Misplaced Pages

Are you combining supports for the revision with the original proposition? -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm counting only 7 supports above. Yobol (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Avi, yes i am, but without doubles. Pass a Method talk 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would want to combine totals for two completely separate proposals? Yobol (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Both proposals are for a 1rr, so they are not really all that diferent. As you can see i support both proposals. Pass a Method talk 23:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? Did you notice I Oppose the plain 1RR but Support 1RR + edit history restrictions? Haven't you been reading the discussions on this? Zad68 23:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay i will reword it Pass a Method talk 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, my computer has been really fucked up lately Pass a Method talk 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I went ahead and finished the !vote cleanup/clarification you started. Honestly I think this exercise of maintaining a !vote count is largely pointless, as we all know it's not a vote and this isn't a democracy. It's not like there are so many votes that a closing admin couldn't count them all at that time, and it isn't even the count that matters but rather the persuasiveness of the arguments. Zad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal to "1 revert proposal for circumcision:" Add minimum edit history restriction

Trying to come up with a creative way to meet everyone's concerns, I propose some additional restrictions to go along with the 1RR:

• After the current full-protect expires, the article should go back to the semi it had before
• The usual exceptions for reverts of obvious vandalism, copyvios, BLP violations, banned users, etc. should be in place
• In addition to the 1RR, there should be a minimum edit history required to edit the article. For example, account creation no more recent than 3 months ago, and a minimum edit count of 500 some number of edits in the article mainspace.

I think this would address the concerns about off-Wiki canvassing. I don't think the minimum edit history restriction is technically impossible or unprecedented. Wasn't that considered (if not implemented) for articles in the MMA area? Thoughts? Zad68 22:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, decent editors should be allowed to get involved from the outset. If for no other than it's an article that causes huge burnout. I think SPAs can be fairly easily dealt with by a "know em when we see em" procedure. I assume you get spam from the nutty IP? Have you ever thought it was a legit user? Egg Centric 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad, your proposal for minimum edits of 500 is pretty crazy. Thats some unprecedented newbie abuse your proposing. If i was you i would strike it out per "WP:Please do not bite the newcomers". Pass a Method talk 23:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The 500-edit redline isn't so "unprecedented" as you may think. See the arbitration notice at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh for an example. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think the overall idea of adding an edit history restriction to 1RR is a bad one. Would you please suggest an appropriate minimum number? I noticed that before you had asked me if I support 1RR now (you seem to have removed that in a subsequent edit), and I'd like to answer: Yes, I'm willing to support 1RR. I support the idea of 1RR in general, it is along the same lines as Jakew's proposal that WP:BRD be made policy on this page. I just do not think it will help the problems that we are experiencing at this article. I don't think it'll help. but I don't think it will hurt, either, if we can address the concerns that myself and Avi and others have expressed. What is your suggestion? Zad68 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this proposal carries a lot of merit. On long-term controversial articles, what we want are experienced users that know how to apply policy and guidelines rather than new and inexperienced editors, many of whom are agenda driven WP:SPA editors. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is the last place we want new editors starting. They would be driven away for sure.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'm okay with a mimimum of 3 months edits and the rest, but without the 500 limit because some editors make only content edits which makes it difficult for them to get edit counts. 400 is more realistic. Pass a Method talk 11:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but policing this is going to be more difficult than 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I am in favor of some form of minimum editing requirement to prevent off-Wiki canvassing which is readily identifiable.Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While there have been some attempts at off wiki canvassing and the usual SPA drive by, the page is watched by so many that nothing ever gets through for more than a few minutes before it is reverted so this is truly a moot point. Are we seriously worried that a group of newbies are going to show up and hi jack the article because it has never happened in the 5 years I have watched the article. I still think regulars should be excluded from this voting is because it's going to be a party line vote with one or two exceptions. The real reason this article's sorely lacking W:NPOV and has continuous edit wars is User:Jakew,one of circumcision staunchest supporters, has the most edits to the article far surpassing anyone else. His tendentious editing contributes with a pattern of systematic bias that is easily uncovered over a period of time. He also runs a pro circumcision website and has published papers with Morris on the benifits of circumcision. Many calls by myself and others that this is a clear case of WP:COI have fell on deaf ears. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I could provide several links evidencing off-Wiki campaigns, only I am fearful of personally attacking an editor by linking to a disgusting diatribe about this editor. In fact, on this website, the very point that you are currently making about a potential COI is discussed and a wiki COI link is provided... Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense is right. I never stated their were not off wiki campaigns only that they are quite ineffective. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary, attempts to conflate POV with COI have failed in the past, and trying to discredit Jake, whose patience borders on the superhuman and who has been subject to the most vile and disgusting attacks by various genital integtritist sites is neither appropriate nor acceptable. Multiple times it has been the consensus of uninvolved editors that Jake has edited completely and totally within the bounds of our policies and guidelines; more than can be said for many people who are attempting to use the article to promote a genital-integritist agenda. Bringing up this improper conflation of POV (which we all have) and COI, which means that someone is incapable of editing from a wikipedia-neutral perspective, only serves to WP:HARASS Jake and should not be continued. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Put your shield down Avi, I know I can count on you to come to Jake's defense. I'll not debate this with you (add nauseum). As you say let's just agree to disagree. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

http://meatballwiki.org/DefendEachOther. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Collateral Damage. Many people don't want to be associated professionally or by name with this intimate, embarrassing topic. They prefer to contribute from an IP address. 184.38.43.39 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, heavy nonconstructive editing from IPs at both the article and its Talk page have made it necessary to disallow IP edits. Your concern is easily addressed, of course, by creating an account with a username that does not reveal either your profession or name. Also, you could leave a User Talk message for a like-minded editor suggesting edits to be made and sources to be added. By the way, this request seems misplaced here--neither 1RR proposal is suggesting to return the article back to unprotected once it comes off the full it's at right now. You might try submitting your request for unprotection by following the procedures at WP:RFUP, but I would not hold out much hope for it happening. Zad68 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong approach - "Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia that any experienced Wikipedian can edit?" Nooooooo. What we need is a hard core limit that any edit which hasn't been discussed and consensus achieved is prohibited. Any edit that has previously been discussed and rejected earns a topic ban for some period of time. The vandalism gets tiresome and more or less gets quickly fixed; what ends up being the real waste of time is the repeated contentions that have been discussed over-and-over-and-over-and-over. Yes, consensus can change, but I think it's incumbent upon the purveyor of the rehash to show that first before serving it up again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

People have strong opinions. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them right. Having read the article and the talk page (though not the history), I can see that there are some very strongly-held opinions by many editors, and none of them want to back down from their strongly-held positions. Both sides of the debate have some measure of truth to their opinions; it's a shame that neither side seems able to recognize the truth of the other side's position.Marikafragen (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, I like the idea of simply requiring discussion and consensus before editing. It's harsh, and it would be an inconvenience, but it would probably be worth it, as it would actually solve the real problem. Jakew (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For similar reasons as first suggestion in that I do not beleive it will address the underlying problems properly. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's that bad, just use full protection and make everybody use the talk page. If an editor has the technical ability to edit the page, they deserve to have the edit evaluated on its merit, not the tenure of their account. Kilopi (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose per Kilopi. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lost another good editor/Admin to a long-term vandal

User:Nev1 has gone, at least for a while, due to a persistent IP hopping vandal, last seen on my talk page celebrating victory. This harassment has been going on for about a year, and it appears there is nothing we can do about it. It's really pretty bad that editors can still be terrorised (really I don't think that's too strong a word) in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

People are going to be persistent, and that's the reality and truth. I'm sorry to see him leave, but there is not much anyone can do on an open site like this. This is an environment where any certain action, edit, or comment made at the wrong time (like a block) can lead to years of frustration and harassment by others, and that is especially what all current admins – and admin hopefuls – need to understand and accept. If you cannot, then you should not be an admin, plain and simple. --MuZemike 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

True - and it's not just our talk and user pages that this person is vandalising, it is articles as well. And if they do it randomly.... Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's complete bollocks. Administrators at least have the privilege of not being harassed by administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's exceptions to every rule though .. IJS Chedzilla (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, that may be true but it's also the case that it's because administrators sometimes have to do the dirty work of blocking that they in particular become targets in the way that is less likely for other editors. Though I agree that's what you sign up for as an admin and I'm not asking for anyone to shed tears for the poor corps - least of all its most trenchant critic! Kim Dent-Brown 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What a pile of crap I am reading here, "there is nothing you can do" and "that's the reality and truth". I find not treating people like shit and treat them like people instead and it's a whole new world.

