that discussion here. However, it's clear that at least one admin definitely feels CC should be unblocked, and others have definitely chimed in with possible support for the idea. I therefore propose that we have a proper discussion here as to whether the original block should be overturned and we should allow Colton Cosmic back.

Personally, I tentatively support the idea of an unblock at this time, per WP:ROPE. If Colton is the mysterious returning sanctioned user (and I'm not claiming that he is), then I suggest that his future actions can speak for him; if he keeps his nose clean and doesn't engage in any problematic editing then there's no reason not to assume the sanctions on his old account could be lifted anyway. If he's not the user some admins think he is, then there's no reason for him not to have the option of a clean start. His block evasion using IPs has been an issue, and I would expect at the very least his acknowledgement that this was not the appropriate avenue through which to voice his concerns, but if he provides assurances that it will not continue I see no reason not to put the IP socking behind us and move on. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, it hasn't been "generally agreed," the block was other than a good idea, though it was the preponderance opinion of the self-selecting regulars at WP:ANI. Nihonjoe furnished solid, policy-backed reasoning and felt the hell-fire because I'm public enemy #1. Some of the pressure since not-subtly exerted on him is quite questionable. Anyhow, there's nothing in policy (I looked, here)that says unblocks are to be subject to the will of WP:ANI. Should have been calmly handled via discussion at my talkpage, like Nihonjoe invited. But nevertheless the unblock was reversed, let me emphasize, on the basis of *procedural* complaints (consultation with blocker, discussion, etc.) that have now been answered or substantially depleted. I'm immensely grateful for Joe's by gosh policy-backed action on my behalf, but have told him, hey man better watch yourself now. But what I'm saying with the procedural point is, any another admin could act with policy explanation ala Joe for example, it cannot reasonably be again overturned for procedure, and cannot be reversed without unequivocal wheelwharring. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: Excuse me, my recollection was that the procedural matter was the decisive rationale, but in fact Spartaz who actually did the reversal, in my block log stated, literally, "per consensus WP:ANI," which is non-specific and indeed represents a WP:ANI powergrab, in defiance of policy.

Why don't we just wait and see what, if anything, Colton has to say in any future unblock requests instead? Consensus just yesterday was strongly in favor of reblocking, this seems like a waste of time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was in favour of overturning Nihonjoe's unblock, but the general feeling seemed (to me) to be that the main issue with the unblock was that it hadn't been discussed. Thus - a discussion. If it's felt this is unproductive, then fair enough; I thought it seemed like a straight forward and timely way of addressing the problem. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds a little like semantic hair-splitting to me. Reading the AN/I thread, I don't think the concern was limited to procedural issues over the poorly-advised unblock; there also seemed to be a substantial consensus that this account should remain blocked. I don't think it's useful to start a new discussion today when, as of yesterday, there was a strong, nearly unanimous consensus that he should remain blocked. MastCell 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally I've notified most of the major players in the drama but may have missed some; if I didn't notify you and you think I should have, then I apologise. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment As a general principle I do like the "let's not be hasty" approach, especially when taking actions which limit an editors ability to contribute to the project. However, I can think of multiple occasions where editors are being blocked where it appears the thrust of the arguments seem to be "we can't prove you're innocent of any wrong doing". I think that is a very BAD approach. I know we're not a court of law. We're not a governmental institution. But we do have WP:AGF as a guideline. I say we practice what we preach. I Support this initiative of having this discussion. — Ched : ? 18:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (edited) After reviewing the comments and links of editors who have earned my trust over many years, I am going to withdraw any support for an unblock. This not to say that I "oppose" an unblock, simply that enough doubts have been raised, options have been offered and not taken, and links have been provided which I can understand as questionable behavior. — Ched : ? 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock: from what I've seen, he will behave. Give him a chance; you can always block him again if required. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No, let's not My understanding is that the orginal block involves concerns that this is a returning banned user and CC has refused to reveal the identity of their previous account. I'm not bothered knowing the account myself but someone needs to be able to check that the clean start is legitimate. Until that has happened considering an unblock is not helpful. Spartaz 18:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Block evasion is block evasion. If people suspect he's a banned account, WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply. I do wish his accusers would stop being coy about precisely who they think Colton Cosmic is, though.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
ok, whatever, if we're going to do this, oppose unblock until such time as CC has emailed BASC regarding the identity of his previous account. They alone are in a position to evaluate the truthfulness of his claims, all he has to do is give them one little nugget of information and we can finally look to a more informed decision on this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
~~Mildly support unblock~~ Oppose unblock (see added comment below this one) My understanding is that the block evasion was primarily to appeal for an unblock which is hardly a crime. On the returning banned user thingy, I'm with Ched on that.. I'm only mildly in favor of unblocking because of this, not so encouraging, comment. --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Per this. I did hesitate after seeing this (building a "banned from my talk page list" when you're trying to return from a long term block doesn't bode well) put the additional unblock requests pushes this over the edge and I suspect Beeblebrox is right. If this were a stock, I would be short. --regentspark (comment) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regentspark, I can only try to tell that I am not naturally the sort who says "request you stay off my talkpage," in fact my first comment to BWilkins before I knew him was a chuckling "you're welcome to stalk it." Those I have asked have long histories of, in my view, truly objectionable and antagonistic behavior towards me. To recite it would to be to revisit and echo it. It has not been a normal Misplaced Pages experience, and I understand that viewed from your vantage point, my position might seem petty. If you had walked in my shoes, you would realize it is not. As to my unblock comments there (requests?), I don't understand your objection. It's been easy to see where this WP:AN exercise I'm typing in right now is going. The same as the one in WP:ANI before it, and by most of the same culprits. I write here not as a consciously futile defense, but rather to get my position on record to any thoughtful person who reads them with an open mind and eye to policy. You shouldn't hold it against me to seek a block, or to opine on how it may reasonably be done. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: The question is not of stocks, it is one of socks (03:34, 15 May 2012 Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) blocked Colton Cosmic (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space) and it's that question that should inform your position.

