Misplaced Pages

Could someone please close this?

It's been 11 days since this was opened. It's really unfair to TDA to keep this hanging over his head for this long with no resolution. I'd close it myself but I voted in it. 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request

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

This close is on the near horizon - there is no objection to the fact that it is ready for closing - one user just wants to say - please close this - the comments below are mine - this is a hotly disputed issue and needs a strong close to resolve the dispute -

• Involved Users are looking for two combined experienced administrators, that have no ascertainable involvement in this sector under discussion and are willing to close the complicated and lengthy RFC discussion on the "santorum" neologism article. - Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Youreallycan 22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• They should also not have a strong history of taking a particular POV on BLP issues. B——C_ritical 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP - is an en wikipedia policy not an issue - Youreallycan 22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There might be people who have been, just for example, involved in forming the policy, and would have the policy go further. At any rate, the admin should come to this fresh without strong POVs about how the policy should be applied. B——C_ritical 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a policy, and one which people can have different views on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, and as with any policy, editors can have a strong POV on how it should be applied. That's all I was saying. B——C_ritical 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, the administrator who chooses to close this will make sure they are uninvolved. You don't need to propose criteria for who can close this. Jehochman 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just a side observation on one of the comments above, while BLP is a policy, there can still be “BLP issues” with an article….it’s standard terminology. Dreadstar ☥ 23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no harm in letting the RfC run the nominal 30 days; although the count seems clear, a new argument was presented only a few days ago. Perhaps, if it is let run, a really convincing argument will be presented on one side or the other. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  The harm, though not deadly, is that the talk page is already at 592,000 bytes, about twice the length of The Great Gatsby and not exactly the great American novel. The longer we wait, the more noise the closing administrator will have to sort through. Ongoing discussion is still civil, but is mostly a matter of repeating the same points and soapboxing. 59 editors weighed in during the first 14 days but we've had only 1 new editor per day since then. If we were making popcorn it's safe to say all but the last few kernels have popped and if we leave it on the stove much longer it's only going to smoke. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  So move the RfC to a subpage; it's been done before. The problem (aside from protecting the RfC from archiving while active) is that other discussions arguments are ongoing; for example, the renaming sections need to be closed and possibly reopened as a discussion to find an acceptable name. Personally, I find it possible for a neutral admin to find that WP:BLP would be clearly violated, which would override WP:CONSENUS; I think it would be violated, but not clearly so. A close might not be in favor of the majority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can take our chances, as even you feel it's not a clear violation. If you feel that way, an admin will be hard pressed to say that the consensus on the proper interpretation of BLP is with the minority. Nice metaphor Wikidemon (; B——C_ritical 09:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Arthur was not making that claim as "clearly" as you indicate. The political editors may not be as attuned to BLP as the ones who deal with BLP every week. This is one case where the background of editors with specific regard to the issues raised should be weighted by any closing admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Volunteer I'm willing to volunteer as an uninvolved admin. I previously closed a Santorum RFC on whether or not to use the word 'vulger' in the lead. I've not participated at the article on the politician or the neologism at all. My only concern is that I've been involved in a dispute with BeCritical in the past so if s/he feels I can't be impartial then that's fine.--v/r - TP 14:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Volunteer - No past history whatsoever. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can help out too if needed. Closed the recent merge RFC, but otherwise I don't remember any other history. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As a comment / request, please don't encourage the involved users on the page to get into opposition research on the suitability and bias of all the potential closers. There's been some attempt to negotiate the closing procedure and specify the choice of admins, and a lot of discussion on that. Speaking as one of the involved editors myself (though I don't think the issue is terribly important, I do have a strong opinion), I trust the integrity of any admin who feels they are impartial and knowledgeable enough to weigh in. The fairest result, if not the most predictable, is to take our chances and let the admin corps do what they're elected to do. Some people asked for two or even three independent admins. Now we have three volunteers so why not huddle or something amongst your administrator selves, and get to it? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed that discussion (and talk page) for the last little while as an administrator. I would recommend that three uninvolved admins get together and decide on a close. It's going to be a contentious decision either way, so better to do by committee - no-one knows which way any of the three "voted", so you will all be hated equally but only a third as much. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So is somebody going to actually do it?? B——C_ritical 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Triumvirate

New subsection for the triumvirate of closing admins—TParis (talk · contribs), Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs)—to discuss the close.

Here's an informal proposal that I'm minded to take to WT:Deletion process for approval to proceed on a trial basis.

Proposal: An administrator closing a highly contentious XfD may choose to refer the closure to a panel of three administrators. Highly contentious XfDs usually mean XfDs with an exceptionally high number of contributors, where it appears to the closing administrator that different administrators could reasonably close the debate with different outcomes.

The closing administrator is to refer the closure to a panel by posting at WP:AN to solicit the input of two other uninvolved administrators. The three administrators will then discuss at the talk page of the XfD how the debate should be closed. The administrator who referred the close to the panel shall act as the informal chair of the panel. After a reasonable period for comment (preferably within 24 hours), the chair shall close the XfD on the basis of the discussion and give reasons for the close that reflect the discussion. If the administrators on the panel disagree on the appropriate outcome and there is a clear 2-1 majority in support of one outcome, the majority view is to prevail.

I think for this proposal or something like it to win community acceptance, it would have to:

• impose as minimal bureaucracy as possible;
• make a convincing case that there is a problem to be fixed; and
• make a convincing case that it will help fix the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted TParis, Timotheus Canens, and Xavexgoem to review the discussion at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Should spreadingsantorum.com be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"?. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One preliminary matter: should we do this at a subpage of the talk page, or at AN? I'm more inclined to believe that doing it on a subpage is better than AN. T. Canens (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like we are using a subpage. T. Canens (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Update on the meta-wiki RfC

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

I'm still pondering what to do about the whole situation. One would be to start one of those undeletable RfC/Us on his conduct as an administrator on meta-wiki itself. Another would be to ask stewards or the WMF to desysop him for aiding and abetting harassment, and for disregarding community consensus. Right now, a discussion (itself refactored by one of the "uninvolved" administrators in question) about the closure is taking place on m:Meta_talk:Requests_for_deletion#What.27s_a_proper_closure_and_how_to_deal_with_closures. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Just a note but this is probably the wrong place for this. Since the intent is clearly to discuss the conduct of an Admin it should be taken to ANI rather than here. I again notice that no one bothered to info the user on the discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous discussion on this topic was held on WP:AN, so this seemed the proper venue for the followup. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see I'm not the only one to describe the situation in those terms or propose similar courses of action . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough but it still seems appropriate to let the affected editor/admin know about the discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

They have been notified. In the case of Nemo bis, again. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The simplest effective thing to do may be to stay cool and allow things to sort themselves out without provocation. Insulting other users, or othe wikis, is rarely constructive - certainly not in this case.

The original request could have been resolved sensibly without this drama if it had not been presented in an inflammatory way. For similar examples of 'apparent canvassing' by experts in a field who visit a deletion discussion without full context, visit AfD any week of the year. The response is often overreaction against whatever position benefited from the alleged canvassing, no matter how valid the assumptions of the inflammatory arguments are. – SJ + 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• At this point, there is no other conclusion to draw other than the administrative function of Meta is completely broken. They lack the structure to conduct reviews of administrative actions, they block users on capricious whim. Several are completely incapable of reconsidering actions they have taken and just plow through with a "you're from en.wiki so just GTFO" mentality. From the beginning, this has been less about Mbz1's harassment of an en.wiki admin and more of a territorial pissing match when Meta admins long used to running that place like a feudal estate had no idea what to do when called out. If there were ever a time for the WMF to intervene at the project level, to delete that atrocious RfC on Gwen Gale and to emergency desysop several admins (Nemo, Micki, probably others), this is it. Meta is an embarrassment. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that meta:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users is still open, where a proposal to limit the scope of the RfC process on Meta is currently running at something like 26 to 15 in favor. If successful, that would end RfCs like the one above. I can understand how the Meta admins could be unhappy about a proposal to quash one of their own procedures as useless, but only for the benefit of one specific person who has friends on en.wiki; limiting the scope overall sounds like a fairer approach. Wnt (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Given how admins there judge consensus, it's probably a waste of time at this point. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I would be careful with generalising too much, AsCIIn2Bme. --Dirk Beetstra 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, right. See below. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • ASCIIn2Bme - I don't like that tone you set here. There are enough admins on meta who do not involve themselves with that type of politics. --Dirk Beetstra 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm willing to assume that that is true. (I see that you're an admin there too.) Why was then this discussion closed by two involved admins in a row? What are the meta-wiki safeguards against that happening (again)? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

        Both admins felt they were closing neutrally, not according to their personal opinions, and explained their choices. Both indicated they were open to someone else reverting their decision, which is standard. Reasonable questions have been raised about the second closing admin's involvedness, so another admin may well review or remove the current closing rationale while that happens. This can take a couple of days to sort out, for long discussions where many people have already been involved. (there does not seem to be urgency here, else there are other options for fast resolution.) The real missing element is a Meta-group that can handle requests touching on user behavior across wikis, including this RfC-RfD-crosswikidebate. Most Meta admins and editors disapprove of the sort of drama represented by this set of discussions, and treat it by ignoring it. For the record, this often works better than "insult, block, rinse, repeat".