Granted it's on a planet in a galaxy far far away from wikipedia, but that counts as a new world. Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to the long-term vandals and harassers out there. Just as there are many dedicated users who help keep the crap out of Misplaced Pages, there are just as many dedicated people who treat those same people like crap and make those unfortunate users that dare mess with them the prime targets of their ridicule. --MuZemike 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference in my approach is I accept the law of the universe called 'cause and effect'. Most other people, dare I say ever editor I have seen so far, doesn't make any connection at all. I have seen whopping great studies into vandalism which entirely miss the point by asking the wrong question. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pen, the problem is that you are a reasonable person. The trolls who harass others into leaving are not. The problem is, we really can't stop them. There are too many ways to get around our blocks, and that's due to Misplaced Pages's (and the Internet's) open nature. We basically have to rely on them getting bored, or choosing to stop the behavior on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, and it will certainly fall on deaf ears, but the solution to this is to require registration to edit. It's one thing to throw up one's hands at the drawbacks of the online world, but it's another things altogether to willfully reject the solution to the problem on ideological grounds. We're now one of the most used Internet resources around, but we still act as if we're a lowly start-up which has to allow vandalism and harrasment such as described here just to get the quantity of editors we need to move the encyclopedia forward - but we don't. In fact, since registration would almost immediately drop the volume of vandalism, all those hours spent in anti-vandal work would be able to be put towards actually improving the encycylopedia, instead of just preventing it from degenerating. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't have to mean "Anyone who wants to can screw around with us," it can simply mean "Anyone who registers".

But, as I said, tilting at windmills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering anyone can still register, your "solution" would barely slow them down. Don't get me wrong, I think mandatory registration just makes sense; however, it does not solve this problem. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this suggestion on Nev1's talk page, wouldn't it work? " Could an edit filter be written that disallows non autoconfirmed editors from posting the text string Nev1 in the mainspace". Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Like others above, I am concerned about what looks to have been a rather nasty incident, running over a long period of time. Are there any lessons we can learn from it to protect others in the future? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how. Require logging in to edit will just result in sock-puppetry. Any bot to police the user's name is bound to have false positives or (worse) miss purposefully obfuscated comments. We could report their behavior to their ISP, but that isn't likely to have an effect. And until it gets into the realm of actual stalking, the police won't touch it. Without draconian measures to vet each person's identity when creating an account, there's no way to prevent a persistent troll from coming back. Most will get bored after a few months, but as we've seen, some will persist for years. If they never get bored of it, there's no real way to stop them. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, don't piss anybody off or even go near certain users or articles, or you will get burned and badly. --MuZemike 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It might not be possible to stop harassers (though the Meta:Terms of Use allows for an uncomfortable range of legal options...) but it is possible to help the target. Misplaced Pages could have some sort of Harassed Users Defense League that identifies known, severe, well-defined, ongoing issues and keeps a group of people watching for specific harassers to revert them immediately. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think a support process is more likely to help, given the absence of technical solutions. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We had one a long time ago. It was called Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. As far as the "Terms of Use" are concerned, it's a nice official policy – on paper. However, enforcing it is completely different, and I would say that it is virtually impossible. --MuZemike 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

A topic ban was enacted this month for BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. A similar issue has now come up at Conspiracy theory. Since July 2011 BruceGrubb has been using OR, poor sources, or violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to "rehabilitate" the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory" - in this case, aided and abetted by Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs). BruceGrubb's focus on the Christ myth theory and Josephus on Jesus articles explain his interest in changing the common meaning of the term "conspiracy theory", as does Mystichumwipe's focus on rehabilitating Holocaust denial-related theories (see Mystichumwipe's editing history for many examples of the latter). There has never been a consensus for promoting this view on the article, and many lengthy Talk: page discussions opposing his proposed changes; see, for example:

• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 14#Real world conspiracies
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 15 (the entire archive is devoted to this)
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#Definitions of conspiracy theory
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#"No consensus"
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#The lead
• Talk:Conspiracy theory#“Conspiracy theory” versus “Theory of conspiracy” (again)
• Talk:Conspiracy theory#The broader definition of Conspiracy Theory

Their M.O. appears to be

1. Attempt to edit-war in the article changes/re-write (e.g. )
2. Be reverted in turn by a wide variety of editors (e.g. )
3. Open up lengthy talk page discussions, wait a few weeks until other editors get frustrated or lose interest, then repeat.

By my count, Bruce has now reverted this POV into the article (in various forms) at least 26 times. Mystichumwipe was quite active in reverting in the early days, but is now more cautious, simply supporting Bruce's edits on Talk: or in the article, while letting Bruce do all the actual reverts. After the usual hiatus, Bruce began this edit-warring on the article again yesterday, and eventually got blocked for violating 3RR. I'm proposing a topic ban only on BruceGrubb because a) Bruce has been far more aggressive in his editing, and b) without BruceGrubb to edit-war on his behalf, Mystichumwipe will not be likely to edit-war instead. Jayjg 01:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am responding because I received a message about this thread. I had not looked at the Conspiracy theory page (not my topic really) but the effort Jayjg has put into preparing the diffs is impressive. Bruce's edit pattern fits a longer term trend, as suggested above. My experience has been that I have consistently failed to follow Bruce's logic, as many other people have commented. And when he was topic banned on WP:AN, the idea of "source misrepresentation" was mentioned by multiple editors. As a whole, I think Bruce has taken up much time from many people on multiple pages, and nothing constructive has come out of it. The last time Bruce was on WP:ANI (due to complaints about his WP:RSN edit behavior) he volunteered a piece of information that made me understand a few things. My guess is that, sooner or later, Bruce is likely to be indef-blocked for one reason or another. This is just one step along that path. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said in ] If you haven't looked at ANY of the material in this case why are you wasting our time getting involved? as I said then IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The wording "has now come up" appears to be disingenuous, as I'm aware from WT:V and WP:Inaccuracy that this is a long-running content dispute involving WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The OP tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context.  We'll see if the administrators try to improve the encyclopedia this time, rather than allowing WP:AN to be used to win a content dispute involving a civil editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The history of authorship of the Inaccuracy essay is interesting, as is its youth, failure to be accepted in community arguments, and lack of common discussion in community arguments. There is no reason to believe that this essay is reasonable grounds for editing given these factors regarding the essay. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this what you meant? The page edits seem related, and the edit pattern seems to fit.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Given the current version under Conspiracy_theory#Usage_history states "The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to a 1909 article in The American Historical Review. Other sources pre-date this use by nearly four decades..." which is simply a rewording of my version, History2007 is clearly blowing smoke as they did in ].
      • As for Fifelfoo smoke here the points they are contesting:

        "It should be noted just because sources are in conflict does not mean that one or more has to be inaccurate. They can be portraying the subject from different POVs and be essentially accurate within their respective points of view."

        "If the sources differ significantly in time it is advisable to do more research to determine if a change in meaning or view has occurred."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

      • As Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#Mystichumwipe_and_conspiracy_theories_.282.29 shows Jayjg has used this board before in an attempt to censor an editor he didn't like and I was involved here in that mess too. This IMHO is another WP:GAME effort to get their way and it is tiresome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic banning BruceGrubb from Conspiracy theory and from articles connected with conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given Fifelfoo shutting down of a topic on the RSN board after only three hours in what IMHO was an attempt to short circuit any meaningful discussion on the topic and throwing around IMHO frivolous claims of disruption here (see ] I think this is an example of possible Misplaced Pages:Harassment via Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME rendering their comments on this matter moot.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support a more general ban on "fringe theories" (given other cases, e.g. the revert cycle here) if suitable characterization can be found because those are where the editor's less productive actions seem to take place. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given in ] History2007 admitted "I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here" I would say that unless they have evidence in this case this topic their comments are worthless and it seems to be another possible example of Misplaced Pages:Harassment via Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME especially when I have the support of Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx (who stopped doing anything in April) and even Nuujinn(Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory.