Yep, he informed me some time ago by email that I was on his shit list and he ordered me not to post on or even read his talk page. It is my feeling that this is a user with a severe battleground mentality and that even if he were cleared of socking charges we probably don't want him around. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Many users here, including administrators, are much more hostile on their Talk pages to others who criticize them than Colton Cosmic was. Indeed, some even delete any criticism posted on their Talk page "unread". (User:Beyond My Ken being the most striking example I can think of; see, e.g., the following sample of diffs just from the last few days: . I guess "we probably don't want him around" either?) Compared to those users, Colton Cosmic is an angel! I respectfully disagree with Beeblebrox's argument here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember sharing the email with you, so I am somehwat confused as to how you are able to comment on its content with such authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I was only pointing out what seems to me to be a double standard. And, well, apparently Colton Cosmic never even said "shi# list", as you implied, but you are correct in affirming that I haven't seen that email; I can only work with the information I have.~ DanielTom (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. CC either needs to come clean or explain why he can't come clean, either publicly, or privately to someone who can verify and confirm the disclosure. Every time this comes up, CC seems to dodge it. If anything, I'd prefer our policy to be even simpler and more bright-line than it is on these sorts of issues, but, as I understand it, the block was supported by policy, and policy prevents the unblock without CC's cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support The overturning of Nihon's unblock was a process issue. No consideration has yet been given on the merits.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I started to barely support per Ched and regentspark, but I just can't, and I can't disclose the reasons per privacy policy. While I agree with Beeblebrox on this block, I do respectfully disagree that not all block evasion is the same, and think we shouldn't be overly binary on these points. And Wehwalt is correct, yesterday was about the process and not the merits, so having this discussion is proper. But still, based on what I believe and what I know from before yesterday, I can't support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Do ArbCom know what you know? If not, would you be prepared to tell them so they can make the decision? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
To you and Ched from below, what I know isn't Earth shattering nor would Arbcom really care about it. Lets just say the information here was problematic and his emails to me didn't convince me that he is being completely forthright and honest. Initially, he was very pleasant, and I decided to not read the last two for reasons I can't disclose, but again, are not really of interest to Arbcom. Some of it is gut feeling and experience (combined with the facts here), and the closer is welcome to discount as they see fit.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock - The previous AN/I discussion was not simply about Nihonjoe's unblock, the reason for and nature of CC's block was also considered, and community sentiments about it were quite clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment and Support. I am relatively new here and by no means understand the policies of Misplaced Pages and how they are applied in practice, but as a neutral observer (at least I think I am but realize that I have my biases), it seems to me that if Colten Cosmic had never declared WP:CLEANSTART we likely would not be here today since there would have been no sock allegations. My understanding, by reading through everything available, is that some administrators asked Colten Cosmic whether he/she was a previously banned editor based on their suspicions. Colten Cosmic replied, after some coy comments, that he was not a banned user but he steadfastly refused to provide information about his/her previous account to at least one other administrator or member of ArbCom. My question is whether suspicion alone—without solid evidence—is good reason for blocking? If so, can anyone be blocked based on suspicion alone and refusal to reveal private information to at least one administrator or member of ArbCom without solid evidence for that suspicion? I realize that the latter question is broader than the topic of unblocking Colton Cosmic, but it seems to be the governing principle in this case.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose unblock CC has wasted too much time already that could've been dedicated toward improving this project. I fail to see any evidence that he won't resume wasting more of our time. OhNoitsJamie 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Dennis: I'm open to striking my support if there's information that would be proper for me to have. (perhaps via email). I realize that I know very little, especially about this particular case. I'm not asking for information however if it would violate any privacy or moral convictions that one may have in regards to trust place in them by others. — Ched : ? 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think what we need is for ArbCom and/or the blocking admin to tell us clearly whether or not they are in possession of convincing evidence (and not just suspicions) that CC is a previously-banned user. If not, then I would support unblock. But if they do, then I think the decision should be made by ArbCom as the identity would clearly need to be kept private. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, after reading more comments here, I'm going to have to abstain from any opinion either way, because I clearly don't know enough to make a decision. My only suggestion is that it might be worth ArbCom formally taking this as an ArbCom block and making the decision, as they potentially have access to, and the means to discuss, whatever information there is in confidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If we're really having a do-over after yesterday's consensus, then I'll reiterate my view that the owner of this account has been far too deceptive and coy for me to be comfortable with an unblock. Secondly, he started this new account with a pre-formed "enemies list", including Nomoskedasticity and, apparently, Beeblebrox. We generally don't allow "clean starts" to pick up old feuds using a new account, but that's obviously happened here.
