Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive208

There are currently 21 deletion discussions which were opened, or relisted, more than 3 weeks ago, and are still open without having been relisted:

• Files for deletion - 1 discussion from December 29, File:Aleina Ramirez Gonzalez2.jpg
• Stub types for deletion - a total of 6 discussions, from December 11th till December 21st.
• Categories for discussion - a total of 14 discussions, from December 26th till December 30th.

It would be nice if someone could please help close all these discussions, or relist them if there is still no consensus about the result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They should not be relisted if they've been opened for that long. I'll look into them if no one else has after I finish with the item one header above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a discussion shouldn't be relisted just because it's been open for too long. In both FFD and CFD, discussions over a week old are less visable, which means that relisting a discussion in these processes will immediately make it more likely that users will comment or vote. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, deletion discussion should not remain open more than two weeks. If consensus hasn't formed by then, they should be closed as "no consensus". continuing to relist them only clogs an already clogged system. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: under what circumstances would you relist? (Declaration of interest: I nominated in a FFD which is overdue closing - is it okay for me to suggest that it be relisted? There are only two substantive comments on it, one each way, so seems to me it just needs someone to give it a casting vote.) --FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A call to arms.

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Prod changes depend on the attitude of administrators

Avanti! --TS 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal as something which is using tools we have and might be acceptable overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How about keyboards? I hope we don't actually start shooting each other over this. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I (and others) would be interested in getting the opinions of others about the appropriateness of starting a RFC/U on an editor who hasn't edited for the last 8 days. He stopped the day after the preparation of the RFC/U began, and one of his last edits was this sandbox post that seems to acknowledge that some evaluation of his editing was in the works. We are pondering about whether going ahead would be unfair in that he is not (apparently) around to respond to the concerns. On the other hand, the problems with this editor are longstanding, have been identified by multiple editors/administrators, and the editor is somewhat inclined to take breaks and then return to exactly the same patterns weeks and months later; so perhaps it would be good to get feedback (for all) to try and forestall future frustration. The full hemming and hawing about this is here. Comments welcome.--Slp1 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start here. At Cornwall and Pasty, the above user, originally using the IP 82.1.148.215 started removing all references to the UK and replacing them with "England". An old story and one that has been discussed many times. He was reverted by me and another user and a discussion was started at Talk:Pasty, during which this user continued to edit war. The edit war is one thing, and I've probably broken 3RR myself this evening in the confusion, but he also removed another user's talk page comment [1], and called me biased [2] and disruptive [3]. He also seems to have gone to my user page, picked the first-listed (completely unconnected) article I wrote and edited that in the same way [4] twice [5].

This behaviour seems to be ongoing, and this user's talk page User talk:The cows want their milk back is full of other problems and violations. Any ideas what can be done? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just add, I've gone over 3 reverts too, but the editor in question appears to be a POV warrior, using both his account and IP (I think there's one or two other IP addresses too). Any admins who remember previous England/Cornwall/Scotland/United Kingdom disruption may be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the UK can be removed completely. Everybody knows where England is. It's a bit like saying "Europe, Earth, The Solar System" and whatnot. Cornwall, England is enough. There is even a good argument for saying, simply, Cornwall. --TS 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll appreciate that that's not really the point here, given the behaviour shown by the editor in question. The discussion would have raised a change to the consensus if one was desired by enough editors. There is a lot of feeling about this point and edit wars are common. This was a consensus reached over time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Saying "Cornwall, England" upsets the Cornish nationalists and leads to edit wars. Saying just "Cornwall" upsets the English nationalists, and leads to edit wars. The "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" formula was worked out as a compromise following previous edit wars, and has remained fairly stable for a long time (until, in fact, the editor in question turned up)> DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he is still doing it [6]. How many times does he have to break 3RR before something is done here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

[7], [8]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for sticking my oar in. My comment really was off-topic for the discussion. --TS 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He has now accused me of vandalism [9]. Is this discussion in the wrong place or something? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He is now going through the articles I have worked on, doing exactly the same thing. [10], [11]. This is starting to look like harrassment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me sticking my nose in, It is a fact that cornwall is in England, if you are a nationalist or not it is true, and it is a far better term than 'United Kingdom', as not only is it a mouthful it is also a less specific reference. Its like writing European Union on there, its just too general. Theres no point crying over a Cornish Pasty Bret.