    Also note the OP's (Jayjg) brow beating of other editors in Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#.22No_consensus.22 arguing for a consensus that as Mystylplx pointed out no longer existed. who later on stated "I count four in favor in the discussion. Myself, BruceGrubb, mystichumwipe and Rklawton. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy." (Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A more general ban on fringe theories (conspiracy theories and revisionist histories) seems necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering you did only a minor edit after Mystichumwipe ] you established consensus for MY version: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." (WP:CONS) your comment here makes no sense--unless you don't fully understand that part of consensus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Can we suggest other sanctions to impose other than a topic ban? Personally, I would suggest two things. A strict imposition of 1RR on BruceGrubb for all articles in main space: the edit wars are just too much. And a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL in talk pages and edit summaries. He is well known to use phrases like "DEAL WITH IT!" and "<user> went crying to the noticeboard to win a dispute". If he could express his views without so much emotion attached, I think people would be more likely to take him seriously. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• given ] I think we can take anything Fifelfoo and History2007 say with a grain of salt. Their continual involvement against me in articles they are not even involved in (such as this one) boarders on violations of Misplaced Pages:Harassment via Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME. I have already pointed out my federal recognized disability (Hyperkinesis aka ADHD] here on this board and my yelling in all caps is demonstrated of frustration at the community letting things get to the level of ] while banning perfectly good administrators like User:Will_Beback/Barnstars for which on the surface appears by comparison to be very minor infractions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Bruce, I strongly recommend that you read WP:HA#NOT (part of the harrassment policy) and WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term, because your repeated citation of these terms seems to reveal an incomplete understanding of their application. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • read WP:HOUND: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Given in ] History2007 in stated "I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here" I think per WP:DUCK I have per WP:HOUND the right to point out possible WP:GAME issues with some involved editors. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • As I stated at the beginning, I received a message asking for me to comment here. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems to have no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and argues interminably, tiring out other users. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This quote is straight from Oxford University Press reference I am using in my version:

    conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event. The derivative conspiracy theorist is first recorded in the 1960s — Example — 1975 New York Times: Conspiracy theorists contend that two of the men have strong resemblances to E. Howard Hunt Jr. and Frank A Sturgis, convicted in the Watergate break-in.

  • Kindly explain given the parts that I have bolded just what I don't understand about WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and while you are at it explain this edit ] where I expressly state in the editor comment "often not sometimes. Let's admit that the majority of the time it is used negatively". Given some of the comments here, I have to ask how many of the editors coming here actually went to the Conspiracy theory article to see what the sam hill was going on?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Interjection: Bruce, what does "rubutle" mean? Did you mean "rebuttal"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This thread is about user edit behavior, not content. Long content based discussions are not really needed here. And of course, the issue of WP:Walls of text had been brought up in previous discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • History2007, you came here without doing any research and made comments effectively blind.Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory shows that there at least one time a more neutral definition of conspiracy theory existed and conspiracy theory in that context is being looked at again a point continually ignored by the OP in what several of the editors on the talk page have viewed as an effort to POV the article. When a lead that has Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell backing up its statements is being reverted or called WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE I have a right to call the editors making these claims out on the carpet for it.

        Also please stop using WP:WALLOFTEXT as short hand for WP:TLDR; they are not the same thing. As the second essay notes "A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity."--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

        • I am going stop now, given that I just said this thread is about "edit patterns" not "content" and received a response about content. Regarding your statement that "you have to ask what really is going on?"... who knows, may be it is a cons... Let me not even finish that. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
          • As pointed out by Unscintillating, the OP had problems with an ipso facto case of inaccuracy. Instead of jumping in blind you should have at least done research to see if you really had an apples to apples or an apples to orange comparison. User:warshy stated "He (Ie me) has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far" a point as stated below Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx, and Rklawton also agree with. Even Nuujinn who challenged my sources on primary, secondary, tertiary grounds stated "Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings." Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a minimum per the above examples of sustained edit warring on this issue. The extraordinary badgering of editors here (which may well be an attempt to generate a WP:CHUNK) and unjustified claims of harassment indicates that there are some more significant behavioral issues though. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just remembered that I (and several other editors) have been involved in a content dispute with Bruce in the World War II article recently. The relevant talk page thread is here, and Bruce started a discussion at WP:RSN which is archived here. His content in relation to this topic (he's arguing that a World War II-era American propaganda movie should be used to reference a view that the war started in 1931, and has kept on doing so despite a near total lack of support for this position - complete with all caps shouting initially) appears similar to that on conspiracy theories. As such, I think that we may need a bigger picture solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I would like to again mention that the RSN for Is Why We Fight series reliable source for views of US 1942-1945? was archived by an involved editor against the idea after in just over three hours effectively short circuiting any meaningful discussion on the topic. As I said after I unarchived it and works by the University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press were produced supporting my contention the work was reliable "If anyone of us editors could close of a thread whenever the mood hit us then RSN would NOT have any meaning and issues of WP:GAME would pop up like ducks in a shooting gallery."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Bruce, that discussion continued for two days, then you threw up your hands with "Let the thread be archived by the bot" when you still did not get your way. No matter how many times you keep repeating it, the source is not reliable for establishing the beginning of the war. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• BruceGrubb was topic banned from Christianity topics for a long-term pattern of disrupting discussions with "Ididnthearthat"-style behaviour and pushing of fringe ideas. A few weeks later he was back here at the noticeboards, and there was a consensus that he had been disrupting a discussion about WWII with just the same kind of behaviour. Now he's showing that same behaviour on yet another, unrelated discussion. This does not seem to be topic-specific, but a more deep-seated problem with BruceGrubb's approach to disputes in general. In this sense, we might need to resort to blocks (starting medium-length and then quickly escalating) rather than topic bans. Or a general "parole" kind of personalized discretionary sanction (i.e. any admin can quickly topic-ban him from any new discussion on the first signs of disruption). At this time, I'd be prepared to make a start with a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • evidence outside of Prelude to war as well as evidence regarding reliability for the context within the limited constraints expressly stated (ie US views of 1942-1945) has been ignored. University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press all show the Prelude to War was possibly reliable for the contex I want to use it in but any meaningful discuss of those source was short circuited the continual archiving in what IMHO comes off as WP:GAME. The Sept 18, 1931 date as a possible start for WWII had been noted in other even more reliable sources and yet this NPOV fact is not in the current version.

    "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang who is referencing Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7. Last time, I checked Peter Lang and Transaction Publishers were not considered fringe publishers. How much we give to that position is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a WP:FRINGE one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, basically. Mathsci above says it exactly. I'm a bit sceptical about topic-banning as a universal solution to disruptive editors, and Fut.Perf.'s suggestion about a personal "parole" for disruption might be better for the project as a whole. Tom Harrison 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As mentioned below User:warshy supports my edits. His exact words on the matter are "Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view." (warshytalk 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know how I feel about the proposed topic ban. Bruce certainly can come across as if he's trying to have a reasonable debate. But, I have been the most vocal critic of his proposed changes on the conspiracy theory page, and he (with the support of Mystichumwipe, who, IMO, appears to support the changes because he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and this revised definition makes the term appear less of a pejorative) arbitrarily made the changes under the guise of being bold. Bruce's changes on the page were not entirely unreasonable, but they fail to include some critical changes that I feel are absolutely essential, and, more importantly, he made the changes where there clearly was not a consensus to do so. Regardless of what decision is made here, I do think we need some additional voices on the Conspiracy Theory talk page, because I am making no headway with Mystichumwipe and am quickly running out of patience!JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have only just been alerted to this discussion, thus my delay in responding.