Separately, for what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that Colton Cosmic is the editor currently known as Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs), formerly Ferrylodge. They share an obsession with the "bright line" aspect of 3RR which is, as far as I can tell, unique to them. Compare Anythingyouwant's input to this thread, Anythingyouwant's input to this thread, and Colton Cosmic's input here. In fact, looking at those side-by-side, there's no question in my mind the account is operated by Anythingyouwant - he was once blocked for trying to game WP:3RR by reverting 4 times in 24:01, and he's been uniquely obsessed with the "bright line" aspect of this policy ever since. Anythingyouwant is ineligible for a clean start, having been topic-banned from abortion-related pages by ArbCom. But that's actually neither here nor there; even setting aside my speculation about the owner of the Colton Cosmic account, there's ample reason to keep this account blocked. MastCell 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support from the peanut gallery. I note that the original block was based on the possibility that Colton Cosmic might have changed accounts to evade some restriction on his previous account; but that the current indefinite block only affects him to the extent that he does not and will not do exactly that. If his goal were to evade scrutiny and restrictions, he had many opportunities to do so: he could have started the Colton Cosmic account without announcing it was a clean start; and he could have simply started another new account instead of trying so intently to get Colton Cosmic unblocked. The current block therefore has the curious property that it only prevents him from editing because he isn't willing to do the thing he was suspected of doing in the first place. His persistence in sticking with the blocked Colton Cosmic account for a year, and trying to get it unblocked, is the strongest evidence that his goal in creating the account was not to evade existing restrictions. Maintaining the indef block on the grounds that we can't prove he wasn't trying to evade some previous editing restriction requires us to suppose that he is trying to evade some lesser restriction by using an account that has been blocked for a year -- that story doesn't hold together. The only way it does hold together is if you take his statements at face value, that he changed accounts because his previous one was personally identifying; Colton Cosmic is now his only account; and his goal is to return to editing by getting that account unblocked rather than by creating a new one. --Amble (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Some here have suggested that editing project pages, or some other edits on the Colton Cosmic account, converted a legitimate clean start into an illegitimate alternate account. This is not correct. By taking a clean start and abandoning the old account, the user has made Colton Cosmic the main (and only) account. Note that some of the text in WP:CLEANSTART is advice to avoid having the accounts connected, rather than a hard restriction on the new account. If this advice is not followed, the penalty is that someone may find out who you are; and not that the new account somehow becomes illegitimate. --Amble (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose until such time as the user meets the BASC terms offered. Tiderolls 20:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose WP:BASC process makes more sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. We don't need another drama magnet account. Come clean or don't come back. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Colton Cosmic appears under current evidence to be unsuited to editing Misplaced Pages. By his own statement there was conflict in his previous account. And he soon gets into conflict and edit warring with this account, which draws attention from admins who investigate him, and he gets blocked. He appeals to ArbCom. Because he has been blocked on reasonable suspicion by several admins that he is a returning nuisance, he is asked to privately reveal to ArbCom his previous account so he can clear suspicion. He declines. It is explained that unless he does, ArbCom cannot overturn the block, so he will remain blocked. He thinks about it and decides he would rather remain blocked than reveal the previous account. He then agitates for months by block evading and emailing admins. He creates distraction, and draws productive editors away from building the encyclopedia. He is being a nuisance, yet the situation is of his own making. He is currently appealing to ArbCom, so he is taking up time in various places - again. As he has only a few days ago been again caught block evading, he has to wait six months before making an appeal - this is standard. Anyone who feels the user can break policy in order to make a point, needs to read WP:Point. The user's only apparent rationale for being unblocked is that he feels he has been unfairly treated. But we are not a gaming website. There are no gaming website user rights here. We are working on a serious and respected encyclopedia. Users are allowed to edit until there is reasonable concern they are not of benefit to the project. And when there is reasonable concern, they are expected to cooperate in allaying concerns rather than create greater concern by their attitude and behaviour. If Colton Cosmic does not block evade for six months, does not pester admins by email for six months, presents an appeal which shows some understanding of the disruption and concern he has caused (and without attacking other users - such as Timotheus Canens), and shows good faith and trust by revealing privately to ArbCom his previous account, then it is likely he will be unblocked. SilkTork 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded to SilkTork here . Disagree with everything you said about me, Silk. It sounds good though, but (approaching WP:CIV, pausing) you're going to have to sell it even better to make Timotheus Canens *my* victim. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: You forgot to vote.