And PS, who's saying I'm a he? Stop making accusations. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The ins and outs of the England/UK debate are not at issue here. The issue is your behaviour. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, they are not YOUR articles Bret, they belong to Wikipedia no matter who wrote them. You had not included a coutry in the information on that page, i was merely improving that article, as I am intitled to. 82.1.148.215 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said they were my articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Further edit-warring [12]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong Bret, I have tried to add detailed, relevant, and correct information to articles. You have very biased views and continue to undo my edits so that the articles go back to having inadaquate and subtly biased information. I think I shall make a complaint about you. As an advanced User, could you please tell me how to do this? The cows want their milk back (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Add taunting and/or baiting to the list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Taunting? Baiting? I have entered information which i believe to be correct, and whether you are ignorant enough to see this as 'Taunting' is your choice. I asked you an honest question, and you refuse to help me. As a new user, I do not know a lot about how to do things on wikipedia, and the fact that you won't try to help is mean, lazy, and un-wikipedian. The cows want their milk back (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to rise to the bait. Maybe at some point, an admin will venture through here and actually do something about this. Having someone openly flaunt the rules on an admin notification page is a pretty sad state of affairs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring for 31 hrs - also blocked the ip. Vsmith (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How come the other two editors waging an edit war didn't get blocked Mr Smith? They would be User:Bretonbanquet and particularly User:DuncanHill. FootballPhil (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe repeatedly urging The Cows to use the talk page and discuss his proposed changes had something to do with it. That or we're not SPAs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation on TCWTMB and FootballPhil here. I've asked for checkuser, but probably it isn't even necessary in this case. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just alerting everyone that the same pattern of unhelpful activity by this user has re-emerged, this time at Saint Piran's Flag and its talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have indef'ed the editor until they indicate an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and acknowledge that there is one for the admittedly clunky use of "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" in related topics, which was a compromise which ended an edit war back in 2007. As someone involved in creating that consensus back then I suppose that I am involved historically, so I should be grateful for a review of my actions and rationale regarding the sanction - and also if someone still active in editing Cornwall project articles can find the discussion that lead to the consensus and place it on Tcwtmb's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be put on WP:CENT? I know there's already a similar discussion up there, but this is more recent and broader in scope. ThemFromSpace 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, an RFC was likely the most appropriate route to go, thus I think CENT should be updated. NJA (t/c) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just throwing this out there: per my usual, I am willing to userfy any deleted article to allow it to be properly sourced. I'll check back after a short while to ensure the needful has been done. –xeno^talk 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Gah! There's that phrase again! "the needful" - where does that come from?!? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, hold on. We have an article on it. Ignore me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That pleases me greatly. –xeno^talk 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I ignore me all the time. I'm sure that's why I'm such a happy and level headed person. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I meant the existence of the article =] –xeno^talk 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh, but that would have been the best put down ever. I laughed! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Userfication of an article that violates WP:BLP is in violation of WP:BLP. Woogee (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced non-controversial, non-negative articles do not violate WP:BLP. Fences&Windows 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the crux of the problem here, bud; no one really knows what is in all of these problematic articles. 50,000 wildcards that just simply need to be taken out of play rather than deliberated over one by one. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will naturally review the article for any glaring problems. –xeno^talk 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed. I'm no deletionist and I think we need to be very careful here about babies and bathwater but, as Tarc says, we have over 50,000 of these and I'd say it's better to nuke every last one of them than to leave just a single attack page or BLP containing defamatory information. BLPs aren't the only victims of libelous vandalism but it's a good place to start and I'm glad this is getting so much attentions now. HJMitchell You rang? 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never subscribed to the theory that the best way to save something is to destroy it. Abusing the tools to jump start a much needed discussion can be forgiven, even applauded, so long as the abuse stops once the community begins taking the issue seriously. Indiscriminate deletion is not the solution, and I think the RfC is showing that there is very little support for such a course of action no matter how big a hissyfit the usual suspects throw. In fact, deliberation over each article is what is needed, and much of what the PROD-like discussion is centred around. Resolute 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced non-controversial, non-negative articles do not violate WP:BLP If that were the case, the articles wouldn't be being deleted. Woogee (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you arriving late to this party? You might want to familiarize yourself with the recent events in this area. –xeno^talk 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. I see I'm not the only one questioning your assertion. Woogee (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