  Firstly, nearly all participants upon the discussion board of this article have commented upon the valuable and extremely good sourcing by BruceGrubb of material for this topic. Even those who were strongly opposed to the arguments of him, myself and others (viz. myself Mystichumwipe , Mystylplx, Rklawton and warshy) have commented upon the excellence of his research and sourcing. That includes John Shandy and JoelWhy. So I am surprised that Jayjg has accused him of "using OR, poor sources", and I think that this complaint is completely ungrounded in fact. (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell can hardly be called "poor sources"?!!! :-o)

  As regards the accusation of "violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to 'rehabilitate' the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase"...etc, that also I regard as a false claim. One that has been repeatedly answered but sadly to no avail. I think that's a strawman argument, as I've recently explained on the discussion board. In reality the discussion has never been about "rehabilitating" the term but distinguishing between the two definitions and usages, which the article for long has failed to do.

  BruceGrubb has been civil and polite at all times, only recently showing the frustration here quoted and this came ONLY AFTER what I see as the disruptive behaviour of two editors (Tom Harrison and Calton) who without any recent involvement in the recent discussions, ignored a request to bring any issues to the talk board before reverting, and instead went ahead and reverted ALL BruceGrubb's edits which even the main antagonist in discussions has admitted he only had one "small component" of disagreement with.

  Interestingly Jayjg himeslf has shown to be in error about the definition and usage of this term on two occassions, so his personal viewpoint about all this I consider suspect and this requesting of a topic ban against BruceGrubb I feel should therefore be questioned by fair-minded editors regarding its appropriateness. It seems to me that Jayjg really has taken acception to BG's point of view of the source material, NOT his conduct in appplying that.

  Finally I take issue with the wording of Jayg's complaint: "aided and abetted" smacks of some kind of criminal activity ;-/ and seems a deliberate attempt to imply wrongdoing. As are also his groundless speculations regarding my alleged cautiousness in reverting. In actuality I am merely in agreement with BruceGrubb's understanding, as are at least two or three other editors. I would call my involvement in discussions there with him to be attempting to 'form a consensus' or 'generating agreement' NOT "aiding and abetting". This we have tried to do using reason and discussion supported by verifiable sourcing, which I would have thought should be the backbone of Misplaced Pages editorship. Also the accusations of myself being a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier are fallacious ad hominem arguments and I request that they be deleted and a warning be administered to Jayjg and JoelWhy about this.

  Summary: The use of weasel words in this request, coupled with Jayjg's own faulty understanding of the term and the debate about it make this request look to me like some form of intimidation. Researchers of BruceGrubb's calibre should be encouraged and helped if they are thought to be infringing wiki policy, not hounded and censored in this way.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My comment was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was stating my perceived opinion about why you support a particular definition.JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually as the Ad hominem article shows it is not quite that simple as the above implies. According to the article Circumstantial, Tu quoque, and Guilt by association all fall under Ad hominem though I don't know how good the connections are. Also you clearly stated "appears to support the changes because he (ie Mystichumwipe) is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" As I tried to show in Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_30#conspiracy_theory_definition there were a lot of "Conspiracy theories" ranging from Al-Qaeda, a group of some home grown nuts in the Timothy McVeigh mold, or the government being responsible for the 9/11 attacks. One of the theories bore fruit and got called something else but at the time it was first proposed it was a conspiracy theory ("A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven."((sic) Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 Oxford University Press ASIN: B005ZO8KOY pg 3)). So even if it is later proven to be true that does not change in any way shape or form something's original status as a "conspiracy theory" and that in a nutshell is the problem with the conspiracy theory article as it currently stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • As I have pointed out over and over and over and over and over again on the conspiracy theory talk page, my problem with the changes was not that it stated there is an alternate meaning to the term, but that it implied both meanings were on equal footing. This is one of the reasons you should have waited until there was a consensus -- so we could iron out the proposed changes. It is clear you did not understand the point I was trying to make (which may have been partly my fault for not clearly articulating it, I'm not sure). The solution would have been to continue the discussion and iron out the issues rather than deciding that consensus had been reached, despite the clear protests from other editors. (I understand that unanimity is not needed, but when you have 5 editors participating in a discussion, and 2 are objecting, you continue the discussion.)