And now, as if that weren't enough, he is now trying to get reconsideration of unblock requests he placed on other users talk pages while evading his own block. . This is getting ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- - Since we almost always dismiss 3rd party unblock requests as lacking the authority to do the asking, I would assume that would be the case there as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  - I actually reverted an unblock request he filed on behalf of ArkRe when he was evading as an IP. I had no opinion on ArkRe's block just figured that a 3rd part unblock request by a blocked user via a sock was not on. Blackmane (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose until he fulfills the terms of the BASC. Enough time has been wasted on this user already. We don't need another drama case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The BASC has laid down a counter-policy demand that I hand over my previous account, WP:CLEANSTART has long said unequivocally "not required." As I've explained BASC laid down this demand for BASC, it's not (currently) an hierarchical assertion that binds or even necessarily informs any other avenue of appeal, to include an explained unblock by any admin.. I can't prove it, but my prior account had a long and productive drama-free edit history. The drama that's enveloped me as Colton Cosmic, was really not my will, but I acknowledge is stoked by my reaction to what I've attempted to show are outrageous and abusive and consistently policy-violating actions taken against me as an editor by some of the worst exhibits of an arrogant and broken administrative power structure. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock after this very recent admitted post — Ched : ? 02:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Concurred with Ched.s faulting of that edit, elaborated and partially mitigated it here. Keep in mind that the whole nature of these block/unblock discussions revolves around micro-examining an editor's worst edits, my admitted WP:CIV slip should not be nec. seen as reprentative. As well the edit there was at least for a good cause. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock, in light of as pointed out by Ched above. Not just because it shows recent sock-puppetry, but mainly because it shows an ongoing intention of pursuing his previous agenda of lawyering, campaigning and shit-stirring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey watch the profanity Fut. Perf., there could be children present, in fact I thought I detected a youthful quality in the remarks of one of the editors commenting here. I disagree that I have done the first and last of those terms (diffs?) but depends what you mean by the middle one: "campaigning." ArkRe is probably the most thoughtfully spoken editor I've come across, he was thoughtlessly blocked. If you take the time to thoroughly read the file there, you might actually feel a "good lord, what have we done here" sensation. I am pleased to campaign for his block (though he has not asked). I think Ched. faulted my tone there (WP:CIV), I responded that he is right to do so, I slipped there, but for example I used "blockheads" as an attempt at humor, and felt I believe rightful frustration at ArkRe having been so cavalierly stomped on, it got the better of me for a moment there, but if you read my response to Ched. you may see that it wasn't all *that* bad. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't censor for profanity here, context is more important than content. It is not against any policy to use curse words in a way that is short of violating WP:NPA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock -- the original reason for blocking was valid and the persistent attempts to gain an unblock by using IP addresses to pester individual admins was very much the wrong way to satisfy the community that an unblock was warranted. The user can fulfil the terms of WP:BASC, or not, but if not then I see no reason to change the situation. In part that's because the editor was never (in my view) interested in making constructive contributions here; a return would not result in improvement of articles, instead likely the opposite, with attendant drama and nonsense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock I did read a good chunk of this thread before I went to bed last night. Indeed, one of my immediate reactions was to Colton's specific and inappropriate attempt to name-and-shame me as an individual, linking to an old discussion on Jimbo's page - a game he also played with one of his block-evading socks. While going to sleep, I asked myself "why the hell would he link to that, or indeed, why would he trash the ONLY person who have him word-for-word, step-by-step instructions on how to get unblocked?" What kind of Misplaced Pages editor (indeed, what kid of human being) would personalize this situation in that manner? This has to be the most bizarre WP:BATTLE behaviour I have seen in my life. You see, Colton, there's a difference between you and I: I pissed off some members of the community, acknowledged my behaviour and learned from my error - you have yet to do so.