        Comments on the Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_committee proposal and help making it better (this likely does not mean "more like en:wp arbcom" :-) would be welcome. – SJ + 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

    • I don't know, and I don't know. Also here on en.wikipedia, there are administrators who are totally ignorant about certain parts of the processes that take place in other corners of en.wikipedia. I am, on meta.wikipedia, totally ignorant of that part of the process. I do note, that I know that on some wikis processes are harsh (and actually, I am really afraid that en.wikipedia is going to follow suit), and I am willing to entertain the idea that that harshness has already penetrated meta.wikimedia. The problem is, en.wikipedia does not have any authority over meta, and meta does not have any authority over Misplaced Pages. I'll try to have a quick look at the situations there (but I do not promise anything). Until now, I agree that wikis should as much as possible keep things to themselves, and if editors go to another wiki, then that other wiki has to deal with it. I don't know the full situation, but I think that if editors here suggest that something on meta needs deletion because it has already been discussed on en.wikipedia, or even shut down meta because things don't need to be discussed there may be in basis correct, but it is out of the authority of en.wikipedia, and there will be undue weight on the discussions in such cases. Just as en.wikipedia would not accept an influx of de.wikipedia editors who would try to get something deleted here on en.wikipedia because they don't like it on de.wikipedia, I think that meta.wikimedia has similar issues - things on meta don't get deleted because one wiki pounds the discussion and pushes it to one side. I'll have a look, but as I said, I don't guarantee anything. --Dirk Beetstra 04:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but can we please root out, once and for all, that old "Just as en.wikipedia would not accept an influx of de.wikipedia editors..." canard? I've said it before, but apparently it needs repeating: No, en-wp editors going to Meta is not in any way comparable to editors from one content wiki going to another. That's what Meta is all about. Unlike every other project, Meta is the one project that is not supposed to have a local dedicated community of "regulars", but where every experienced editor from every other project automatically has the status of a regular, at any time. That's why it's called Meta. And any of the self-styled "regulars" there that react with this kind of reservation to people coming over to deal with a situation that affects them need their butts kicked, is what. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

        That's ok, as I advocated both on Meta and in the above topic. However, some of the en.wp editors coming to Meta in good faith, assume that the procedures and policies over there are or should be exactly the same as they are on en.wp, and sometimes they just insist on this and are not prepared to make concessions. This, I must say, does not particularly help to reach consensus. One example of this, but not even the most prominent one, is that some users request that mbz1 were globally blocked - even though it clearly contradicts to the existing practices and the proposed policy, which says that someone can only globally blocked if they are in trouble and have been banned in more than one project, not if they are clearly disruptive on one or even two projects. And changing this policy can be dangerous - for instance, I was once banned on a minor project I had zero edits on. I can give more relevant examples pertaining to the Meta closure request and the deletion request, but I hope I made my point clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

        • There's even an essay there about that m:Enwikipediathink, and there probably are others. However, as Fut.Perf. said a few times in similar discussions over there, some of the rules in en.wiki are based in basic ethics, e.g. not closing a discussion in which you participated as "uninvolved", particularly not claiming "strength of arguments" when the closer's argument was in a 1:2 minority. I suppose this one of the ethical behaviors we take for granted in the West, but perhaps admins whose main experience is in Balkans' Wikipedias just don't see this as an obvious necessity. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• In response to the above comment, whilst I am mildly irritated to learn that there is a page on Meta discussing en.wp as if it were part of the Nineteen Eighty-Four universe, I do not think that disparaging users' countries of origin is appropriate. On a more general point, I would like to take the opportunity to defend m: here, because, although I have not had to use it too often, on those occasions that I have gone over there to request something of them, I have felt that my requests were treated courteously and effectually. For instance, I found myself liaising with Meta just a few days ago regarding some clickjacking vandalism over here, and found their actions helpful and prompt; earlier, I had witnessed similarly satisfactory results in the field of fixing holes in the HTTPS switchover. It Is Me Here 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Dirk Beetstra's comment above effectively saying that there is a silent majority of meta-wiki regulars who avoid dramaz and do good work is probably accurate. But they are perhaps too silent when it comes to the functioning of their own wiki. I suspect they need a local ArbCom because there doesn't seem to be any mechanism over there for dealing with sysops who would clearly get at least an admonishment in the en.wp system for the kind of behavior we've seen above. (I've also discovered that Nemo blocked User:Alanscottwalker over there during the dispute over the RfD closures, but at least he lifted that block quickly.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

    Just so. Meta is low-bureaucracy; the mechanism usually used is friendly personal criticism by another user. Often that is enough to cause a wiki-break or resignation. That hasn't happened very visibly at present in part because many admins who looked into it sympathize with the kneejerk reaction against hostile drive-by commentors, and are looking for ways to correct bad behavior without encouraging assumptions of bad-faith. – SJ + 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, ASCIIn2Bme, I think that is one of my points there, indeed. I am certainly not disputing that there will be admins there which do not avoid drama, and there will be those that do. I do not regard meta 'my own wiki', I do not like the insinuation that I should step up there.

Setting up an own ArbCom there may be an option, but I am not sure whether that is going to help.

• @FutPerf. Yes, meta should be a wiki where everyone would be at home. But that does not mean that if one wiki has a problem with what is happening on meta and where a lot of editors come and rush in wanting something changed or deleted on meta (or even the whole wiki shut down), that that then should happen because the 'consensus' seems that way due to all the editors coming from one wiki. I know that it is not exactly the same as having a rush of overflow from one content wiki to another content wiki, but the effect on 'consensus' could be the same. --Dirk Beetstra 18:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't about "projects" and they collectively "want" or "have a problem with". It's about individuals and their individual opinions. Some people on Meta have been going on whining about how "en.wp", collectively, is trying to unduly influence Meta. That's BS. The only thing that counts is that each individual editor: you, me, every one of us, has the exact same weight and influence in the debate. I don't care about whether my personal opinion happens to be in line with the opinions of many other people from a large wiki. If that happens to be the case, then that's just that. Good luck, or bad luck, whichever way you want to see it. So what? It's not about giving "en.wp" collectively "more" power than other wikis; it's about giving each individual the same power. And anything other than that is simply outrageously unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure of meta-wiki discussion closed right after being proposed

See m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of meta-wiki. Discussion immediately closed by... meta-wiki admins, of course. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and with that I agree. Meta is more than only RfC's. Parts of it can be shut down, but other parts certainly need to be maintained somewhere suitable. --Dirk Beetstra 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be allowed to run its course and closed by someone who isn't involved. Dirk I think you make a good point however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading the proposal beyond its page title shows it to be a reasonably well argued proposition for devolving part of meta-wiki appropriately, using past precedent for guidance. Still, it was closed within the hour. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty shocking. I'm trying to get it re-opened. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the policy linked from there says "the Board of Trustees has final authority over the member's decision." So it seems that the meta-wiki admins have overstepped their authority in this matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But I want to give them 48 hours to respond. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Per this I've reopened the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The request was not closed down by "meta-wiki admins", it was closed down by an active member of the Language committee: Robin Pepermans (m:User:SPQRobin). Mr. Pepermans' account is not an administrator on Meta (Translation administrator is not the same thing as Administrator). The closing of the proposal was completely in line with the Closing projects policy, which gives Language Committee members authority (subject only to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees) to handle all requests for closing projects. J.delanoy_adds 00:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And then that same user agreed that the thread should be re-opened. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• View from Outside Observer I think you all should formulate a policy as to the relationship with Meta. As of now it's unclear. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• View from inside observer with shared loyalty If you (generic) go in beating sticks and cracking heads, people will defend themselves. Whereas if people could approach this with an open-mind and do some listening whilst looking to achieve a functional solution, rather than looking to do blame and find people culpable, then I am sure that the differences and misunderstandings can be sorted out. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried that approach, and when I asked for help with a technical problem I was personally attacked by an admin. When I asked other admins for help with that situation, they basically told me to shut up and that it is now ok to attack me if somebody doesn't like me or my proposal. Something is very, very, wrong at Meta if opening a policy discussion is considered disruptive and asking for help makes it ok to for an admin troll a user talk page. I suspect they are trying to bait me into calling someone an asshole again so they can be rid of me, and I'm appalled that such behavior is actually being defended by other admins, who are basically telling me I deserve it for being from this project and for heaving a part in an abusive but apparently beloved admin there flaming out and resigning in huff when his abusive actions were pointed out. It's disgusting. I'm hoping that, like last time I had a problem there, an admin who is able to see how awful this is will show up at some point, but it seems the nasty ones who hat en.wp are there more often. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this from a distance and the behaviour of some of the admins on Meta is farcically abusive, though there are also some good sysops there like Peter Symonds. Frankly, I'm not that surprised at the actions of Nemo bis. The guy is primarily active on Italian Misplaced Pages and received a series of blocks in December 2011 (i.e. only two months ago), culminating in a 15-day block for "uncollaborative editing" and violating WP:POINT. He was RFCUed here . He had his autopatroller rights removed there in December . He's not worried that he's going to have to account for his actions on Meta because - according to him - no admin has been removed there "by force" since 2006 . --Folantin (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he is a former sysop on it.wiki. I'm not sure how he ceased to be a sysop there. On Dec 18 he got a two-day block on it.wiki for running an unauthorized bot. And there have been two RfC/Us on him on it.wiki. The 2nd RfC/U on him was also about the unauthorized bot. Apparently, he kept using it, because he was then blocked for two weeks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure these stuffs are vaguely in topic over there. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your reply about your inappropriate closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you were serious about it. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am serious, and therefore I expect a reply. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically you made everything possible to depict yourself as behaving in a trollish way, would you mind if I plonk you for a while? Btw reason for my closure has been always readable on protection log, so... --Vituzzu (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason for your closure is incorrect. That is why I have challenged it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. My diff is later. People change their minds from time to time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to spend my time on this kind of endless discussions, so feel free to reopen... should I believe you're not mocking me? Well, let's come back to the plonk. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem with re-opening the discussion? And I don't really think you are following our civility policies yourself here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to point me where I was uncivil over there. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Its self-evident from your comments here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely dense, can you quote my own offensive words? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any possibility of this discussion going anywhere useful. If you really want to know ask me on my talk page in a week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably forgot to do it, you can call me both unrancorous (actually I'm not sure this word exists) and fuddled :D

Btw it's quite clear I didn't lack of civility, that's enough for me.--Vituzzu (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

better idea to end the feud

• I've pretty much given up trying to make any real changes there, the admin corps does what we are always accused of, the old "circle the wagons" technique. I'm being told to just accept it and move on when an administrator trolls my talk. I can't work in that environment and am now advocating a different approach for en.wp users, best summarized as WP:IGNOREMETA. They don't want us there and they have no real impact on what we do here, so fuck it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, simply you made a many proposals in the worst moment possible, in a sort of vortex of drama and wikiwar. There's no anti-en.wiki bias over there but you simply have to consider it's a different project from en.wiki, with different habits: most of it.wiki's (my homewiki) habits would seem even ridiculous over there, the same for many en.wiki's customs moved on it.wiki. I really don't like the idea of an ArbCom and I really dislike close ballots, but I gave my help as a scrutineer for ACE2011. Simply because I wanted to help the English Misplaced Pages. If you want to improve meta, well, the only pre-requisite is the will to understand it. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly given the RFC issue I would expect you to give the Lao Misplaced Pages more respect.

The only reason meta should be interfering with other projects blocking policies is if they aren't dealing with the issue appropriately. That might apply to a project like the Lao Misplaced Pages - though if they have handled the matter fairly they should be left to it.

Certainly all the major language Wikipedias (so French, German, Italian, Dutch, Japanese, Russian and so on) should be allowed to solve their own issues as they should be fully capable of doing it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever took a look at the steward policy? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you? Which part of the Stewards policy makes it appropriate to interfere on what is essentially an internal matter for en.wiki? Of note I would make the same point about any other major Misplaced Pages project - I don't think en.wiki should get special treatment here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vituzzu, I made one proposal. one. I made it at Meta and asked for users there to comment on it. I tried to add a request for translation and couldn't figure it out, so I asked for help. The only response I got to that request was an obvious trolling comment from an administrator, and you and others defended this by basically telling me I deserved it. I don't want to work on a project where trolling is ok if you are in the club, but using a "bad word" gets you a block if you aren't. Not interested, not needed, not relevant to this project. Easier for everyone involved if we ignore this broken disaster of a wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1: So you agree with me, the proposal was definitely useless since steward policy doesn't allow any kind of action from us over there here you can check I didn't stop using {{delete}} even if I have all the deletion buttons everywhere.

@Beeblebrox: nope it wasn't trolling, it was a, definitely, harsh answer, and I tried to make you accept as it was, simply an harsh answer from one of meta's sysops. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What complete and utter bullshit. It wasn't in any way an response to my request for help figuring out the technical aspects of requesting translation, it was a slam against me, pure and simple. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

While it was poorly titled Rd232's proposal was designed to get a serious discussion going about meta, its clear from the fact that the Goings-on page is only translated into one other language apart from English, and that the meta:Language committee page is only in English that there are serious concerns to be addressed - I'm sure if they were asked there would be loads of people who would be keen to help translate stuff. With regards to Beeblebrox, well he's never come across to me as anything other than a no-nonsense user - if the answer was merely a little harsh I'm sure he'd live with it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, to me the reaction wasn't proportional to the action. Dealing with the proposal it started from a useless RfC got into a drama, ever, did you ever consider it has been seen has an appendix to this drama? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally didn't think that's the case - but maybe you are right and it has been interpreted poorly. I tell you what, why don't we forget about Rd232's proposal for now and come back with a fresh and better titled proposal for discussion in a few weeks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I also suggest to get in touch with both meta and other wikis. When I was a global sysop I did some mistakes because I had no experience with small wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

More drama and another poor close

. Where is the appropriate place to request action against this admin on Meta? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

At the general discussion page: Babel. You can also directly ask for admin help, if you have admin action in mind or want to propose deadminship. Censuring another user for poor judgement is not limited to admins, and is how such situations are usually handled (via Babel or directly on the talk pages of the person in question or an uninvolved editor who can help mediate). – SJ + 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere. That's part of the meta problem with meta. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So I guess I'll have to take this to Jimbo then and see what he says. It seems beyond a joke that there's literally no recourse.

Maybe en.wiki should start co-ordinating with other language projects directly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Seriously, we're dealing with the closure of a RfD about a RfC userless (because it cannot influence its subject) already closed...well, I think I gave all the possible explanations to anyone who was in good fatih, so, for me, it's time to come back to rc patrol. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The actual point is that its an involved close that has been called out by multiple editors. This is really something that should just get sorted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify, please

I'm very confused. Is en:User:Vituzzu the same person as meta:User:Nemo bis? If so, why different usernames? If not, why is Beeblebrox criticising V for N's actions? Or am I simply misunderstanding B's comments and he's not criticising V for N's actions? Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, two different closes by two different meta admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I really think you all need to formulate a police vis-vis meta. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's mine again WP:IGNOREMETA. Rest assured that's what I'll be doing from this point forward. We don't need a policy to tell us that they have no real power of this project and that they can manage the few actual useful things they do there such as stopping cross wiki-vandalism without our input. Best to let it lie. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Either meta needs to get their house in order or we need to make that a policy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta cannot be totally ignored unless you want to have the foundation remove all CU and OS bits from EnWiki; they chose to centralize the privacy-related privs there. global user sets is handled through Meta. As for ignoring local Meta policies when living in a different project, that has pretty much always been the case. The issue with the GG RfC blew up way out of proportion to its actual effect, in my opinion, and, personally, I believe that everyone would have been better served by ignoring Mbz1, and putting the page up for RfD, and if that failed, blanking the page (as was done). Lastly, I think almost all of this would have been greatly prevented had people just acted with respect towards one another instead of salvos of demands and refusals and proposals and counter-proposals, and a whole lot of unnecessary emotion and righteous indignation on all sides. Going forward, unquestionably Meta could use some polishing, and EnWiki could realize that 1) there are many customs it takes for granted that are not universal and 2) not everything is a major deal. Gievn enough time, patience, and courtesy, almost everything can be worked out in a non-combative manner. Come to think of it, that applies here as well . In summary, by all means, take part in Meta conversations, but please don't do so while driving a wrecking ball. You know those warnings on medicine, "don't drive while taking"? We should have one that says "Operating a wrecking ball while editing Misplaced Pages may be hazardous to your sanity." Where is C. Everett Koop when you need him? -- Avi (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll grant that one of the proposals floated over there was indeed a "wreaking ball." I fail to see how that justifies the admins there supporting trolling the user talk page of a user who asked for technical help with a different proposal aimed at preventing further misunderstandings of this nature in the future. When I asked what to do about being trolled by an admin, I was essentially told I deserve it, and then banned users from this project showed up to support that position. It's a mentally ill environment, not just one in need of "polishing." And as an oversighter I don't know what you mean when you say my privacy-related privileges are over there. I got them here, and they only work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Technical note for Beeble, while ArbCom decides who gets the CU and OS bits, the only place they can be flipped is CentralAuth on Meta. A local crat cannot assign or remove those bits. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if Meta currently had remotely competent adminship then the deletion request would have been closed by an uninvolved admin and/or Nemo would either have been de-sysoped or reverted by another administrator to send a clear message. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you an example of a similar reasoning and may be you will get an idea that smth is wrong with the reasoning itself. I was previously editing Russian Misplaced Pages, where I was administrator for three years and was twice elected to arbcom. As everywhere, over there we had disruptive users who would eventually be banned by Arbcom or just by an admin (there is no community ban). These users eventually would go to English Misplaced Pages just to use it for communication between themselves and stalking of Russian wikipedia users they do not like. One example is Serebr, who created several Encyclopaedia Dramatica-like sites with the only purpose of stalking users. He keeps links to two of these sites on his user page. He does not speak English and has very little to no contribution to the content, and all of his contribution is either stalking or complaining to Jimmy. In Russian Misplaced Pages, this activity would be enough to permablock him (and, as a matter of fact, he was permablocked since 2008). However, if here I would bring his case to ANI, I would be very much surprised if any of the admins would react - at best, by speedily closing my request. (The user last edited in 2010, and I quit Russian Misplaced Pages in May, so that I am not going to check this). How would you react if I subsequently open a page on Russian Misplaced Pages saying "Ignore English Misplaced Pages, their admins help disrupting users"? probably saying smth like "these Russians gove crazy again"?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between users talking to each other on talk pages and putting up a ED-like 100KB RfC/U. If someone did that here attacking an admin from ruwiki or some other non-enwp wiki, s/he'd be laughed out the door and the RfC/U deleted with no fuss. And Jimbo is Jimbo. People appeal to him for various reasons, even when he has no power or inclining to do anything about a matter. The conversation you alluded to does not seem out of the ordinary. As far as I know, nobody requested that users banned from enwiki be prevented from communicating on meta. In fact such users have been keeping each others' company over there for quite some time. What's new on meta is the exploitation of a loophole for putting up material there that is substantially similar to stuff previously published by WP:SPAs on ED and MyWikiBiz about the same enwiki admin. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the meta wiki RfC/U could not even be excluded from search engines while it was up, despite the __NOINDEX__ tag, because it was in meta's mainspace, where the tag has no effect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, desysoping was not called for. Remember, there are many, many, fewer (actually pretty much no) "edit war" areas on Meta. EnWIki has a whole host of areas where there has been long-term, virulent edit warring, such as Macedonia-Greece, Israel-Palestine, Cold fusion, Global Warming, and so on. The potential for administrator abuse is much, much greater. On Meta, there is nothing like that. So you feel an adminstrator made an error in judgment, even a grave one, the first thing you do is point out to that person that they made the error. People are human after all. Note how some stewards addressed the issue; they made it clear to Nemo that they thought what he did was wrong, and that he shouldn't have done it, but no one called for his head. It is not an unreasonable assumption to work under that people will give legitimate and constructive criticism its due thought and weight. Sadly, on EnWiki, there is so much political bickering, and so much history of true bad-faith editing, edit wars, wheel wars (we just had a desysop yesterday) that many of us have not undeserved hair-trigger responses. In a perfect world, we would be able to handle things without the rancor; I fear that is not possible for EnWiki anymore (at least without a sea change in editing philosophy) but it is not the case on Meta. Decisions one believes are mistakes should be pointed out, and allowed to be explained. Remember, just because you and I think something is a mistake does not automatically make it so. We may be the mistaken ones. One should always allow somoene the opportunity to explain their actions; even if the explanation is a mea culpa. So, as I said, you think an admin made a mistake, there are two ways to go about telling him or her. You tell me which of the following two responses you think would better serve to solve the underlying problem of a potentially mistaken close (now ESPECIALLY keep in mind that, if you want to bring the EnWiki love for bureaucracy, there is no codified policy against it, it's just common sense:

1. So-and-so, your close was against policy and common sense, revert it now or I will file a request for desysoping and send a letter to the board.
2. So-and-so, I think your close may be seen as problematic, because you were involved in the discussion, and may appear to be biased. I think that common sense alone would say that in cases where the discussion was contentious, and the outcome not clear cut, that someone who can be seen as truly impartial should make the decision. Would you please revert your close for the greater good of all parties to the discussion?

You tell me, which is more likely to get a reasonable response, even if it isn't an immediate reversion. Which one will more likely lead to discussion that will result in the impartial close taking place? Which one is less likely to cause a defensive "battening down of the hatches" mentality?
Lastly, each and every one of us has to ask ourselves, on each and every edit, what is our true intention with this edit? If it isn't to make the project a better resource for all, then don't make the edit. If it is, ask yourself, "am I saying it in a way that will best serve all of us?" Sometimes, a firm word is needed. Level-4 warnings, repeat vandals, someone who persists in POV edits after it being explained multiple times, sure. Of course, firm never means insulting, at least in my opinion. My overall takeaway from these incidents is that there are people on EnWiki and Meta who are really interested in having the gerater Wikimedia experience and projects work better, but we, as a whole, sadly, are sometimes too quick to accuse and could all use (myself at the fore) a healthy does of patience. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi, while my comment about writing to the board was overly aggressive Nemo had already been asked by multiple editors in good standing to re-open the discussion. Your "option 2" had already been attempted at the point I made my commentary. So I think that a firm word wasn't totally out of place.

Additionally Nemo insisted on reverting my edit without using an appropriate edit summary - something that is certainly at the very least uncivil.

With regards to de-sysopping, I think its perfectly legitimate as multiple editors in good standing have politely asked Nemo to reconsider his actions and he has refused to do so. Additionally none of the other admins on meta have taken the step of reverting him themselves to make it clear that they also think his actions are problematic.

The whole drama can be ended with no further escalation required if you guys can get your house vaguely in order by allowing a truly uninvolved admin to close the discussion. I really don't see why this is so difficult a goal to achieve. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With regards to other controversies - sure en.wiki has them - but if an admin makes a WP:INVOLVED close of a discussion and multiple editors in good standing complain about it then it actually gets sorted - unlike Meta where everyone just seems to wring their hands and try and pretend that nothing is wrong.

While you guys might consider this to be a "minor" incident - it has attracted vast amounts of complaints here and on Nemo's talk page. Therefore its pretty clear that its an issue that actually needs solving, I absolutely will take it to desysoping request and a letter to the board if needed.

And actually that its attracted as much attention as it already has (apparently even Jimbo Wales seems to follow WP:IGNOREMETA) means that even if I give up it becomes more and more likely that we do an end run around Meta and deal with the other projects directly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion + teh lulz

. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

As typical in these cases. Retired doesn't mean retired . Nor does globally locked mean much. m:Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#User:WizardOfOz. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ASCII, I know you're just trying to keep the en community informed, but it's starting to come across as, at best pointing and laughing at Meta, and at worst, continual meddling. I think any interested users from here have, at this point, watchlisted the important pages over there, and there's no real continuing need to drop notices here every time someone says something over there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Request that an uninvolved admin re-close the Mbz1 ban

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

Per comments , I think we should also avoid the appearance of impropriety in this case. Discussion found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive231#Persistent_off-wiki_and_cross-wiki_harassment_.2F_Community_ban_proposal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Look, mbz1 is never going to recognize the legimacy of anything done here, so why jump thru hoops for her? Do you think someone else closing it will make her shut up? Does anyone on the planet think she isn't banned? I thought that thread was a silly waste of time and electrons, and even I think she's banned. Indeed, she was basically banned before that discussion. Almost everyone seems to think ignoring meta is a good plan, but step one of that plan is to... you know... ignore meta. I'm not going to archive this after only one comment, but the best outcome I can think of is that no one else comments on this thread, and it dies a natural death. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply think closure by an uninvolved admin would be the professional way of handling this, if I may recycle a term recently drummed up by ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, so, if it's needed, I'll take over Night Ranger's closure as uninvolved admin. Salvio 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There you go. Salvio 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So now someone else gets to bear the brunt of her persecution complex. Thanks Salvio! Night Ranger (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And as I suspected, the fight has started anew over at meta with mbz1 wikilawyering on Salvio's talk page and Kwork saying the usual stuff about lynchings. You know, you really cannot invent this stuff. It's even more entertaining whilst listening to Singing a Song in the Morning. Night Ranger (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, she's talked everybody's ears off about it on WR for months, and has proven to be un-derailable. Maybe the devs can make you an "ignore" button like we have there. --SB_Johnny |  03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We have something like that—it's called Meta Wiki! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Oh, and she now says she was bullied by ArbCom on a WMF staff page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• People, please, just. stop. paying. attention. to. Mbz1. She has become nothing but a troll, but she can't troll here, so we don't have to worry about it. Nothing we do short of unbanning her, offering a written apology, and burning a certain admin at the stake are going to satisfy her. Eventually, even meta will tire of her shenanigans and she'll be blocked there too. Let them handle it, it's not our problem anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - this entire matter has been a great example of Streisand effect. I strongly suspect that had the original meta RFC been ignored here, it wouldn't have gone anywhere except give a very small group of people a chance to rant in a place that essentially nobody would see. Instead, this created an avenue for a much large audience. Ravensfire (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy change proposal to make off-enwiki behavior unsanctionable here

• Beeblebrox, If you think I'm advocating for her, check out Wnt's proposal on VPP and m:User_talk:Mbz1#Proposal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested topic ban for NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) on LGBT-related articles

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

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

Result: User:NYyankees51 is indefinitely topic banned from editing all LGBT-related articles, broadly construed. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can the topic ban proposal moved to it's own section, instead of being appended on a seperate complaint. Please be aware that this editor is currently topic banned on abortion related articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on LGBT-themed articles, broadly construed, for NYyankees51 (talk · contribs), and a {{trout}} for his WP:IDHT that has gotten things to that point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Why? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet. The choice is pretty clear. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - a topic ban on LGBT-related subjects for NYY51 is pretty clearly indicated here. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - although I also support Santorum and I'm opposed to abortion, I try my best to remove any bias from my opinions, and, if I feel it hard to maintain a NPOV, I refrain from editing. Unfortunately, NYY51 has not been able to do this. PaoloNapolitano 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This editor brought me to ANI because I complained about his horrible AFD nominations. His motto must be "if its gay, it can't stay," leading to a series of extremely poor and POINTy AfD nominations that are closing as keep/snow keep universally. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-JonesMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gathering Storm (advertisement)Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A Union in WaitMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Community Church of New York (2nd nomination)Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Udaan Trust. Instead of acknowledging any of this (look at his one word "why?" comment above--like he doesn't know), he recently amended his talk page to make clear "I stand by the content of my edits, AFDs, and points I have made" and that "I intend to continue my purge of LGBT brochure articles." I am prone to hyperbole, but I'm not joking when I say this editor is dangerous.--Milowent • 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The recent series of nominations, which demonstrate a total lack of interest in WP policy or practice, is really the last straw in a history of POV-motivated editing against LGBT subjects. His statement that he believes there was nothing wrong with this behavior and intends to continue it is also troubling, indicating that a topic ban is an appropriate preventative measure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• supportIf not for his recent statement of intent on his talkpage appearing after much well-meaning advice, I might have been satisfied with giving him a chance to change his behavior before taking this step.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I'm sorry it's come to this, but the points at WP:PUSH#The Problem pretty much describe his editing style. I reminded him earlier this week of the advice HJ Mitchell and I gave him a year ago after HJ removed his indef block for socking. But nothing seems to be getting through to him despite numerous attempts by editors offering advice, several blocks, ARBCOM ban, etc. So, I guess, slap him with another ban and maybe he'll eventually get the message. Mojoworker (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support seems like a reasonable step. Continuing the AfD nominations after being taken to ANI seems to be pretty unwise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my earlier comments on WP:ANI. Disclaimer - I just found out (moments ago) that this editor previously vandalized my user page under a different account after perusing NYY51's block log. The fact has not informed my opinion of this matter, which would've been the same regardless. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. His edits are problematic and obviously strongly pov-motivated. His AfD noms are awful, many of them are among the most obvious keeps I've ever seen. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  You should assume good faith - from his point of view he was probably just making it prettier.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Per Maunus, he seems intent on continuing to cause disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, seems appropriate for this situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Milowent Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And the use of topic bans to affect editing on any articles is a bad precedent to seek for anyone. Cheers - draconian solutions do not work, and using them for any outside rationale is worse. Collect (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Had the series of edits been constructive, rather than repeatedly disruptive, we'd not be here. Schmidt, 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per Milowent, Mojoworker and Roscelese, although I think the problem will not disappear with topic ban.--В и к и T 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is not the way to edit controversial topics. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User doesn't listen to concerns, won't change behavior, and persists in annoying the community to no end. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - User appears to be editing and AfDing with a distinct POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The editor was blocked for one week for edit warring at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. NYY defended his behavior as "righteous reverting"; a tactic that did not get him unblocked. His stated intent to "purge" LGBT articles from Misplaced Pages is unwarranted POV pushing and clearly politically motivated. Previously, he has used sockpuppets and edit warring to put forward his beliefs on abortion-related topics. He was almost topic banned during a MedCab hearing about abortion during which time administrator and oversighter User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry said he expected that a proposed one-year abortion topic ban on NYyankees51 would not be effective enough, that it would make this problem editor "move on to the same behaviour on political articles". Recently, NYyankees51 did indeed get a topic ban becaus of his abortion battleground mentality. Previous to that, I opened a discussion about his conflict of interest regarding his working for (and editing from) the right-wing political advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, but nobody else commented. It is obvious that NYyankees51 had but one purpose here: to push his political beliefs as hard as possible. Like The Cavalry, I believe a topic ban is just the start, that NYY is not going to give up until he is indeffed or banned. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think NYyankees51 ever stated he intended to purge Misplaced Pages of LGBT articles in totality (prove me wrong I guess with a diff), but put it as purging Misplaced Pages of "LGBT brochures". Although this is pretty sloppy wording and invective, I took this to mean nominating poorly sourced LGBT-related articles for AfD, which he has been doing. This seems like hair-splitting, but we are discussing kicking him off the site, so we should be as clear as possibly while giving him whatever benefit of whatever doubt he has allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, NYY's "purge" statement was against LGBT "brochure articles". I took that term to mean pro-LGBT articles judged by NYY to have little notability. I am still certain that NYY cannot edit neutrally at Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suport In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Misplaced Pages is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints. Schmidt, 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support His talk page statement makes it clear that in this topic he has adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing, contrary to wikipedia editing policies. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - his personal beliefs have, and will continue to affect, his ability to edit such articles. GiantSnowman 10:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Although I fear we'll be back when he discovers what his next political hobbyhorse is. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - arrogant declarations such as aspiring to eliminate all LGBT articles is nothing more than proof of his homophobia. Given what the others said here, they compromise his ability to edit without stepping on others' toes. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - user is incapable of editing neutrally in this topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This seems to be the best route for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on LGBT articles, as well as articles in Project:Politics and Project:Conservatism. It's clear that the disruptive aspects of NYYankees51's edits are all ideologically driven. Removing the bulk of those articles from his editing will hopefully give him a chance to focus on being productive instead of focusing on ideological conflict areas. aprock (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like that might work, with Raul654's "Culture wars" and politics (broadly interpreted) added in. Probably along with an extension of his 3 month ban from the topic of abortion (broadly construed) which is now about half over. And it likely should be at least 9 months duration, since the elections in November would seem like too much of a temptation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Narrow-purpose account?

Judging from his contribs, NYyankees51 has showed signs of POV editing on a narrow set of articles on LBGT topics and conservative politics. He has repeatedly reverted material per WP:MISSION, a relatively low-profile essay and in some cases it looks like he treats it as a policy. Some of his problematic edits include , and several others. As the user is showing signs of POV single-purpose editing, the effect of a site ban vs a topic ban should be considered. PaoloNapolitano 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Being an SPA is not against policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Having no productive contributions outside of one narrow category of problematic editing makes him far more likely to be community banned. Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not my experience unfortunately.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this. While I'm doubtful that a topic ban will prompt him to edit in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy in the future - after all, he was topic-banned from abortion and that didn't exactly serve as a wake-up call, he just stepped up his disruption in another topic area - we could see what happens with a topic ban and then community-ban him if his behavior does not improve. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of the previous ban. In that case, would it not make more sense to ban him from all culture-wars articles, to be broadly interpreted? Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I unblocked him, I suppose it's my prerogative, possibly even my responsibility, to re-block him if he continues to disrupt the project after the unblock. As such, I have blocked him until such time as he can convince me, another uninvolved admin, or the community, that he can edit without causing problems. It's a shame that it's necessary, but I think the displacement rather than cessation of the disruption upon the topic ban proves that it is, and that a second topic ban would only mean continued disruption in a third topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is either your prerogative or responsibility no. It is the communitys prerogative and responsibility - and the community was leaning towards a more lenient remedy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think its reasonable if its not the first topic ban. I don't get the impression its an unreasonable stretch or is beyond the current status quo. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly your prerogative HJ, after all, one of the unblock conditions was that he edit constructively. He also promised to work hard to gain the trust of the community. I don't fault you at all – either for the unblock or for rescinding it now. I have great respect for your judgement and I think you've assumed good faith with him – probably far more than many would have – but I can't shake the feeling that he took advantage of your good will. I'm not happy that this has come to pass. Mostly I'm sorry he didn't take our advice. Ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility and NYyankees51 doesn't need to look far for the reasons that this all happened. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This was a good block. Implementing a second topic ban would just have pushed the disruption to a third topic area. There are some serious competency issues with him that the community shouldn't have to deal with any longer. Shrigley (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment, As Earserhead may remember, an Arbcom member recently said with respect a now one year banned user that if they're banned from one topic, already, it does not make sense to just consider another topic ban, they should go off the project, FWIW. It may figure in to treating like matters, alike. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember that, but I couldn't find the diff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I support a topic ban, but do wonder about the efficacy of one in this case as this editor has repeatedly been cautioned and yet repeatedly returned to the same behavior in related areas. In studying the years-long history of personal agenda and POV-pushing, I had actually considered performing this action myself, and it would have been the fisrt time I would have done so. Misplaced Pages is not for pushing one's personal agenda, and must absolutely respect being neutral and balanced in all veiwpoints. User:NYyankees51 need not agree with other editor's articles, but he MUST respect existing policy and guidleine. In this he has so-far failed. Schmidt, 23:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some questions to think about re the below proposal, that I have thought about recently (I don't know the user's work and I won't opine): 1) Does the user mistake POV for NPOV regularly in different topic areas. 2) Does the user mistake tendentuos editing/commenting for consensus building in different areas. 3) Does the user not understand copyright or plagerism in several areas. 4) Does the user view this as a battleground in several areas. 5) Does the user demonsrtrate misaprehension of sources or sourceing policy, in several areas 6) Will this avoid some more eventual major disruption, like an Arbcom case. These are ideas, just pick the central needs of working here and ask yourself about it, with refernce to evidence (everyone should, but not eveyone can work -- at this time in thier lives -- on this project) Also, for the below return restriction? or time limit? And the user should be allowed to respond by a limited unbanning (if he/she would like).Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Site ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per the discussion above, do you think a site ban is a better remedy than a topic ban? PaoloNapolitano 10:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm barely familiar with the background here. From what I could glean from the discussion above, it seems this is an editor who is now getting a 2nd topic ban, in a different area. Perhaps a site ban would be more appropriate, or a much broader topic ban, although I'm not sure such a ban can be drafted. Topic ban from hobbyhorses of US conservatives maybe? Or "culture-wars articles" as Raul suggested above? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On rethinking it, "Culture wars" doesn't go far enough. I can think of other conservative hobbyhorses that wouldn't fall under that aegis (Supply side voodoo economics, just to name one). A ban from all articles having to do with politics (broadly interpreted) might do it. But frankly I now think a site ban would be better. He's obviously not here to contribute productively, so there's no sense in taking the chance that he could find a loophole. Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A broad topic ban and a site ban may be equal in NYyankees51's view. I don't know if this is still germane to the discussion, but here he stated: "As you can tell, the vast majority of my edits are on political or otherwise controversial articles. I didn't get the impression that HJ Mitchell wanted me to avoid controversial articles, and I apologize that I didn't. I just don't really think I have a whole lot to contribute outside of those topic areas." By the way, back then I told him I thought it was bullshit insincere to say that he didn't have much to contribute outside those topics, but maybe he really was being truthful. Mojoworker (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was very active on abortion-related articles where he was POV editing before he was topic-banned. Afterwards, he started editing LBGT articles with the same POV and bias. I fear that another topic ban will lead to him shifting focus of his editing to a third topic; I can list some areas that are easy to suspect that he could get involved in::

• Republican party and politicians

• US presidential elections

• Religion

As the user is here with a single-purpose POV agenda, I recommend a community-imposed site ban, and I want to hear your opinions. PaoloNapolitano 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support community ban - It's senseless to issue topic bans when he simply migrates his disruption from one topic to another. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Chase Me Ladies that NYyankees51 cannot be channeled into a useful area of contribution, that he will only switch battlegrounds following a topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - but on the other hand - why not make it clear that if the current (and clearly supported) topic ban above does not have the requisite response, and disruption continues, then any uninvolved admin may indefinitely block without further warning? Last chance saloon. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Gosh - youda thunk folks would understand that draconian solutions do not work for the benefit of Misplaced Pages as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What's the evidence for that? I'm certainly pretty thick skinned and I've got involved in multiple controversial areas - but I certainly prefer editing in a more professional editing environment. Sometimes you have to raise the tempo a little and/or you do because you get a bit upset about something, but this has gone beyond that.
  • There's a hell of a lot of people who have far less confidence than I do who undoubtably would prefer an even less confrontational environment - but they aren't going to comment here about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - After having been meted two topic bans, you'd think the guy would have learned his lesson and reformed himself, but no! A site or community ban would be in order.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Oppose - It is my belief that opponents of some subjects can help keep articles neutral...but only if their edits are such. This is an activist editor with an agenda he clearly admits to in bold lettering on his talk page. I see nothing in his immediate history to show that he isn't a SPA and for very destructive reasons. If this is true I would actually support an indeff block entirely (site ban). If he is just active recently with this warrior attitude then a topic ban would have been a good course.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as excessive at this time. I disagree with Richard/Chase Me, for whom I have the utmost respect, in that I think NYY51 does have the potential and the desire to contribute constructively. We haven't yet worked out how he can be a part of this community in a way that is unambiguously beneficial to the project. That is why he is indefinitely blocked, and he will remain so until some way of channelling his edits to non-controversial areas is found. A community ban only makes it more difficult to find a mutually agreeable solution if there is one to be found, and does absolutely nothing if one can't be found because the indefinite block isn't going anywhere. This eagerness among some parts of the community to turn any indefinite block into a community ban is quite concerning—let's save the bans for the truly malicious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  You don't think sock puppetry and vandalism are malicious enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  That was over two years ago. He was blocked for it shortly afterwards and remained blocked for over a year, so I think we can safely say he's served his sentence for that. There have been recent problems, which is why he's blocked again, but I don't think those problems are motivated by malice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as long overdue: This editor has consistently engaged in highly disruptive editing with a clear mission that is completely at odds with WP's own, despite a indeffinite block for sock-puppetry, numerous blocks for edit-warring, a topic ban, and now another topic ban. He states himself that he has no interest in editing articles outside of those on which his strong POV makes him incapble of productively editing. I see no reason to extend him yet once more the benefit of a doubt when he has so amply demonstrated that he intends to continue to disrupt the project. He is incapable or unwilling to change his behavior, and I would question the sincerity of any promises on his part. There is simply no place for him on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: He never responded or defended some of the worst AfD nominations I've ever seen, where his whole purpose is apparently to delete articles about gay people. You run off good editors from the project if you don't call a spade a spade when you see one.--Milowent • 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think a site ban is too draconian. I believe that NYyankees51 can make productive edits, and I feel like he wants to be productive to the project. On the other hand, free reign is too lenient. I think something more like a 0RR restriction plus a six month topic ban from all articles in Project:Conservatism might make more sense, and give NYyankees51 a chance to prove himself outside of his zone of contention. aprock (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – but I'm not surprised at the number of support !votes. It shows how frustrated the community has become with his behavior. There's a limit to how long good faith can be assumed in an editor who is persistently acting in a way that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm hopeful this will finally serve as a wake up call for NYY. After reading the details of some of the linked incidents, I think he needs an extremely short leash however. As I mentioned in the LGBT section above, aprock's suggestion might work, along with the LGBT topic ban above, which appears certain to pass, and with Raul654's "Culture wars" and politics (broadly interpreted) added in. Probably along with an extension of his 3 month ban from the topic of abortion (broadly construed) which is now about half over. And it likely should be at least 9 months duration, since the elections in November seem like too much of a temptation. Mojoworker (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The day for a site ban is fast approaching, it would seem. Here's hoping he decides to say "screw it, I'm gonna write about baseball from now on." I'm not expecting that outcome, but it remains theoretically possible... Carrite (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rather premature.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Compromise proposal: Propose extending the topic bans currently in place into a permanent topic ban on all controversial areas of politics, religion and sexuality, broadly construed. It's clear that the editor does not intend to ever refrain from POV pushing in those areas. Also include a "one strike and you're out" clause. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed - if there's no consensus for a site ban, that's probably best. Raul654 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User conduct archive

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

Most of the entries below the table in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive (i.e. circa 2006 & before) are without context - no links to discussion or evidence, no mention of outcomes. Should they be removed, and the history be expunged? Disclosure: I'm mentioned there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"no links to discussion or evidence, no mention of outcomes" What are you talking about? They link directly to the RFC/U.--v/r - TP 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, the second one on the list:

Certified.Gangsta Revert warring

We have to go to the RFC page to learn anything about it, while the things in the table have substantially more information. I have to disagree with Andy; I'd say that it's better to have the barebones stuff than to have nothing at all. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but Andy said there are no links to discussions or evidence. Even the example you provided has a link directly to the discussion full of evidence.--v/r - TP 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are links to the pages themselves, not specifically to sections or pages of discussions and evidence — you have to go through everything to find what you want. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Collateral Damage" of Deletions

New Misplaced Pages:File Upload Wizard: ready for production

As some of you may know, I have been working on a new Misplaced Pages:File Upload Wizard (WP:FUW) designed to overcome some of the problems newcomers evidently have with the old system of guided forms at Misplaced Pages:Upload (currently c.70% of all files uploaded by newcomers get deleted within the first month after upload, mostly for reasons related to copyvio / bad sourcing / bad licensing etc.) This new interface is now in a reasonably stable state. It has been tested on several browsers (including IE9+, FF9+, Chromium) and has had generally positive feedback, including newcomers asked to review it after they ran into problems with the old system.

So, I'd like to be bold and get this thing rolled out to our new editors for wider testing. Question is: what's the best way?

1. conservative version: just add links to Misplaced Pages:Upload and to some of the file-related user talk notifications, pointing to WP:FUW as a new alternative.
2. radical version: temporarily replace Misplaced Pages:Upload with the new system outright. This could most easily be done by changing MediaWiki:Uploadwizard-url to make the "upload" link in the sidebar point to the new page. Obviously, this could very quickly be changed back if there should be any problems.

Also, obviously, the traditional plain Special:Upload for experienced users will remain in place.

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Option two, please. Sometime we talk too much. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Will the Wizard upload to Commons if the user chooses the "free work" option?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It can't do that automatically, for technical reasons. But it offers two alternative submit buttons, the first of them redirecting to Commons and the second doing a local upload. It also features a nag screen reminding the user of the recommendation to use Commons. Try it out. Also, please feel free to tweak the wording – it's all simple wikitext and can be edited normally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd skip the first button "click here to go to the upload form" - just go to the form already! (And it looks like a great improvement.) Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks :-) That initial link is necessary to get the Javascript loaded though. There doesn't seem to be any other way of getting a script associated with a page, short of moving the script into Common.js (and I didn't have the courage to do that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I spoke to Steven about this, and he had some good suggestions:

1. The best way to test this is just to do it; links are okay but probably too low-volume if you actually want to see whether or not it will be able to handle the average Misplaced Pages file-uploading traffic.
2. That said, you should timebox your test to a week and then analyze the results. Data is your friend.
3. Be sure to put some kind of banner on top alerting folks to the fact that this is a week-long test, and direct them to an FAQ page where you explain what's different about this system and why you're testing it out. Not everybody reads the VPs, of course, and there will definitely be some confused (possibly aggravated) people who'll want to know what's going on.

All of this might already be obvious to you, but just thought I'd put it out there :) Good luck, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yeah, I guess the thing with the FAQ might be useful. Actually, right now, it has already been online for about two hours (I was impatient, you know.) So, you also lost the chance of being the first user to make an upload with it. Somebody else earned that bottle of champagne :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you tested it with IE 7 and 8? Both of them are still widely used. IE 9 isn't enough - really all the browsers supported by jQuery should probably be supported. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on the older IE versions. Some weird stuff going on in those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

IP range contribs

User:X! used to have a tool that checked all the contributions by IPs within a particular range (it was located here). Is there any tool that does the same thing? The one that's in the Gadgets is OK, but doesn't puts edits in chronological order. NW (Talk) 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, HelloAnyong made one when X!'s broke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

And I think TParis resurrected all of User:X!'s tools, so you can now find that tool at http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/ – Just replace ~soxred93 with ~tparis in the URL and all the tools should work – at least all of them I've tried have. Mojoworker (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on your link and then clicked on the menu items and they do not appear to work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the links don't work – you actually need to edit the URL again after you click one of the hyperlinks, but the tools themselves work. I left a note for TParis asking him if he can fix the hyperlinks if it's not too big a task. Mojoworker (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog

WP:RFPP has quite a backlog at the moment with 24 requests pending. If some admins could swing by there it would be helpful; I'd work on it myself but I'm about to get relatively busy for the next few hours. Ks0stm 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

block-evader giving me the runaround

(Cross-posted from WT:UKRAIL)

I've been dealing with a guy for the last few days who keeps changing usage statistics and adding commentary about ticket barriers etc on various station articles, particularly those in Scotland. Kilwinning railway station and First ScotRail seem to be favourite haunts, but there are new ones with each block-evading IP. It started with User:JakeNeill1, who was briefly blocked, but has evaded the block through various BSkyB IP addresses (usually starting 90.xxx... and 2.2xx.xxx..). Any assistance dealing with him (or suggestions short of semi-protecting every article on a station with services to/within Scotland or blocking every Scottish BSkyB customer) would be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping he'll get bored or run out of IP addresses, but in the meantime, please revert and block on sight or report to AIV (and please let me know so I can keep track). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific related changes page I can patrol? (E.g. ). Marcus Qwertyus 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Railway_stations_served_by_First_ScotRail probably catches most of his targets, though there are a few others. Thanks for the suggestion—much more efficient than waiting for him to a get to a page on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Antiquated spelling

Requesting an unblock on another user's behalf

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Requesting reappraisal of a block. I'm trying to get User:Edgeform unblocked, because I feel that the block was made in error, and I think that this was also the consensus of the now-archived discussion here. (Based on User talk:Tryptofish#Help Needed, I believe that Edgeform is, technically, requesting an unblock, even though they didn't do so according to official procedure.) Anyway, I really dislike the thought of an erroneous block, and I request that an administrator review the situation and make an unblock. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• From reading the archived discussion and looking at the links, it does appear that Edgeform might have been the victim of a false flag operation. I lean towards unblocking, but let's hear what HelloAnnyong has to say first. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've left a note at HA's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• If Edgeform think they're unrightly blocked, they can simply ask ... not trying to sound bureaucratic, but silence is actually more damning in this case (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I do appreciate that you are doing this carefully, and I don't think at all that you are being bureaucratic. It looks to me like Edgeform now has placed such a request at his talk, so he appears to be watching these discussions and is, in fact, interested in being unblocked. Above, I linked to where he sought my help. I would urge caution about attributing damning silence here. There's a big difference between damning silence and a lack of familiarity with all the rules around here. It's not like people are born knowing these things. (After all, I'm an experienced editor, and I didn't know until you told me that I couldn't put an unblock request template on someone else's talk page.) It looks to me like this is someone who simply doesn't know all the procedures, and I don't want to see the injustice of a bad block compounded by attribution of guilt to inexperience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to see what the Checkusers have to say about this one. On the face of this there's no reason (that I cans see) to overturn the previous CU block--Cailil 21:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 34#Asking your opinion and User talk:WilliamH#Asking your opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• It was my block, and I did it based on the CU findings - specifically that it was a possible to likely connection. If other admins want to unblock, I suppose that's fine. I do, however, find it curious that Tryptofish has been campaigning for this user for more than two months now... — HelloAnnyong 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am disappointed that you made that crack about "curious". I thought that you were better than that. Silly me, I just think that we should be trying to do the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Look folks, I was the one who opened the SPI in the first place. As time went on, I changed my mind and had serious doubts about it (see the archived AN thread linked above). My only agenda here is getting things right. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Tryptofish here. IP checking doesn't always prove "Two users, one IP = one person". Only edits made in rapid succession from multiple accounts truly raise a red flag. But it's possible that two people could share in IP. It's best to investigate and ask for a second opinion before taking action. That way, the action taken is justified with a consensus (one of the principle foundations of Misplaced Pages). –BuickCenturyDriver 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• As Tryptofish asked me to do so, I'm revisiting this. I would ask fellow administrators not to do anything just for the moment. WilliamH (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, both accounts have a strong overlap in articles edited, and similar points of view. Both accounts edit from exactly the same point of geolocation. Both accounts are a stickler for using a) full stops and capital letters in b) comprehensive edit summaries that c) frequently begin with the past participle. I'm not sure how meatpuppetry entered the equation, because my editorial perspective of this is that it's one individual, and the technical perspective suggests that too. Combining both perspectives, my view is that it's the same individual using one account from one IP and the other account at the other. Unless there is other information I am lacking which would shed more light on this, I see this as a quintessential violation of WP:SOCK in using another account to spread scrutiny while editing in a certain subject area, and see no reason for this block to be lifted. WilliamH (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to the same articles by both user accounts definitely raise a red flag. If the edits are done in rapid succession, then it's safe to say they belong to a single user. The smoking gun here is the edits to the same articles. Thanks for explaining, WilliamH. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on all the above I've declined the unblock request. Feel free to overturn if there's a substantive reason to do so--Cailil 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have waited until the discussion was complete. Having an open request is just fine, while discussion is ongoing. There is no deadline for this sort of thing. Risker (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see what we have left to discuss. CU evidence came back as "probable", edit comparison shows significant overlap, edit summaries (as discussed by WilliamH) are structurally the same. Therefore both technical CU evidence and behavioural SPI evidence say this is a sock. The unblock request gives me no reason to ignore or overturn that evidence. But I've got no problem with anyone unblocking, overturning me or ignoring my decline if they have or can see a substantive reason to ignore the SPI & CU evidence (but then again if there isn't one, then perhaps this discussion should be closed)--Cailil 18:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is very difficult. I recognize that the evidence is such that intelligent people can look at it and reach different conclusions. I especially thank WilliamH for carefully analyzing the evidence, and I acknowledge that this includes evidence that I cannot see. There's a big part of my thinking that says that I should just accept the conclusion reached by several administrators here, and I should move on. But there are things that just don't sit well with me. Please, everyone, understand that I'm not criticizing anyone by persistently raising questions, but I feel that, as intelligent people, we should be able to discuss these things.

1. WilliamH: how do you fit into your analysis the edits by IPs, geolocating to various public computers around San Diego (like the public library), in which the edits consist of just removing a period or the like, and where the edit summaries (now deleted) are of the form "edit by , aka Neurorel/Edgeform"? If a single person is making the edits from the Neurorel account, the Edgeform account, and these "look at me, I'm socking" IP edits, does that make sense? To me, it seems pretty dodgy, and I've offered an alternative explanation at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Requesting reappraisal of a block. Both there and here, several users have said that that explanation appears more credible.
2. WilliamH: if I understand you correctly, you see both the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts geolocating to the same place, but each one consistently coming from a different IP address. How do you reconcile your analysis of the checkuser data with the analysis by Tiptoety in the earlier round of the SPI, where his conclusion was that the checkuser indicated that they were unrelated? (I've asked Tiptoety that question at his talk, linked above, and he said he didn't know.) How do you reconcile your analysis of the edit summaries with that by EyeSerene in the archived AN discussion?
3. BuickCenturyDriver: you probably didn't literally mean it, but you said that the two accounts' edits "are done in rapid succession". That's not the case. Neither I nor a couple of others who have looked have seen evidence of tag-team editing. Editing in the same areas of interest, yes. Edits from pretty much the same editorial point of view, yes. But edits in a manner that appears coordinated, well, that's in the eye of the beholder.
4. Anyone: OK, let's assume for argument's sake that Neurorel is indeed socking as Edgeform. If so, why leave this with Neurorel unblocked? At this point, the conclusion would be that the single person has (1) socked as Edgeform, (2) disrupted by making the "edit by " edits, and (3) disrupted by asking as Edgeform at Edgeform's talk, and as an IP at my talk, for unblocks, based on lying about supposedly not really socking. I understand the rationale of limiting the sockmaster to a single account, but this no longer seems to me to make sense, if we really think the person is so disruptive.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish just wrt point 2 above (and not putting words in WilliamH's mouth but giving my 2c as I have the same POV as William on the edit summaries)
a) I have two Broadband hotspots near where I live operated by two different companies. They generate the same physical location with different IPs - so in effect I can have one IP in my kitchen and anther in my study.
b) EyeSerene does not clear Edgeform of socking they just make the point that whereas there are huge similarities there are also subtle differences - "role" accounts try to do this all the time (create separate personas for the particular accounts), and as EyeSerene puts it "I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong)".
And wrt point 4 yeah I'd personally see this as grounds for blocking the master account (not sure that that would have consensus though)--Cailil 20:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of points here that are important, and I took them into account when I leant towards unblocking at ANI (having already seen the overlapping editing interest and style):

1. The two accounts could be operated by similar people - for example siblings (think, if you will Ross and Norris McWhirter), or long time colleagues with the same educational background. That's why I suggested that it would be much easier if they declared a relationship.
2. Even if the two were the same person, I could see no abusive socking.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Serial copyvioler

Hello, here is an Admin from Commons; just wanted to warn you that this user, who appears to have uploaded copyvio on en.wiki too, has flooded Commons with a lot of Google Street's screenshots (see here). I put a warning on their talk page but I thought it was useful for you to know who you're dealing with. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned talk-page

Orphaned talk-page Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services--Musamies (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is not orphaned at all. AFC exists so non-registered users cam create articles. As, like mainspace, creation of pages in Misplaced Pages space is limited to registered users, ALL AFC pages are in Misplaced Pages talk space, where IP's may create new pages. Courcelles 06:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a subpage of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation; subpages of extant pages are not considered orphaned, or we'd have to delete things such as Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Closer needed at CfD

Can someone look at this discussion? I believe at this point, all of the regular closers have either commented on the discussion or been mentioned. So if someone fresh to this can take a glance it would be appreciated. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking. Anomie⚔ 01:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

I've blocked ImageRemovalBot (talk · contribs) before it removes any more links to File:Project Trains no image.png. This was an obviously bad deletion in which a long-standing heavily-used image had its source information blanked, and was then speedy deletion. I'm astonished that neither the nominator (Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs)) nor the deleting administrator (Fastily (talk · contribs)) looked at the page history during this process. Assistance in rolling back the bot's edits would be appreciated. Please let's not have this happen again. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Carnildo restored all of the images. I note that Sfan00 tags with Twinkle; we can't expect the semiautomated tools to check for vandalism. However, deletion isn't supposed to be purely automatic; does the deleting admin have a good explanation for this? Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Casey Kearney

Can an admin look at the revision history of this article, since creation it has contained a claim about the alleged perpetrator of the crime, which should in my view be removed from the page history. Mtking 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The details may or not be necessary (likely not, given the article will probably be deleted), but it's not like that information came out of thin air; it is in some of the references already in the article. I don't see anything rising to the level of requiring RevDel, I think that would be somewhat overkill. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As users on the AfD wont give the article a chance to proceed to see if further notability is likely by disregard the guidelines when seen fit. Then I have to agree with Northern Lights that this discussion seems like overkill.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Asksqltext — delete or to be updated?

This page not only looks archaic, it also has links that are now dead. Can we delete the beast, or does someone ahve the knowlege to update it? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, congrats for finding and editing a page that hadn't been edited since 2004! Can't be that many pages of any sort that have gone so long with no changes. I'd say delete, except (1) not sure what happens if we delete it; is there some sort of default MediaWiki page that would appear in its place?, (2) is there any way to find if its deletion would impact page histories?, and (3) is there anywhere else that we could advertise this? MFD doesn't get MediaWiki pages very often, so we should probably attempt to let people know about the issue through other means. I'm going to drop a line at the technical VP; please leave notices anywhere else if you can think of it. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it looks like it has no technical use any more, but it's of some historical interest, like an old talkpage. Why delete? Put an archive box around the contents if you think it might confuse someone into thinking they can type raw SQL queries at the server through a wiki page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleting it would be a bad idea since we don't actually want the default text. Probably the correct text would be something along the lines of "Admins can no longer run queries on the SQL database"©Geni 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Ask SQL feature was killed off ages ago. That page can be safely deleted, or kept. No one will ever see it either way. Reach Out to the Truth 03:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Ages ago" being seven years. That message has not been displayed to users for seven years. Reach Out to the Truth 04:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious: what's an SQL in the first place? I doubt that {{archive}}, {{historical}}, or anything else of the sort would be appropriate for any MediaWiki pages, due to technical issues that are inherent for the namespace. Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

SQL, the language used to query a database. That page apparently allowed admins to issue an SQL query directly against the database, which can certainly wreak all sorts of havoc. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about the feature or how it worked, but if it was available to all admins as recently as 2004-2005, it can't(?) have been that dangerous per "adminship is no big deal". My guess is that it was for purposes now being handled by the MW:API and by read-only SQL clients now running on toolserver. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have made it a pair then MediaWiki:Sqlislogged. Does that make it a jig or a double facepalm? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Wrong Forum This belongs at WP:VP/T. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mate, this is the Administrator's noticeboard, where administrators can discuss matters., ie. those that make the tweaks. To note that the file is in fact an archaic part of Misplaced Pages, now disconnected, and able to be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice help and possible issue

There's a backlog at WP:RM so I'm asking here.

I would like User:Ryulong/sandbox/TAR to be turned into an editnotice for The Amazing Race 20.

Also, I would like some input as to how to deal with what may result in edit warring on the article, as the Canadian broadcaster who airs the program also has the rights to the Academy Awards, and have decided that they will broadcast the show 2 hours earlier than American broadcasters. Last week when there was only a 20 minute difference, someone was edit warring over a Canadian editor having put the results in. There is only half an hour until this begins, so some quick ideas assistance would be beneficial.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do American editors take precedence here? If US viewers don't want spoilers, maybe they shouldn't read the article. Franamax (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue of spoilers. It's that there's been some sort of agreement that edits to the page things should be done until the initial broadcast in the US (the nation of origin for the program), and last week someone edit warred over results that were posted 20 minutes early. I fear what may happen with this 2 hour difference and I want to avoid edit warring on either side. I've already asked a Canadian editor who also works on the page to hold off until the American, and he's agreed. It also makes it difficult to determine if the content can be reliably sourced to the program, because of such a drastic difference in time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on other discussions, I've reformatted the proposed edit notice to tell American editors to not be pissy about spoilers.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this need an edit notice? Can't there just be an explanation on the article talk page? It looks like there was just one editor who was repeatedly reverting the content out, without explanation or discussion. He ignored an edit summary which referred to the show's earlier broadcast in Canada; would an edit notice really have worked any better? (In any event, he was blocked for a blatant 3RR violation at the time, so presumably he won't do it again this week.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd like the edit notice to now cover the whole season now, because I find that someone's going to pay attention to it moreso than these things or a talk page message.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

More eyes at WP:NPOVN

There is a rather complicated discussion occurring at the NPOV noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Users editing my biography during disputes, involving apparently myself, Jokestress (talk · contribs) and possibly others. More eyes on the page would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the discussion being pointed to (I have not participated in it yet), I echo this request for Admin eyes. I don't think there is a need for admin action yet... but I could see how it could easily spiral out of control and become really nasty. If we can nip this in the bud, we should. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting name change

Hi, a user has moved the title of Mangalorean Catholic names and surnames to Mangalorean Catholic names without achieving general consensus. Please revert the title to the original one. If he disagrees with it, he can bring it up on the talk page. Joyson Prabhu 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect. You can move it back if you like. --regentspark (comment) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Joyson Prabhu 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you should have been able to move it back over the redirect yourself. Graham87 01:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a few good admins for a tough but important job

As many of you no doubt recall, I initiated an RFC last year aimed at resolving the unanswered questions about pending changes. I attempted to play ringmaster all by myself in that process, and it didn't work out too well. The RFC was forced off in an unintended direction by short-term concerns about the tool, and that discussion resulted in the situation we have now, where the tool is "temporarily out of service" but we still don't actually have a policy on whether we are ever going to use it or not. The WMF has indicated they will not dedicate any more resources towards developing the tool until we have in fact made such a decision as a community.

So, here's the point: I've designed a new RFC aimed at finally resolving this situation one way or the other, although the option of keeping things as they are is in there as well. I believe it is ready to go live, but I also believe I shouldn't have anything to do with administrating it once it is underway. The idea has been floating around here for a while that big policy RFCs like this should be administrated and closed by a small group of admins who will work together to keep the discussion on track, to stop disruption of the process, and to close the discussion once a consensus has become clear. I'm looking for volunteers for that task. I've already got the whole thing drawn up in my sandbox, it just needs to be moved into WP space and have a few subpages created for it and it will be all ready for participants to begin commenting and endorsing positions. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular position on the issue of PC and am willing to work as part of a team of at least three admins supervising/closing a PC RfC. I would suggest that once a team is in place, they set down some ground rules/principles for participation, before the RfC is sent live. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've actually already outlined at my sandbox draft a process that should avoid the pitfalls of the previous discussions, but of course the coordinating admins would need to review all that and may want to change some of it before going live. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I'm masochistic enough to do it, as I don't have any real position on PC either. I'll have a look at your sandbox draft tomorrow morning, when my wits are more about me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal closed

This case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.
2. TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.
3. For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
4. Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.
5. Will Beback is indefinitely banned from the English Misplaced Pages. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee.
6. The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ling JIANG again

After http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive232#Users_spamming_using_email_feature_-_possible_IP_tracking_scam_-_see_User_talk:Ling_JIANG I received a WP email from User:Ling JIANG at 1:50 24 February - 24 hours after they had said they'd investigate the procedure, and no sign of activity on Meta or elsewhere. I have therefore blocked to remove email capability, as the will of the community seemed to be that the emails should stop until there was either an OK from the WMF or I suppose community approval. No objection if anyone wants to unblock, of course. But it does seem like the only way to get Ling JIANG to act on the community's wishes. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Good block. I received a second e-mail yesterday, shortly after the editor wrote they were heading to Meta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block. It may become necessary to give a little more protection to the naive by changing the footer added when sending via "email this user". In addition to the current disclaimer, there should be a warning about the potential disasters that may occur if the recipient responds to a request to visit some website. Particularly since many people imagine they are in a safe part of the Internet when using Misplaced Pages (apart from NSFW stuff), they can be vulnerable to social networking or plain malware attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I gave a bit of thought to the concept of soapboxing and the point where it becomes a distracting disruption. Usually, there is some leeway on user's own talkpage, but how far should that leeway go when it is boldly presented at the top of the page? Is a person allowed, for example to say "kill ethnic group x!" or some other clever variation? Let me know what you think, Jaakobou 08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC discourages it in userspace, so I would guess that it would apply to user talk pages too. →Στc. 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Who should one approach when asking that content, which is otherwise inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, should be removed from a talkpage? Jaakobou 10:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You can delete it yourself, if the content is illegal, you can ask an administrator to revision delete it, or you can email Oversight to get it suppressed from view. Or you can ask at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance if it is bad manners or behaviour. If the poster is persistent then we can block them. You can email me if you do not want to draw attention. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations is being populated again

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations is being populated again thanks to User:Madman. Have phun! MER-C 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PC

Hello, since this would involve a lot of administrator work if it pass, I think you should know about it. Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Let's_move Petrb (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)