        I frankly don't think you're helping yourself here. If your intent is to insist you were right to act as you did, it is clear that you're going to be topic banned and you can then feel comfort in believing you were persecuted. However, there is still time to make an appropriate mea culpa, agree that you will not make changes without consensus, and move on. Thus far, you have been completely defensive (which is understandable under the circumstances, but still not helpful.) I have not voted in favor of the topic ban because I do not think it is constructive and I believe you were acting in good faith. However, good faith only takes you so far -- good faith doesn't resolve a misunderstanding of other users' objections. And, arguing that you were completely in the right makes other editors assume a ban is warranted as you are indicating the exact same behavior will continue. JoelWhy? talk 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. My god, what a can of worms... The professional WP editors warrying here will certainly find my "diffs." I give up. When it comes to WP and all these boards and discussions you just have to be a pro. I am just a little guy, and this technology completely overwhelms me. It is obvious that the subject of this controversy is a very critical and sensitive one for a series of cultural and epistemological "interests." So many, in fact, that I can hardly start to ennumerate them. I am just a critical, skeptical observer on the side, trying to understand how this whole "machine" of knowledge works, and from my isolated, independent point of view, BruceGrubb has done an outstanding job of researching reliable sources and bringing them to bear on the subject. The people trying to ban him here are just trying to silence his powerful argunents against the mainstream and the status quo. It is an uphill battle, and only with a horde of professional editors you can make any progress in these "knowledge" wars. I give up. Good luck to all honest, independent editors lost in this machine, as I am. warshy 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I haven't even bothered looking at things properly. However, I trust Jayjg enough to assume there's sometihng there, and the behaviour of the user in this thread has been utterly ridiculous and clearly illustrates how much of a nuisance he must be. Egg Centric 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you "haven't even bothered looking at things properly" then why even comment? WP:CON clearly states that it is built on the quality of the arguments and not a vote. Unscintillating has clearly stated Jayjg "tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context." See for the restore by User:Bagumba (] with the comment "this is an essay about how to handle claims of inaccuracy, please describe the issue instead of just censoring it)") and then by Unscintillating ] with the comment "the claim of inaccuracy exists ipso facto, please take opinions about the evidence elsewhere)" Again per Misplaced Pages:CON#Reaching_consensus_through_editing "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Jayjg did not have consensus regarding his edit and two other editors Bagumba and Unscintillating agreed with my edit. It is beginning to be clear a lot of the editors here are either not aware of this part of WP:CON or choose to ignore it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? Because I hope (not expect) if you read my reasoning you will understand how you are coming across... Egg Centric 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless you are going to provide actual arguments regarding this please don't clutter up this board with your posts. This is not a WP:Forum.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support I'm changing my ambivalent stance to a strong support based on this latest revert, in addition to this latest comment he added in the Talk section. As they say, sometimes, if you give a man enough rope, he flogs himself half to death, ties the rope around his neck, climbs onto a 3-legged chair, leaps off, and shoots himself in the head simultaneously for good measure. (I believe there's a more succinct version of this phrase, but I can't think of it at the moment...) JoelWhy? talk 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban on Fringe topics, broadly construed. Due to ongoing WP:IDHT, tendentious editing and a general inability to accept consensus not in his favor, Bruce seems unable to operate in these areas without entrenching his position. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - based on the statements of others above, and on Bruce's own comments like at User talk:BruceGrubb#Conspiracy theory. Bruce seems incapable of believing that his conduct is unacceptable, and seems at this point to almost instantly go on the counter-offensive, accusing the people who, like Tom Harrison in the section linked to, politely advise him that his conduct has violated the rules here. At this point, given the pattern of behavior in general, and his apparent inability to even acknowledge that his conduct might be problematic, I have no reason to believe Bruce is sufficinetly objective to be able to contribute to this material in accord with WP:POV, and he seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge that problem. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per this talk page edit and his bizarre misinterpretation of "consensus by editing". To me that seems to call for even stricter measures because it's not limited to a single topic but shows a general misconception of how Misplaced Pages operates. He is unable or unwilling to accept that his preferred version does not have consensus, to put it mildly, and he is edit-warring to still have it his way. While he may actually have a point regarding content, his behavior is simply unacceptable. Basically, what JoelWhy said about rope. Huon (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - This could go either direction and not be a bad decision, really. A topic ban was something I felt would be a bit harsh at this point on top of the last topic ban, and suggest that other possible options are there if the community wishes to take that direction, but the original diffs shown by Jayjig are strong enough to cause serious doubts to the editors ability to just drop things and move on or at least cool off. Perhaps the encourage ment they need is a ban. I support whatever admin decides.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Since BruceGrubb has continued revert-warring on conspiracy theory even while this discussion was ongoing , – and less than a day after coming back from another block for the same issue –, and also because his behaviour in the discussion above has again crossed the line into the bizarre, displaying all the conduct problems people have noted as problematic on previous occasions, I have blocked him, for an initial period of a week. I hope this discussion can in the meantime help to clarify whether more topic bans or more blocks will be the best means of dealing with him in the longer run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef block - but not a ban - if given a topic ban, I would expect he is going to keep on with the cycle of latch on to {{insert crazy subject here}}, make david icke type edits, get a new topic ban... However I do feel he's editing in good faith. Weighing these two things together I believe he ought to be indefinitely blocked from editing, but permitted to suggest edits using his talk page and generally try to talk folk around into unblocking him. No reason to think he can't reform, seems smart enough. Egg Centric 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence isn't enough to be a successful Wikipedian. You must also have social competence, e.g., an ability to understand other people's state of mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I could understand a ban from editing articles, but not talk pages, noticeboards, and the like. I might even support it. But WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE might still be problems there. Limiting him to his user talk page would be in effect giving him his own soapbox, which I would find unacceptable. Discretionary sanctions might be reasonable, but that is really only in the scope of ARBCOM. I honestly don't know what would be best, other than, maybe, discretionary sanctions, including potentially being blocked from topics or articles for a set length of time. But like I said, honestly, discretionary sanctions seems to me to be the only option that I would think might really work. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The community can and does establish discretionary sanctions regarding topic areas, consider the community general discretionary sanctions regarding caste, sub-groups and politics in subcontinental articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I said that based on the response I received from ArbCom regarding such matters. More or less, they indicated that one's admin's discretion might be found indiscreet by another admin and overturned. I certainly believe that might be possible here, and I am not looking forward to seeing it. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing said it gently, and correctly in the context of WP:CIR - which is only an essay of course, but can yet be used as a shorthand in these cases. The hand writing is on the wall that this is going to lead to an indef-block sooner or later. The path to that seems non-deterministic, as recent events have shown, but it is heading in that direction. The path may not be clear, but the destination seems likely. History2007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Bruce is on a very clear path to an indefinite duration block. I'm not sure if this is warranted yet, but it probably would be if he returns to the same conduct after the current block expires. I think that Egg Centric is probably right about what Bruce is likely to do; I just hope that he doesn't do this. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his behavior makes me think he's quickly heading towards a full ban. He's not making the types of edits which clearly warrant such a ban, yet, but it appears he thinks he's merely a victim in all this, meaning his behavior is not likely to change. Still, I'd love to be proven wrong as he has the potential to be a valuable contributor. JoelWhy? talk 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this negative speculation? Is that fair? Or helpful? Just leave the word 'yet' out of your sentence and what is left is the reality of the current situation. As regards the question of victimhood, I myself think he has been treated unfairly. E.g. the comment of support for the blocking by Eggcentric with an admitted complete ignorance of the case. Do you Joel, think that 'support' for blocking was fair? Do you not agree that if Tom Harrison and Calton hadn't reverted ALL his work without first discussing it as requested, this situation would not have occured. That behaviour was the catalyst, wasn't it. I find it ironic that such disruptive behaviour by those two uninvolved editors is not even being acknowledged or mentioned. Then the framing of the complaint against him by Jayjg in this block request? Do you think they were fairly framed? Do you think the language (e.g "aided and abetted by...") wasn't loaded language? That these aspects have not been acknowledged or taken into account I think is not a sign of fair treatment and I feel quite naturally lend support to a quite justified feeling of being victimised. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Was my support for blocking fair?! Of course it was! The first thing Bruce did upon returning from his block is to post on the Talk page that, because his edits had not yet been reverted, this "silence" meant there was now a consensus. It was absolutely outrageous. The gall of him to complain that others were "wikilawyering" to then point to a policy that clearly was not intended to mean you also ignore the discussion on the talk page protesting said changes. And then to engage in yet another edit war, with editors who rightfully reverted his edits where there clearly was not a consensus; he is not a victim here. He did this to himself. JoelWhy? talk 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When one of the major problems is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, what good is mentoring? Bruce's user talk page now has a "retired" banner on it (User talk:BruceGrubb) so this discussion may be moot; on the other hand, users unretire all the time. My read of the situation is that if he returns, Bruce will earn himself a full site ban in short order; a topic ban, mentorship, or parole might save him from this fate, but does anyone want to take on the task of policing his edits? I certainly don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the original Jayjg request is still pending, hence I will request a decision on that, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I seriously suggest a mentor as John Carter has suggested. It may not work, or it may be the best thing for him. At least make the suggestion. Mentors do not always work out in this type of situation but it could be tried.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce does still have e-mail enabled, so it would be possible to contact him with the proposal. I just wonder whether we should do it now, or perhaps wait for someone to suggest themselves as a possible mentor for him. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin decision on the original Jayjg proposal

Given that threads do get archived, and that there have been no major new revelations for about a day now, I think Jayjg's original request (a conspiracy topic ban) deserves a decision. The discussion on that has produced a number of votes and views (11 to 2) and a decision may be appropriate in any case. And that may reduce further friction if Bruce unretires. Hence I would suggest a decision on that, given the number of comments, etc. so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, if Bruce is to return, it would probably be best for both him and the rest of us if this question were decided before that. It would probably be instrumental in his own decision, and I think others might be perhaps influenced by discussion about his possible continued retirement if we were to wait. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.

• For example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_spectroscopy&offset=&limit=500&action=history , the oldest 3 edits are shown as "(empty)", but actually they have text content. The "(empty)" should be replaced by "(unknown)", for edits made before page length was recorded in edit histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Same problem here. Can someone who knows how bugzilla works please file a bug? Jenks24 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Despite the badly chosen name administrators are not sysops. We have zero control over the way that MediaWiki works. The correct place for this is either Project:Village Pump (technical) or (even better) the user talk page of one of the (active) MediaWiki developers, since they don't necessarily monitor even the technical discussion fora on the English Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The best place to file bugs has always been Bugzilla, not a user's talkpage. ^demon 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. I have copied this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

• Hi, I just deleted The Odd Saga of the American and a Curious Icelandic Flock as an expired PROD and stumbled across User:DM232/sandbox, which redirects to the deleted page. Should the userspace redirect be deleted (I note that user space is exempt from G8)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I personaly would have deleted as housekeeping in particular as the creator of the redirect is not the user himself but an admin who fixed a cut and paste move (see also backlinks). But you could always alert Anthony to delete it himself. Agathoclea (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Done I have just deleted User:DM232/sandbox, it had only 1 edit, which was a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please determine consensus and close COIN discussion

This COIN discussion has been going on for 22 days and any COI evidence presented has long since been reviewed. I participated in that discussion and can't also close it. COIN doesn't have anything set up to routinely close such discussions. Seems that the COIN board will continue to be used until Toresbe is driven from the project or his attention diverted away from editing in mainspace. That isn't right. Would some admin be so kind as to determine consensus and close that COIN discussion. In your close, please comment on whether Toresbe has a conflict of interest and, especially, whether editors can post templates related to Toresbe and conflict of interest and whether such templates can be removed. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can COI discussions be closed only by administrators? (Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure deals mostly with deletion discussions and so is silent on the matter, though it's not a policy or guideline anyway.) If not I would be happy to review the entire section and close it later today. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

COIN discussions aren't normally WP:CLOSEd by anyone. (Which doesn't mean that you can't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (2)

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

In anyone else having this problem?