Anyhow, rather than lower myself to that type of discussion (read: lower than low), let's look at the policy-based reasons behind why I oppose unblock.

The guide to appealing blocks suggests that to become unblocked, there must be 2 elements: a) a recognition that the behaviour that led to the block was wrong, and b) confirmation that the behaviour will not recur
Colton's original distancing himself from his original account may indeed have been a valid use of WP:CLEANSTART - privacy and security are important, and I will give the benefit of the doubt that his original account was not blocked, banned, etc (indeed - I think I have said this in his support long before now). As such, "A genuine clean start is not considered improper"
Cleanstart, however states that "You are responsible for editing in a manner that respects community norms of behavior" - almost immediately, the Colton account became embroiled in a 3RR/BLP brouhaha which was clearly "outside the community norms of behaviour". These behaviours worsened. At that point, he violated the terms of WP:CLEANSTART, and his account therefore became a sock account.
At the point that his legitimate cleanstart became an illegitimate violation, the Colton account needed to be blocked as a WP:SOCK. Period.
Colton was provided numerous opportunities to "clear his name" by admitting to his previous accounts. IMHO, this does NOT need to be done in order to verify if his "old account" was under previous restrictions - I take him at his word that it was not. However, as the Colton account was now formally an alternate account, it became necessary to link those accounts together as per policy - however, if privacy issues were inherent, then I see no problem with advising an individual ArbCom member to make this valid
Colton has personally decided that he has no faith in the confidentiality of ArbCom - this is not the fault of ArbCom or of Misplaced Pages itself, this is his personal damnation of the project. That personal belief cannot be used to act outside of policy or notification requirements
After being validly blocked, Colton used numerous socks to try and proclaim his innocence: however, the proof is that he was not innocent. He needs to recognize that.
Since his block, and even in this very discussion, Colton has not met the second part of WP:GAB in that he has shown no signs of a reduction of his WP:BATTLE-behaviour, and indeed it seems that he's WP:NOTHERE to improve the project, but merely to Wikilawyer and continue past arguments.

As I have stated many many times, once Colton makes a GAB-compliant unblock request (which I have given step-by-step instructions on how), I would be willing to unblock - after all, I AM the admin who re-implemented his talkpage access. However, at this point, such an unblock would have to follow a TRUE and HONEST WP:OFFER, and would need to be SINCERE. (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 13:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock I've been waiting for some time as I was very undecided. The WP:ROPE given to CC, and how he has chosen to use it, persuades me to oppose the unblock for now. There is too much battlefield involved. Given the circumstances, a more gracious approach by CC, no matter whether he feels he's right, would have been more convincing.Jeppiz (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz, c'mon, I can't win for losing here. A couple days ago a similar process occurred in WP:ANI, I graciously laid low while their majesties debated me, and it went very poorly. I guess there might be battlefield involved, but it has consisted of me putting up shields while others throw bombs. I feel I have complied with WP:CIV, the environment in my view does not lend itself to graciousness. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

