Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


About your comment on the "Nagorno-Karabakh article" thread in Arbitration

Just a general question. You said that misconduct is not required before a warning. However, is a warning required before any sanctions are handed down? And if one is, how should an editor be made aware of the warning? Meowy 20:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. The traditional way is by a post on the talk page ({{uw-sanctions}}, for example). There are also other ways for an editor to be warned: for example, in the 1RR case, the edit notice is deemed to be enough warning since an editor will necessarily see it before making an edit. If an user has been previously sanctioned, the sanction notice also serves as a warning. In several cases, we have also found editors to have been constructively warned based on their prior participation at AE. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you are missing one important point. I agree that to impose 1RR restriction on some particular user per {{uw-sanctions}} may be quite correct, however, such a step is per se a sanction, not a warning. When some user reads a message that he is under 1RR, that means that he has been sanctioned: his editorial privileges appear to be restricted, so even a second (even technical) revert may lead to block. When the message about 1RR is placed not at the user talk page, but at the article talk page, then everyone (including those who visit this page for a first time) appears to be sanctioned as if they were established edit-warriors. Therefore, the idea to indiscriminately warn all users that their editorial privileges are restricted contradicts to the elementary common sense. (In the case of the Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes article, the situation is even worse: the community appeared to be effectively banned from editing of this article; in this case the edit notice is not a warning about possible ban, it is an information for everyone that they have already been sanctioned for violations committed by someone else).
I noticed you have put forward the idea of collective edit restriction for some concrete group of users. That idea seems quite reasonable, and it is in accordance with the spirit of {{uw-sanctions}}. However, the present situation, when the sanctions are applied to the article, not to some concrete users (or to a large, although strictly outlined amount of them) is intrinsically flawed.
I have read this diacussion, however, I think we need to return to this issue again for the reasons described by me above.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not a particular sanction is useful, the extent of AE authority with respect to article-level restrictions is determined by arbcom and not subject to reinterpretation by AE admins. If you want to change it, you'll need to direct your comments to arbcom directly. T. Canens (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
You are probably right, I'll try to do that. Can you please explain me what is a standard procedure for doing that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably WP:A/R/A. T. Canens (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
While discussion on talk pages continues, the improvement works in Nagorno-Karabakh article are effectively on hold. I want to hear your opinion before attempting to make changes in the text of the article. Winterbliss (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Another question, what do you mean by "edit notice" when you said "article-level discretionary sanctions are permitted under Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The edit notice serves as the requisite warning."? Meowy 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:Edit notice. For example, the edit notice of AE is the yellow box with filing instructions above the wikitext box when you try to edit the page. T. Canens (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I still don't understand! Can you tell me a page that has this notice. Forexample, all I see above the Nagorno-Karabakh edit box is a pink box sayingthe article is semi-protected. BTW, I asked this, and the earlier question, here rather than on the actual discussion because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMeowy%2FArchive_1&diff=339982679&oldid=337919255 However, I now felt I had to make a comment on that discussion page because another editor has reposted a comment I had made elsewhere, and misinterpreted the meaning of the quote. I hope this is not used as an excuse for some sanction - I think I should have a right to clarify my opinion when the misinterpretation of that opinion makes out that I am being very critical of another editor abilities. Meowy 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this the thing you mean, on the Armenian Genocide editing window? It is a green box, but mentions the sanctions. This is actually the first article I have seen this on, and I think new or inexperienced users would easily miss it or not understand it. Meowy 22:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes - the coloring is up to the person creating the notice. I think the somewhat more common version is what you see here. Now if they see that big red stop sign and still choose to ignore it, they do it at their own peril. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand now! Who can create these notices - anyone or only admins? Meowy 17:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"All users can create editnotices for their user and talk pages, but editnotices for other namespaces can be created and edited only by administrators and account creators." Of course, that doesn't mean that non-admins can create an 1RR edit notice and expect admins to enforce it... T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBRB

Hi Tim. This case did have sanctions against Vlad Fedorov and two others who were not parties and were not named in the title of the case. Did you mean, no sanctions *still in effect* against non-parties? EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that it does not have sanctions that can be applied to editors not sanctioned in the original decision. T. Canens (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the arbs appear receptive to this set of changes, can you state a criterion for when you think a case should keep the name or names of the main people involved? Such a criterion could be kept around somewhere and used to guide future case naming. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's the best way to put it, but my view is that if a case has substantive remedies that is applicable to an entire area (article probation, discretionary sanctions, binding RFC, and the like), it should be preferably named after the area rather than one or two editors. If the remedy is limited to certain specific editors named in the decision, it's not as big a problem to me for it to be named after some of these editors. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about an IP block

Hi. I've been editing since March 2005, and an admin since November 2007, and today, while I was waiting for a train, I tried to edit the Jersey City Medical Center article from my iPhone, and got a message saying that blocked by you for BLP violations, with the block set to expire November 8, 2012. Even odder, the IP indicated is 166.137.136.0/22. I was unaware of any IPs with forward slashes in them, and I couldn't find this IP when I returned home and used my username account. Can you explain if this is a legitimate IP, and what BLP violations were committed from it? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See mw:Help:Range blocks. That block is a block of 1,024 IP addresses. Courcelles 01:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/11#Possible rangeblock and User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/3#Persistant IP and User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/11#Re-block needed have the details. T. Canens (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Is there any way for the IP of my iPhone to be exempt from that range block? Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. Cellphone IPs are not static. If you log in (not necessarily on your admin account - you can create one for your iPhone) then you shouldn't be affected by the block though. T. Canens (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I meant if I didn't log in. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Then no. There's no way for the system to distinguish you from the vandal if you don't log in. T. Canens (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the info, Tim. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh article" thread in AE

Hello Tim. The thread in AE forum [1] has been open for more than two weeks already, and I tend to believe the discussion has run its course. I guess, it is not unreasonable to request to put the issue to rest, and simply advise the interested parties to stick to productive discussion on talk pages of the article itself. Have a nice day. Winterbliss (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Please

Desysopping, I was expecting. Just don't shoot me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more about hanged, drawn and quartered. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom harrison ban

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As a reminder, Mkat had allowed for 30 days before reviewing the indef. We are just a couple of days away from reaching it. Are you going to re-examine the case? I don't think Tom has done anything particularly objectionable since the ban was instated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with TDA above, but emphasize that Tom hadn't done anything objectionable to begin with...Tom doesn't think so either gathering from his talkpage comments...when discussing the conspiracy theories behind 9/11, and the history of their evolution, it isn't news except to those poorly versed in these ridiculous theories that there was at least early on, a strong anti-Semitic overtone to many of them. Perhaps Tom could be asked to provide further background on this matter in his usertalk but that thesis may be too advanced for this pedia.MONGO 12:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

While please of innocence are not looked fondly upon, I don't particularly mind if he thinks he was right or not so long as he commits to not doing it again.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean pleas...? I doubt Tom would bother to do that under these circumstances...in fact, I imagine that even if the ridiculous ban were lifted, he won't be doing much in that arena anytime soon anyway...the issue is that the ban was preposterous to begin with. But as I said, "that thesis may be too advanced for this pedia" since we're supposed to be politically correct and all....God forbid we may try and provide clarity and background to where much of the idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories originated from...a premise soon afterward dropped since it was sure to doom the promotional aspects of the absurd and undercut the cons that have printed books and peddled their ignorant misinformation solely to make a buck.--MONGO 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Why do you care? You're the reporter, not the victim. Your vindictivenes and you taking it personally is part of tehe problem as to why you are such a problematic editor and your manipulation of the reporting system left a respected editor "topic banned" and another administrator to quit the tools. You yourself however continue to waste everybodies time on An/I and other venues trying to wikilawyer your way to relevance. How about we just presume Tom is no longer topic banned and you leave the topic alone. Both 9/11 and Tom. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dhey, your comments here are not helpful. I am trying to see if Tim might lift Tom's ban soon not pick a fight.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So, Tim, are you going to re-examine the ban on your own or are you going to want Tom to appeal it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tom but I doubt he's going to appeal it...maybe it would be best you not even mention it to him. Perhaps Tim and Tom can discuss it another time.--MONGO 06:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Diplomacy 101: If you want someone to lift a topic ban they agreed with, it might not be the best idea to call it "ridiculous" and "preposterous". Regardless, I'm travelling until March 18 and am unable to do a full review until then. If you want the ban lifted before then, you'll have to make an appeal at AE; otherwise, I'll take a look once I get back. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll call it what it is...had you bothered to do some homework and not be so biased and uneducated in your action, you wouldn't have screwed this up to begin with...if your action was so sound then why did another admin resign over it completely and another editor walk away from editing in protest. If I check AN/I or some other venue, am I going to find other issues with your admin work? I bet so. There is nothing to review except your absurd overreaction to a few diffs out of the thousands made by Tom harrison in this topic area.--MONGO 06:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Really? One of the challenged edits says that "the 9/11 conspiracy theories, like all conspiracy theories, have their origins in ... hatred and fear of Jews". Not "early", not "some", not even "9/11", but "all" conspiracy theories. The ban was sound when it was imposed, and I can tell you right now that I will not be lifting it until and unless I see some indication that edits of this sort will not be repeated. If you want to claim "other issues with my admin work", go ahead and substantiate it with diffs and an RFC/U or whatever rather than casting empty aspersions. If you want someone else to take a look, file an appeal at AE or make an amendment request at WP:A/R/A. T. Canens (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Tom hasn't said anything so far about appealing, but March 18 seems like a reasonable time. I just want to make sure you don't forget about him.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you do anything