including this User. Woogee (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does faith come into it at all? And I don't recall making any assertion. I offered to userfy any article summarily deleted to allow time for sourcing. –xeno^talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your nasty comment to me is a clear example of bad faith assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What nasty comment? Someone can act entirely in good faith yet still be working with an incomplete picture of the situation. We are currently in a period of rapid upheaval. –xeno^talk 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

xeno, how does it make sense to offer to userify an article when nobody who needs it userified knows what its content is and whether it would be worth the trouble? DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This question is key, and it mystifies me. The best way to improve the enyclopedia is by building on its existing contents. If you can't see the content, you can't improve it, and you don't have a clue where to begin. Franamax (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@dgg - Isn't that kind of the point?- So that they can see for themselves if there is something of value there and source it? The alternative is having to duplicate work. –xeno^talk 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: If anyone knows the answer to this question I posed at VPT, can they reply there. I am posting this request here, since I assume it would be of interest to other projects too. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion in lieu of a full case regarding the BLP deletions request. The text of the motion is as follows:

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Please see Talk:Spheksophobia, as I have posted a comment there regarding a false positive in the spam filter. -- IRP ☎ 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No point in discussing this further here. Comments here -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:PROD_wheel_war - Alison ^❤ 09:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He stated that he intends to push his POV ad infinitum on his preferred versions of proofs, and has edit warred over the attempts to move his umpteen rehashing of the same argument to his talk page [14] [15]. Clearly the editing restrictions previously agreeed did not work as he's trying to manufacture consensus by exhausting the patience of others trough endless talk page repetition. I'm asking for an indefinite topic ban on Mathematics articles, widely construed (this includes any theoretical computer science), or for a lengthy block. The basic issue is pushing original research in the form of his own proofs to various theorems. Pcap ping 11:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? I didn't even edit the page! I just put a short summary of the proofs on the Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems for the benefit of future editors, because the old versions were archived.

A short follow-up discussion was deleted from the talk page by some other editors. This violates policy, and I restored the discussion. It is never appropriate to delete other peoples talk page comments.

Do not use this forum to intimidate editors from (briefly) discussing topics on talk pages.Likebox (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I request that editors somehow make it clear that making these types of accusations is not proper behavior.Likebox (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also aware that an administrator in a hurry could look this over, and conclude that I had done something wrong. This is very intimidating--- it is not good behavior to accuse people of "edit warring". The talk page discussion that was moved to my talk specifically said that if I did not like it being moved, it would be restored.Likebox (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

With edit summary YEAH RIGHT! you add back that:

If this isn't a promise to POV push ad infinitum, then what is it? Pcap ping 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I meant--- I didn't mean that I was going to POV push on the page, only that the dispute is not resolved. So if the old discussion goes into archive, I will restore the proofs to the talk page, because they are still not presented elsewhere. I didn't mean that I would edit the page for inclusion against consensus, just that I would talk until consensus is changed. I hope this happes sooner rather than later.Likebox (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary, just to make clear, was to express annoyance at the deletion of the talk page comments. CBM deleted the back-and-forth and moved it to my talk page. This is not something that should be done without agreement from both parties. The reason he did so is probably because the discussion is not particularly illuminating as regards the material. But the problem is that a long talk page post without a response and without a reference to ongoing back-and-forth discussions make it seem like I am a crackpot pushing original material.Likebox (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved the comments because I thought they were mostly referring to your edit restrictions, rather than to the material. I said at the time I didn't care if they were moved back, and I don't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed topic ban. At the moment Likebox is under an editing restriction visible on that page. The discussion that led up to the restriction is here.