...and yet you lob "their majesties" out? Stop proving the community right, Colton. You're being your own worst enemy here (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 13:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz, if we assume that CC is behaving rationally during this review of his behavior - a big if I might add - then it follows that he would be on his best behavior. And if this is his best behavior, I wonder what his "normal" behavior would be like at this stage in his supposed self-growth. As is often the case in these discussions, and as BWilkins aptly points out, the subject is their own worst enemy, even while trying to persuade the "judges" that there's no problem and everything will be fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had to play ping pong against 15 people at once, and you two fault me for having mussed hair from the breeze. I think all my edits since being unblocked conform to WP:CIV. The "majesties" reference is humor capable of offending no administrator who doesn't take himself too seriously. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock This is an attempt with humor to preserve our spirits, especially mine, and not a mocking gesture at any of you. I figure I want to be on the winning side here, and forgive the battlefield metaphor, keep my powder dry for the next attempt, where I'm bound to get a fairer and calmer hearing from say, a single thoughtful admin who's inclined to policy, and recognizes WP:ANI and WP:AN consensus votes on unblocks have no support in it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Closure. Not counting CC's passive-aggressive "attempt with humor", I count 18 oppose votes and 5 support votes, as well as significant commentary. I suggest there's been sufficient discussion for an uninvolved admin to close this topic. (If I miscounted, I apologize.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Count my oppose to correctly close the discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: I assure my supporters I'm not flippant about this matter, and I appreciate them. My purpose is to make a statement about the forum itself.

Yes, you have made it clear that you do not consider this to be "the community" making a decision, contrary to all pointers given to you. You have stated that you do not recognize the authority of this forum to make a decision about your block, again, contrary to policies. You agreed to these when you first edited the project under any name/ip. Pretending that the authority doesn't exist will not negate the decision (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Make it 19, Bbb23. Everything I am seeing from him in this discussion, down to the idiotic unblock request of a site banned user points strongly to this user being little more than a troll who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Reso lute 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, and "troll" violates WP:CIV. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: "Idiotic request" violates WP:CIV. These are not minor or hypertechnical infringements.

He did not call you a troll, and the second half is a description of the request, not the requestor (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(editconflict) Comment Okay, I have read everything above and the majority of the previous ANI discussion. I looked into CC before the whole unblocking and ANI thing as they also appealed to me through my talk page in the same way as they did to Nihonjoe. I talked to a few people regarding CC and their blocks and past actions etc as well as looking back myself. I personally decided not to just unblock them but I was going to continue to persue finding a reason for CCs first block. I supported the lift of the block on ANI but changed my support of the unblock to a support of reblock and further discussion here (which is happening! :))

Consensus yesterday did point toward reblocking after the unblock and I hope that before people have made a decision in this section regarding this matter they have properly looking into CCs edits and reasons for the block rather than jumping on any sort of snowing opinion from yesterday.

And now for the way I see things hopefully in some sort of order. CC has had an interesting time on wiki, a near run in with 3RR, a response or 2 that could have been worded in a better way, discussion of a potential block and finally the block for 'Abusing multiple accounts' and specifically 'undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space' which as far as I can tell is not founded upon anything. All of the other blocks to CC are just changing settings regarding access to talk pages and confirming a block appeal from Arb.

The user said the account was a CLEANSTART account when they first created it and has said multiple times since then that they were not blocked or banned on their previous account. I really wonder where AGF has gone.. CC has not disclosed the name of their previous account to anyone, but I don't see why they should have to. In response to User:Bbb23s comment above CC has privately disclosed to me what happened with his previous account and from what they has said it seems perfectly legitimate to start a new account.

Block evasion is Block evasion, but I still make the point that the block evasion we can see if only a result of the block (sounds like I am stating the obvious), if the block is deemed incorrect then I see no reason for the user to not be blocked for a short period for block evasion but I don't see how this would help anything as the time the user has already spent blocks seems link a long enough period for me.

Some people say that CC has a battleground mentality, but this is no reason to oppose the unblock as that in itself is not a reason to block in the first place.

I am aware that I have probably missed many things in the conversation above but will try to comment on them and potentially change my opinions from those, feel free to point out any places you feel I am wrong. Currently I support an unblock.

·Add§hore· 16:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Addshore, it's getting last minute. With my vote, I am getting a bit close to gonzo, but not flippant. I respect those who supported me, but it's been clear where it's going, and I will make that statement on the appropriateness of this forum for this, and attempt to invalidate it, except as evidence discussion perhaps, on a policy basis, for anyone in the future who cares about policy bases. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. Wow. I encouraged Joe to start a thread on this matter, and though he wasn't the one to start it I was nevertheless pleased to see the matter raised for discussion, because I genuinely felt that the matter of whether Colton's block was good needed discussion. However, after watching this thread evolve, I have to agree with the voices saying that Colton doesn't seem inclined inclined to play by the rules of the community - any rules, from "stop behaving like this is a battleground" to "now that your clean start has been illegitimized by your behavior, we need you to explain what happened". His commentary about being on the "winning side" above is silly, but worse is his assertion that when this thread closes he intends to go right back to what he's spent months doing: searching for a single admin who's willing to give him what he wants. Consensus does matter, Colton, and after what's happened these past few days I can pretty much guarantee you that any unilateral unblock of you - especially with your current lack of concessions to policy - will be treated as no more legitimate than Nihonjoe's was. It will be absolutely, 100% expected that any unblock of you will come via community discussion, not via your lobbying or a single admins unilateral choice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree mainly with your statements, and believe you've taken a one-sided view. I just got called an "idiotic troll" for example. I've maintained WP:CIV, and answered nearly everybody responsively, frequently with diffs and policy. Far from making "no concessions to policy" I've endeavored to make *every* concession to policy. You've been coming from this angle with regard to me persistently in my recollection, and your attempt to put your decision on my comments here is entirely unconvincing. Reiterated, I make the case that policy makes no provisions for unblocks to be commandeered and finally decided by the WP:ANI and WP:AN crowds. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can characterize me as "persistently" doing anything with regard to you, given that the first time I ever crossed paths with you seems to have been two days ago in the ANI about Joe's unblocking you. The fact that you're casting me now as somehow "persistently" against you is, in my view, an example of the very battleground attitude that others have been trying to explain you need to abandon. I understand that you're emotionally invested in this issue - who wouldn't be, if it was their "freedom" at stake - but please, please stop badgering and assuming bad faith of people in this thread. You're making your case look worse, not better, by doing those things. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