Before you do anything, please review the following notes:

With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 01:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan

Re [2]. Although Taiwan and the Republic of China aren't related to Macedonia or Ireland, the dispute around the naming of the Republic of China article is essentially identical as the previous disputes around Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia. Further, only registered users may file a new case at WP:A/R/C. Would you reconsider your decision, or advise what I should do to file a new case? 61.18.170.26 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No. You might want to ask a clerk for help. T. Canens (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


You are being discussed at . . .

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats. MBisanz talk 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary


Topic Ban

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan

Re [3]. Although Taiwan and the Republic of China aren't related to Macedonia or Ireland, the dispute around the naming of the Republic of China article is essentially identical as the previous disputes around Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia. Further, only registered users may file a new case at WP:A/R/C. Would you reconsider your decision, or advise what I should do to file a new case? 61.18.170.125 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please reply here, since I am not using a static IP address. Thanks. 61.18.170.117 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Falafel of Excellence

The Falafel of Excellence (First Class) is hereby awarded for balanced and informed WP:ARBPIA Arbitration Enforcement. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom harrison

About a month ago, you said that you would look at Tom's edits in a few weeks, and lift the ban if you think it is appropriate.[4] Have you a had a chance to do so yet? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm travelling until March 18. I'll take a look after that, unless the current AN thread lifts it, obviously. T. Canens (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. (Sorry for the post, I didn't see the discussion at AN or above until after I posted this.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there — ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 18:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi AE Appeal

Chesdovi is specifically mentioning you in his appeal over on AE, although I'm certain you would see it on patrol, I thought I'd let you know. --WGFinley (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Timotheus. I noticed your stated intention to close this appeal thread at AE. Thanks for announcing that; I think it's immensely good form to do so, and I wish it were the rule at AE, rather than the exception. Still, I did want to mention that it's just four hours into the Judaism's Sabbath where Chesdovi resides, and that as a rabbi, he may observe it in an Orthodox way, which I understand would exclude the use of electronic devices like computers. Also, I'm sure you noticed his comment, in green text (permalink) asking for time to prepare a more comprehensive statement for posting to the AE thread.
I realize his comment spoke of finishing that statement "tomorrow", which would have been sometime on 15 March 2012 (UTC), and that admin consensus may not change with the presentation of any new statement. But especially since Chesdovi didn't feel "heard" before ( quite understandably, since his previous appeal was never transferred from his talk to AE, as he'd requested ) I'd be much in favor of giving him another couple of days, at least, rather than just another day. I'd see no harm in that, and if he is still working on something, it would have to be immensely frustrating to him not to be able to present it. Not an admin opinion, of course, this, but perhaps you'll take it under advisement, anyway. Thanks for your work trying to help keep order in the topic area. Cordially,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'll wait a couple more days, though as I explained, my view is that his promised statement is addressing an issue that should not be open for discussion in the current procedural posture. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
That's gracious, and I appreciate it. I do agree with you, though, re the procedural aspect. JamesBWatson told him essentially the same thing, back in January, over an earlier block appeal. My thought in asking you this was mostly just to try to keep from adding any more frustration to the man's life than is absolutely necessary. I expect you'd remember to do so anyway, but may I also just suggest that you check his talk page for any recent additions that may not have been copied over to AE, before you do close? Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Thank you very much! 
AlexGraal (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

[5] You placed 4 editors under an editing restriction. Well the RFC never happened and shortly after the restriction, another editor changed the article along exactly the lines I'd suggested. I currently have had 4 articles in my sandpit for a little under a year. I would like to move these to main but cannot whilst under editing restrictions. Its really frustrating as I have only ever edited productively but my edits were constantly reverted for no good reason by 2 editors who weren't about improving the article and yet because Arbcom and AE doesn't look at content they're classed as being of equal value. I would like to have my editing restriction removed but know from past experience that the Imalbornoz account will resurrect itself to frustrate my efforts. What should I do? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I'm rather inclined to lift the restriction on all 4 editors entirely and then see how it plays out. Can you file a formal appeal at AE so that we can get a few more eyes on this? T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

AE case

Since you are familiar with the editors involved would you mind reviewing this case, including my proposal?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Gemma McCluskie DYK hook

Thanks. I edit-conflicted with you in pulling that one off the Main Page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Oops! - I don't know what happened there, sorry! Thanks for the revert :) - Alison ❤ 19:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ESRO 2B deletion

I would like this article to be restored. I'm not sure what the justification was to delete it in the first place but the fact is that this is one of the first satellites launched by Europe. I'm really confused, why was this article dumped? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 10:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That article was created (and mostly written) by a user who is a long history of creating articles that are (1) copyright violations and (2) original research by synthesis. Under these circumstances, the community decided that the best way to handle the mess is simply to delete all articles he has ever created. I can userfy it if you want, but considering the myriad issues with this user's work it's probably best to start from scratch instead. T. Canens (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Was there a problem with this specific article? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least one section is a clear copyright violation. T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope

I hope all this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2 is normal housekeeping and not cuz I messed things up Mlpearc (powwow) 02:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly I messed up a selective restore so I had to do it twice :) T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Kissle

I've requested for permission to use Kissle. But it hasn't been reviewed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect block status

Requires a developer to fix, see bugzilla:34014.
Cheers, Amalthea 07:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, for this particular block, unblocking #175820 did the trick T. Canens (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh, apparently nobody had tried that yet. :) Amalthea 08:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Your comment at AE

Hi Tim, could you articulate the evidentiary basis of your comment[6], I see no violation by Volunteer Marek as Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans explicitly permits "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party" and WP:AE is one venue for asking for admin assistance. --Nug (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

simple request

Please also examine the iterated baiting of YRC over a period of time and note that ArbCom in the p[ast has stated that baiting is also a blockable offence. I am not asking that YRC be ignored, only that those who baited him repreatedly over a period of time also be noted and, as a minimum, given strict warnings to stay away from him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Well, then this is relevant [7].VolunteerMarek 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Questionable block of Youreally

Hi, Wikid77 here (I am not an admin). After hours of study, I have concluded that the block at User_talk:Youreallycan was unjustified (ANI link: ANI2339). The idea of a block was still being debated when this block was pre-maturely imposed. The incident revolved around the use of term "queer agenda" which is not an insult or derogatory term, with the common meaning of "queer" as being "odd" (or even "GLBT" which is also acceptable, as noted in an RfC mentioning "queer editors": RfC-diff-4374). Even a TV show popularized the term, "Queer as Folk" (pun on the archaic expression). Meanwhile, some editors expressed a prior hostility, wishing this editor to be blocked for past actions, already sanctioned by a warning, but that does not condone a "double jeopardy" to block an editor for past actions already cleared. Hence, there was no action, on the part of this editor, to justify this block. However, I realize when other editors start making hostile comments against another editor at ANI, it gives the illusion of wrong-doing, but WP does not block an editor merely because several people were upset with prior actions and wanted more severe punishment than the prior admin had decided. I was a formal debate judge, for years, so I am always watching to see if there is an improper non sequitor, unjustified conclusion, as there was in this case, of an unjustified block. The block against User:Youreallycan should be unblocked immediately. Plus, an apology should be given to the editor. Then, we need an essay that warns admins to beware hate-mongering about imposing punishment for past actions, already sanctioned, with no evidence supporting a new block. ANI often attracts people, as wp:Forum shopping, to gain retribution for past disagreements, at the slightest new incident. Reply here or there. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, I was either too lazy to look everything up carefully, or too incompetent to distinguish genuine misconduct from "smoke". Thanks, but no thanks. There's plainly and simply nothing justifiable about YRC's comments in that AFD. T. Canens (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any opinion about Salvio-Giuliano's intention to unblock? It doesn't appear that he has consulted you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do have a standing waiver for cases where no reasonable admin would have done what I did, but personally I'm doubtful that this case falls into that category... T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP range and Orchid wars

Hi, there has been a puzzling frenzy of edits and reversions discussed at WP PLANTS that is involved with your block of the 69.171.160... range of IP's on 18th March. We've been wondering about this for a while, and I've come to imagine an innocent scenario that I really think worth accommodating if possible. The edits to orchid pages are voluminous, unsophisticated, but don't appear to be copyright violations (at least not major ones). They look very like the products of a class project (class projects to add material about particular species are fairly common). If that is the case, then the students are fighting a losing battle against the anti-vandalism editors who are reverting everything from that range of IP addresses, regardless of quality.

I don't understand the block mechanism at all well, but have the following requests about what I think would help this imaginary class and their imaginary professor. Does the block currently prevent people from those IP addresses from making signons? If so, could that be relaxed? Would it be possible to extend the block for longer than a year, so that if the same assignment is used in a future class it would be immediately apparent that the students need to find another way to edit (such as through proper signons)?

Thanks, and best wishes, Nadiatalent (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Circeus (talk · contribs)'s block - I merely tweaked the parameters to make it a bit softer. The block does prevent the creation of new accounts, but the block message contains a pointer to WP:ACC where they could request accounts to be created for them. T. Canens (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Nadiatalent (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediaforum

Can you please look at this -- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Involved_editors_and_harassment

There are more in this thread, which I will be adding. It's sad that these editors are obvious persuing a grudge. You may want to check the link at the AE thread, as they are mentioning you too. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact T, it'd be great if you could implement any blocks right now, I don't care if you block me for a year, and let everyone else off, let's just get this AE over and done with. There's too much back story here, and it seems that certain editors are intent on trying to escalate by trolling. I agree, it all has to stop. I will put a stop to the rest at a later date in another venue. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 19:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI help

I have recently discovered a possible sock of user:TheREALCableGuy and did what I think is appropriate on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy page. I considered contacting user:Sven Manguard and user:DeltaQuad for help, but they both appear to be inactive presently. Unlike the previous cases where the socks were IPs and it was obvious that they were socks of cable guy, this case is suspicious, but I don't have concrete proof. user:Drmies advised me to place a checkuser request on the investigation page, which I have done. I do not know if I've done everything properly, as I am just an editor and haven't been involved in this sort of thing before. I am only trying to do the right thing and I would appreciate any help or guidance you could give me. If you can not, perhaps you could refer me to someone who could. Thanks. Sore bluto (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Next steps for WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh

There seems to be reluctance for admins or uninvolved editors to provide more input at WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh. I've reviewed the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh article since October, 2011 and made some findings.

  1. 18 editors made substantive changes to the article (not wording or style fixes)
  2. Out of this 18, 10 look to be 'sockish' by my own intuition. Evidence not usually strong enough to take to SPI, though. Not enough for a WP:DUCK block.
  3. Out of the 10 'sockish' editors, three are currently blocked as socks (Gorzaim, Vandorenfm and Szeget).

One of the ideas you gave in the 'Result' section of this AE was to encourage admins to issue DUCK blocks (if I read you correctly). It looks to me that this would not suffice. I'd favor remedies that exclude *all* the sockish editors from participating at Nagorno-Karabakh, however that is achieved. I am somewhat concerned by long-term AA SPAs but the ones who are clearly not socks I find to be less alarming. (One of them identifies with the Armenian side, has 1,500 edits, and has been around since 2004). There is one guy who supports the Azeri side and has 75,000 edits though his history is not unblemished. Having him continue to participate seems OK to me. Unless it turns out that even the veterans misbehave.

How would you feel about the suggestion about a minimum requirement of 500 edits for participating at Nagorno-Karabakh? This requirement would exclude all the editors I consider sockish and it would take away the incentive for either side to create more socks.