I'm one of those weirdos who can't stand the Vector skin and kept Monobook. I dunno if that matters but all of a sudden I noticed my Twinkle buttons are all gone and when I clicked on my Preferences the Gadgets tab is missing. Anyone else having the same problem? Did I miss something? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got a lot of code in your monobook.js page. I'd try clearing it temporarily. If the problem corrects, you'll know something in that code is causing it. Equazcion 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind -- see WP:VPT#Gadgets all AWOL. Equazcion 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Wish I could remember where to look for that stuff. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about sanctions of JJB and Dmcq

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

• NOTE see request to close at bottom of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor I have sanctioned has raised a concern.. At a recent ANI, I directed two editors to discontinue editing WP:SS, as it appeared they were edit warring and they both appeared to have a conflict of interest, as the guideline was a central theme in the debate. Rather than rehash the entire event, I would just link it here . It would appear that DGG and thumperward (Chris Cunningham), who later Fully Protected the page). Other editors implied agreement, even if the discussion wasn't fully format and put to a vote, and they have been notified of this discussion. I have asked previously for comment by others in the ANI. As my actions may have been in good faith but not necessarily within the letter of authority, I present it here for discussion, both the solution to the ongoing edit warring and conflict, as well as my participation and actions. I maintain that the integrity of the system must be protected, and that no editor that is currently in a heated battle that depends primarily on a particular policy, should ever go and change the meaning of that policy/guideline, or edit it in any substantial way during the ongoing dispute. This, and the edit warring that Chris protected for, is the basis for my common sense actions, rather than rote recital of any particular policy authorizing such. The ANI was brought forth by Dmcq, who appears to agree with the decision (even if it was a bit of a boomerang). John J. Bulten disagrees with the decision on several grounds. Here I present it for formal consideration, in the proper venue. In the interest of fairness, I also opened up a section for discussion of my actions in this event, and would consider the community's consensus as the final word in this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's make clear that the only thing I was opining on when protecting the page was that edit warring on it wasn't acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have refactored my comments above as not to imply anything by you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the dispute, but given the facts as recited, the word "directed" seems unfortunate at best. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Proposal that John J. Bulten and Dmcq be topic banned from editing WP:SS as long as the MMA dispute is ongoing.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Proposing a close, see bottom of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Dennis, thank you for informing me. My essential point is that I already voluntarily stopped editing the page when you asked, so when you started calling it a ban after the fact I objected to the apparent reading as if there were community support for a real sanction. Dmcq need not have been "banned" or asked to stop either, as Dmcq was not even involved in MMA until told that it was indirectly related. Accordingly, I politely request that Dennis strike the word "ban". JJB 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC) @Masem, I recognize that I am now being misperceived as trying to change policy and to bring the question to several pages in my attempts to find a resolution between two hostile camps. While I disagree, I am certainly able to not edit the pages in question while the situation cools down, to demonstrate good faith to those editors who I believe misunderstood me. I was hoping that, as someone who previously improved several of these policies without any ax to grind and who believed he was doing so again, I could find a few other experts who could provide the necessary input: and on the edit dispute in question, I was demonstrably not "changing policy", but merely copying sentences from one guideline into another, which Dmcq claimed to be synthesis but without showing where the synthesis logically arises at any point. The VPP discussion is for the good, and I am happy to wait to see how my input is received. JJB 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (the comment to which this replies may have moved:) Thanks; review is good. I should also repeat that Dmcq's concerns had nothing whatsoever to do with MMA, as he was not invited into the loop until it was mentioned (by Hasteur) long after WP:SS was in discussion; and that the "MMA dispute is ongoing" for about 5 years now by my count. Accordingly, banning Dmcq from a page he was harmoniously editing without any relation to a longstanding dispute that he made comments on only later, indefinitely until that dispute is no longer "ongoing" by whatever definition, does seem like an unnecessary tarring of everything with the MMA brush. Since there is no plan whatsoever for the MMA dispute to cease its "ongoing", I think efforts should be directed toward finding one (as I was doing). I do not have time to watch this page today. JJB 19:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Finally, though Dennis's reading of the support of others appears a bit assumptive and undiffed, I believe Dennis's action appears directly contradictory to the significant view of this editor. JJB 19:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This entire MMA thing is getting spread out into so many different policies areas by just a few editors. I wouldn't limit it to SS, but WP:N, WP:NSPORTS, and - well, actually, pretty much any guideline/policy page. They should be free to say "hey, experts on this policy, can you help provide input on this policy on the RFC for MMA?" on the policy talk page to garner interest, but not try to carry on separate discussions on the individual talk pages to change that policy to bring it into support or to prove their point on the MMA process. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• If only there was some administrators with backbones that could come in and deal with the instigators of WikiDrama that are currently specializing in MMA articles. Fair Disclosure: I am hip deep in the drama and may be causing some myself, but my intentions are to make the articles conform to the standards. I accept any chastisement or censure that experienced editors wish to direct my way. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Is this a support, oppose, or does this belong in the discussion section? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Moved and did some refactoring to reflect this (as this section wasn't there when I posted).

  As to what this is, it is a proposal to expand the topic ban to any policy/guideline page as long as the MMA aspects are undergoing review. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• It really makes no sense to topic ban editors for working on what everyone agreed at VPP was a problem that's the rule as practiced across all of wiki rather than the exception, just because it might affect some other areas. That's rather equivalent to saying that we should ban attempts at all related solutions because it might touch on a small subset of what it's trying to resolve. As for the MMA-centric part of it, this is apparently the current state of things after months of unilateral editing. Given the reception, using that as a template for similar wiki-wide entry sets seems ill-advised. Agent00f (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding Dennis Brown's conduct