At the WP:ANI discussion, I conscientiously stayed out. You voted block. At this discussion, I participate. You vote do not unblock. I said "recollection" as to persistence beyond that, and it actually is my vague recollection, but I'm not prepared to hunt for diffs, and granted I could be incorrect. I do not think any of that means WP:AGF failure or that I've "badgered." I have quite many detractors here, it'd be difficult for me to go around badgering them. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Colton Cosmic

I am copying comments from CC's talk page that he has asked to be passed along:

Bbb23: don't tell me to "come clean," I came clean from edit #1. Beeblebrox: Yes I asked you not to post on my talkpage, based on our interactions, which is any editor's prerogative, but that is not "battleground," and I didn't say "shitlist" because I personally view on-wiki profanity as uncivil, and as you know I've tried to improve in that regard. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regentspark: if you read again, you must concede that conforms to WP:CIV. you should give me credit for restraining myself from what I almost wrote. ;) My interactions with Bwilkins have been consistently excruciating from my point of view, but to characterize why would be seen as diverting the focus from my own behavior. I'll risk hyperlinking Jimbo and a "100% concur." Again, I feel it is an editor's prerogative to request particular others to stay off his or her talkpage, and no negative inference should be drawn from that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, yesterday or was it early this morning was genuinely the first I'd heard or even suspected that ArbCom actually had a suspect in my case. By Silk's words this has influenced them for months, since my first appeal. I was never informed or queried about this. I would've have liked to had the opportunity to defend this point. I'd laugh if I weren't so busy crying. ;) I'm naming this mysterious sanctioned user "Mr. X" and love 'em if they can't take a joke. ;) As to the block evasion, best if I address that separately. It is accurate that most of them were to seek unblock, but a minority were others including (see blue). Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, we had difficulties and I still think Phoenix Jones is in violation of WP:BLP, but I think you must fairly concede that I discussed, and cited policy, and edited in good faith to improve that one and the other I created and you and I worked on together. The fully-disclosed IP block evasion has been I think a reaction to a absolutist and abusist block with broken appeal processes that I feel left me nowhere else to turn. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you still think this is a violation of BLP, my opinion remains as firm as ever. OhNoitsJamie 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Colton, let's just skip insignificant details like whether or not you personally used the word "shit" (never said you did though, just that you clearly do have a "shit list") Is there some reason you can't just pick, say, two members of BASC, email them the name of your previous account, and (presuming you are in fact telling the truth) get unblocked? It really would be just that easy, but only iff you are telling the truth. So how about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell, I've erred in other respects but all of my edits as Colton Cosmic have been upfront and straightforward, I object to your naming me "deceptive and coy." I will find some WP:CIV way to more strongly respond if you continue this line. You state that I started the account with a "preformed enemy list" but that is not true about me. In fact it is a baseless and reputation-damaging statement that I object to. I had no awareness at all in my prior account of Nomoskedacity and Beeblebrox or in fact anyone else at all that I've run into difficulties with, blame aside, as Colton Cosmic. And your elaborate allegation that I am editor "Anythingyouwant" has left idle insult and gone full-blown fever swamp. I don't think I've ever heard of him or her, it doesn't ring a bell at all. My comments regarding WP:3RR and WP:SOCK and any other policy are my own thoughts since I've edited as Colton Cosmic, I never was involved with those previously. Do my comments actually resemble his or hers? I conscientious stay away from abortion, racism, and Palestinian-Israeli topics like dodging molten lava. It ain't me man, and between this and ArbCom's Mr. X, I'm now wondering how much more bizarre this can get. Is Anythingyouwant Arbcom's Mr. X? Did you allege this to ArbCom? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Note Mastcell has replied on Colton's talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't had any contact with ArbCom about you. My belief that this account is operated by Anythingyouwant is just that - my belief, based on my experience/intuition about sockpuppetry. I've come to trust that intuition, but it's not hard proof; I don't expect ArbCom to trust it, so there would be no point in passing it on them. On the other hand, my belief played a role in my opinion that this account shouldn't be unblocked, so I mentioned it in the WP:AN discussion so that others can evaluate it and draw their own conclusions. MastCell 23:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Amble, who says "he current block therefore has the curious property that it only prevents him from editing because he isn't willing to do the thing he was suspected of doing in the first place." THANK YOU! You may be on to something. I believe in the project, worked on it for years, and I think I am principled on this point. I'm wrongly blocked for socking, so what am I supposed to do? Become one to continue? Allow myself to be kicked around by Timotheus who doesn't even deign to explain or diff his out-of-the-blue indef. for ten months? Didn't have many options, but "hey, I could fully-disclosed IP edit" was one. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am One of Many, let me try to convert your "comment" to a "support" of my unblock. I do not think that that first response at my page to Mastcell last year was coy. What I perceived was some random editor I may have responded to briefly in a policy discussion but really had no idea who he was zooming in at my page to interrogate me, about, you guessed it, my previous account. No introduction, no explanation, is he even an admin, so I'm like "what gives you the right?" and my comments including "who wants to know?" were meant to be interpreted as "you are being rude, explain yourself." He was of course interrogating me on the WP:CLEANSTART text that says a currently-blocked etc. editor may not cleanstart, but I didn't recognize this at the time. Those edits I meant with some humor and maybe some smart-assedness, but I didn't think I was being coy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Above comments moved from User talk:Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Kww, who says "f people suspect he's a banned account, WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply." Kww, that is not the policy and it is absurd to hold a cleanstart hostage to the suspicion of others. I think WP:DUCK is an awful (and project-damaging) essay and I muse about parodying it with WP:WITCH for editors with warts on their noses. At any rate, again, I've been forthcoming since edit one and I feel that's no there's no legitimate to suspect that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie again. You know I hadn't thought about you for a while, except that we worked on Rain City Superhero Movement together and it's pretty good for a starter and would be a lot better and bigger by now if I hadn't been blocked. However, thinking back you were among those interactions where my civility lapsed. I feel you were aggressively editing, and in part I responded to that, but it doesn't excuse me. I do belatedly apologize, and can at least tell you that I some time ago resolved to improve my WP:CIV, and I remind myself of this all the time. In answer, we will still disagree on whether WP:BLP protects the private citizen alter ego of Phoenix Jones, in part I recall for the "privacy of names" section of that policy and in larger part for the protection of his family, but we will do so politely if I am unblocked. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, Spartaz, Beeblebrox and others who either say I must disclose my prior account or point at ArbCom/WP:BASC. I've explained my concern for online privacy, the bad idea of disclosing it to the Arb *list* for goodness sake which was actually an express condition for *its* future consideration, laid out with its declining of my appeal. I've pointed to WP:CLEANSTART policy text "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start." ArbCom overlooked that last in my case, for suspicion of Mr. X or whatever. But the plain language of its block decline make no assertion of conversion of my block to an "ArbCom block," and in fact an arb told me "we have no monopoly on block appeals." So sure you can oppose my appeal because you agree with ArbCom or think they must know something you don't or whatever, but you don't *have* to do that (at present) for reasons of hierarchy. I'm not going to pour you a bigger glass of whine than this, but frankly they never explained anything to me. It was like talking voluminous paragraphs to a silent void that responded ominously 18 days later "declined, and you must reveal us your prior account," and precious little more. You don't have to oppose my unblock based on that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I presume the "privacy" matter you state relates to our emails, which I initiated. Yeah, we had some sparks and public silence there is probably best. I do respect you, including of course for your editor retention project. At any rate, I would say regardless of those things we expressed in the emails, as an admin you're obligated to support or oppose my unblock based on your appraisal not on that, but on whether I or any other editor have been treated squarely under policy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes everybody is wrong and you are the only one that is right. However, this is not one of those times. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion, Viriditas. Which is an assertion, not a reasoned position. I have attempted to provide reasoned and policy-backed positions. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