At the time of that discussion, editors reported that Likebox was repeatedly added material to Talk:History wars after failing to get consensus to include it in the article. He has said he is now planning to do the same on Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorem. This is obviously a misuse of talk pages, which are not intended to provide an alternate forum for unsourceable material that cannot be included in the article itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First off--- the material I placed on History Wars is extensively sourced, since it is about history, and it is pointless to discuss anything historical without sources. The sources on History wars include at least 4 refereed articles and 4 textbooks. The dispute there is entirely distinct from the dispute regarding Godel's theorem, and there is no point in discussing it further.

Second--- I am under no editing restrictions! I never was. I am under advisory probation to not make edit wars, because I have gotten people pissed off in the past. That's it. Don't edit war, don't POV push. These are the normal restrictions on any Wikipedian, and I am more than happy to comply. You wanted me to be put on specific editing restrictions regarding Godel's theorem, and you did not get that. I am saying this here so that it is clear that my edits were not deemed problematic so much as the tactics I was using to get them accepted.

Third--- I know that you and Arthur Rubin oppose including a proof of Godel's theorem, if that proof is stated using computer programs. That might be consensus at the moment, but its an idiotic consensus, and I don't think it has a chance to stand in the future. Let's wait and see. Until then, if the proofs are deleted from the talk page, then the dispute is effectively buried where nobody will see it. So keep the proofs on the talk page, and wait to see if consensus shifts. That's it.

Regarding your moving comments--- I don't think you did anything wrong, and I considered leaving the comments on my talk page. But the comments might lead people to read the archive, which I think is a good thing. Also, when you are discussing mathematics, there are a lot of people who say stupid things, and I think that a back-and-forth shows that this material was considered and rejected for reasons other than mathemtical accuracy.Likebox (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

General comment on the use of talk pages. (I can recall no personal history of interaction with any of these editors, nor edits to these articles.) Article talk pages are not intended to be indefinite storage areas for material that is not presented in an article. If, after a reasonable period of discussion – with suitable recourse to RfCs, third opinions, or other consensus-building tools, as necessary – no consensus to include material is reached, then it is generally best to let the discussion end. Talk pages have archives, should reference to the material be required in the future. For that matter, the material remains in the history of the talk page in perpetuity.

In general, it is considered poor form to repeatedly 'bump' a topic from the talk page archives absent a good reason to do so. Good reasons may include a shift in Wikipedia policy, the effects of broader discussion on related topics, articles, or WikiProjects, the publication of significant new reliable sources, etc. Broadly speaking, a 'good' reason is one which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the outcome of the discussion might be changed on the basis of the new evidence or information. "I think the other editors are wrong" or variations on that theme are not 'good' reasons for the purposes of this discussion. Repeated 'bumping' of a topic without good reason (or repeated restatement of essentially the same, previously-archived points) is disruptive and should be avoided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coping my comment at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems as relevant to this discussion:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." (WP:TALK). Like any other page the talk page can be can be edited as appropriate by editor consensus and in accord with WP guideline and policies. In particular:

"Refactoring for relevance: Archiving material not relevant to improving the article ... Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page. ... Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." (WP:TALK#Others' comments).

I suspect that Carl and Arthur Rubin are of the opinion that the much of the above discussion is off-topic. I would support that view. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul August ☎ 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion of Likebox at all. However it is clear that "Pcap" is not what is referred to in law as a "Reasonable Person of Normal Sensitivity". It appears that he believes that topic bans are the solution for a lot of issues, and that he is active in discussion about the topic ban policy. If you give this type of person a hammer, they will see everything as a nail. The reason Pcap tries to abuse this policy, is that he is probably incapable of real collaboration himself. To such a person, getting rid of others is the only way to cope. It's very immature political behavior. What ever administrators are considering action proposed by Pcap, please consider whether or not his proposal is appropriate with this in mind. Pcap -- learn to collaborate, by proposing formulations for the article, not by wikilawyering. Greg Bard (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on "General Use of Talk Pages": There are cases where extensive material is deleted from the main article--- it is then advised that this material be saved on the talk page, as a courtesy to the author. In the case involved, the material was rejected by a split decision involving basically one hardheaded person for inclusion (me) with a few less committed supporters against two hardheaded editors against (CBM + Arthur Rubin) with a few less committed supporters. I was able to persuade some of the other people involved who opposed inclusion to leave because they were ignorant or because they don't like me, and others to agree that the text is accurate, and not too bad. But among the truly willing to revert or insert text, that's just one vs. two (as is all too common on Wikipedia).

The material is mathematically correct (up to typos, etc), as can be checked by anybody who knows any of the mathematics. The question of whether proofs with some novelties in presentation are to be included in an article, and this is an old, old question. All proofs, as anyone who reads mathematics can attest, are reworked to some extent. They follow the main ideas in the sources, but use different language, different formulas. This is the mathematical version of paraphrasing. A paraphrase of ill understood mathematics looks like OR to someone who does not follow the ideas in the literature very well.

I want to point out that CBM does not believe the material is OR. I believe he understands it completely, and opposes it for different reasons. I believe that he opposes it because he understands the dominant politics of the field of recursion theory. This presentation I am giving is basically 60 years old, and it has been systematically excluded from textbooks, etc, so that it is only presented informally here and there in the dead trees literature. The reason that it is excluded has to do with academic politics: there is a strong language barrier put in place. Proofs which mention computer programs have to be stated in the mathematician's preferred language, which is called "recursive function theory" which is purposefully obscure: it is designed to look as little as possible like ordinary computer programs. The reason is explicitly stated in the literature--- it is to make sure that computer science literature does not bleed into mathematics.

This separation barrier is stupid, and has a snowball's chance in hell of standing in the internet era. Unfortunately, there are older people who do not agree. So the discussion will continue (with modified text--- the current iteration is better than the last) until the balance of people shifts which could be only when the relevant editors retire.

The talk pages are extremely important for keeping this alive. I don't intend formal dispute resolution, because I am not sure that the dispute resolvers will be mathematically competent (actually, I am pretty sure the opposite is true). I also do not intend to let it drop, because this is one of those cases where a mathematical proof, made widely known, will do a lot of good.

The comments on the talk page are a few thousand characters in size, and the dispute has not gone away.Likebox (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Likebox hasn't done anything worthy of a long or permanent block. He's just leaving his obsessions on the article's talk page. What's the harm? Those of you who view that page notice that I don't react to his posts -- we who are long of tooth have learned this trick w.r.t. dealing with minor annoyances. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything worthy of even a rebuke. This type of harassment of editors regarding talk-page comments has only one goal: to shut them up. This is a form of censorship, when it is successful. I am not particularly politically savvy, but there are people who are even less savvy than I am who have gotten blocked for comparably trivial things. Please restrain the urge to block people because someone lodges a complaint, and try to put some measures to reduce the credibility of those who bring up spurious accusations of this nature.Likebox (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is particularly ill equipped in dealing with people relentlessly pushing their idiosyncratic views. User:Gregbard, who criticizes me above for proposing this, has pushed his POV on formal language for a couple of years now, trying to rewrite that article based on an obscure book that hardly has any citations. I do think topic bans should be handed out more often in cases like this. Manufacturing consensus via WP:SILENCE by wearing out editors who have other things to do than reject the same POV push the n-th time is the path to Fringipedia. Pcap ping 06:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has functioned very well inclusively up until now. You don't need to ban people for made up reasons, and if you try to do this, you should not be active here. I looked over the edits Gregbard has made on formal language, and what I see is mundane, useful information regarding applications of formal languages to formal logic. I don't see any nonconstructive contributions, and he has made many edits. Why do you believe that you should be the arbiter of who gets to speak? And why do you believe in your mission so much that you bring up requests for user-bans on such spurious accusations?

My own edits to Godel's theorem present the standard Kleene proof of the incompleteness theorem in informal jargon-free way that anyone can understand. The textbook presentations are hopelessly jargon riddled, and they say exactly the same thing. One of the core missions of Wikipedia is to de-jargon technical material, and I just happen to know what I am pretty sure is the best way to do this for Godel's theorem. I am running up against opposition because this type of presentation is taboo in mathematics (for no good reason). If you read the material I put, and you came to the conclusion that it is fringy, you need to have your head examined.Likebox (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good situation for a user conduct request for comment. Durova⁴⁰³ 07:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your responses (Pcap) support my claims. First of all "POV" means something, you don't just throw out the term when you don't like something but can't articulate why. You do not seem to understand what is POV and what is legitimate subject matter. The issue at formal language demonstrates the need for collaborative, not combative editors. After the combat stopped we were able to arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement (No thanks to you I might add). Fringipedia? Really? You have demonstrated exactly my point about you: you are not a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. Greg Bard (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please close this ridiculous request so that I don't have to be afraid of every moronic hotheaded administrator anymore?Likebox (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Likebox's unarchiving of his own proof proposal, an action that was not requested by any other editor, is a form of refactoring. As it states in WP:REFACTOR, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." If he continues to unarchive his own material against the objections of others, I believe he could be blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not unarchive anything! The text I wrote is a completely new text, written from scratch without reference to previous material, and including new language and new examples. It took a bunch of thinking to write, and it is annoying to have to defend it. EdJohnston should not be attempting to silence anybody--- he is free to respond to the new text, or to leave it alone.

The Wikipedia policy regarding material on talk pages is clear: when there is disputed text , text which used to be in the article, which isn't libelous or off-topic, then it is not correct to ask for punitive actions towards editors for including it. This is especially true considering that the new text is brief and to the point, more so than previous texts.Likebox (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also afraid that these types of bogus administrative actions will be tolerated, and will substitute for debate. There has to be some sort of way to file a frivolous action request complaint, so that people who bring up frivolous requests for administrative blocks can be prevented from doing so in the future.Likebox (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD, and any help closing these discussions would be most appreciated. Unfortunately, there are many that I can't close due to !voting. Thank you! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Justa quick note before I head off for another wikibreak. I got blocked yesterday for 3RR violation. Yes, I did violate 3RR but:

• The person reporting it made no attempt to draw my attention to it or remind me before going to report.
• The last diff was six hours old and I was actively editing much of that time, most significantly starting an RfC to resolve the dispute itself.
• The appearance is a punitive block caused by a tag-team baiting someone and running straight to the boards.
• Yes, I've been here a while and know about 3RR. Apparently having been here for over five years means I'm no longer entitled to the basic courtesy of a reminder before requesting a block.

In the old days blocks were preventive not punitive. A block six hours after the last diff, and after which the person in question has started the correct dispute resolution process (as contrasted with the other parties who have been edit-warring the first sentence of an article for some time) can only look punitive. There was nothing to prevent and would have been nothing to prevent had anyone thought to extend the basic courtesy of pointing out that I'd got carried away with the reverts (I'd have inserted {{disputed}} instead). I sincerely hope that blocking people based on stale diffs when they have already stopped reverting and initiated the correct dispute resolution process is not the norm, though it would explain why some people are so pissed off with the admin community these days.

Aside: Tbsdy summed this up admirably at Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government: "I don't believe that JzG was taking a side here, what he's basically saying is that though it may well be that Gibraltar is self-governing, the simple fact is that not everyone agrees with this position. Should we state that Gibraltar is self-governing, then Wikipedia would be taking a stance on this matter. This conflicts with our policy of neutrality." Precisely. A statement of fact has to be an undisputed fact; since it is not, even according to the sources used to support it, I removed it. The two POVs were "is self-governing" and "is not self-governing" and the truth is, as so often, somewhere in between - saying neither is more neutral than stating either as fact and the default for contentious material is to exclude it pending proper discussion and a provably neutral statement otherwise every POV-pusher in the world could insert their text of choice, source it to something and then demand that it stays in until someone finally persuades them to allow a version that complies with policy.