• As my goal was to prevent two editors from editing the page, while still allowing others to continue editing, I welcome comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• As I told Dennis, cold-reverting the page back a couple weeks in history removed a number of improvements that were not disputed by any editor, and this has been recognized by another admin restoring the most recent (Dmcq's) version. (I accept this version for discussion because it neatly limits the dispute to the question of inclusion of 2 sentences, which can easily (?) be worked out between Dmcq and myself on the talk page during the protection period.) Accordingly, my only real conduct concern is the confusion between a request not to edit and a community-approved ban, and the cold revert. Other odd questions about Dennis's conduct, like these two named, need not result in further drama. I have corrected my initials in the subhead above. JJB 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the initials being wrong. Once your brought up the issue, I felt it was best to move it here quickly. During the whole process, I have openly invited scrutiny of my actions, and still do. Even if out of formality, or relying on WP:IAR, at the time I maintain that it seemed the best solution, and think it still is. It isn't personal as I do like you, but my rushed decision was based on protecting the integrity of our guidelines while doing the least collateral damage. If I had protected the page instead, I likely would have reverted back to that same diff, as to not give either editor an "advantage". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Easily worked out? If you could even have kept the business to the centralized discussion at VPP never mind everything else that happened I wouldn't have gone to AN/I. No thanks, I think I'll wait till the MMA business is dealt with and see if you're still interested then. Dmcq (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It's true that there was some confusion while Dmcq continued to discuss the changes to WP:SS at VPP rather than at WP:SS talk, while I responded on both pages to keep both discussions in context. I have never comprehended Dmcq's strong aversion to discuss WP:SS at WP:SS, repeated here. But to deal with this comment in context, I have no problem letting the discussion be tabled for a reasonable period, just so long as it's not the meaningless "MMA business is dealt with" crystal-ball event. If, however, Dmcq is inviting me to continue assisting in working toward MMA resolution, that can be accommodated too. JJB 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To be clear, my concern is that anyone in a dispute that might be using a guideline, shouldn't edit that guideline. I would also add that editors or admins should not make substantial (in meaning, not size) changes to any guidelines without spending a much greater amount of time on the talk page, or at an RFC. Guidelines are not regular articles, and changes can affect discussions that you weren't even aware of. If there is even a chance that someone might get the wrong idea, then any editor should exercise the caution of instead suggesting the change on the talk page, and let people who work with the guideline regularly make the decision as to add/delete or not. When there exists a reasonable claim (true or not) that there is a conflict of interest, good judgement should dictate we avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. This is why I say it is a matter of principal, and that is what guided my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So, reading through all of this, it looks like decent affirmative action by Dennis. Which JJB has now wikilawyered - I had a finger on the block trigger for him for disruption, but perhaps a stern not here will work: drop the stick, engage with the process, recognise Dennis' positive approach for what it was. --Errant 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, Dennis, I applaud you in part for bringing this so quickly for review. But if the intent was to end the dispute affirmatively you'd be better to have just argued the case on your talk page. :) --Errant 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He has brought this to the attention of other admins and in other venues, and he and I have discussed this on the talk page of WP:SS as well. I do things differently I suppose, and try to use common sense as my main policy. I'm not a fan of blocking unless truly needed, for example, even if I'm "allowed to". At this point, after he has made multiple complaints, I felt it was necessary for a review and felt that this was the proper way to address them, in a fair, neutral and open venue. If the community feels that sanctions against anyone should take place, then let it be voted here. Otherwise, he and Dcmq will be free to edit WP:SS in any way they see fit. I put this in the greater community's hands, who will be responsible for the action or inaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting another AN over an existing ANI with same involved parties and line of discussion doesn't seem helpful, especially when the editing issue appears to be resolved there. Agent00f (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• You need to actually read what is actually going on here Agent. JJB contested my actions and I was kind enough to bring it to the Admin Noticeboard for review, for his benefit, not mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like an unrelated issue which can't be properly if not better addressed in that existing ANI. Agent00f (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like an inappropriate use of roll-back to me, to revert to a version from weeks past, and to disregard positive improvements. "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes. By requesting the permission, you agree to only use the tool for the accepted purpose; any misconduct with rollback will lead to its revocation." Dennis Brown, you should know that already, shouldn't you? — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• The page you linked states fairly clearly "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. " Nobody Ent 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but are you saying that current consensus allows admins to rollback a page to their preferred version without regard to good-faith improvements made by other editors? — GabeMc (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying I rolled it back to my preferred version is patently false and offensive. It was reverted to the LAST version before the two editors began tinkering, with no regard to the actual content at that time. You are claiming I did so in bad faith, and that I had a particular interest in the guidelines, one which I have never edited. You should substantiate or retract this claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Current consensus says that we don't change archive pages away from what they were when they were archived. As such, it's virtually impossible for an edit to be an improvement, except of course for edits that restore the page after someone else edits it. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't the use of rollback on the wikipedia/guideline page the issue at dispute? What does editing archive pages have to do with it? In any case, it seems to me this whole discussion is irrelevent. The Rollback function wasn't used, Twinkle was . The primary concern with using rollback on non vandalism is that edit summary implies you are removing vandalism and this can't be changed. The default twinkle edit summary was not use, and DB made it clear why they reverted the edits, this is acceptable provided the reverts are acceptable. I have no comment on whether it was appropriate to revert the edits, but the discussion should concentrate on that aspect not on the appropriateness of the tool used and you can't answer that by looking at a guideline for the tool used. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing. So this is what Dennis Brown has to go through as an admin for a simple decision he took. I think perhaps I should set up a little Javascript that on logon checks whether I have an RfA subpage and have contributed to it. If so it should set a random password on my username so I can never logon again as I would obviously have gone gaga. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears proper for me to disengage from this part of the debate. (More than one of the above previous inputs caused parsing errors in my compiler.) If I am voluntarily not editing the page, there is no need to decide whether it's a community ban, and the question of what "MMA resolution" means is moot today and can be worked on later. So I will withdraw my request for Dennis to strike the word "ban", and respect his refactoring on a different point. My other concern (not about "rollback" of one or two edits, but of cold rollback from 27 May to 8 Apr undoing a week of consensus improvements for the sake of one unresolved insertion) has been addressed by current consensus at the protected article, so it too is moot. On the question of clarifying (not changing the meaning of) guidelines via other guidelines, I believe Dennis has neglected aspects such as my appeal to WP:SS regulars for answers (still lacking) before I made a BOLD edit and remained within BRD the whole time, but it's not necessary for me to convince him or you of these aspects. Honestly I don't know whether it's logically possible to defend against a charge of wikilawyering, and perhaps that charge should be deprecated. In closing, MMA needs not (just) conduct sanctions but meeting of the minds about overarching principles, a big picture that both camps can sign onto, and, while I accepted the risk that my exploration of that solution space might lead to being misunderstood personally, this is unimportant short-term if the VPP and other discussions begin to bear fruit. I invite Dennis and all to continue building the solution. JJB 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you agree to the points, that when a policy or guideline may be central to an ongoing dispute, an editor should either avoid editing that policy page, or take extraordinary steps to insure that any edit is clearly within consensus as to demonstrate no potential conflict of interest, I would drop the consideration of any sanctions, past or present. I tried to get you to agree to this a few times before I got a bit bold myself. It was a last resort. Again, you're a smart guy and I have no ill will toward you or MMA, but I am one of those admins that considers the principal to be as important as anything. All I wanted was to protect the integrity of the system, not to take sides, which is why I stopped both of you, and reverted back to the last edit before either of you edited. You have never given me reason to doubt your character or your word, so I would accept your statement at face value. If you would just agree to stay within the spirit of what I was trying to accomplish (no specific worded agreement is required, we understand each other on these points), I would be happy to request a close of this and the other ANI as "no action", reverting my previous stand. I brought it here because you raised a valid concern, and I was willing to put my own neck on the block as well. I don't know how much more obvious I can be that my actions were in the best of faith, are still in the best of faith, and my goals are the right goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate your overture and I can generally agree. Yes, you acted in good faith; our several disagreements are not about that, and to the degree either of us made mistakes I trust we will realize it in due time. I'll agree "when a policy or guideline may be central to an ongoing dispute, an editor should either avoid editing that policy page, or take extraordinary steps to insure that any edit is clearly within consensus as to demonstrate no potential conflict of interest"; then we can disagree on whether I took those extraordinary steps or not. (I advertised the potential conflict in my first edit to the page; I asked my guideline questions generally; I obtained only one respondent, who did not want to engage the questions directly (and who may have responded in part due to interaction with me on a different policy page); and I only proceeded under BRD when it was established that there was not substantive opposition to a bold edit.) We can also disagree about whether I have a conflict about WP:SS (I think WP:COI is about three degrees removed from this event). I appreciate and return the compliments. While it is probable we can continue working out our disagreements in spurts at user talk, the overall MMA question still has not gotten over the hump, and the current drama of Portillo's actions mentioned at ANI shows this. Medcab anyone? JJB 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would accept this, and only note that sometimes it is better to wait, even if you feel it is too long, than be bold in these limited circumstances. This is a well educated opinion, not a condition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE based on the understanding we have worked toward, it is the opinion of myself (and presumably JJB) that this WP:AN discussion should be closed as "No Action". I would consider all previous sanctions lifted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A heads-up

Admins might want to keep an eye out next week, as the folks at Anonymous have declared their intent to "wreck anything...(Formula One)-related we can find on the internet" in relation to the Canadian student protests and the Canadian Grand Prix. Given that Misplaced Pages has quite a bit of Formula One data, it might become a target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for IP editor

IP Editor 99.140.179.74 has vandalized Mark Wegner's page three times, as can been seen here, here, and here. This rises above the level of normal vandalism, as it implies that Wegner is involved in a murder, yet it provides no evidence supporting the claim. The user has been notified of this post. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 31 hours, the violation is clear enough, that I see no reason for further warnings. However, I don't think that banning is the correct action. Bans are not made on the basis of three edits. In addition they are applied to people, not IP addresses. We could in principle ban the person behind the IP address, but these can change, and in many cases there are many people who share an IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure how all that worked, but accusing some of involvement in a murder or even implying it is a pretty bad thing to do. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification for speedy delete notification

Just a quick semi-technical question. If an article is submitted for speedy delete, and another editor comes and removes the 'speedy delete' notification tag, does it still remain in the admin queue to review as a delete candidate? Someone on this board a while back mentioned that such an action would remove it from the admin queue, but I wanted to double check whether this is accurate. (No, not dealing with a specific incident; I've just seen it happen enough that I wanted to know for if and when it happens again in the future.) JoelWhy? talk 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's accurate, as removing the speedy delete tag takes it out of C:CSD. Bencherlite 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But it will not remove it from an open category listing an admin might be working on without refreshing. Agathoclea (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It is accurate in an ideal world. However category lag can sometimes affect articles even when they have been edited - I have to say this is pretty rare though. There may also be issues with caching, but I can't vouch for that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

AIV backlog

Can an administrator have a look at WP:AIV please? There seems to be quite a backlog. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD backlog

Weather must be getting nice, no one is on their computers anymore. There's also a sizable AfD backlog. In about 15 minutes when the next day rolls over, there will be 60+ AfD's that are due to close. And that's after I just spent some time closing the really stale ones. Get to work! -Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unification Church

User:Borovv and most recently another account keep reverting a part of the article I argue is unsubstantiated (reference doesn't support it afai glanced over it) and WP:POV. Do I ask for an arbitrar, or do you think it's evident enough, will you warn them? I just think the paragraph from this diff should go away: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.143.236 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• As this is a content dispute, please follow the processes in dispute resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban of Eric1985

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

We didn't really finish this discussion - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Application to End Topic Ban. To cut a long story short, Eric1985 was indefinitely topic banned from Israel/Palestine issues, primarily for running an off-wiki blog that encouraged its readers to edit Misplaced Pages to fight a perceived bias. The admin that originally topic banned him expressed indifference about ending the ban. Eric1985 has never been a hugely prolific editor and some were concerned that he hasn't amassed enough "good edits" since the ban was implemented. However the discussion ended with a suggestion from User:Jiujitsuguy to modify the topic ban as follows:

We can allow Eric1985 to start editing IP but only talk pages, discussion pages and collaboration pages but not actual articles. Give it two months. If we see good contributions and discussion, we can graduate him to editing articles.

Personally I think this is a great idea but as there were quite a few voices opposing a change to the ban earlier in the discussion I'd like to ensure we have some form of consensus before implementing User:Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. WaggersTALK 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting it a bit early aren't we? Oppose May + 6 = December 2012 Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Fifelfoo, its way to early. So I oppose. Also the wikibias canvassing site is still running, (Eric started it and then he said he gave it to someone else) I think Eric1985 should tell us which Misplaced Pages user it is who is now running the website, before we should consider any kind of topic ban is lifted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't a revisit. There are two possible ways of interpreting the previous discussion: either it didn't reach a conclusion (in which case it's right to continue it until we do reach a consensus) or it did reach a conclusion, and that conclusion was Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. (It was the last comment left, and went unopposed). So I'm afraid oppose !votes for "revisiting" too early don't wash with me. WaggersTALK 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's been over 24 hours and at this rate, this thread's going to be archived without reaching a conclusion just as the previous one did. The only reason that's been given in opposition to Jiujitsuguy's suggestion is that Eric1985 has handed over his blog to someone else and hasn't told us who it is. I'm not convinced that was ever a necessary condition for lifting the ban; any other thoughts? WaggersTALK 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as too early. As a comment, two other editors !voted Oppose with the justification that it is too early. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Passing on a request for unblock

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

I happened to come across this and it made me think "maybe this is why editors are leaving WP". See User talk:Factseducado. A relatively new editor was caught up in a brouhaha where they were incorrectly named as a sockpuppet. After some back and forth they were finally cleared of that, but now there is some drama going on where the blocked user apparently received a threatening e-mail and said he/she suspected another WP editor had something to do with it. It's hard to make perfect heads or tails of this, but from what I can see, it looks like someone who is fairly new and was a constructive contributor is being bitten pretty hard. I'm not naming any other editors or admins here so I'm not going to post notifications just so the drama can continue, but there has been an unblock request on the editor's talk page for a while and nobody has responded except for admins who are apparently involved. What I'd really like is for these kinds of things to end, where people are are blocked based on incorrect information are left blocked for some other reason that is directly related to their initial incorrect block. We really need to start looking at WP:BITE and understanding it more if we're really serious about retaining editors. In any case, in lieu of folks WP:AGF, can someone neutral and with some experience dealing with newbies who are upset at being unfairly targeted please have a look at the unblock request? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Elen is dealing with this fine. Probably best to let her get on with it. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Aschwole/User:Nuklear

This discussion came up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear. In brief, Aschwole (talk · contribs) admits to being (indefinitely blocked) Nuklear (talk · contribs). Nuklear was blocked in 2009 for copyright violations. Since his reappearance, Aschwole appears to be contributing constructively. Personally, I think they should be allowed to continue to do so, as long as they are not creating copyright violations and/or using pejorative terms. However, since they are technically in violation of the rules, I thought it would be best to open a thread at AN for discussion. TNXMan 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't having a name which is a clear homophone of asshole grounds enough for a username block... We do the same thing for clever misspellings of fuck and shit... --Jayron32 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor is also a self-confessed sock of User:Yid , so it's instructive to read the thread on that user's talkpage in which he denied knowing that "yid" was an offensive racial slur. Despite AGF, it is hard to see this stance as anything but disingenuous, and it puts the editor's choice of "Aschwole" as a new username into perspective. Further, the SPI was closed because Aschwole is editing non-disruptively, but that was the case with Yid and Nuklear as well, and the volume of warning notices about copyright problems, etc. on their talk pages argues for their really not getting what WP is about. I think an indef block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• — KC9TV 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:186.45.53.188

explicit language on this user talk page posted by IP. is this harrassment? Jawadreventon (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't meet WP:HARASS, might meet WP:NPA, is definitely uncivil, but I've given them a 31hr rest for vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rollback Privileges

Could an Administrator please remove my Rollback rights. I do not use the tool and I am rarely online/contributing. So the permission is obsolete. Thanks Arctic 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, per your request. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (Sanctions)

Resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Raheem Kassam

This is a blog relating to the Raheem Kassam article, that may be of interest for somebody who has the time to do so, related to WP:COI - unfortunately I am preparing to go on holiday. Thanks, GiantSnowman 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read this one, I doubt he meets our notability guidelines, so I've nominated the article for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 surprise!

Get ready for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's funny; this fix hasn't been implemented over there. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's because *.wmflabs.org sites don't run on the cluster, where Tim's hook function was added. I doubt it's really a big deal. ^demon 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, definitely not big, but I'm now tempted to place the "this user deleted the Main Page" userbox on my userpage :-) I thought it meant that any WMF-related wikis would have this function. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Folks, we've been eyeing and anticipating this for a couple of years, now. This is not something isolated like Pending Changes; IPv6 is global (i.e. throughout all of teh Internets) and was imminently going to be deployed here. We can't hide ourselves from its deployment in the eyes of many onlookers. Whatever bugs that come up in the MediaWiki software as a result should be dealt with quickly and accordingly, as they normally are.

  With IPv6 eventually becoming a reality, we have to again see what works for us and what doesn't. IPv6 addresses are allocated differently from IPv4, and IPv6 ranges will be harder to see (without the appropriate software tools, many of which are out there and easy to access) than IPv4 ranges, but that is something that we have to get accustomed to. We cannot afford to continue living in the past, especially with something as critical as this. --MuZemike 07:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It appears you are making counter points to an argument no one has made (at least here). I don't believe anyone has an issue with IPv6 being used in and of itself (though this is the internet and someone probably will) but rather the "oh hey guys we're turning this on in a few days" thing. It would be nice if someone familiar with the technical side (Jasper?) could make some help pages about how to deal with IPv6 addresses (blocking, rangeblocking, etc.) for admins. Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

POTY2011 round 1 banner

I am a member of POTY committee. As we have some trouble to announce with meta:CentralNotice, will you advertize Round 1 banner(below) till the centralnotice will come out (or 6 June)? Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)