King Of Hearts has unblocked with an edit filter

I'm not very sure this is within consensus but would like some feedback before deciding whether to reblock. Do we have a consensus to allow blocked users to be unblocked to allow them to participate in discussions. I don't see why we can't simply copy comments across from their talk page. Spartaz 06:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a technical unblock very much if it comes with the agreed restriction to use the editing privileges only for participation in this discussion. However, I really can't see a justification for using an edit-filter to enforce it. A good-faith editor is expected to stick to a restriction like this voluntarily. If he can't be trusted to have that much self-discipline and needs to be technically forced not to abuse the partial unblock, then he can't be trusted to be unblocked at all. Using an edit filter in this way is a waste of server resources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) As long as the user does not have a history of abusing AN/ANI, I don't see what harm this could do. It enables the user to post faster, and in these kinds of decisions time is of the essence (comments that come in early have substantially more influence in the course of the discussion). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's very odd. In my experience, early comments are often seen as inaccurate and have less weight by the end of a more mature discussion that has had additional time to consider the evidence and points in depth. And, we don't need any users to post faster, but rather slower, as it will allow them to digest what has already been said and to sift and weigh these points in their mind. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've pretty much spent all the time I'm willing to spend on the subject, so I have no strong feelings either way, although I see a lot of wisdom in what FPaS says. — Ched : ? 08:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've suggested in the past that we need to have an RfC on protocols for blocked users requesting unblock at a community noticeboard. Do others agree? — PinkAmpers & 09:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's an okay move because an editor should always be able to input in discussions concerning him or her. I think it fair to ask that it come with a concomitant *monitoring* expectation from the filter coder or someone designated in case the user is inclined to explode with profanities etc., which would actually be understandable phenomena given the character of some of these cases. This would be a reasonable monitoring expectation, a "sure I'll watchlist and keep an eye on it, but I do eat lunch and work now and then," not suggesting to draft a prison guard. The copy-pasting from the user talkpage idea has the downside of requiring a good samaritan, is inevitable inefficient, and heck some joker is liable to call out "meatpuppetry!" What Viriditas says about "things should proceed more slowly to allow digestion and more thoughtful comment" sounds good at first glance, but the reality I think is that someone's often going to put a box marked closed around the discussion, before the time-lagged user responses are heard. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a basis in policy for this (see ), but it doesn't provide any guidelines for when it should be done. Without that, we're stuck with our usual "discretion". I personally believe it was unnecessary here and not constructive. Copying CC's comments was fine, and it also controlled the discussion more because CC couldn't interpolate comments as as he is doing now, which makes the discussion more chaotic. I also think the edit filter is unnecessary. Per policy, either CC restricts his edits to here while unblocked, or he's sanctioned. All that said, like Ched, I'm not keen on spending more time on subjects related to CC.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The direction of this discussion is unfortunately apparent. If there is, indeed, a deity in the skies, I sincerely hope that CC sees this community discussion as the "evidence" he always claims did not exist before. WP:OFFER will be open to him as long as we do not see the plethora of block-evading socks that we have seen ad nauseum. If we need to "spend more time on subjects related to CC" it will likely be an outright WP:BAN discussion - but that will be CC's choice based on his future actions. I have sincere hope that CC will take at least 6 months away to review his attitude, behaviour, and goals on this project. (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 14:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The big difference is that an editor that is regulated by one of these filters doesn't even cause autoblocks to slow down other accounts, making the editor free to talk with one account and sock with others. I would like to ask King of Hearts to never do this again. Blocks are blocks. Leave them in place until they are lifted. Our blocking system is leaky enough, and there's no reason to implement things that leak even worse.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that autoblock has had much effect on CC when he was blocked, but I also think King of Hearts should reblock. Of course, if someone would just declare a consensus, the issue would be moot, and we would be done - that's my preferred outcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really: I would like to see King of Hearts simply stop doing this. He's done it multiple times, and I really disagree with it.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have abided by the autoblock. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me for seeing no reason to believe you.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My skin has thickened to where you'll further need call me liar and sock to even attempt to get my goat. But if so I'll endeavor to ignore such, and let it do you further shame instead. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the badgering in these threads that Colton is engaging in using his newfound semi-freedom, I don't think lifting the block was a good call in this case. In the short term, I think King might want to consider reblocking, but I think more importantly, in the long term we need to have a community discussion about the suitability of using edit filters to lift blocks in cases like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Badgering" is the new word of the day, courtesy Fluffernutter. "Nuisance" was Silktork's. Diffs and policy links difficult to come by from them. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I really wish my fellow admins would take off their cowboy hats and show some restraint in this situation. Consensus is supposed to mean something around here,and there is no consensus for this current situation, in fact an argument could easily be made that this is wheel warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Beeblebrox. The thread immediately above this one shows the community overwhelmingly agreeing he should remain blocked. Colton's comments within that thread, and subsequently, indicate there's absolutely no reason to indicate any discussion with him in it will be constructive - even if the unblock had been permitted by consensus, which it wasn't, it was a waste of time. Using something as powerful as edit filters in such a silly case is just heaping more silliness on to the pile. KoH, I would strongly advise you to reblock him, remove the edit filter, and avoid using it in such a fashion ever again. It's meant to prevent widespread abuse, not serve as a way of kludging together peanut gallery participation in discussions. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been wheelwarring since David Biddulph moved the matter from my talkpage to WP:ANI two days ago. He just crowdsourced the wheelwarring. Could have been calmly discussed where it was. I've been WP:CIV and responsive, citing diffs and policy, to almost all my critics. Ironhold, your statement I've been less than constructive is not warranted by the facts, and I think an open-minded person actually looking over my edit history since I was unblocked a couple days, acknowledging the context at all, would agree. KoH, I have conscientiously abided by the filter. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds, this idea that unblock legitimacy is decided by vote of the self-selected regulars at WP:ANI and WP:AN is rejected once you have read the applicable policy: link, for those who deem to read such things. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a pretty good view here that the unblock with edit filter has been unhelpful and I have therefore put the block back. SInce I already closed one discussion regarding CC, I guess someone completely uninvolved needs to do the obvious with this discussion, which is clearly ripe for closure. ( If any admin feels I have oversteped the mark reblocking, I'm very happy for them to use their own judgement on whether to undo it. ) Spartaz 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Statement to all, King of Hearts nicely put in a filter that I might participate at this discussion, but Spartaz has undone it prior to conclusion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) (Comment from CC transfered by Spartaz 18:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

Oh my God, can we please get somebody to close this. The conclusion is so obvious at this point, and CC is juts digging the hole deeper and deeper. Ironically, letting him edit here has helped demonstrate how unsuited he is for editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Updated Misplaced Pages favicon

Hi. I didn't see this mentioned in many places around here, but the Misplaced Pages favicon is being updated this month (I think it's slowly rolling out to the various Wikipedias now). Further details are available here: m:Favicon#Misplaced Pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How come it isn't on a transparent background? You can set PNG files as favicons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. I feel unending hate against websites with no such icon. My bookmarks bar in Chrome is made up of nothing but icons, so the blank one are unidentifiable. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Resized file backlog

Hello, admins: There's currently a backlog of nearly 2,200 files at Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old whose old revisions need to be deleted. Any help would be appreciated! —Theopolisme (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories: