Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 19 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 88 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 47 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 29 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 2 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	10	0	10
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	41	0	41
AfD	0	0	20	0	20

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Redshirt

(Initiated 50 days ago on 16 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 294 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 10 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 5 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle

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

---

I have never brought a situation to AN before, but the situation with User:Born2cycle cries out for a remedy. He is the very definition of a tendentious editor as described at WP:Consensus#Tendentious editing: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." The section WP:REHASH might also have been written with him in mind. His main interest at Wikipedia is article titles.

For background, Born2cycle has been brought before the community on two previous occasions that I know of. The first was a case at AN, specifically about him, January 19-21, 2012, suggesting that he be topic-banned from discussions about requested moves; the result was that he promised to improve his editing pattern, and the request for a topic ban was suspended. The second was an ArbCom case about a larger issue, opened in January 2012 and closed in March, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision, with one of the results being "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." I was not involved in either of those cases and was not aware of them until recently.

I have engaged with Born2cycle about the convention WP:USPLACE on numerous occasions. He is determined to overturn this convention and replace it with a "no unnecessary disambiguation" policy, and for years his relentless pursuit of that goal has dominated every related discussion or move request. The current case is here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Request for comment. A very recent previous example is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names. An example from last August is at Talk:Beverly Hills, California; he didn't notice the discussion until after it had been closed, whereupon he declared the close "premature" and immediately launched a new discussion on the topic so he could participate.

In the current case, as in all previous cases, he has dominated the discussion both in terms of number of posts (hopefully someone with the necessary tools can provide statistics) and in terms of number of words. He challenged commenters who disagreed with his position, arguing with their rationales and demanding that they respond to his criticisms. If someone did respond to his points, he dismissed their response as "WP:JDLI",[2] [3] no matter how reasoned and policy-based their response was. If someone wanted to discuss something other than his points, he dismissed their responses as "filibustering".[4] He insists that his interpretation of titling policy is the only correct one, and repeatedly says that the issue will continue to be "contentious" and "unresolved" until it is decided in accordance with what he believes to be policy.[5] [6] Numerous people at the current discussion found his attitude problematic.[7] [8] [9]

The requested statistics showing B2C's domination of the talk page in question are here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

He disrespected editors who disagreed with him. Example: "I realize no change is possible here also until enough finally realize how silly their position is."[10] He later attempted to "apologize" for that comment by saying "If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it."[11] He also remarked that "blind conformance with the City, State convention" is the "hobgoblin of the little minds" who support the current convention.[12]

After he had a particularly contentious exchange with another editor, I posted a reminder of his past issues and his promise to change his editing style. (Full disclosure: I also called him "insufferable".)[13] His response in its entirety was "And... we're back to more filibustering!"[14] He then posted a note at my talk page, where he accused me of "disruptive editing," and copy-pasted all my contributions to the discussion (which I welcome anyone to review).[15]

Somebody suggested that he "take a breather" from that discussion,[16] and when he did, the discussion immediately dried up. There have been two three four additional !votes, but no further discussion. It was obvious that his participation had been the only thing propelling the "controversy". (Later comment: the fact that people are continuing to !vote, without additional discussion, since B2c stopped posting suggests that this kind of RfC works BETTER without all the verbiage and argumentation.)

At the same time, he has apparently been engaged in similar behavior at an RM discussion, Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2. I was not following that discussion, which resulted in a note about "unhelpful and disruptive behavior on your part", posted on his talk page by User:Huwmanbeing. The comment deplored "your tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own", and concluded "Editors contributing in good faith to an RfC or RM shouldn't face being drowned out, nor face having their statements persistently pursued or dismissed, and I'd ask you to please keep this in mind."[17]. Born2cycle's reply did not acknowledge any problems with his behavior, and implied that the only basis for complaints about him is "people who are involved in disagreements with me".[18] Joining the conversation, I warned him I was considering taking him to ANI, and he replied by once again accusing me of disrupting the USPLACE discussion. His second reply to Huw was to deny any disruption on his part, and express puzzlement as to what Huw could possibly be talking about.[19]

He has written (and links to in discussions) an essay, Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, in which he dismisses as "stonewalling" virtually all arguments in defense of the status quo (in his view, even good faith arguments in favor of the status quo are likely based on "denial" and "rationalization"), and pre-emptively defends himself against accusations of tendentious editing and TLDR posting.

It seems clear that he has NOT changed his editing style from the problems that brought him to AN a year ago and caused him to get a warning from ArbCom, and he has no insight into why his approach to editing may be considered problematic. The question is, what to do about it? There are various options.

OPTION A. Topic-ban from move discussions (and possibly RfCs at policy pages as well, such as the discussion I described above). This was the original proposal made at AN last year, suspended when he promised to change. I am reluctant to propose this, because titling is his main focus at Wikipedia, and he has done productive work in this area. However, it may be that nothing less will solve the problem.

OPTION B. Limited topic-ban for move discussions (and possibly for policy RfCs as well). This could take a form such as: he could make ONE comment, stating his opinion on the proposal at issue and his rationales. But he could not follow up or engage with other editors, because that is when he gets tendentious.

OPTION C. Warning and promise to change. That didn't work last time.

OPTION D. Warning and promise to change, with supervision. One or more admins would keep an eye on his posting patterns, and if he continues his problematic editing they could issue a topic ban or other recourse without further discussion.

OPTION E. No warning or finding against him.

I apologize for the length of this nomination, but it's a longstanding problem and I wanted to be thorough. I solicit the community's consensus with regard to this editor and will respect any decision. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If I were to choose one of the options above, it would be option B, a limited topic ban where he could express his opinion but could not challenge the opinions of others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a pretty TLDR opening statement, but I would suggest to you that noticeboards generally do not do a good job at handling long-term behavioral issues and they certainly don't do a good job at picking between five differebt options. I would suggest WP:RFCU, a process developed specifically to handle complex issues with user conduct. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  MelanieN's coming here is partly due to me - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Advice?. My general view of RFC/U is not especially favourable, largely because it has no power to actually do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Option B, or A as second option -- since he's already been warned at ARBATC that his contributions must reflect "higher tolerance for the views of other editors", and your diffs above show this has not occurred, action should be taken. I don't see anything wrong with having the discussion here, but you might want to consider WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should the discussion not determine a strong consensus in any particular direction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A, or B as second option. When you're persistently disruptive in a field, avoid being banned by promising to start behaving, and continue being disruptive, we should implement the ban that was avoided in the first place. Someone who persistently advocates a bad idea against consensus is attempting to harm the encyclopedia, and someone who persistently advocates a good idea against consensus is trying to game the system. Regardless of which it is, the disruption needs to be stopped. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A as B2C's behavior is long-term, per Nyttend above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd accept Option B as well, if that's where consensus is going. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option F - if you're bothered by B2C's comments, ignore them. There is no consensus at WP:PLACE, especially with WP:USPLACE. I did not raise the current RFC proposal. The results of the survey so far clearly show, again, that there is no consensus (while a few more currently oppose, over 10 editors support the proposal - it's not like I'm the only one). Last I checked, the way we develop consensus on WP is through discussion; discussion among those who are interested in whatever issue it is. That's what has been going on at the RfC. When it was suggested that my contributions have been too much, I immediately stopped participating, as requested. My last edit there was last month.

  As to Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2, the only complaint has been from the one person most heavily involved in the position that disagrees with mine. Please review it. My behavior there is not out of line. Just because I express disagreement, does not mean I do not listen to or do not respect the views of the others. To the contrary, I listen carefully, I explain what my understanding is, and why.

  Is the purpose of WP:TE to muzzle people we disagree with? I ask, because that's how it's being used here.

  On my talk page I asked how WP is being disrupted by my behavior[20]. Instead of anyone answering there, this AN was started, still without an answer to my question. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called "filibustering". It's used several times on this very page, and I believe you're familiar with the term already. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume you're not conflating "any large amount of discussion" (regardless of purpose or motivation) with "filibustering". Filibustering is using discussion specifically for the purpose of delaying or avoiding decision-making. That's disruptive, of course. If you have an example of me actually doing that, please show me where, and identify what decision I was trying to delay with discussion. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm conflating nothing, your attempts to blow smoke notwithstanding. Your "question" -- such as it was -- was answered, and, as is usual with you, you didn't like the answer and thought that a blizzard of words would obscure that. Pretty much a good illustration of your problem, actually, so thanks for helping. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Referring to "filibustering" to the question, "What, exactly, was disrupted [by my behavior]?", conveniently without specifying what progress was impeded where by the alleged "filibustering", is like responding with "granite" to the question, "What is the largest mammal on earth?". It's not an answer to the question. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, please see my response to your "question" on your talk page. (Full disclosure: my response was posted there AFTER B2C raised it again here.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, given that one of your bits of bad behavior is constantly demanding to be told what you're doing wrong over and over again, indulging in your latest round of WP:IDHT would be a mug's game. Especially since your opinion about whether I've proved anything to YOUR satisfaction is completely irrelevant, since it's not your decision to make here. But tell you what: you explain, exactly, how progress was "impeded by the alleged 'filibustering'" where YOU used the term, then I'll think about it. But not very hard. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refer to my questions/requests for clarification as demands. Yours are not demands, and neither are mine. But, for the record, when I accuse someone of filibustering, I will back it up, if requested (at least as soon as I notice the request; I did not see this request until now).

The comment which I characterized as "more filibustering" was one of dozens made by MelanieN in that RfC proposal discussion that did not address the proposal, in an obvious and undisputed effort to avoid discussing the proposal itself by trying to get the RfC closed. The discussion about the substance of the proposal is much more difficult for others to follow and contribute when it is riddled with fits and starts of non-substantive discussions. I tried to isolate these unrelated disruptive tangents with sub-sections, where possible. This particular comment, contrary to WP:FOC, focused on me and my allegedly problematic behavior. It belonged somewhere else, like on my talk page, or here on AN, not on a policy talk page, where it disrupted efforts to focus on the substance of the proposal. In contrast, when I alleged that MelanieN's behavior was disruptive, I did it on her talk page[21], not on the WP:PLACE talk page. But, then, I wasn't filibustering. I had no interest in avoiding that substantive discussion, and don't filibuster (or stonewall, for that matter), even when I favor the status quo. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1

• Option A. Given that B2C's behavior is long-standing and repeated, and that previous warnings, a threatened topic ban, and even promises of reform have failed to curb it, I think that option A is the only path likely to avoid further continued disruption. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A. Period. Reading the pages will make your eyes bleed. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, reading the pages is also the only way to fairly evaluate the situation. Are you encouraging people participating here to not do that? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reading deficit? Because it would take a massive one to generate that conclusion.
    • To help you out: 1) the statement "Reading the pages will make your eyes bleed" is a description of the problem. 2) You are the cause of the problem. 3) Therefore, topic-banning you will solve said problem.
    • If that's not clear, I could translate it into Pig Latin for you. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Excuse me for saying something, Calton, but I don't think this approach is helping the discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

        I'm not playing his game here: if wants to make up stuff about the plain English I wrote, he can expect pushback. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A would certainly help WP work more smoothly. B2C's usual mode is essentially filibustering, and generally acting on the assumption that if his voluminous points are not all refuted to his satisfaction, then he should get his way. The energy he pours into titles and related policy therefore requires a greater effort from others to try to restrain him. I don't know what Melanie means by "he has done productive work in this area", as I consider all the things he managed to push through at WP:AT over the last several years to be destructive, diminishing the consideration of any of the titling criteria besides conciseness. He's at it again, attacking WP:USPLACE shortly after losing a big RFC there, trying to make all city article titles as concise as possible. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I have sometimes asked his opinion on how to title a particular article and found him helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• As a matter of principle, prefer Option B over option A. But in Option B, allow a brief specific answer to any specific question, with answers to questions requesting elaboration to be made on the questioner's usertalk page. Brevity in responses and followups is a likely helpful solution for someone accused of verbosity and tendentiousness. I advise B2C to commit to attempting this voluntarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but FWIW, option D sounds reasonable, though it requires that someone "mind" this editor to some extent. Option A might work better, or a variant of it that focused on particular article naming topics that B2C has been tendentious about. (an expandable list, should the tendentiousness spread). Option A, while probably frustrating at first, would be less likely to feel oppressive/creepy, since B2C wouldn't be being followed around by a watcher. Option B, even as clarified by Smokeyjoe, sounds complicated. I have basically nothing but a vote of no confidence in AE, an ArbCom more generally, on AT/MOS topics until the applicability of and sanctions available under WP:ARBATC are clarified, either in the ongoing WP:ARCA request or otherwise (nothing against the arbs personally, of course; it's a procedural clarity problem). So AN does seem like the right forum. The problem here, to me, with B2C is that this editor was already a WP:AE and WP:ARBATC named party and subject to restrictions, and also the beneficiary of a reprieve from some restrictions, but only on the basis of promises, that are now broken. Lots of people at lots of pages have been more than patient enough with Born2Cycle's pattern of WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAPBOXing/WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, however you want to look at it. [My stalking and harassing WP:WIKIHOUNDs take note: I have said nothing personalizing about B2C, and am addressing the user's editing pattern, as presented by the evidence above, not the editor personally.] — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • However you want to look at it? Is that another way of saying surely there is some rule somewhere that B2C is violating; let's not bother with finding out exactly which one and how he has breached it?

    It is my understanding that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX are about discouraging importing external politics into Wikipedia. To apply them to internal WP politics (what guidelines/policies should or shouldn't say) makes no sense.

    I categorically deny WP:BATTLEGROUNDing - I normally pay almost no attention to who is commenting, only to what is said.