Right, that's that off my chest, I'm out of here for a while. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations and running around making uncivil edits in your talk page is hardly going to make your case for 'Whoa is me' much stronger. Nor is constantly going 'I've edited here for X years and I've been an admin since X' or what have you. I'd also question whether 6 hours is a stale diff. Someone edit wars and goes to sleep, that would cause a six hour+ gap. I can't say I've looked into every facet of this in depth (partly because it would involve more than glancing at the Gibraltar talk page and I just can't bring myself to do that), but this does appear to be 'I fucked up, it must be everyone else's fault'. A pity as I thought you were doing some good with what is an atrocious article atmosphere. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as I was the reporting editor (and I think it's worth getting both sides):

You've made this bad faith accusation ("Tag-team baiting someone and running straight to the boards") on ANI, AN3, here and on your talk page. I don't think it's helpful or civil and obviously I reject it - noting in passing that my proposed solution in the RFC does not call Gibraltar "self-governing" without qualification.

I didn't warn you because I didn't notice you'd got to three reverts until after the fourth, and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to expect an editor as experienced as you are to be aware of 3RR and to avoid it. I reported around fifty minutes after the last revert - which seems reasonable to me. Six hours, I agree, seems like a long time - but as Narson notes it's not that implausible. I wouldn't have argued the toss if the report had been thrown out on either of those grounds. But the fact remains that you did break 3RR. You knew the rule, and no-one forced you to break it.

I'd also note that I did take account of the RFC when considering whether to report - but you continued to revert after you started the RFC (which was called at 10:14am UTC; the fourth revert was at 11:47am UTC). If you'd stopped when you called the RFC, you wouldn't have broken 3RR - and I probably wouldn't have reported even if you had. But you didn't stop, you carried straight on. Pfainuk talk 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone labelled a "POV Warrior" and of "tag team baiting". I'd dispute some of the claims above.

• The person reporting it made no attempt to draw my attention to it or remind me before going to report. [16] Yes they did, some 5 hrs before you were blocked.
• JzG misjudged the situation completely, he made up his mind before he started and, unfortunately, sided with the disruptive editors who've plagued the article for months.
• Edit summaries like FFS, didn't help his unblock request, nor did the fact his unblock request blamed everyone else, then several foul mouthed edits after that. Nor did his suggestion for admins to act out of process and ban everyone who'd disagreed with him. Justin talk 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute, but I read it accidentally.

The blocking behavior of administrators is getting out of hand, and as a person who has been blocked several times (and unblocked once), I can tell you that it is effectively impossible to get unblocked, no matter how ridiculous the original block. This means that you could always be struck by a bolt out of the blue.

The reason is that administrators are all buddy-buddy, and nobody wants to make enemies. So when your buddy makes a block, you are not going to overrule it, even if you disagree with it.

One way out of this is to make a higher tier of administrators, who overrule others, like an appeals court. Another way is just to use the block discretion infrequently.

There are already several options for appealing a block (which I would think you'd be well familiar with given how frequently you find yourself blocked.). Please review existing policies before blathering on like this -- it only makes you look (more) ridiculous 71.139.18.249 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that these review policies are meaningful. For example, in this case, obviously a well-meaning experienced editor got sucked into a revert-vortex, accidentally violated 3RR without noticing, and realized this needs dispute resolution. An administrator reviewed the actions with too much haste, and decided that a block is appropriate.

But now, politically, no administrator is willing to call "bullshit" on the block. There needs to be sensitivity. Blocks are a bludgeon, and should be used only when somebody has no idea how to behave.Likebox (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A block causes endless political problems. Your material can lose supporters because others do not wish to be associated with an unpopular position. Further, there are always people who don't like you, who will bear false witness. A block should be used when somebody is endlessly disruptive, and there is no other way around it.Likebox (talk)

I bet if he wasn't blocked, someone would have complained that admins were going easy on him because he's a former admin, experienced editor, etc. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- tariqabjotu 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those occasion I feel sorry for admins; one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations. On the face of it a block was on the cards as he'd continued to revert after starting the RFC, he ignored the 3RR warning and when blocked lost it, rather than making a calm appeal for common sense. Even now he is blaming everyone else for what happened, even though one of the alleged conspirators asked you to over turn the block. If I may be blunt the block is arguably a correct decision, granting the unblock request may have cooled the situation but given the foul mouthed diatribe I can understand why you didn't. Personally I think the criticism of the blocking admin is unwarranted. Justin talk 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole point is that there was no warning, not even a friendly reminder. You went straight to the 3RR noticeboard and even though your comment about that was sufficient to draw my attention to the fact that I'd over reverted, six hours later, with no further reverts and having started the RfC that should have been started in the first place when the factions were engaged in the "oh not it isn't" / "oh yes it is" pantomime, I was blocked for it. I don't think I ever blocked anyone based on a six-hour-old diff with absolutely no warnings or comments whatsoever. Feel free to point out where I did that. That was my point, really - not that I hadn't made an error, I did and I put my hands up to it, but that it went error -> noticeboard -> six hours of no recurrence of the issue -> block. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Tell me how that looks any other way. Anyway, I'm supposed to be on a break so I will go now. Was I pissed off? Yes, and I still am. For the reasons eloquently noted by Tbsdy. But that isn't the point, the point is that I don't think we're supposed ot block people for 3RR based on stale diffs and with absolutely no attempt to remind them to stop before a report is made to the 3RR board. If you ever get in that position again I would suggest to you that instead of being an arsehole you make a comment first, then, if they continue to revert, report them all you like. Just imagine how it feels to someone who's been here over five years to be blocked without even the basic courtesy of a comment to remind them they are getting carried away, especially when they are making an admittedly clumsy attempt to fix a WP:NPOV violation. "Hey, you've been here too long for the minor courtesy of a warning, have a time bomb instead, it might go off any time". Wonderful, it makes you feel really valued. Now, look below, the notice on my talk page is there for a purpose, and the purpose is to stop me form berating you for being a shit while I'm still pissed off about getting rather less consideration than the average vandal. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this edit [17] by JZG not deserving of a block, when he explicitly says he is making a legal threat? Is it just lame humor, and is that somehow exempt from Wikipedia:No legal threats? Is he quoting a post from someone else? Are there different sets of rules for different editors? Edison (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He was pissed off at the place at the time, and wanted someone to block him. See WP:BLOCKME. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an old Wikipedia joke; see this. NW (Talk) 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this DRV? The DRV has run for a full week. It has been rather heated and is now veering towards a possibility of edit warring[18][19][20][21].IMO, everything that could be said there has already been said, several times over, and it is time to close it. Nsk92 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And one more[22]. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Shereth 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed. Shereth 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I only hope the next time it gets nominated somebody does the right thing and excludes all the usual suspects from both sides of the EEML issue from it. That's the only way a reasonable debate will be possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, including User:Nsk92, who requested that this debate be closed. I welcome your participation with a sense of relief, and hold no animosities against anybody who acted in good faith at this DRV. But, would you please follow up on your decision and remove the residue DRV flag from the article itself. Thank you in advance. -- Poeticbent talk 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally I was removing the flag and came here to see the request. Nice timing :) Shereth 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. -- Poeticbent talk 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing is sure - when this will be renominated someone needs to make sure that Poeticbent refrains from attacking and smearing those who argue for a deletion, and those involved in the EEML case stay away from the deletion discussion. It is of course a disgrace to see how easy it is to disrupt and derail a deletion discussion, but then there are worse articles than this one here on Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not knowing this by now, but who, or what page, is responsible for updating sitenotice banners? For example, when I sign on today I see a banner soliciting my attendance at the January New York wikiconference, which is a great thing except that the conference was yesterday.... Is there a centralized place for handling these matters? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages might be a good place to start. I haven't seen the NY wikiconference banner, though I do see the Strategy Task Force recommendations and the Steward Election notice. Maybe someone caught it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have or know the exact text? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should look here. The full list of notices is here. Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairly sure NYB is talking about the Geonotice. Tim Song (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Tothwolf is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

• User:JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

• User:Miami33139 and and User:JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing.

• The parties in particular, and other editors generally, are reminded to observe at all times Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on dealing with harassed editors and on handling conflicts of interest.

• Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this