    I think this illustrates that there is no actual guideline/policy to which my behavior does not adhere. That does not mean there is no problem, but that sanctioning me is unfair, until that behavior is properly recognized and described in writing in a policy that can be fairly applied to everyone. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

    • I obviously mean by "however you want to look at it" that all of those policies and guidelines (and more besides, e.g. WP:GREATWRONGS) address the same behavior: tendentious editing (which has already been pointed out to you is not just an essay, but part of WP:CONSENSUS policy itself in shorter form) to advance a personal agenda that one is championing. Doing so is a violation of WP:Disruptive editing policy. Do you agree that you are not magically exempt from that policy, or did you have some more wikilawyering to browbeat us with first? Also, the abundant evidence already cited shows that you do in clear fact have a tendency to criticize the editor not the edit, so your main defense here is already contradicted. Simply repeating it as if it hadn't been is fallacious. The fact that you've responded to virtually everything here with haughty, dismissive denials and tortured rationalization, as if all commentators on your behavior are just crazy, is itself problematic. So is the fact that your editing is so agenda-based that you feel compelled to post a FAQ about your agendas. Try editing from a neutral point of view instead. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I too would prefer D, but I can't see much chance of it working (and am not volunteering for the job). Otherwise, I'd go for Option A with B as second choice. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A. Discussion is vital, of course, but it is very difficult to have productive discussions with B2C, and this is a longstanding problem involving many editors. About 73% of his nearly 20,000 edits are on talk pages -- which in itself is not necessarily negative, as all editors are different. But considering the difficulties that have frequently appeared on his own talk page over several years, and the fact that a year ago he promised to change but doesn't seem to have done so, I am not sure what would really help aside from option A. Omnedon (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option B: I don’t think silencing B2C is appropriate as suggested by Option A, but I do think limiting him to stating his position once without the license to challenge and essentially berate anyone who disagrees with him is warranted. The following is typical of his style: Note to the closer: If you are about to close this discussion as "no consensus", I urge you to review the sordid history of the debate over the title of the main article, and to not make the same mistake that multiple closers made there year after year - ignoring the strength of the arguments supporting a move, and instead essentially counting !votes, and closing such discussions as "no consensus". That happened at least 7 times over at least 8 years, before logic and reason finally prevailed. Don't let that happen here. Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [22] He thus threatens any closer who makes a decision contrary to his position. In my experience it is not an idle threat either, as he will take follow-on actions to essentially bludgeon admins and the community to comply with his position. Giving B2C continued license to behave this way will continue to disrupt the community.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B (broadly considered; i.e., if the same matter comes up again, he is not allowed to comment even once, except perhaps to refer briefly to a previous comment.), or possibly Option A. It's been shown options C E F do not work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B as first choice, Option A as a second choice. B2C has shown that he's not willing to accept consensus once it is decided and is instead willing to overwhelm Wikipedia with his feelings on matters of article titles, especially as it relates to U.S. placenames, until through sheer power of will, he can discourage participation from others rather than change consensus. That's the definition of tendentious editing, and while I don't see the need to prevent him from giving is opinion, once, on any discussion, the incessant badgering and WP:IDHT repetitiveness of his involvement in these discussions needs to cease. --Jayron32 17:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B. I'd prefer D but who's going to do it? b2c makes good points in move discussions. But, unfortunately, he does have the tendency to keep making them :) Hopefully, option B will give us the best of both worlds. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  After reading some of the comments below (ErikHaugen, PBS, etc.), I should add that I agree that B2C generally makes good points and should definitely not be silenced. The caveat is that he can be excessively persistent, almost (if not quite) to the point of tendentiousness. There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view but, if you keep doing that after a consensus has been established, that can be very frustrating. If b2c voluntarily agreed to back off when he's losing an argument, that would be perfect. But, I note that that's already been tried. With some trepidation, I'm willing to serve as his "time to shut up" mentor for option D if that's something people are willing to consider. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option B which should hopefully allow him to comment without the IDHT and filibustering problems, and only if that does not work, then Option A. Black Kite (talk)
• Option G, trout-wacking all around. As can be seen here, the vast majority of the comments come from B2C and the three next most prolific contributors. Surely blaming B2C alone for tendentious editing is not the most fair approach; the opposition is guilty of the same sin just as much (actually, slightly more). If any measures are to be taken against B2C, they should be applied equally to his most vociferous opponents. But I still think all-around trouting is the best outcome here. Heck, trout me as well for the good measure—I certainly could have made fewer (and shorter) comments there!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 19:18 (UTC)
  • Or not. Defending policy and guideline pages against concerted POV pushing against already-established consensus is not what is meant by tendentious editing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure what to make of this comment. Depending on one's angle of view, either side can be seen as defending policy and guideline pages against concerted POV pushing against already-established consensus. It's precisely because such "defending" spun out of control (with mutual accusations of POV-pushing, some subtler than others) a thorough trout-whacking is in order. Whatever definition of "tendentious editing" you use, both sides are guilty of it roughly equally.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 13, 2013; 14:40 (UTC)
    • It appears that about 35% of the edits to WT:PLACE are by B2C; the vast majority are by B2C and the next three contributors. I'd like to see the statistics by bytes added, though; I suspect B2C has the vast majority all by himself. The fact that he continues making the same arguments repeatedly in both (active) RfCs doesn't help matters much, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The statistics by bytes have been provided below, under the section titled "Central issue? Is "arguing a point to death" necessarily wrong?" --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment.
  1. WP:TE is an essay and is not grounds for sanctioning.
  2. WP:DE, specifically WP:IDHT, applies to situations where someone has "perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I realize many responding above believe that applies to me. Please let me explain why I believe it does not.

     One of my long-held positions is that US city titles that require disambiguation should be disambiguated with parentheses (e.g., Portland (Oregon) instead of Portland, Oregon). However, I have not argued this in years because I know community consensus disagrees. I know that arguing that would be disruptive, so I don't.

     Discussions at Talk:Yogurt persisted for years and years (and started long before I got involved; see Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory, which I wrote). Every time the issue was surveyed there, the result was, apparently, "no consensus". This went on for years, and so did the endless discussions, until all the arguments were presented in a way that they could be weighed against each, and I presented the history of the situation. Finally, the article was moved, and the issue was resolved. My point was I did not perpetuate a dispute there (or anywhere else) by sticking to a viewpoint "long after the consensus of the community has decided [to move on]", because there was no such consensus about that in that situation.

     The situation is similar at WP:USPLACE. I never bring up the issue there. Others do. And every time I am not the only one who favors change. Yes, there is no consensus to change, but there is also no consensus to keep, so there is no evidence that community consensus is to move on.

  3. People don't like how much and how often I participate in some discussions, especially (but not only) if they disagree with my position. I get that. But unless and until that, and just that, is explicitly recognized as disruptive behavior that is not tolerated by the community, I should not be sanctioned for it.
  4. I would be delighted to participate with any and all of you in an effort to add something to WP:DE that would describe the behavior that you seek to discourage, stated in objective terms, and get consensus for its inclusion in WP:DE. It could be as simple as saying that posting more than a certain number of times to a given discussion is a sign of disruption. I will of course abide by any such consensus supported general rule; but it's entirely unfair to expect me or anyone else to adhere to "special" unwritten rules invented specifically for that person, and not generalized and specified in writing for all to follow.

  Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2Cycle: Small note regarding your first point. Although, WP:TE is indeed an essay, it is elucidating a point in the consensus policy:[23]

The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

Crazynas ^t 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Crazynas. I admit to having editorial goals (see my user page and FAQ linked there). But I deny that the pursuit of these goals is continuous. For example, one goal of mine is to bring uniformity to USPLACE consistent with how other articles are titled, particularly other place titles (disambiguate only when necessary). But my efforts towards that goal are not continuous, which is a necessary characteristic for this section to apply (imagine if it simply said "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive" - WP talk pages would be riddled with violations - that is, the "continuous" aspect must be present for the goal pursuit to be problematic). There are breaks in my editing towards that goal that are multiple months if not years long. It's true that whenever someone else raises the topic, I usually if not always jump in, and, arguably, with passion (comparable to what I'm bringing to this discussion now). But I think "aggressive" is overstating it (am I "aggressive" here?).

I also would like to bring your attention to these key words: "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except...". Do you believe that there is a "consensus" which I refuse to allow? If so, what consensus is that, where was it established, and how am I refusing to allow it? Again, even at the RfC proposal in question, it's still open, and there are substantial numbers on both sides... no consensus there... Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Clarification about "continuous". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was really just pointing out that editors that argue that you are tendentious have a policy basis. My comment wasn't intended to show bias either way regarding your behavior, although from my brief look it takes (at least) two to tango. Crazynas ^t 00:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. My point is that merely being "tendentious" (in the pure dictionary sense) is not enough to establish policy basis, not that that means there is no problem. Besides, TE is obviously intended to apply to inappropiate pushing of external views - like someone who tendentiously promotes a pro-life or anti-abortion view on WP articles and talk pages. I don't think it was intended to apply to views about internal political issues. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that consensus is a principle intended to support the fourth pillar. Crazynas ^t 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think consensus and related concepts are fairly well defined? I do.

As to the fourth pillar, I intend for all of my interactions to be respectful and civil. I know some do not agree that is true of all of my interactions, but I find I'm usually misunderstood when people hold this view. And some people seem to react to the expression of almost any disagreement as being inherently disrespectful or uncivil. It makes it very challenging to develop consensus once you're viewed as being disrespectful or uncivil. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• E—I'm just not seeing it. I've read over several of these pages that MelanieN linked to and I don't see anything terribly objectionable. B2C obviously cares about these issues and is willing to comment on them whenever the opportunity arises, but everything is on-topic and helpful for the flow of the argument, etc. B2C is not starting the same SNOW discussion over and over again in different forums, wall-of-texting, or doing anything along those lines that is terribly objectionable or disruptive. A lot of the responses from B2C are in response to attacks, so those oughtn't be sanctioned. Sheer volume isn't something we're going to ban for, is it? . What I *am* seeing in these discussions is MelanieN needlessly confronting B2C, personalizing the dispute and adding heat to the discussion. HaugenErik (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I think the kinds of discussions that B2C is being accused of disrupting have a tendency to go like this: A proposal is made (not by B2C), then many people (including B2C) add support or oppose bullet items with short (or not so short) arguments to back up the position. Occasionally, someone makes an indented reply, and there is much back-and-forth as arguments/issues/policies are hashed out. Later, a newcomer makes a new bullet with an already-"refuted" argument (who has time to read everything already written, after all!). Now, many would be content to leave that alone, but B2C (and many other people, including some in this discussion) will reply to the new post with either a pointer or a summary of the refutation: example. This may happen many times during an RFC or RM, as many newcomers continue to weigh in. Does anyone see a problem with this? I don't, and I want to be sure that any outcome of this discussion does not condemn this kind of thing under the guise of "B2C is causing drama again". If we're objecting to B2C's behavior other than this kind of thing that I've described here or responding directly to MelanieN's/etc accusations, can someone clarify this for me? HaugenErik (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction or restriction Born2Cycle is disruptive for commenting on an RFC started by TBrandley (talk · contribs) which isn't even close to an obvious consensus??? Lots of folks support the RFC, and, as HaugenErik mentions above, multiple editors are addressing B2C personally; so personal replies are the logical response. NE Ent 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It's fine to support an RfC, and fine to comment. Neither of those things are specifically the subject of the ANI. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to elect to comment for now. B2C getting involved in a topic tends to limit participation by others. Add to that the lengthy discussions and many editors find it impossible follow and comprehend. That can create a case where decisions are made without many really understanding the discussion. Or maybe a better comment is most editors don't have the time to read a novel to make decisions. I must acknowledge that over the last few years, B2C and I have been on opposite sides of many issues. If some type of edit restrictions were decided on, it might make discussions on policy and guidelines shorter and allow better participation by other editors. If that is a desirable outcome, then so be it. Does anyone know what percentage of B2Cs edits are in article space? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• 15.19%. The largest part of his contributions are on article talk pages (38.66%), followed by Wikipedia talk (25.92%). [24] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• A, or B as second option because of filibustering across countless move discussions. Jonathunder (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option E - While the recent discussions regarding US place names have been quite long and frequent, I don't think silencing Born2cycle or otherwise limiting his ability to contribute to discussions is a good option. The repeated discussions (which are rarely started by B2C) go on and on because B2C makes points over and over again and a few other editors respond to (and disagree with) all of his comments over and over again. I completely agree with Ezhiki's point above; if these discussions are getting "out-of-hand," it is because of B2C and other prolific editors who mostly oppose B2C's views. As someone who has participated (albeit briefly) in many of these RfCs, I have noticed that B2C has become an easy target for the opposition - silencing him just doesn't seem like a fair or necessary option. Cheers, Rai•me 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option E See here (it is in a collapsed boxYog(h)urt), here and here. I have found over the years that whether B2C are on the same side of an argument or different sides, he is responsive to arguments based on policy and guidelines. His arguments are usually based on guidance and policy and his verbose mode is engaged when he is addressing arguments of the "ME TOO" type, where the persons saying "me too" are supporting a position that comes down to "I don't like it", and it I think it is not unreasonable to request that such positions are justified via policies and guidelines because of the wording of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. One of the problems that we have is that closing admins too often close RfCs, AfDs and RMs by treating opinions as votes, and while that continues to be the case, interested parties that hold different POVs will continue to question the opinions of others in the way that B2C does. -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have become very concerned over the last year in the number of cases I have seen (usually after they are closed) where parties to long running disagreements are trying to get people they disagree with banned. There is a quote in the Terrorism article that I think is appropriate when slightly modified:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: tendentious [sic] is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

As I have said several times before I think that Wikipedia processes such as this AN is an area where Wikipedia is badly broken. It can deal with new editors quite efficiently, but for high profile editors such as B2C, it is nearly impossible for an AN or ANI to deal with them fairly. This is because an AN, ANI (or user RFC) process involves editors acting as prosecutors judges and executioners, or defenders, judges and exoneraters. The current process reminds me of Members of the House of Lords trying one of their peers, before the committee of the Law Lords was created (Lord Clifford's trial (1935)). -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option E: Agree with PBS. LittleBen (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Just to note that all but one of the expressions of support for B2C came after he called attention to this discussion (in a neutral way) at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Shall B2C be topic banned? . --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  MelanieN As it happens I am an administrator. Does surprise you (or any one else?) if I had this page on my watch list (along with severl 1000 others). But even if I had come here from the link you gave, would that be a reason besmirching my good faith? If not, and you have already said "he called attention to this discussion (in a neutral way)" why bring it up here? Given that you initiated this section did you consider that others would see your posting as neutral? Did you read what I wrote above about "prosecutors, judges and executioners", or are you just being tenacious in presenting you POV about B2C? The last phrase was inserted make the point about tenacious being used on Wikipeida talk pages like terrorist is in the popular press -- it may be true, but even if not it is a really good attack word with the advantage of a woolly fussy meaning As you have made this comment, I now think you have opened the door to my commenting on your initial posting to this thread. Do you really think that natural justice is served by the prosecutor listing and thereby framing a set of options as possible sanctions against the accused? Or would natural justice be better served if you had brought you complaint and the a list of possible sanctions was constructed by a disinterested third party? -- PBS (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  I am perfectly happy to see options proposed by any disinterested third party, or for that matter anyone (Born2cycle himself offered Option F, "ignore me", and Ezhiki offered option G, "trouts all around"). I simply thought it would be a useful way to frame the discussion to offer a complete range of options, including "topic ban" (which I did not recommend, but which was the recommendation discussed and suspended at ANI a year ago), three less drastic possibilities, and "take no action." If you think I left out any options, or would prefer a different framing entirely, feel free to propose. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  P.S. You need to understand: I would never have brought this discussion here if it was just a matter of how I and a few other people feel about his editing style. I brought this up because of B2C's past history of threatened sanctions at AN and a warning from Arbcom. IMO he has not lived up to the promises he made here and has not heeded Arbcom's warning here. That's why I provided such (possibly TLDR) detail in my nomination - so that people could compare his current postings to his previous promise and warning, and decide if he is living up to them or not. To me, and I suspect most Wikipedians, ignoring an Arbcom warning is a serious matter demanding community evaluation - and that evaluation is what I am seeking. That's why I titled this " Continued tendentious editing" - there's a history here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I would support what Melanie is saying. This is the result of a long-term pattern of behavior, not a simple disagreement among editors on a specific issue. B2C has been warned in the past, and gave a list of seven ways in which he would change, but the changes (if any) are not at all obvious, at least to me. Several of the editors commenting here were not involved in the two recent RfCs at WT:PLACE, but still recognize that there is a problem. Omnedon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I must not have made myself clear (or you two clearly think I am more stupid that I think I am) as I was able to read the section including the opening statement, and I think I was able to glean the information from the earlier posts in the section, that you reiterated in your replies! All my questions in the paragraph that starts "MelanieN As it happens ... " had nothing to do with the right or wrong of B2C behaviour. The first part of my posting that starts "MelanieN As it happens..." was in response to MelanieN's "Comment Just to note..." and in it I asked some specific questions about that specific posting to which no direct reply was given. The second half (that starts "As you have made this comment ...") asked some specific questions about MelanieN's construction of the initial posting to this thread and whether it construction was appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Your questions seemed to be directed specifically at Melanie, in response to her comment. I simply supported her later statement and was not attempting to answer you. Having said that -- I see no problem with the comment she made, which you questioned; it was simply informational, and doesn't seem to draw any conclusions, nor to question your good faith or anyone else's. Do you feel her comment was directed at you? It looks like a general comment, as it has a bullet at the same level as all the other comments. Omnedon (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  In fact, PBS, I was specifically NOT talking about you. I was talking about "expressions of support for B2C," that is, people choosing Option E. In your comment you did not choose an option. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I think you are confused see my posting that starts "*Option E See ..." (at 12:19 on 12 February 2013). -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  My mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  I can also confirm that I did not come across this via B2C's post there. HaugenErik (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  That is correct. You posted here before his post there. Your post was the "but one" I referred to in saying "all but one." --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I can also confirm that I did not come across this via B2C's post there. LittleBen (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Option E. Erik Haugen's and PBS's comments above ring true to me. Yes, B2C comments a lot, but a reading over his comments there shows them to be largely reasonable and on-topic. If he initiated these discussions all the time, rather than simply participating in them when they occur, that would be one thing, but that doesn't appear to be the case. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Option B; second choice is option A. B2C has been beating a dead horse, but he's not going to stop on his own. Unless he is reined in, B2C will continue wasting everyone else's time by continuing his single-minded pursuit of his mission to overturn WP:USPLACE. We can't ignore him, as some have suggested, because when he gets no response to his actions or proposals, he declares that his position is the consensus view (example). --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  USPLACE is controversial. A lot of people want to see it overturned. I can't imagine why the fact that he shows up at each one of these discussions might be a problem. Is B2C starting countless RFC's and whatnot despite overwhelming consensus against them? No. B2C didn't even start this last one! Can you help me understand what exactly you see here that is disruptive? I also don't see anything inappropriate about your "Cleveland_Heights" diff there. It's just a discussion about procedure and the gray area created by WP:STATUSQUO/etc. HaugenErik (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I note that HaugenErik asks again the question, slightly reworded, that I asked of Huw and Melanie on my talk page, at User_talk:Born2cycle#Concerns, almost a week ago, and remains unanswered. What exactly is being disrupted by my behavior? I mean, what exactly are people being disrupted from doing by my behavior? Melanie referred to Huw's original statement, who claimed "disruption of productive and inclusive debate", suggesting that there would have been "productive and inclusive debate" if not for my involvement. And the evidence for that is what? When I bow out, there is no virtually no more discussion? So, then, how was my involvement disruptive? That's not an answer. And the response of "filibustering" by Omnedon is not an answer to this question either - it's simply labeling the behavior that is allegedly disruptive in a derogatory way, without basis; it does not identify what is being disrupted.

  I also note that I did stop engaging in the discussion at the WP:PLACE RfC discussion, last month, on my own, contrary to Orlady's claim above ("he's not going to stop on his own"), and consistent with the pledge I made a year ago.

  While I'm at it, I will also point out that I CAN be ignored, and "because when he gets no response to his actions or proposals, he declares that his position is the consensus view", is not a valid excuse to not ignore me, much less sanction me. As Erik notes, the example provided by OrLady does not support that claim at all.

  What I mean is, if there is a proposal, register your position in the discussion, which should only take a few minutes, no more than this comment is taking me, preferably backed up by policy/guidelines, and move on. The closing admin will weigh your input as he or she sees fit. There is no need to engage with me or anyone else in the process of trying to reach consensus through discussion if you'd rather do something else. That's entirely voluntary, of course. It's unhelpful to engage in such discussion with someone, and then claim the other is responsible for disruption, tendentious editing, beating a dead horse, or anything else, which most (not all!) supporting sanctioning me here have done. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Born2cycle: The nature of the complaint has already been clearly elaborated here (by a number of different contributors), repeatedly in the cited discussions (by various editors), and on your talk page, which specify which areas have recently been impacted, and how. You're free to assert that it's not been made clear to you how or where you're being disruptive, but I fear that only underscores one common part of the pattern: your refusal to acknowledge not just that opposing views have merit but that they've even been expressed (akin to WP:ICANTHEARYOU). ╠╣uw [talk] 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Orlady you worte "We can't ignore him, ... he declares that his position is the consensus view" and gave a link as an example. Did you follow up that RM and read the links I posted above ("here and here")? If you did not, will you consider changing your opinion, and if you did how did you come to your conclusion? -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  The USPLACE guideline has been the subject of a seemingly endless series of discussions in which the same arguments are repeated, refined, and repeated again, generally including some of the same cast of characters. WT:PLACE isn't always the venue for discussion; sometimes the topic crops up on talk pages of specific articles. IMHO, at this point, positions are firmly solidified. Few newbies are going to be inclined to join the discussions because the obvious presence of a long history of the issue is off-putting. Past participants are likely disinclined to consider new ideas because they are tired of the issue and want to do something more productive than endlessly arguing about it.

I am pleasantly surprised by the news that B2C has suspended his involvement in the current discussion at WT:PLACE. His presence so thoroughly pervaded that discussion that his renunciation of involvement wasn't obvious, but I see from the history that he has not posting there in the last 4 days, and has not posted an opinion in more than 2 weeks. I'm all in favor of a voluntary agreement to back off, if he is sincere about it. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to agree to some reasonable self-imposed restrictions stated clearly in terms of max number of posts (not including fix edits) per day per discussion, and max number of posts per week in a discussion exceeding some reasonable limit. But this all presumes "the problem" can be addressed by simply limiting how much I post. Others are saying it's not only how much I post, but what I post. I'm truly baffled by how often I seem to be misunderstood. Not by everyone, mind you. But definitely many who are supporting sanctions here seem to read "demands", "dismissiveness" and violations of AGF in my posts that I (and others; not just me) don't see. It seems that these supposed transgressions appear so obvious to them, that they're convinced if I don't see them, it's not even worth explaining. Omnedon and Huwmanbeing, for example, have repeatedly cited diffs of my commentary, as if they are self-evident proof of inappropriate behavior. I look at them, and for the life of me can't understand what the matter is. When I ask, I typically get no explanation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorn2cycle&diff=538276451&oldid=538154174 for example). It's very frustrating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is obvious that asking the same question over and over amounts to "demanding" an answer. I think it is obvious that claiming a question hasn't been answered, after people have answered it repeatedly in two different venues, amounts to IDHY. I think it is obvious that describing the other side's arguments as "JDLI "and "filibustering" and "silly" is dismissive. Since you are "truly baffled" and can't "for the life of you" understand this, it just illustrates what we are saying here: you have no insight into why people consider your editing problematic, and thus are unlikely to change your style on your own. And simply limiting how many times a day you post, is not going to solve the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@MelanieN. Just curious. Higher up the page you responded to my questions, but do you think that you gave answers to the questions? -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment above consisted almost entirely of questions; seven of the eight sentences ended in a question mark. I did not respond to all of them. I responded to what struck me as the main issue, namely, whether it was appropriate for me (as "prosecutor") to propose a list of alternatives. I replied that I had listed all the options I could think of (including doing nothing) to assist the discussion, but that I was perfectly open to other options, or even an entire new framing, if someone wanted to propose same. (I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it actually typical for prosecutors to present the various options - e.g. first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc. - as part of an indictment?) However, I failed to respond to your suggestion that when I pointed out where B2C called attention to this discussion, and noted the arrival immediately afterward of people supporting him, I was implying bad faith on the part of those posters. I should have apologized then to anyone who thought I was impugning their motives, and I do so apologize now. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I want to point out that my decision to back off from the most recent WT:PLACE RfC discussion, as was requested of me, demonstrates recognition of a "too many posts" problem on my part, and my desire and willingness to address it. It was weeks after I did that that this AN complaint was started, despite my cooperation with those requests. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to note that such recognition was absent prior to this ANI; when I contacted you with my concerns just days before it opened[25], your response was not to acknowledge any problem on your part, but instead to insinuate that the concerns being raised were motivated by other editors' disagreement with your position.[26] Note too that the behavior has been pointed out repeatedly for months, back at least to the November RfC – after which there was also a lull in activity which did not prevent a similar recurrence in the latest one. ╠╣uw [talk] 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  "It was weeks after I did that that this AN complaint was started," Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, that's true. This complaint was NOT triggered by the RfC discussion. The thing that impelled me to file this notice was the thread on your talk page started by Huw, referred to above. That thread and your responses made me realize that 1) your problematic editing extends to many other subjects besides USPLACE, and 2) you have absolutely no insight into what is problematic about your editing. And I realized that, since you don't recognize or even acknowledge the problem, it would be impossible for you ever to correct it. Hence my decision to take the problem to the community. (I have actually explained this timing issue to you before - that I had dropped the idea of an ANI when you stopped posting at the RfC,[27] and that your "problem? what problem?" comments to Huw were the final straw causing me to launch this discussion[28] - but apparently you didn't hear me, as usual.) --MelanieN (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A, I suppose I'll have to conclude, with reluctance. I was dismayed to see that B2C is again in the midst of drama. Tony (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B. We've tried all the options C through G, none have worked. A and B are the only viable ones, IMHO. I'm prepared to give B one try so that we don't deprive ourselves of B2C's contribution and him/her of what ought to be a basic right – which he has already IMHO much abused. I'd say that not only should we limit him to one vote/comment, we should insist that that contribution ought to be limited to 250 words to cut out the drama, riposte after riposte, WP:TLDR and WP:IDHT. If this pattern of behaviour persists, we would be left only with option A going forwards. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  If you and I agree on something, it should definitely be considered. We haven't agreed on much of anything — until now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is formatted in a manipulative and defective manner The only choice on the list that doesn't involve an implied finding of guilt is the straw man choice of doing absolutely nothing. The most viable choice some type of a warning or discussion-with-a-resolution without an explicit or implicit finding of guilt is completely missing. My impression is that this complaint is sort of a construction to get the opposition in an unresloved dispute smacked. The complainant (who has 53 edits on the talk page in the linked period) is saying that B2B's 107 edits on the talk page in 4 years (an average of 2 comments per month) during the linked period shows that they are "misbehaving". Or maybe B2B's 28 edits on the project page during the presence there (an average of 7 per year) is over the top. So I guess that 53 is OK, and 107 needs a big smack-down. If this isn't quickly terminated in a manner not adverse to B2B, it should be restarted in a manner that doesn't have that fatal manipulative defect. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you get 107 edits in the past 4 years; the linked statistics shows 107 edits since January 8, 2013. But the issue here is B2C's behavior, not the quantity of edits. Omnedon (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  The "107" was from the requested and provided summary, and the "4 years" was my error which I fixed (thanks for pointing that out). The complainant identified this page as the current case, all of their links regarding such were to this page, and they requested (and received) that count as evidence of their core current assertion which was domination of that page. So I was addressing the complainant's assertion/evidence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  As Omnedon said, the number of edits is not the only problem with B2C's posting (although he seems to think it is, since the only fault he admits is "posting too much"). His issues, supported above by diffs, include disrespect for other editors (which was the subject of a warning a year ago from Arbcom); refusing to acknowledge that any interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines other than his own might have any merit (the other issue on which Arbcom warned him); and "tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own". And the reason I formatted the choices as I did is that this is not a new complaint; there have been at least two previous occasions where his style was complained of and he was threatened with sanctions unless he changed it. Anyone who thinks all three of those occasions are without merit, can choose option E (as half a dozen people have), or G if they prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  So you decided ahead of time the "no action of any type" was an offered choice, but to structure it in a way that rules out the common mutually agreeable possibilities? I call that a manipulative and defective process. If this goes any further, it should be restarted without that fatal defect. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  It is up to B2C to describe possible "common mutually agreeable possibilities". He's rejected those presented by other editors, without proposing anything other than that his interpretation is correct, and should be implemented immediately, wherever suggested. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I have already offered to collaborate with anyone interested to come up with a proposal to update WP:DE in a way supported by consensus to describe behavior that people here want me to avoid.

  In our most recent encounter, Arthur, in a discussion cited in the OP here, Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2., you and I have expressed differing positions with regard to the meaning of "primary" in PRIMARYTOPIC. I have addressed your reasoning, explained why I'm baffled, and explained my reasoning; you have not explained yours, except stating your opinion that I'm misreading, "as usual". And I'm the one accused of being dismissive of other's opinions? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  North8000: Editors are free to offer whatever recommendations they choose; indeed, a number have offered their own, which is fine. Please feel free to do the same. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I know that, but that does not address the problem that I raised. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bias against B2C? We are all biased in one way or another. Biases have an infinite variety of causes and reasons. One type of bias is bias against a particular individual. A possible source of such bias is having a history of disagreement with such a person. Such bias is natural and normal. Acting on it should be avoided.

  It has been mentioned by at least PBS ("parties to long running disagreements are trying to get people they disagree with banned"), LittleBen ("Agree with PBS"), North8000 ("This is formatted in a manipulative and defective manner"), but in case it is not clear to others how strong the bias against me is at play here, in my defense, I would like to point out that almost everyone who has supported some kind of topic ban sanction against me (A or B) has a history of disagreeing with me in the area of titles. I should also point out that not everyone with a history of disagreeing with me is supporting a topic ban or any strong sanction.

  I'm not suggesting or even thinking anyone is acting in bad faith. It's just that the bias needs to be recognized and accounted for by whoever is evaluating what is going on here. If two people have a history of disagreeing, each is likely to have at least a subconscious motivation to muzzle the other, and this AN is obviously an opportunity to muzzle me in the area that all these people have a history of disagreeing with me. We are capable of rising above the biases we all carry, but anyone with such a history with me who is advocating sanction here, especially without mentioning the history, as if he or she is an objective observer, could do better.

  Just to be clear, the following participants in this AN have a history of disagreeing with me in multiple RM and/or title discussions. I presume each would not dispute this claim about our mutual history, but I'd be happy to provide evidence upon request.

  1. SarekOfVulcan
  2. Dicklyon
  3. Black Kite
  4. Omnedon
  5. Arthur Rubin
  6. MelanieN
  7. Huwmanbeing
  8. SMcCandlish
  9. Mike Cline
  10. Jayron32
  11. Orlady
  12. Tony
  13. Ohconfucius
  14. Nyttend

Being listed here does not mean they are necessarily being unfair, but that I request the possibility of bias against me be considered in anything subjective they allege about me or my behavior. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Those who have been directly involved in discussions with you are naturally more likely to be aware of the difficulties involved in such discussions. Here's an example. Omnedon (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if the involvement with each other has been exclusively from opposites of an issue, as is the case with you, I believe, then the perception might be different than those who have been on both sides, as PBS has, and explains:

"whether B2C are on the same side of an argument or different sides, he is responsive to arguments based on policy and guidelines. His arguments are usually based on guidance and policy and his verbose mode is engaged when he is addressing arguments of the "ME TOO" type, where the persons saying "me too" are supporting a position that comes down to "I don't like it", and it I think it is not unreasonable to request that such positions are justified via policies and guidelines because of the wording of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. One of the problems that we have is that closing admins too often close RfCs, AfDs and RMs by treating opinions as votes, and while that continues to be the case, interested parties that hold different POVs will continue to question the opinions of others in the way that B2C does.".

The highlighted part reflects exactly what I was doing in the example you cite above. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What you were doing was demanding a response, being dismissive, and assuming bad faith. Omnedon (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out that there were others on your side of the issue at those RfCs, but they are not being discussed at AN. I can disagree with people without it being a huge deal, and have often worked toward consensus on Wikipedia over the years; but this is not about disagreement over specific issues. This is about your aggressive pursuit of your goal and the difficulties it produces. Omnedon (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you interpret what I wrote in your quoted example as me "demanding a response, being dismissive, and assuming bad faith". If someone wrote those exact same words to me, I wouldn't interpret them that way. I certainly did not mean them that way. But I've explained this to you 2 or 3 times now, and you still insist on characterizing it this way. Are you assuming good faith on my part? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A only. The user has exhausted the community's patience, so allowing limited involvement via Option B is too much leeway. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B or A ~ the former only with strict limits on the quantity and style of comments the user is allowed. And, though i have read many discussions he is involved in, i have (i think) never before commented on any of them, so no bias or mutual history can be blamed. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 20:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Idea I started reading the guideline talk page until my eyes started bleeding. Born2Cycle, what do you think of this idea?: You voluntarily give this topic a rest for a year as no longer being worth it. Just a quick, pragmatic solution, not an admission of guilt, conditional on such resolving / closing this fatally mis-constructed thing here. Specifically, voluntarily stay away from the naming guideline page for a year, and not make any article moves due to place name formatting for a year. And if you go against your voluntary statement this can get reopened and you also agree that I can come trout you ten times over. Life is too short...... North8000 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying no, but obviously I don't believe WP is improved by muzzling me, regardless of who puts the muzzle on me. Titles are my area of expertise, and I have a lot to offer there, even if not everyone recognizes and appreciates that, or how my efforts are related to the RM backlog, which is now 2 1/2 months old. Wouldn't it be better if the specific behavior that people want me to avoid was documented clearly in policy (probably WP:DE) that applies to everyone equally? I've already said I would comply with anything that gets incorporated into policy with consensus support, and that I would help get that in there. It's about where WP governance is on the continuum between rule of man and rule of law; I hope it's closer to the latter, and what I'm suggesting will help us move even more in that direction. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you have done anything wrong. I give up on some where I know that my basis is solid enough to eventually prevail (but doesn't in the venue) where the issue/problem isn't big enough to be worth the time to continue. I don't know this one well enough to know if "basis is solid enough" vs. being a matter of opinion/personal preference, but might it be a case of "the issue/problem isn't big enough to be worth the time to continue."? North8000 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Working on bringing stability to title space on WP is very important to me (see my user page and FAQ - it's my top priority on WP), probably much more important than it is to most others. So, for me, yes, it is big enough to be worth the time to continue, especially now when a few are trying to "loosen" the rules which would bring even more ambiguity into the process, less stability, and ever longer RM backlogs. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I will agree to the following for one year starting today (Feb 16, 2013) if that satisfies.

1. I will stay away from WP:AT, WP:D, WP:PLACE (will make no edits).
2. At WT:AT, WT:D and WT:PLACE, with no more than a total of five exceptions per month, I will make no more than four comments per week (less than one per day, average), not including fix/revisions to those, per discussion.
3. I will not propose any move requests of articles about US cities.
4. With no more than a total of 5 exceptions per month, I will limit my commentary on RM discussions to four comments per week, whichever comes first, not including fix/revisions to those, per discussion.

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable but complicated so you'd need to be on board in spirit as well (taking it easy) But what about actual moves of city articles...is that included? North8000 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000: It must be noted that voluntary restraint from Born2cycle (based on public promises he made to the community to desist and change his behavior) was already tried as a solution under the previous ANI – unsuccessfully. ╠╣uw [talk] 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you define success? I've complied with everything I pledged to do.

1. In the last year I commented less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved than I had before.
2. I have been more agreeable and less disagreeable.
3. When I do disagree, I try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing.
4. I have been more careful about how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted
5. I look for signs from others, to let me know how I'm doing. Haven't gotten very many of those, but have listened when I do. Even stopped comment at WT:PLACE recently because of such comments.
6. I continued to welcome, and encouraged even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. I'm often asking about this.
7. I have not thought, believed, conveyed or said that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline means there is no problem to address. For example, I've said repeatedly here that I recognize a problem exists.

I haven't been totally successful in all of these efforts, but I've done my best with everything that was in my control. Just because mostly people with histories of disagreements with me, perhaps motivated by a desire to muzzle me, claim I have not lived up to my pledge, does not mean it's true. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle: You are of course free to assert that you've complied, but at this point that's up to others to judge. It's unfortunate to have to note your frequent assertions (made both here and elsewhere) that concerns about your behavior are motivated by personal disagreements with your position, desires to muzzle you, etc. Concerns about your behavior have been long-term, repeated, and expressed by a great number of editors, which should at least suggest to you the possibility that something is amiss; however, without such recognition, my fear is that the pattern will merely continue to repeat.

As to your promises of last year, it's important to note that your compliance with their provisions was the clear condition on which you avoided a topic ban in the last ANI. Since you ask me how I judge your success in adhering to those promises, I must unfortunately but clearly answer that it was unsuccessful:

1. The inordinate volume of your posts has been noted repeatedly by many editors for months (e.g.), certainly in the forums already cited. That the forums were RfCs rather than RMs is not a technicality that should excuse such disruption.

2. On the subject of agreeability, that also must be judged by others; overt disagreeability in the form of name-calling is low (though not absent[29]), but disagreeable behavior is still continued and overt, notably in (among other things) the frequent mischaracterization of opposing views as mere "JDLI" and "status quo stonewalling", even when reasonable opposing viewpoints have been repeatedly voiced.[30]

3. This pattern isn't evident. Insistence that your own and often very lengthy points be refuted to your satisfaction in order be considered more than JDLI or stonewalling does not seem positive.[31][32]

5. You received direct and repeated feedback with concerns about your behavior for months, expressed many times in multiple RfCs by many editors; to suggest there "weren't very many of those" is extremely disingenuous, and your responses to them were not positive.[33] That we're now in a lull in the latest RfC (which occurred only after significant and lengthy disruption had already occurred) is good; however, there was also a lull in your posts to that forum following the previous RfC... but that lull didn't prevent the behavior from beginning again as soon as the next one opened.

7. That you believe a problem exists is different from saying your behavior is problematic. In fact you've repeatedly expressed your view that the concerns being voiced are motivated by disagreement with your position – a charge I consider distasteful and which doesn't suggest a recognition on your part that the problem truly lies in your behavior.

In short, though I'd like to believe that things have changed, that's simply not backed up by what I see. Given that previous promises of reform haven't been successful in curbing the disruption being noted by many editors, I must still join with the sizable majority of respondents here in supporting some form of imposed topic ban (preferably A). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A but if that lacks consensus I would be reluctantly forced to support Option B. In a previous attempt at improving, B2C made what I viewed as a positive and constructive comment showing openness for change. However when a discussion came up to test that statement, it was left in the dust. In rereading it, I saw that it was built on words like, as I recall, might and probably. So what I took in good faith was apparently not the case. I was reminded of this in reading about the point of bias maybe needing to be considered on some comments in this discussion. While not making an accusation, it raised the possibility which is anything but good faith! That along with the conditions of a voluntary ban. Those conditions suggested are going to be difficult to enforce and is overly complex tell me that maybe B2C does not comprehend the perception that other editors have. There have been points made that maybe we should not act as a community based on the reason that this discussion was started. However true that may be, it started the community discussion on the totality of interactions and if that is the case, so discussing a ban based on a long history is fair. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about voluntary agreement

North8000, I believe you have proposed a formula that could resolve this situation: a voluntary agreement, with nothing imposed on anyone by anyone, no fault assigned or admitted, and recognizing that B2C believes his lengthy posts to be productive discussion and doesn't understand why anyone regards them as problematic. This discussion could then be closed as resolved, with the option of referring back to it later if the agreement was not kept. However, what you have specifically proposed - no edits at the naming guideline page and no placename moves - seems both unnecessarily harsh (titles are B2C's passion, and he does have expertise to share) and unlikely to solve the real problem; RM discussions and policy talk page discussions are the source of most of the complaints above. What B2C has proposed above might work, but it seems needlessly complicated (so much so that B2C himself would have to keep a scorecard, and it would be almost impossible for anyone else to follow), and it may not entirely address the problem. I would prefer something like option 2 B above: that on RMs and policy talk pages B2C would post his opinion and rationale, ONCE, as clearly and concisely as he could (without cut-and-pasting his FAQ page or trying to anticipate all counterarguments). He could also reply to comments and questions directed specifically to him. But he would not comment on the opinions expressed by others, neither to challenge or question them, nor to agree with and expand upon them. He would not describe anyone's opinion as JDLI or filibustering or silly. He would simply rely on the power of his opinion and rationale, standing alone and not lost in thousands of words of verbiage, to carry its weight in the discussion. I think this would give INCREASED rather than decreased weight to his opinion. This would be much simpler to keep track of and enforce than the complex formula he proposes, and it would deal directly with the fact that his discussions/arguments with other users are the cause of the complaints against him. If B2C would agree to and abide by something like this, I would voluntarily submit myself to the same restrictions: at RMs and title-related policy discussions I would state my opinion once, and not say anything further except to reply to comments made directly to me. I truly believe that a discussion like this would be vastly improved: clearer and easier to follow, with increased participation. --MelanieN (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN. Just to clarify. I think that the text in your post fully describes your idea, but you also mentioned option #2. I didn't see anything that was clearly option #2,if that is a part of your idea, could you clarify? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that this would be a voluntary version of Option B. Thanks for catching it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, so your post is a more detailed & specific and voluntary of option B. To recap (adding "title-related" for clarity and "1 year" (what do you think?) this is:

For one year, on RMs and title-related policy talk pages B2C would post his opinion and rationale, ONCE, as clearly and concisely as he could (without cut-and-pasting his FAQ page or trying to anticipate all counterarguments). He could also reply to comments and questions directed specifically to him. But he would not comment on the opinions expressed by others, neither to challenge or question them, nor to agree with and expand upon them. He would not describe anyone's opinion as JDLI or filibustering or silly. He would simply rely on the power of his opinion and rationale, standing alone and not lost in thousands of words of verbiage, to carry its weight in the discussion. I think this would give INCREASED rather than decreased weight to his opinion. This would deal directly with the fact that his discussions/arguments with other users are the cause of the complaints against him. If B2C would agree to and abide by something like this, I (MelanieN) would voluntarily submit myself to the same restrictions: at RMs and title-related policy discussions I would state my opinion once, and not say anything further except to reply to comments made directly to me. I truly believe that a discussion like this would be vastly improved: clearer and easier to follow, with increased participation.

North8000 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. Yes, that's a very clear statement of the proposal. I don't know whether B2C will accept it but I would urge him to - and if he does, I would urge those who chose option A or B above to accept this voluntary agreement (which unlike previous promises and warnings is very specific and measurable). I honestly believe B2C would find that a less-is-more approach to posting would make his opinions carry MORE weight in these discussions. His arguments and policy citations would stand out more clearly, rather than being buried in a mass of verbiage. If he (and I, and possibly others) were to follow the approach of "speak my piece once and walk away", it would free him and the rest of us for more productive work, such as adding content or reducing the RM backlog. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, what do you think of this? North8000 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Endorse this as worth trying, assuming B2C agrees. I certainly don't want to see B2C muzzled. However, B2C needs to learn to make clear and concise comments that would still allow for other editors meaningful participation. Bearing in mind the evidence I posted below showing weight of edits to the talk page in question, I would suggest a firm, self-policed word limit to his contributions. I don't believe he is the only one with those opinions, but he is crowding out all other opinions, including those of others who may agree with him. Failing that, I would see no alternative to either option A or B as originally proposed. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN: It's certainly good to work to reach a satisfactory resolution here. While in other circumstances I'd also very likely favor some form of voluntary resolution, I'm afraid I don't feel it's the preferable course here, given that a similar approach was already tried unsuccessfully in the last ANI. Then (as now) it was suggested that Born2cycle could himself change the nature and verbosity of his contributions without the necessity of a formal topic ban – embracing that was a positive and good-faith effort on the part of the community, and giving him the opportunity to fulfill his pledges on his own recognizance was definitely the right thing to do.

However, that the disruptive pattern continues a year later to be felt and recognized by many editors, despite previous pledges and promises, suggests that lasting change may be unlikely to come from such measures. Let me make clear that I don't intend that as slight against B2C; in many respects he's a very fine editor who clearly cares about the encyclopedia and will hopefully continue to contribute to its further improvement and growth – but history shows that in this one particular area (titling and disambiguation) he's found it difficult to refrain from returning to the behavior described in this ANI, despite what I'm certain were perfectly honest pledges on his part. Whereas the proposal above is IMHO somewhat complex, a topic ban is simple and clear.

That said, I'm willing to consider softening my choice of option A by having the ban be revisited/reconsidered at some set point in the future, though of course the choice of action is obviously up to the community and the relevant involved administrators. It might serve as a middle ground between the more widely-separated positions of permanent topic banning and voluntary self-improvement. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Specificity of voluntary changes makes them much more likely to happen, and vica versa. It also provides an objective indicator of whether or not it has been followed. So IMHO the previous one (and/or perceptions of such) is not an indicator.North8000 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, what do you think of this? North8000 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, North. I'm generally not supportive of the community applying any special user-specific rules to anyone. This leads to the mob mentality and community (mis)treatment of editors which PBS and others have cautioned us about.

In all cases, I'd much rather see the behavioral problems addressed through updating/clarifying the relevant rules that apply to everyone equally, and then holding the editor in question to abide by them.

I, for one, don't want to see anyone limited to making just one comment in any discussion. To the contrary, encouraging people to leave one comment and not participating beyond that is not even a discussion. A discussion implies back-and-forth commenting among participants that brings clarity to the underlying issues. In my view, we need to be encourage more, not less, of that, which is of course the theme of the maligned WP:Stonewalling essay.

If what we say in discussions is not subject to scrutiny by others (including me), we are encouraging what PBS characterizes as "arguments of the 'ME TOO' type, where the persons saying 'me too' are supporting a position that comes down to 'I don't like it'". I also agree with PBS that "it is not unreasonable to request that such positions are justified via policies and guidelines because of the wording of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS...". Otherwise, we end up "treating opinions as votes", and that leads to random inconsistent decisions made largely on whim rather than predictable consistent decisions based on policy and guidelines.

I don't believe we're improving WP by characterizing the questioning of the substance of what others say with pejorative terms like "domineering", "tendentious", and "excessively verbose". If people unwilling or unable to clearly explain the basis for their positions in policy and guidelines are discouraged from participating by those of us who put their feet to the fire, so to speak, is that harmful or helpful to WP? I don't know that consensus is clear on the answer to this question, which is key to evaluating my behavior. If it is made clear that the consensus is that such behavior is harmful, than I will not engage in it, of course. But given the high number of people besides me who engage in it, I find it unlikely for that to be the case.

It's really easy to support sanctions that affect only one individual. It's much harder to be fair and support a change to the rules to which everyone must abide by, but I suggest WP is improved if we make the effort to do the latter. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw MelanieN's efforts as being in the spirit of getting you to voluntarily dial it back a little, and an effort to give it some specificity to make it more likely to actually happen. Probably something in the same spirit of what you proposed except with less complexity. Maybe your proposal more accurately defines dialing it back a little, but it is really complicated. Maybe if you make sure you follow it and everyone else sees that there has been a net result, that's enough. (?) North8000 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone is "on probation" for clearly violating policy or guideline, I don't think anyone should be put in a situation where they are open to being sanctioned for engaging in behavior that is normally not sanctioned. That's why I keep saying we need to be clear on exactly what the behavior is that we want to discourage. I'm basically accused of two things: 1) quantity of comments, and 2) content of comments being inappropriate (for lack of a better term). I think I have strong defense against both accusations. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but, if there is, then the relevant rules need to be clarified. I mean, we're all clear that personal attacks are, well, violations of WP:NPA. But merely criticizing a comment for presenting a JDLI argument - is that not to be tolerated? I don't think it's clear at all that we have anything close to consensus saying that, and it's likely consensus is saying that's not inappropriate. Yet I'm repeatedly chastised for doing that, as if it's a blatantly obvious violation.

That said, I will definitely "dial it back a little", if nothing else to help my own credibility, but I will not at this time agree to something as severe and unfair as limiting myself to only one post per discussion, especially if that opens me up to more severe sanctions if I do something as mundane as post a second time in the same discussion a week later.

I suggest there is room for a few perennial antagonists to dial it back too, especially with respect to continuing to engage in discussions with me that they wish to end. If you want a discussion to end, how about leaving the discussion yourself? I will note again that the discussions at the recent RfC at WT:PLACE essentially ended when I voluntarily stopped participating; if those who were heavily engaged with me in those discussions, MelanieN, Huwmanbeing and Omnedon, had stopped, that would have ended it just the same. As another example noted in the OP here, the discussion at Talk:National_Pension_Scheme#Requested_move_2 has ended too, now that the dominant proponents of that proposal have stopped posting. It's a bit much to blame me or anyone else for ongoing discussions that necessarily involve more than one person apparently interested in discussing the issues further. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading that page made my eyes bleed. Regarding overall participation there, it looks like a "3 vs. 1" debate which sorts of leads to the "1" writing more unless they give up. BTW, when a debate gets that huge and detailed, and conversations start presuming knowledge of the preceding 200,000 words, it sets up a "barrier of entry" for new participants. My ideas were not meant to imply misbehavior, they were just a sort of "maybe this isn't worth your trouble" or "maybe this debate over what (at first blush) appears to be a mater of style" has gotten too big compared to what little is at stake and it's time to do yourself a favor and give up on it for a year" also as a pragmatic end to this thread here. Or maybe "life's too short, there isn't that much at stake here, kick back and have some fun instead" is good advice for all concerned. Sort of like an informal version of MelanieN's plan applied to all of the main folks there. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Central issue? Is "arguing a point to death" necessarily wrong?

Above, RegentsPark wrote, "There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view... ". I generally agree with that, understood that "not the only one" means "a sufficient number compared to all involved to establish there is 'no consensus' on the issue". So if it's only 4-6 people, as long as at least one of those others agrees with you, there's nothing wrong with "arguing a point to death". But if it's a larger number involved, you really need a few more on your side, otherwise the other side has consensus. Sometimes this is the only way to reach consensus, and, yes, it can take years. I note that at the current RfC at WP:PLACE, the survey shows 12 out of 30 are in support. That's not a majority nor a consensus, but it's enough to establish that opposing the proposal is also not a consensus view. All previous RfC's on this issue had similar results. It's a fallacy to claim there is consensus when there is this much opposition. As HaguenErik says, "USPLACE is controversial". So "arguing a point to death" there should be okay, no?

Now contrast RegentsPark's view with that of Arthur Rubin, for example, who wrote: "The fact that he continues making the same arguments repeatedly in both (active) RfCs doesn't help matters much, either". Now, I disagree that I continue making the same arguments repeatedly, but that aside, this statement clearly suggests that it's not okay to keep arguing a point to death, even if you're not the only one.

Which is it, why, and which policies/guidelines support your view?

It seems to me that we all agree that when there is consensus on an issue, arguing a point to death is disruptive. As I said earlier, that's why I stopped arguing in favor of using parentheses for US city disambiguation long ago - consensus is clearly against that idea. But what people like Arthur seem to want to do is make "arguing a point to death" (using RegentsPark's words) even when there is no consensus on the issue in question to be recognized as disruptive editing. I don't think there is consensus on that point, it's certainly not stated anywhere clearly in writing, and I strongly object to being sanctioned as if it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We have national holidays for people who refused to give up on something when they were initially outnumbered. So IMHO there is nothing wrong with doing so. But this one might be just a matter of preference/style and not worth the trouble. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the bigger issue here is whether it's okay to sanction someone, or threaten to sanction someone, based only on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concerning a subjective judgement about whether the behavior was disruptive (and disagreed with not only by the accused, but significant numbers of other experienced editors), and when the bulk of the local consensus is comprised of people with a history of disagreement with that someone. I hope we can all agree that that is not okay, and that it's important to get that established. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and agree that is a big problem in Wikipedia. Basically, in Wikipedia, its too easy for any skilled gang to use the system to get their opponent beat up. And the manipulative framework that has been established and followed here certainly puts me on red alert of this being that. But I'm also guessing that if I were involved on this I might have been asking you to give it up, being outnumbered on something that would be sort of OK either way. So my idea is a finding of "you did nothing wrong" combined with saving yourself some grief by voluntarily staying away from this for a year per the details I described. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Top 10 for the last 3 years and a bit:

2010		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Born2cycle	89		76811	14.0%
2	Pmanderson	108		50421	9.2%
3	MRSC	55		37701	6.9%
4	Kotniski	74		33338	6.1%
5	Jayjg	72		31958	5.8%
6	Jamesinderbyshire	40		31436	5.7%
7	Mhockey	37		29091	5.3%
8	Mattinbgn	29		23143	4.2%
9	Skinsmoke	21		22898	4.2%
10	BritishWatcher	31		14475	2.6%
				549526	100.0%
2011		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Doncram	41		117263	14.6%
2	Born2cycle	93		83126	10.3%
3	Dohn joe	58		39268	4.9%
4	Bogdan Nagachop	71		35516	4.4%
5	Ezhiki	25		35051	4.4%
6	Volunteer Marek	45		33788	4.2%
7	Pmanderson	63		26982	3.4%
8	Kotniski	26		18169	2.3%
9	Bkonrad	33		18059	2.2%
10	Huwmanbeing	22		17419	2.2%
				803734	100.0%
2012		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Born2cycle	180		138350	32.4%
2	MelanieN	127		49921	11.7%
3	Huwmanbeing	36		29821	7.0%
4	Dicklyon	36		17672	4.1%
5	Mike Cline	15		13516	3.2%
6	Nick Thorne	18		12497	2.9%
7	Omnedon	38		11683	2.7%
8	Kauffner	29		10921	2.6%
9	TheCatalyst31	6		10168	2.4%
10	Doncram	14		8093	1.9%
		763		427120	100.0%
2013		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Born2cycle	107		85284	34.6%
2	Huwmanbeing	39		39662	16.1%
3	Omnedon	57		27506	11.2%
4	MelanieN	53		20697	8.4%
5	Noetica	7		9971	4.0%
6	Lester Foster	3		8115	3.3%
7	Agnosticaphid	10		5207	2.1%
8	Jayron32	9		4925	2.0%
9	Nick Thorne	5		4718	1.9%
10	Kauffner	14		4418	1.8%
		375		246213	100.0%

Can you agree at least that you may be overbearing and excessively verbose in your talk page participation, and that you really need to make a conscious effort to stop being so dismissive of others' opinions; you could also be a lot less domineering, and allow everybody a say, no? -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I absolutely deny that I'm "dismissive" of anyone's opinion, ever. I give careful consideration to what others say, and respond in detail. That's the opposite of being dismissive, and goes a long way to explain why I'm relatively verbose. To disagree is not to dismiss. I'm not dismissing what you're saying here, for example, I'm disagreeing with it. I certainly recognize that the amount I respond is perceived by some to be "overbearing", particularly by those who disagree with me. But that does not mean I am actually domineering.

As to allowing everybody a say, I have no idea how how much one person posts can affect the ability of anyone else having whatever say they want. On-line written discussions are not at all like in-person discussions which are limited by time and the fact that only one person can be speaking at a given time. The latter can of course be domineered by overbearing behavior, but I don't see how the former can be, including WP talk page discussions. Most of these discussions are segmented (like this one is) such that someone can "catch up" and respond reasonably with a section by reading only that section. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not dismissive, ever? What would you say to these statements of your from the December RfC at WT:PLACE: "I just reviewed all your comments on this page. I had read them all before, and they are all mostly expressions of jdli opinion." "Get it? Does anyone have a real objection to E that is not simply JDLI or based on a misunderstanding? Anything?" "Expressing a JDLI opinion is not addressing anything. It is WP:Stonewalling to retain the status quo." "If you think there was a valid point you made that I characterized and dismissed as being JDLI/stonewalling, please identify it." This is dismissive. You can say that any argument is JDLI or stonewalling, and then dismiss it, insisting on "something else". Omnedon (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

North has made the wisest comment in this thread so far - "We have national holidays for people who refused to give up on something when they were initially outnumbered." HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Omnedon, not dismissive, ever.

Of course any argument can be said to be JDLI or stonewalling, but not any argument can be shown to be so. But if the argument is clearly based on policy/guidelines, saying it is JDLI is absurd and reflects badly on the person saying it.

When we make decisions, we are supposed to weigh the various arguments presented based on how well they follow policy and guidelines. Of course we give some arguments more weight and others less, based on that. And a pure JDLI argument should be given very little weight; maybe zero weight. Is that dismissing the argument? Maybe it's semantics, but to me "dismissing" suggests not even giving an argument due consideration, while evaluating an argument and giving it little or no weight due to lack of basis in policy/guidelines is just normal argument evaluation. It's not dismissing. But if you insist on characterizing finding arguments that are given due consideration and found to be devoid of basis in policy and guidelines to be dismissive, okay, I do that. But don't you think we need more of such "dismissive" argument evaluation on WP, rather than less? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C: Consistently labeling reasonable views contrary to your own as mere JDLI stonewalling is indeed dismissive. I understand you feel that all opposing views are mere JDLI stonewalling (and thus have "zero weight") but please understand that that's not an assessment shared by most other editors, and isn't supported by the many lengthy discussions where reasonable points both pro and con have been clearly enumerated and explored (e.g.). ╠╣uw [talk] 01:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Consistently labeling reasonable views contrary to your own as mere JDLI stonewalling is indeed dismissive". I deny that I do that. Nor do I feel (what do you know about what I feel anyway?) that all (or anything close to "all") opposing views are mere JDLI stonewalling. I suggest you really have to cherry pick through my commentary history to even begin to support such a conclusion. The vast, vast majority of my commentary is not comprised of my assessing the views of others in this way. This hyperbole is not at all helpful, except to reveal how extreme your bias against me is. Sad. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I speak only for the cited forums, which are linked for others to view in their entirety. Also, please note that I don't suggest every post is an assertion of JDLI; my point is simply that (as others point out) broad dismissal of reasonable opposing views as JDLI and stonewalling is the pattern. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone should close this

Doesn't seem to be much point left in this thread - just a bunch of extended comments on who said what and when and we're not really in the thesis writing business here, are we? Looks like Beeblebrox (here) was right. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should look at the various opinions above and decide what, if anything, needs to be done. --regentspark (comment) 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right. Thank you for trying, North8000. You gave it your best shot, and I can tell you have a real talent for mediation. But in his reply, B2C displayed once again the problems that have brought him before the community three separate times now: the refusal to acknowledge the problem (he isn't being "domineering", he is just "holding people's feet to the fire" to get them to "clearly explain the basis for their positions in policy and guidelines"); the wikilawyering (where EXACTLY does it say that it's dismissive to describe all opinions other than your own as "silly"?); and above all the complete inability to hear what people are saying to him, including in this very thread. I'll sum up the responses for him here, and then I think there's nothing more to say.

Admins:

• B, A Sarek of Vulcan
• A, B Nyttend
• A, B Peridon
• B Mike Cline
• B, A Arthur Rubin
• B,A Jayron32
• D,B regentspark
• B,A Black Kite
• G Ezhiki
• E HaugenErik
• A,B Jonathunder
• E PBS
• E 28bytes
• B,A Orlady
• A Vegaswikian

Non-admins:

• A, B Beyond my Ken
• A Huwmanbeing
• A Calton
• A Dicklyon
• B,A voluntary SmokeyJoe
• A Omnedon
• E RaiMe
• E LittleBen
• A Tony1
• B Ohconfucius
• A Binksternet
• B,A Lindsay

I said at the outset that I would respect the community's consensus with regard to this editor, and I mean it. But I kind of pity whoever tries to close this discussion! --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "E," consensus is not voting, and, if you're going to go all Appeal to authority 28bytes is not just an admin, they're a bureucrat, and Sarek and Black Kite are admins. NE Ent 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections; I have adjusted my list accordingly. I interpreted your comment "Oppose sanction or restriction" as being equivalent to Option E, but I didn't mean to put words in your mouth so I'll strike you from the list. And yes, I realize this kind of discussion is not settled by vote-counting. My intention in posting this information was to try one last time to deal with the WP:IDHT problem - to try to get B2C to actually notice how many people are trying to tell him something. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you consider your comments in this section of those of a disinterested party, or are you still acting as prosecutor and tying to influence the outcome to that which you desire? -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@PBS: The concept that an editor with a complaint about another editor has to come here acting like a "disinterested party" is contradicted by practically every AN and AN/I report that's ever been filed. It's really a rather bizarre concept, and I don't see where it came from. People come here and AN/I because there is, in their view, a problem that needs to be solved. To insist that they be required to maintain neutrality in that situation (at the pain of being dubbed a "prosecutor") is not conducive to solving the problem, it simply adds an extra, irrelevant layer to it, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above? If not please do, as to understand my first posting to this section, you need to have read it. RegentsPark initiated this subsection "Someone should close this" with a neutral observation. For either the initiator of the process or the defendant to comment in this section was inappropriate for two reasons. I think that by commenting here MelanieN has contradicted RP's observation at the start of the section as MelanieN clearly thought that not everything had been said; and I think that MelanieN's comment was classic Parthian shot (a summation to jury) which in fact begs retort of a similar nature from the defendant, and so perpetuates a debate that RegentsPark was suggesting has come to an end. Beyond My Ken just before you posted (and positioned below this posting) MelanieN wrote "The record is what it is; my summary is neutral." Do you think MelanieN's first summary was neutral? What about MelanieN's reply to NE Ent posting which includes "My intention in posting this information was to try one last time to deal with the WP:IDHT problem ..."? -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Struck out as posted after the close due to an edit clash.

I certainly do not pretend to be a "disinterested party". The record is what it is; my summary is neutral. The purpose of my comments here is to indicate that I am giving up on the attempt to reach an agreed-upon settlement; B2C's response above pretty much ruled that out. So unless B2C looks at this summary and finally realizes how many people think he has a problem, I agree with regentspark that there is nothing more to say here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never denied that there are substantial numbers of people who believe there is a problem. The difficulty is in characterizing exactly what the problem is, and what to do about it, fairly. I don't think topic-banning me or limiting me to one post per discussion is fair or reasonable, and is actually missing the point. I expound on this in my latest comment at #Discussion about voluntary agreement, so I won't repeat that here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've unfortunately commented above so I can't close this. But, the discussion above does clearly bring out a couple of things. First, b2c does have the tendency to go on at length and needs to figure out how to rein himself when the discussion isn't going his way. It is useful to recognize that we are all volunteers and don't necessarily have the patience to read beyond the first 100 words. But, that's really a symptom of what appears to be the disease - that it is not clear whether or not WP:USPLACE is fully supported by consensus. That's the heart of the problem and it seems to me that along with a formal "control yourself" injunction to born2cycle, a suggestion that we revisit the need for USPLACE is not a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I must emphatically disagree with your statement that the WP:USPLACE situation is the heart of the problem. Rather, that is one of many discussions in which this behavior on the part of B2C seems (to some of us) to be problematic. The WP:USPLACE situation has had two RfCs in the last few months with a huge amount of discussion. Revisiting it a third time does not address this situation. Omnedon (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just reading what's up here and, admittedly, I don't know the history. Perhaps it merely needs reassertion but, based on the discussion above and the disagreement with what to do with b2c, there does appear to be some disagreement over USPLACE.--regentspark (comment) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As I explained above (and I certainly don't expect everyone to have read everything in this thread), I did NOT post this just because of USPLACE. That is the main area where I have encountered B2C, but he participates in many other discussions involving titles, and he displays the same problems (dominating the thread just not by length but by attitude, dismissing and belittling other people's opinions, making the same point over and over, etc.). I had actually dropped the idea of filing a complaint, after he took somebody's advice to "take a breather" from the USPLACE thread. But a week or two later when I saw a note on his talk page, complaining about his behavior in a completely unrelated thread, I realized the problem with his style was bigger than USPLACE and decided it should be brought to the community's attention. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And as for revisiting USPLACE: That convention was discussed thoroughly in November, and again in January-February. The reason I tried (unsuccessfully) to shut down the second discussion was that we had just discussed it, only six weeks earlier. I thought there ought to be some kind of grace period, some decent interval after a discussion before we have to discuss it again. I would apply the same argument here: don't make us go through that again so soon! Let a little time pass. I'm sure it will come up again eventually. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

When the RFC was opened by TBrandley the first editor to respond was MelanieN, with the claim "the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon.", a claim belied by the many subsequent support votes; when John K supported the idea the response was a not very civil "Oh brother" and personalization of the issue with "nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon. " (Does this mean MelanieN thinks TBrandley is a sock or meatpuppet of B2C?) Data is produced above uses percentage of bytes for unexplained reasons -- if we use the 2012 numbers by percentage of edits we get

Born2cycle 	180	36%
MelanieN 	127	25%
Omnedon 	38	8%
Huwmanbeing 	36	7%
Dicklyon 	36	7%
Kauffner 	29	6%
Nick Thorne 	18	4%
Mike Cline 	15	3%
Doncram 	14	3%
TheCatalyst31 	6	1%

so somehow we're supposed to conclude that 36% is too much and 25% is okay? motes and beams come to mind. NE Ent 23:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the figures indicate that if MelanieN wants a voluntary agreement for B2C then she should be prepared to commit to the same voluntary agreement for herself. LittleBen (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that was exactly what I proposed. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, percentage of bytes seems a reasonable measure, as well as percentage of edits, especially since B2C has been known to present the same WP:TLDR comment more than once in a thread, sometimes including the entire AP list referenced in the present WP:USPLACE guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your figures and mine both put B2C at the top of the stats. The figures, and the tenacity continually demonstrated by B2C indicate to me that he insists on having the last word. In the online environment, it would be impossible for him to stop if there was anyone else left for him to tango with. He said so much himself when he said others (perhaps meaning Melanie or Huw, but I'm sure it more generally means anyone who takes issue with him) should shut up first – a comment I found really quite symptomatic of the whole problem. For the record, I'd once again state my preference for option B, but I would reluctantly support option A if that is the only way to put an end to the noise. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Community ban

I want to propose a community ban of the indef blocked vandal, User:Sinbad Barron

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sinbad_Barron

Up to now, we have found over 50 confirmed and suspected sockpuppets, with nationalistic rude POV pushing over the edge. I propose this ban in order to allow the possibility of the complete reverts of his edits, by all future socks (that will obviously arrive again). By far, he is not here to create neutral encyclopedia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If you ask me, we should have a policy that all editors with over 50 confirmed socks are considered banned by default. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment is there some kind script to revert all of a user's edits that can only legally be used if they've been community banned? What exactly is the use of a community ban on an indeffed sockmaster? —Rutebega (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Technically, a community banned editor can have any edit made by them reverted instantly as an edit by a banned editor. Other than that, it just makes us feel good that they're 'legally' unable to edit from now on (not the best word, but still). gwickwire^talk_edits 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  In that case, I oppose as mostly redundant. The user's already indeffed, so their edits are invalid anyway (the block applies to the user, not the account, and socks can be blocked immediately once confirmed). —Rutebega (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Well, if you really want a formal difference, in theory, at least, Sinbad's block could currently be lifted by any involved admin. Yes, any responsible one would seek consensus at AN first, but they'd be able to unblock based on a split consensus without having to worry about getting desysopped or anything. With a ban you're not only adding extra weight to any anti-trolling efforts, you're also requiring a strong community agreement for anyone to unblock the user. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've amended my post to reflect that. —Rutebega (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, Pink, that was my idea exactly. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. 50 socks? This user clearly doesn't get it. Just a formality to allow instant reversion of edits on sight of a sock of this user. Ban him with a strong message through e-mail if possible to never come back, ever. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  That is exactly how sockmasters shouldn't be treated. 50 socks means he does get it, he just doesn't care. The more you lash out against a sockmaster, the more they'll come back for more. If you just keep indeffing and ignoring, they'll eventually get bored and leave. Once somebody's socking on this scale, you're wasting your breath if you try to communicate, because they've already made up their mind that they're going to be disruptive. —Rutebega (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rutebega is correct: of course they get it. Displaying righteous anger ("Hot dang" etc.) does nobody any good. Banning an indef-blocked editor is fine, but beyond that it's just RBI. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Are you flipping kidding me? More than 50 socks? Hot dang! Might as well revert every edit of every sock and ban him, and hopefully that should teach him a lesson. ZappaOMati 04:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - For a collaborative and consensus-driven project, sockpuppets are extremely disruptive, much more so than 6th grade "penis" vandals, because multiple socks can create the illusion of consensus where none actually exists. As such, any proven sockmaster with a long history of socking and a long list of sockpuppets ought to be banned by the community as a matter of course, so that their edits can be deleted on sight, and so that a single admin doesn't inadvertently set them on the community again by unblocking. This is one instance where we really need to hold the line and not succumb to unwarranted (and dangerous) AGF-ism. The very act of socking is a deliberate blow aimed at the coherence of the community, and multiple acts of sockpuppetry eat away at our foundations. We cannot make consensual decisions unless we are as certain as possible that every voice that is heard is unique and not the result of the manipulations of a sockmaster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Sockpuppetry makes this an easy call. This user causes way too much disruption on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless community ban threads. Support continuing the perfectly functional, already-in-place, give-me-a-break-no-one-is-going-to-unilaterally-unblock de facto ban, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A community ban requires the consensus of the community to lift. A "de facto ban" (a phrase that should be banned itself) does not. And pointily !voting against it because it's "pointless" isn't very constructive, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - With this many socks, the course is clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support emplacing a formal community ban. The editor in question has so egregiously violated the trust of the community that, as stated above, the course is clear. dci | TALK 23:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flo. Can someone supporting the ban provide a link to a "rouge unblock" of a defacto banned editor, since that seems to be one of the concerns here? NE Ent 11:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support As I understand it the request is whether the community supports the block for socking. I do. It appears the community does, even the opposes do. The reasons not to call the ban are not convincing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Has the community ever considered creating some formal definitions of when a user should be considered banned unless stated otherwise? I think The Bushranger isn't far from the mark when he says that we should ban the phrase "de facto ban", and, as I alluded to in my support !vote, it seems to me that users who meet certain criteria could be safely declared banned by default. Every ban discussion like this always includes oppose !votes on the procedural grounds that a ban's already more-or-less in place. While I find such !votes unhelpful (if you don't like the idea, just don't !vote!), I see the point of them... it is rather odd to go through formal procedures against a user who has virtually no chance of ever being unblocked. So, anyways, has such a proposal been rejected in the past, or would an RFC be a good idea? It would really help out with dealing with some LTA issues... we could even have a bot that would place the templates on anyone whose "confirmed sockpuppets" category has 50+ members. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need any formal definition, just use judgement and clue. The type of community ban discussions I think are dumb, and beneath us, and make us more tribal, are those like this one: an already indef blocked prolific vandal sockmaster who will never, ever, be unblocked unilaterally by an admin. This is just a two minute hate, with the unfortunate side effect of giving them the attention they crave. We don't need a rule to clarify whether this editor will ever be unilaterally unblocked; anyone who thinks this is an actual risk is too unfamiliar with how this place works to be involved with SPI anyway. This isn't hyperbole, I mean every word: if you think there is a risk of a unilateral unblock here, please stop working with sockpuppetry until you've gained more judgement and clue.

I also dislike most community ban discussions here (mostly because they too often come to what I think is the wrong result), but at least it makes sense to have them if the editor is currently unblocked, or if they've just recently been blocked and it's unclear whether or not it's an easy road back, or if something is not decided. Then having a community ban discussion makes some sense. They still make us more tribal, but at least it's potentially for a reason. If it's unclear whether someone is de facto banned, have your community ban discussion. But don't have all these ban discussions for people who we all know are never going to be unilaterally unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that there's no conceivable circumstances under which an admin would unblock someone like this unilaterally. (And, if they did, there'd almost definitely be an ArbCom case, though de facto bans are enough of a grey area that they'd probably get off with a warning.) What is somewhat possible, though, is that an admin could raise the issue of unblocking a prolific sockpuppeteer, get lukewarm support, and then unblock the user, saying that the lack of consensus means it falls under administrative discretion. Not saying that's highly likely, just saying it's a possibility. More importantly, though, Floq: I agree with you. It's tribal and it's needless paperwork. But that's why I'm suggesting this very thing. We draw a simple line in the sand and say "cross it and you're considered banned", and walk away. Suddenly throwing up {{Banned}} doesn't require going through the same processes we reserve for editors with tens of thousands of constructive edits, but simply basic counting skills. Because, like it or not, people are still always gonna try to get their most persistent trolls banned, and this dispute will be hashed out over and over again. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too far a stretch to say the community views abusive sockpuppeteering as completely unacceptable and would be grounds for an auto-ban without the need for all the rigamorale of a CBAN discussion. Of course there are cases where people have forgotten to login and saved their edit but anyone who is on-the-ball usually picks up on this and quickly rectifies it. If this question is to be put up to the community, it should be a relatively simple RFC question asking "Is <this condition, abusive socking for example> grounds for an automatic ban?" Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I can think of at least one case where an editor who had taken to unashamedly using socks had to be given a formal ban simply to get his friends to give up trying to get him unblocked One Last Time. Additionally, the community as a whole still has a tendency to see a subtle difference between "blocked ninety million times" and "banned" when it comes to letting sock-added content stand (specifically, our policy stating that it is by definition uncontroversial to revert any edits by banned users). While I dislike pile-ons (the archetypal "two minute hate") more than most, I reckon, I don't really have a problem with the community quickly flipping de facto bans into de jure ones on principle. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should add that while that's not really a big deal in this case and those like it, it's unacceptable when dealing with trolls (the overlap with sockmasters is significant, however). Unless it serves a genuine purpose, adding on more sanctions is just giving trolls exactly what they want and will keep them coming back for more with additional socks. Sincerely, Rutebega (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Our policy is equally clear that it is by definition uncontroversial to revert the edits of blocked editors, and blocked and banned editors are treated equally by WP:NOT3RR NE Ent 03:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's now time to just simply make a de facto ban straight away de jure when the first sock is discovered as opposed to the usual "so and so has made X (where X is usually greater than 5) number of socks after being indef blocked, lets ban them." Blackmane (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeal for help from someone in the Chechen language Wikipedia

• I have just received an email from User:Дагиров Умар in the Chechen Wikipedia:-
  • Hello We in the Chechen no active manager I applied for a bureaucrat and now I need support if you agree please vote here is the link [34] Regards Umar.
  • This link points to page ce:Дехар диллар даржахо дарже. Running its text through the Russian to English translater seems to show an appeal for help saying that the Chechen Wikipedia has 7 administrators and 5 bureaucrats, none of which are active. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

........And.......the English WP admins are supposed to do..........what? Go vote for some guy that we don't know on a project where we don't understand the language? From the looks of the discussion the only opposition is from en.wp users who got hte same email. I think ignore is the best option here, this is none of our business. If the project needs help with administration the stewards are the right party to ask about it, and they are over at meta. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the OP is looking for where to report it? I would suggest the stewards at [35] . Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, this is a bit strange. Maybe try m:RFC for their view? Although note that not everything on that Wiki which is in Cyrillic is in Russian – in fact, most of it is in a different language (Chechen, I'm guessing), which far fewer people can understand than the number that can understand Russian, something which might complicate matters. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  This RFC on Meta may help to understand the context, but otherwise this is indeed not relevant for English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a community ban of User:Bull-Doser

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

---

I am making a formal proposal to ban from the community User:Bull-Doser, a longtime persistent disruptive editor since early 2006. I have first met Bull-Doser in 2007 and while I always found his edits questionnable, I would just just correct them and assume good faith. It's only in 2011 that I have decided to take actions against Bull-Doser after reading his talk page and researching his history on Wikipedia.

History

Bull-Doser joined Wikipedia in December 2005 under the account User:Take Me Higher. From the start, the account was plagued with complaints from members of WikiProject Automobiles regarding the poor quality of his car pictures. Bull-Doser rejected all discussion regarding the quality of images. In April 2006, members of WikiProject Automobiles opened a Request for Comments report in desperation to get Bull-Doser to respond about the problems of images.[36]. Bull-Doser ignored the Rfc case and continued uploading bad images not meeting quality standards. In June 2006, Bull-Doser briefly lost the password of his Take Me Higher account and created the Bull-Doser account. Members of WikiProject expressed concerns about Bull-Doser using two seperate accounts as well as the persistent problem regarding his images. Bull-Doser provided the reason why he created a second account but, as usual, avoided discussing about his images. [37] After being told that sockpuppetry is not permitted on Wikipedia, Bull-Doser chose to edit solely with the Bull-Doser account and discontinued the Take Me Higher account. In December 2006, Bull-Doser was reported to the Administrators Noticeboard for gratuitously throwing the F-word at another editor over a silly reason.[38] Bull-Doser made a mild apology and as such was able to get away with this personal attack. [39]

In 2007, Bull-Doser expanded his editing outside car articles. As a result, his disruption expanded to new areas including original research and unsourced content. As with the problem with his images, Bull-Doser ignored the notice/warnings about these new problems. And for the rare times that he did responded, he would talk about something else instead of addressing the problematic issues. Starting in 2008, a new type of disruption surfaced with Bull-Doser's images. Bull-Doser would spam his car images in articles that have nothing to do with cars and by including captions endossing the car's manufacturers. [40] [41] [42] [43][44] For this specific issue, I don't recall Bull-Doser being called on this on his talk page . However, editors who reverted his irrelevant car pictures did provided edit summaries explaining why these edits had to be reverted. [45] [46][47] But as with the rest of disruptive edits, Bull-Doser ignored the explanations and continued inserting car pictures on non-car articles all while endorsing the car manufacturer in caption.

2011 Block

Seeing how the abuse had been going on for years with absolutely no progress, I successfully requested a 24 hour block in December 2011 after Bull-Doser continued inserting original research content following two recent Level 4 warnings (by two different editors). Since returning from his block, Bull-Doser resumed his various disruptive edits with no improvement at all. It's like the 24 hour block had never happened.

2012 ANI case and indefinite block

Tired of going round in circles, I opened an ANI case in October 2012 after Bull-Doser disregarded a final warning regarding original research. With the exception of a brief answer (which didn't even address the problematic issue), Bull-Doser systematically deserted the whole ANI discussion. The closing administrator took upon himself to ban Bull-Doser. Since the community was never consulted for such action, the ANI case was reopened and Bull-Doser's ban was tuned into an indefinite block

More disruption while blocked

Although Bull-Doser has been blocked since October 2012, the disruption has continued . Since his 10/28/12 block, Bull-Doser has attempted block evasion through four different colorful ways ; the first time by editing with his IP adress outright [48], the second time by attempting to use his old Take Me Higher account [49]; the third time by asking editors to edit a radio station article for him [50] and the fourth time by telling editors on Wikimedia Commons to insert one of his images on Wikipedia. [51]

Bull-Doser has a Wikimedia Commons account that was created around the same time as the "Bull-Doser" account on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia account is plagued with poor quality images. Since his 28/10/12 block on Wikipedia, over 20 of Bull-Doser's images on Wikimedia Commons have been deleted or are in the process of being deleted; all of them because of quality issues. [52] At least 15 of these images were uploaded when Bull-Doser was already blocked on Wikipedia. Not all of Bull-Doser's images are necessarily bad. But a very high percentage of his images are. As recently as February 11, 2013, Bull-Doser uploaded two images of an Acura MDX of remarkable poor quality. Like many of Bull-Doser poor quality images, these two pictures have now been deleted.

However, I found these two pictures uploaded in December 2012 that have yet to be deleted [53][54] There is absolutely no excuse for an editor who has been on Wikipedia for this long to upload images of this sort of quality. None of this would be happening if Bull-Doser had listened to what people were telling him about his images 7 years ago. An editor on Wikimedia Commons has even express interest to have Bull-Doser blocked on this project as well. [55]

Why I believe Bull-Doser meet the requirements of a ban

Let's have a look at what the banning policy says.

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia

Bull-Doser violations include original research, image quality issues, unsourced content, image spamming, block evasion, refusal to communicate with other editors about his problematic edits and lack of comprehension. With the exception of block evasion, all of these problems have persisted for years with no improvement.

• Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.

Bull-Doser has caused a lot of frustration to many editors over the years and this statement can be confirmed by the talkpage of both the "Bull-Doser" and "Take Me Higher" accounts as well as some other complementary pages (Wikmedia, RFC, other user's talkpages, etc). The problem with Bull-Doser is that, not only he consistently disrupt Wikipedia, but also he does not respond to the concerns about his edits. So you feel kind of trapped because you don't know what to do. His presence causes an unnecessary burden to other editors who have to revert/correct his edits knowing that things will never change. Also, it fall within "persistent problems" since the disruption has been going on for 7 years.

• The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

Bull-Doser's lack of understanding about the situation coupled with his lack of response to other people concerns about his edits insures that the disruption would continue if he was unblocked. You don't have to take my words for it; the proof is already there. For all the talk Bull-Doser made on top his talkpage that he would no longer do original research on Wikipedia, he still went on and inserted original research when he evaded his block with his IP address . [56] This edit summary that Bull-Doser left on Wikimedia Commons on December 10, 2012 proves that Bull_Doser lacks WP:CLUE and cannot differentiate a good quality image from a bad quality one. Can somebody please tell me how it is important to 1) insert a poor quality blurry image on Wikipedia? and 2) insert a car picture on a article that doesn't even discuss about cars in the first place?

To conclude

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not for everybody. Very few of Bull-Doser's edits can be considered helpful. Even his supposedly "constructive" edits are more often than not a series of triviality that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and falls more with in the ranks of WP:FAN than WP:N. And you don't need to look far to see where the problem. Just look at the content of his talkpage since his 10/28/12 block. His edits speak for themselves. People are telling things to Bull_Doser and he doesn't even understands what's going on. I'm aware that Bull-Doser is currently under WP:OFFER until March 10, 2013. But I feel this is all futile at this point because Bull-Doser's everlasting image problem on Wikimedia Commons coupled with his lack of clueness regarding the whole situation won't allow him to get unblocked after March 10. Over the years, Bull-Doser has been giving countless of chances to amend his behavior. He has not made use of these chances and his presence does not constitute a net positive for to project. Now blocked, Bull-Doser continues to have disruptive behaviors on his talkpage and on Wikimedia Commons that only further reduce his credibility.

I have been a registered editor on Wikipedia for 7 years and and never before have I had to make a proposal to have a user banned. I don't even edit Wikipedia much these days. So if I'm taking the time to make this proposal, it's because I know that all means have been exhausted and there isn't anything else that can't with this user at this point.

In 2007, an editor questioned if Wikipedia was hobby for Bull-Doser [57] 6 years later, I can genuinely access that Wikipedia is not a hobby for Bull-Doser. He is not capable of providing the edits that Wikipedia needs, his disruptive problems are too widespread and he is unable to understand the concerns people have about his edits. So the right thing for Bul-Doser to do is to leave Wikipedia and to pursue other activities. From what I've read on Bull-Doser's user page, he doesn't seem to be someone in lack of hobbies. So he'll be okay without Wikipedia. Sure, the first weeks will probably difficult but he'll get over it. This is the only solution that I find to be in the best interest for Wikipedia and the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farine (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Having had a quick look through this, my thoughts are simply :

1. A quick glance at his contributions reveals Bull-Doser is indeffed, and has no accepted unblock requests on his talk page. Therefore, if you can supply good evidence he's socking to avoid the indef, go to WP:SPI and post it.
2. A number of people are concerned about you getting a bit too involved with trying to throw Bull-Doser out of the door. In particular, accusations of Dennis Brown being on Bull-Doser's side are rather hollow. Dennis has a reputation for being a fair admin who looks at both sides of the argument and tries to get people to help themselves rather than bring out the banhammer. I appreciate your patience is frayed, but if he keeps disrupting, follow the normal channels, as after a post-indef restart, lapses into disruption carry more severe penalties. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Dennis Brown is on Bull-Doser's side or not. It doesn't matter, that's not the point. All I know is that he blasted me when he's the one who misspelled Bull-Doser's name. If he had spelled Bull-Doser's name correctly, he would have accessed the SPI report from the beginning and this mini drama wouldn't have happened in the first place. Horologium is biased. Horologium was opposed to Bull-Doser's blocking from the beginning. He criticized Coffee for blocking Bull-Doser by claiming there was no consensus to block him when the ANI discussion clearly indicated that the vast majority wanted an indefinite block. As for throwing Bull-Doser out the door, all I would say is that this user has angered other editors for a very long time. He violated Wikipedia WP:CO's fundamental principle by ignoring the messages other users left on his talkpage about his edits. His edits on his talkpage and on Wikimedia Commons shows no sign of him wanting to communicate with other editors. The only time he communicates with others is when people are posting comments that opposes his unblock. So at this point, someone who has been giving this many chances for that years to work with others but failed to profit from these chances, has frustrated editors for this long and continue to demonstrate, while blocked, that he can't behave is a good reason to be banned from the community. People have been CBAN for less than this. Farine (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, people who are community banned are those who get blocked again and again, and each time either sit the block out or say that they know what they did wrong and will stop. It's the community's equivalent of crying wolf too often, which is why it takes a lot of support for it to go through. In this case, from your own description of Bull-Doser's character, it frankly doesn't seem very likely he's going to write a convincing unblock request in the near future, so in effect you're worrying about a problem that doesn't actually exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

so in effect you're worrying about a problem that doesn't actually exist. There is s great risk because an uninvolved administrator may decide to go ahead and unilaterally unblock Bull-Doser without a knowledge of this user's history, which could cause great harm to Wikipedia. By being banned, it insures that Bull-Doser cannot be back on Wikipedia without a strong consent of the community. Farine (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

An unblocking admin will have to look at least at the most recent block message and declines. There's no reasonable way they can fail to be aware of the history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Farine, none of us here are deliberately badgering your proposal here nor are we lining up to oppose/support. It's more of a "is this really necessary?" discussion. Any admin worth his salt (and mop) who deals with unblocks regularly isn't exactly going to just unilaterally overturn an indef of this sort without at least a glance at the talk page history for a start. I'd have to agree with Ritchie that there really isn't any substantial risk to the project. However, if you can pull some evidence of recent socking, etc, I for one would be more than happy to reassess my stance. Blackmane (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember the ANI that led to Bull-doser being indef'd. Although the Commons uploads affect Wikipedia, I'm a bit loathe to assess that as evidence as part of a WP site ban. That's not to say it's not evidence but in general off-WP evidence, even if it is from a sister project, is not usually counted against a user. However, apart from that I remember spending quite some time reading Bull-doser's past history and I usually find that talking to him is like talking to glass. it just goes right through. I've read the page histories of other banned users and as often as not there is a lot of arguing and shouting but at least in those cases you know that they're at least addressing the issue that led to the ban. With Bull-doser, it's more like two people having different conversations in the same room. This may or may not be something to do with their Asperger's, which, though I sympathise with, is not what wikipedia is here to help with. That being said, I'm not unsupportive of a site ban, but given that Bull-doser is indef'd anyway what exactly would a site ban accomplish beyond allowing automatic reverts of their edits without breaching 3RR? He may be under offer until March this year but even if he does return and ask for an OFFER to be considered, his past history makes it hard for me to think believe that any admin would unblock him anyway. Adhering to OFFER does not mean that it is a get out of jail free card. Blackmane (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits of blocked editors may be reverted just as edits of banned editors may be -- it doesn't make any difference.NE Ent 12:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically not true (I'm being pedantic here). Exemption to 3RR are only for banned users, their socks and socks of indef'd users not indef'd users themselves. That might need to be amended in WP:3rr as that seems to be happening as a matter of course now. I might pop over to the talk page of 3RR to suggest this. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane[[ (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Never mind me, the caffeine hasn't reached the brain yet else I'd not have made that nonsensical statement. Blackmane (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not to say it's not evidence but in general off-WP evidence, even if it is from a sister project, is not usually counted against a user. If he just uploaded these bad quality images and left them on Wikimedia Commons, it wouldn't be that much of a deal. The problem is that that he post them on Wikipedia too further making a mockery of this website. (BTW, the image is supposed to represent a Zellers store, a Canadian competitor of Walmart and Target.) Farine (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You've basically made my point for me. Deal with the crap images that he uploads here, here. The crap images he uploads to Commons should be dealt with on Commons. Nothing you said changes or invalidates my point. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So we do this commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Empty_Zellers_Dorval_Store.jpg; a ban proposal just isn't useful per Blackmane, Ched, et. al. NE Ent 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How many images of Bull-Doser have been deleted in the past because of quality issues? How many more images of Bull-Doser do you want to be deleted in the future because of quality issues? Do you want to continue deleting Bull-Doser's images for the rest of eternity? And what help can be provided to Bull-Doser at this point? Does he even understand why he was blocked and what people are asking him? Farine (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia and Commons are different projects. Banning them here doesn't affect what they can do on commons at all. NE Ent 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Farine, your rhetoric isn't helping your argument. Yes, Bull-Doser has been a pain because of their history that you've outlined in great detail above, but your proposal to ban him is not gaining any traction. A community ban is not going to pass because he just hasn't done the sort of things now that would warrant a pre-emptive site ban. Your final point is irrelevant. We're not here to help him, he has to help himself by understanding the block. If he doesn't understand or is unable to understand then the indef will stand and that will be that. If he starts socking to get around it then a ban discussion would be appropriate then but it isn't appropriate now. Blackmane (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in such hurry when I was reading this page yesterday (due to time constraints) that I've misread what NE Ent wrote and thought he had used the word "helpful" instead of "useful". (a ban proposal just isn't helpful per Blackmane, Ched, et. al). LOL. But you're right Blackmane, the whole "helping" thing has nothing to do with any of this. Farine (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• tl;dr opening statements like this always tend to have me looking for red flags. While it may be a good start for an RfC/U on an unsanctioned user, it seems a bit much for someone who is currently blocked. A quick look seems to indicate that the block is for quite valid reasons (although there is a certain enthusiasm that's easy to appreciate.) That being said, I oppose any further action at this time as a solution to a problem that does not currently exist. (and a quick note to beware the wp:boomerang) — Ched :  ?  13:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The editor is question is currently very busy with the Montreal auto show, as you can see from his Commons contributions history. While prolific, he's not a very skilled photographer imho. I'm no expert, but it almost looks like he's stripped the emulsion off his lens, or is using a poor quality camera, as most shots seem washed out with lots of lens flares. That said, the majority of his images are well within the Commons' minimum standard (which is pretty minimal), from what I can see. I say this as someone who currently has several of his images, both old and new, up for deletion there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's been pointed out to me that the camera data shows they are smartphone images. Sorry, I should have checked for that myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Move to close

If no one has any problems with this, I move that this proposal be closed as no consensus reached on a community ban at the moment but may be revisited in the event of new transgressions being detected. As I've participated in the discussion, it would be inappropriate to do a NAC. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It's not like my proposal ban is gonna pass anyway, LOL. Although nobody is perfect, when it comes to these Administrators Noticeboard threads, you are rarely wrong Blackmane (I think it was even you who first made the proposition to indefinitely blocked Bull-Doser back in October 12). You have shared valuable detailed informations about how the Banning policy works that I wasn't aware and that was not clearly specified in the Wikipedia page of this policy, and I really appreciate it. If there's any issues regarding sock-puppetry, you can be sure that I'll be back on this page in no time. Again thanks for your feedback. Take care. Farine (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:PendingChanges header needs to be changed

I'm not sure if I should put this here, or at WP:RFPP or a Village Pump, since MediaWiki messages is inactive. The current wording of the header reads:

By default, edits to pages under pending changes protection are not displayed to readers until an administrator or reviewer authorizes them. Only administrators and reviewers can make edits which do not require review.

The current message seems to only apply to PC level 2(which currently isn't in widespread use). I would suggest changing the wording to something like:

Edits to pages under pending changes protection (level one) by unregistered and new users are not displayed to readers until an administrator or reviewer authorizes them. Confirmed users can make edits to level one that go live immediately as long as there are no pending changes by unregistered or new users. Edits to pages under pending changes protection (level two) are not displayed to readers until an administrator or reviewer authorizes them. Only administrators and reviewers can make edits to level two articles which do not require review.

Crazynas ^t 20:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, both at MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list/en-gb and MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list. I used your wording with one change: rewording the bit about reviewers and admins to get rid of "authorizes", since that results in a US/UK spelling difference. Both pages now have precisely the same text; do we need to keep the en-gb one? If not, it should be G6 deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is all of English Wikipedia broken now? Jester of the court (sock) 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Confused; what do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he's saying it doesn't matter if the two pages have the exact same text. I have no opinion. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ents have long memories [58]] Jester of the court (sock) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be that, but I didn't break anything...this time :-) Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! What is (or was) the purpose of MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list/en-gb? Crazynas ^t 23:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous text, like your proposal, twice used "authorizes", and the en-gb page used "authorises". It's a trivial enough difference that I don't see the need for it in the first place, and there's definitely no need to have two pages with precisely the same wording, since the software will default to the text on the en page if we delete the en-gb page. If your preferences are set to British English, you'll see the en-gb page instead of the en page that everyone else sees. I found both by accident — I've never figured out how to search MW-space pages properly, so I used WhatLinksHere for one of the linked pages and found that it was linked by both en and en-gb. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Hound

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

---

I would like to request that user Rray be blocked for WP:Hound. I first asked him politely to stop following me around and blindly voting against me in every content dispute, his response was: 'I will edit when and where I please'. I then warned him that I would report him if he continued, his response was: "I intend to edit when and where I please". This has taken place over several years and I would like action taken please. His goal is simply to make editing for me as unpleasant as possible and to spite me. Not one time in several years has he ever taken a position that wasn't the opposite of mine and he shows up literally every time I'm in a content dispute - I think he must be monitoring all of my edits. Further, when he votes against me he often does so with ad hominem personal attacks and insults, rarely focusing on the content but instead making it personal, despite myself and others warning him repeatedly to stop doing that. DegenFarang (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Degenfarang should provide links to the ad hominem personal attacks and insults that he claims I made. Of course, since I haven't made any ad hominem personal attacks and insults, this might be difficult. Also, just to provide some context, Degenfarang was (at one time) indefinitely suspended for being disruptive and accusing everyone who disagreed with him of being a sockpuppet. A quick look at my editing history will show that I edit articles on a wide variety of subjects, poker and gambling among them. The only encounters I can recall having with this user have been related to articles in those subject categories--I don't think I've ever discussed an article outside of that subject area with him. I glanced at his edit history, and he does edit articles in other categories, so it's clearly untrue that I monitor all of his edits and blindly vote against him. Degenfarang's insistence that I not edit articles he edits amounts to taking ownership of these articles. Also, his repeated threats and accusations on my talk page (and now here) amount to harassment, intimidation, and bullying. Rray (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You say you've never made ad hominem attacks against me and then you go and make more! As you always do, you're discussing me and my past history and trying to use that to discredit me. That's an ad hominem attack. The topic here is you and your actions. DegenFarang (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you've harassed me (and multiple other users) before, and been blocked for it, provides context--especially since your behavior on my talk page and here fall under that same pattern of harassment. That's not the same thing as an ad hominem attack. Rray (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument" You are not addressing the argument I am making. Your 'context' is not relevant and does not excuse you hounding me. If anything, that's a reason for you to disengage, as you're already aware your presence is going to be seen as a provocation. DegenFarang (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Diffs, please? In a setting like this, where you can provide evidence easily, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a kind of personal attack, so neither of you is helping by simply arguing. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence is in his response. Instead of addressing what I said, he attempts to change the subject and bring up things that happened several years ago when I was a new editor. All you need to do is look at his recent contributions to see that he is following me around and taking the opposite side in every content dispute. DegenFarang (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avery Cardoza Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) Talk:Steve Badger (poker player) DegenFarang (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As you haven't provided diffs, I went to the pages linked and did a ctrl+f for "Rray". I don't see any ad hominems anywhere, tho I do see a "See project poker, Rray is acting as a meat puppet here for user2005, we should wait for the opinions of other users besides 2005 before deciding what to do. DegenFarang (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC) " on Talk:Steve Badger (poker player) to which Rray seem to have responded constructively and civilly. Likewise later on in the discussion you have accused him of being a sock of 2005, while he has replied without any ad hominems. I would suggest that you look at your own behavior and accusations, and file a SPI report if you feel he is indeed a sockpuppet or argue on the substance, instead of making repeated ad hominem attacks. Again, if you could provide any diffs about this alleged ad hominem attacks you've been subject to, it would be helpful as so far from the links you've provided I've only found ones made by you. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You should look at the dates. That was a long time ago. I have since noticed just by their level of knowledge of the game of poker, that Rray is not a sock. Also probably not a meat, just somebody who enjoys hounding me and voting against me. DegenFarang (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could look into this, particularly at Steve Badger (poker player) (which may need protecting), its talk page, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker. Amalthea 09:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since DegenFarang hasn't provided any examples of the insults and personal attacks that he claims I've made, can this discussion be closed? So far, it seems like none of the administrators involved in this discussion seem to think I've done anything wrong, either. Rray (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make one final comment in this discussion. DegenFarang has been blocked 3 times for harassing editors. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADegenFarang). Surely, constantly accusing editors who disagree with him of making personal attacks is just another type of harassment? I'm not the only editor here he's done this with. He's also lodged a similar complaint with another editor he disagrees with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_2005.2C_repeated_personal_attacks. Rray (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Routine page move

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

---

Resolved

 – Already done. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move Virgin Territory (episode) to Virgin Territory (Modern Family) (currently a redirect). This is the standard disambiguation for an episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Couldn't you have placed a {{db-move}} tag on the redirect? Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

How is ToT supposed to answer Nyttend's question with a close tag around the discussion? NE Ent 02:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was meant as a rhetorical question; if I'd had any doubt that he could have, I would have waited (to give time for the problem to be resolved) or asked him at his talk page. Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

180.215.206.78 Trolling

The user—or users—at the IP address 180.215.206.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are very clearly trolling & have contributed 100% nothing constructive. Can a block be put on their account? --SpyMagician (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

31 hour block on the IP for obvious disruption. In the future, cases this obvious can be reported to WP:AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! And thanks for the clarification on procedures. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Motions with respect to functionaries

In early January 2013, the Arbitration Committee reviewed several aspects of the appointment and review processes related to Checkusers, Oversighters and AUSC members, including the appointment extension of advanced permissions to former arbitrators. In preparation for this review, arbitrators retiring as of 31 December 2012 were permitted to retain Checkuser and Oversight permissions at their request on an interim basis until the completion of the review and decisions on next steps. The motions that the Arbitration Committee will vote on are located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions; other motions may be proposed as well. All functionaries and community members are invited to participate in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Discuss this on the Motions page

Scribunto (Lua scripting for templates) deployed

This has flown under the radar somewhat, but mw:Extension:Scribunto has been deployed to en.wp. Scribunto offers scripting (in Lua), which when embedded in some templates, results in massive performance increases. Scripts will be placed in a new namespace named "Module" (see Special:Prefixindex/Module:). A rather sketchy FAQ is posted at Wikipedia:Lua. Please discuss this at WP:VPT#Scribunto deploy and forgive the inevitable template breakage. MER-C 11:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata scheduled downtime

Wikidata will be read-only from 19:00 UTC today through 02:00 UTC tomorrow (February 21) in order to upgrade the database schema. During that time the site will not be editable, and it will not be possible to add or remove language links. --Rschen7754 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The read-only time will be starting soon and ending a few hours late due to some delays in San Francisco. --Rschen7754 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Enormous backlog at Requested moves

There are currently 139 requested moves on the backlog alone. Really, really needs administrative attention. Help! -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just did half a dozen of the older ones. It's all I have time for tonight unfortunately. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please create talk section

Please create the talk section Talk:PlayStation 4 for PlayStation 4 article. Previous talk sections were deleted and rights were changed to prevent creation of the talk section. I don't need to be notified when you do it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attack and attempt to WP:OUT - by User:Prathambhu

Prathambhu (talk · contribs · logs) is attempting WP:OUT, which is a personal harrasment.
This Outing attempt was done here :Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Location_of_Malayalam_movie_industry.

Wiki Policy states "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for WP:Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a WP:personal attack and dealt with accordingly."

I have issued a warning to the user talk User_talk:Prathambhu#Warning_2. I suggested to I remove all such remarks at the earliest. This is not done yet, instead he continued to do the same.

Timeline of personal attack and attempt to Out:

1. 04:44, 20 February 2013
2. 09:58, 20 February 2013
3. 11:01, 20 February 2013 : Warning issued
4. 13:07, 20 February 2013

Moreover, this user is engaged in edit war with constant reverts in the article violating WP:3RR

I need admin intervention to oversight the edits and WP:BLOCK the user. -- Aarem ^(Talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, two points here. Main point: Please, for love of Jimbo, DO NOT PUT OVERSIGHT REQUESTS ON THIS BOARD OR ON AN/I. This board gets tons and tons of attention from tons and tons of users, and if you want information suppressed, this is just about the last place you should be bringing attention to it. Secondary point: speaking from my individual point of view, this appears to be an issue of someone referencing your prior account name, not someone outing you. Outing you would be referencing information about you that you hadn't already shared on Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have revision deleted one of the diffs since entire articles were copied into the page, and that is a copyvio. --Rschen7754 09:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Fluffernutter's assessment; outing is "posting another editor's personal information...unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Your previous account name is definitely something that you voluntarily posted on Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Adminstats

Due to a bug, I have temporarily shut down adminstats.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:-( Just curious: what was going wrong, and when (if you can guess) will it be back up? Thanks very much for running the service. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

NO ADMEN STATZ FER U NYTTEND!--v/r - TP 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well, if I can't have adminstats, I can has cheeseburger? Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he was offering soup. GiantSnowman 14:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Havengore - topic ban?

User:Havengore appears to be a single purpose editor with the sole intention of "bigging up" Colin Lamont, the real life person who plays the part of the radio character Scottie McClue.

User:JamesBWatson reverted his most recent attempts to add peacockery and unsourced POV - you can see the revert here together with the edit summary. JamesBWatson explained his reasons in this comment at User talk:Havengore. Since then Havengore has been re-doing some of his additions and having them reverted again - see the most recent article history. He has made other problematic edits, including...

• Removing sourced date of birth - [59]
• Specific example of an unsourced POV, "proving most innovative in his..." - [60]
• Refactoring a comment by JamesBWatson (removing only part of it) - [61]
• Refactoring a comment of mine - [62]
• Describing Mr Lamont as the "illustrious subject", implying the opposite of NPOV - [63]

We also had an episode of the same thing in November, when Havengore was pretty disruptive regarding the same two articles. A lot of it is in the user talk page history - pre-blanking version here. Talk:Colin Lamont also has more, with Havengore making it personal and attacking other editors. You can see from the discussion there that Havengore appeared intent on writing about the two as individual real people (when Scottie McClue is only a fictitious persona played by Colin Lamont) - there were previous attempts to remove all mention of the real person from the Scottie McClue article. We also had an IP (I don't know who it was) suggesting the removal of all mention of Colin Lamont from the Scottie McClue article. You can see a lot more of the same stuff at Talk:Scottie McClue, with Havengore again wanting to minimize mention of Colin Lamont in the Scottie McClue article.

Havengore appears to have little other interest here than puffing up the Colin Lamont and Scottie McClue articles, having edited only these two articles plus John Simons, and in his short career here has amassed at least 15 warnings and has had a block for edit warring.

There are no individually egregious offences, and I'm sorry that a read of the two article talk pages and the user talk page are needed to understand the problems properly, but the totality of Havengore's edits have added up to little but disruption and a lot of distraction for people with better things to be doing. So, I would like to propose a topic ban from the subjects of Colin Lamont and Scottie McClue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Havengore notified at [64] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed - and edits like this will result in an indef. GiantSnowman 19:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support as proposer (I guess I should say that). Also, Havengore has now refactored another of my comments despite having been told not to - [65], and he's given me a final warning on his talk page, telling me that I'm going to be banned for life - [66] (I have not, of course, broken 3RR) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Support indef bock too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Indef him He's obviously WP:NOTHERE. Based on their contrib history, pretty much all of their editing is to these two articles over 2 years, with a smattering on another article if only just to edit war, and personally I find it hard to see that he'd do much else.Blackmane (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• In my individual administrator capacity, after consideration of the above, I am indefinitely blocking Havengore as an eminently disruptive single purpose account. Evidently I also support the topic ban in the event that the block is for some reason lifted.  Sandstein  20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c)Yes, indef him. Really, I don't think I've ever invoked WP:NOTHERE — I'm basically against it as a block reason — but there's always the odd exception. Looking at the "contributions" and the user's talkpage, piddling about with topic bans seems like the wrong level. Support indefblock. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
• I fully support Sandstein's action, and would have done the same myself if I had beaten Sandstein to it. The user has been given far more than enough chances, and it is quite clear that he/she has no intention of changing his/her ways, which involve various different problems. Naturally, like Sandstein, I also fully support a topic ban if and when the account is unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have just discovered this edit, in which Havengore removed this section from this page. (Giant Snowman linked to it above, but did not explain what the edit did, and I have only just found out.) If there were any lingering doubt about the indefinite block, surely that would dispel it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Block of IP range

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked the IP range 101.0.71.0/24 because an IP editor active from that range had an IP-hopping connection. The log claims this was for "sock abuse", but there is no indication that the IP was a sock of anyone or that there was any misrepresentation on the IP's part. Instead the WP:SOCK argument appears to be based on the nature of the IP's connection. Future left several statements demanding the IP create an account or else be blocked: [67] [68] [69]. Future ultimately performed an anon-only block on the IP range when this didn't happen, initially for three months with account creation blocked. For no apparent reason, Future modified the block a half-hour later to make it a hard range block for six months. The IP was editing from a VPN server and this is what caused the IP-hopping. Given the IP's statements about editing from work it seems this was not done with any deliberate intent to evade, but rather because the company for which the editor works uses a VPN connection as do many other companies. Blocking account creation when the whole concern was about the IP-hopping range seems punitive in the extreme. The IP editor did use a proxy server after the block to inform me of the issue, but I don't think that should be held against them given the excessively punitive nature of Future's block. I ask that the range block be amended to anon-only with account creation allowed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The socking argument was obviously related to this ANI discussion about possible socks of Echigo mole where 101.0.71.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was attacking Mathsci and Dougweller. So, connections aside, I think there's a good likelihood that this IP is in fact related to Echigo mole. In this light I'm not sure that account creation from this very range would benefit the project, so a hard range block may be justified. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the IP hopper's account is operated by Echigo mole, since he edited a year ago from a regular IP range in Australia. On the other hand the IP hopper did restore a trolling edit of Echigo mole and acted on it as if it had been made by a good faith user, despite having been told otherwise by two editors. After FPaS, blocked the range 101.0.71.0/24,[70] the IP hopper used an open proxy in Brazil which was reported by me[71][72] at WP:OP and blocked for 6 months by Materialscientist.[73] Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Adopting a bureaucratic procedure of taking a week to agonize over every "new" user editing from an IP-hopping proxy would not be helpful when facing long-term and very determined POV pushing. It is very hard for people unfamiliar with the WP:ARBR&I debacle to follow a case like this. Third parties should bear in mind these factors: a very dedicated group of determined people has been pushing a certain line about race and intelligence for years (and some are banned); in the past, Mathsci was the main obstacle preventing Wikipedia from being used to promote their view; several of the banned users have created socks to push their view or to provoke Mathsci in the hope of having him sanctioned; independently of the R&I case, there is a long term abuser (Echigo mole) with a grudge against Mathsci who frequently posts provocative messages hoping to recruit editors for their cause. The 101 IP is not Echigo mole. 101 is someone supporting the R&I line of the banned users, and who has been carefully following good practices to do what they can to support their view. However, they came unstuck when discussing Mathsci on ANI (archive). Taking the trouble to follow the interactions shows that 101 revealed their agenda by restoring and spreading Echigo mole's trolling (EM used 111.161.30.218), then focusing on Mathsci at ANI. If 101 were a good-faith editor, they would have responded to the ANI report by explaining why they restored 111.161.30.218's message, and taking advice on the matter. Instead, they pushed their line. Good block. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)