The requirement for a minimum number of edits could be tweaked. Gatoclass proposed '500 mainspace edits outside the topic area' which is also reasonable, but harder to count quickly. That rule and the simpler rule of 500 total edits would both exclude *all* the sockish editors I found. 1000 edits would also work as a criterion, though it would exclude one editor in my sample who made only style fixes.

If you prefer not to discuss the issue here, or at all, you could move this to my talk page or delete it.

If the idea of 500 edits attracts any support, I am thinking that a post at WP:AN asking for comments might be appropriate. A post at AN sometimes gets useful feedback since it exposes the idea to people totally unconnected to the topic area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I really should have taken another look at this earlier. Regarding the edit count requirement: I think that could potentially work, and we can also add a minimum age requirement. To somewhat lessen the collateral damage, rather than banning them from the article altogether, we could put the article under an 1RR and make reverts of their edits exempt from the usual revert rules (3RR included, perhaps?). This way uncontroversial edits can still be made. T. Canens (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
I regret to notice that this discussion is taking places in the spirit that tends to circumvent WP rules and regulations. WP does not have a definition for "sockish." I belong to a group of users who have been unfairly accused of sockpuppetry, but the multiple SPIs (mostly bad-faith SPIs) proved that the accounts unconnected. Neither, per EdJohnson's own admission above, do these accounts meet WP:DUCK criteria. Why not to assume good faith per WP:AGF then, and focus on subject-matter issues in the article? As I have been arguing, quality edits are quality edits regardless of who made them, and administrators should have a good enough eye to tell NPOV edits from POVs. The current WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh request was placed by User:Grandmaster in bad faith, after Grandmaster failed to convincingly argue out his point about POV/NPOV issues on talk pages of the article. And it was Grandmaster's idea to limit editing in Nagorno-Karabakh. His interest is clear: Grandmaster is the suspected owner of a large meat-farm (discovered and banned in Russian wiki, see discussion in WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh, here information on meta-wiki and here [8]), a meat-farm with off-wiki coordination that was put together back in 2006 and which noticeably flourishes today. Here is just one episode of evidence of connection of User:Grandmaster and his circle of related accounts: User:Grandmaster who was so far editing on an on-and-off basis with rather long periods of absence from WP suddenly hit the Nagorno Karabakh talk pages one day after Tuscumbia’s removal from AA area, picking up right where Tuscumbia left off [9]. Grandmaster’s and Tuscumbia’s behavior is identical: conspiratorial accusations in sockpuppetry, repeating the same points over and over again, a method of filibustering a consensus used most recently by User:Tuscumbia in talks on Murovdag, see here [10] and [11]. The restrictions that Grandmaster proposed and which were unwisely entertained by some administrators (e.g. the 500 edit count and age of user accounts) are designed to benefit Grandmaster's suspected meatpuppets, e.g. User:Tuscumbia, User:Brandmeister, User:Mursel, etc. (full list is in Russian wiki) and push out honest and well-behaving editors that he disagrees with. Grandmaster and his suspected meats are not interested in expanding articles on this and related topics because good-quality academic references do not support his point of view. Instead of providing one-sided advantage to a group of editors with tainted reputation and restricting the use of the article to other editors, it is a good idea if administrators invest some time into familiarizing themselves with the topic and academic references to moderate the discussion in a productive way. See how User:Wgfinley moderated a discussion in the AA2-related article Murovdag [12]. What I see instead is an inclination to deal with the issue in a lazy way which leads to formulation of policies that run counter to the spirit of WP, as argued by User:Paul_Siebert [13]. Winterbliss (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Rather than 'sockish' I now think that a better term is 'low-seniority single-purpose accounts.' I regret to say that you do fall under that description, since you have less than 500 edits, you are primarily devoted to AA and you are active in supporting one side of the dispute on the articles which are known to be the most contentious. When a new account is created to bolster one side of a controversy, it is not possible to them to quickly come up with a record of wide-ranging Wikipedia editing experience. Those who have acquired such experience usually don't risk any consideration of being socks. 'Bolstering one side of a controversy' is not a good-faith reason for creating an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston. It is good that we talk here. Believe me the last thing on earth I want to do is to engage in long polemical discussions about how to edit articles and who should edit them. I am not happy about that at all. This eats up my time, and limits my ability to contribute to the improvement of texts. But you reply again prompted me to explore WP rules one more time. First, I am an old account, very active in Russian wiki at a time (Участник:Brindz), and I explained this in an AE filed in Dec 2011 (I can expand on that if you so desire). I do have some useful experience with WP, and that is where I had the misfortune to deal with Grandmaster’s meat-farm in Russian wiki. Second, I am not an SPA. I authored two articles, Crocodile fat and Medical dowsing as well as contributed to Biodiesel and other articles. Third, WP simply does not have a policies on SPAs, and does not really define SPAs all that well. Fourth, if anyone is to use your personal definition of SPAs, then most, if not all users (dozens of them) in AA2 area are SPAs. This includes User:Grandmaster who re-appeared from a long absence to editwar in Nagorno-Karabakh, and then to move to edit AA2’s other contentious articles, such as Khojaly Massacre, Kirovabad Pogrom, Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh, Shamkhor Massacre, to name a few [14]. But most users edit within their area of interest and competence and label all these accounts SPAs is ludicrous. Now about “bolstering one side of a controversy.” People have points of view, and they argue them out. WP encourages this, if these discussions are civil and supported by evidence. There is nothing wrong about it. Plus, I assume you are not a subject-matter specialist (unfortunately) to judge what point of view is more valid in AA2 area. Or, are you a supporter of what is known as False balance? But even if your methodology is False balance indeed, a requirement to give equal weight to all sides of a dispute regardless of intellectual and ethical merits of their arguments, this is your personal opinion, and WP does not encourage that because WP is a free encyclopedia where people are free to disagree in ways they deem useful, provided they do not violate WP rules for civility and verifiability. At this moment I would recommend that you also familiarize yourself with the ideological and political element of Grandmaster’s meat-farming project described in the article written by User:AdilBaguirov and found on azer.com [15]. It is called “WIKIPEDIA.org: Savvy Tool for Making Azerbaijan Known to the World.” In this article User:AdilBaguirov, evidently one of User:Grandmaster’s personal friends (judging by how much energy Grandmaster invested in helping AdilBaguirov prove that he and User:Ehud Lesar, an Azerbaijani masquerading himself as a Jew apparently to gain sympathy among Jewish WP users, are not socks [16], [17]. Administrators need to fair to all sides of a dispute. Winterbliss (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Since Winterbliss mentions an account he claims he had at the Russian wiki, I think it is worth taking a closer look at it. Looking over at the history of contribs of ru:Участник:Brindz, it is fairly obvious that it does not explain the strange familiarity of Winterbliss with the way en:wiki works. Brindz had less than 500 edits (389, to be precise), and has not edited since December 3, 2009. [18] That account never made any edits at Russian WP:AE or SPI requests pages, or any other similar pages. Now if we look at the contribs of Winterbliss, who created an account on November 19, 2011, we can see that after making only a handful of edits he filed an SPI request: [19], showing a suspicious familiarity with events that took place in en:wiki before he joined it, and this was noted by the admins: [20] The account in ru:wiki cannot explain how a new user could be aware of past events in another language wiki. Then this new user files a WP:AE request: [21], which is very unusual for a user who made by that time less than 100 edits, and the admins who handled the request also noted strange behavior of this and another new account who posted there. And then CU came up with finding that "based on technical evidence it's  Possible that Winterbliss and Oxi42/Xebulon are controlled by the same person". [22] Even the comments that Winterbliss made here show that he was here much longer than a few months. How would a new user know about AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs), who has not edited for 4 years, and the arbitration case of 2008? I think there can be little doubts that this user was here for many years under various monikers. Grandmaster 13:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ehud Lesar was edit warring on the Nagorno-Karabakh page, and it did not take too long to establish a connection between Ehud and User:AdilBaguirov, and then between User:AdilBaguirov and User:Grandmaster—who seems to be his protector and promoter (meat-mentor?) [23]. [24]. All this points to a serious issue the ArbCom should deal—User:Grandmaster and his off-wiki operation known as 26 Baku Commissars. In other words, similarly to RuWiki, most Azerbaijani editors in English wiki as well are likely to be sock/meatpuppets managed by Grandmaster. This sock/meat farm is utilized to push edit war and promote highly tendentious content in AA2. To appreciate the true scope and structure of this operation, take a closer look at the article written by Grandmaster's friend User:AdilBaguirov in azer.com [25]. In this conspiratorial hate pamphlet called Wikipedia.org: Savvy Tool for Making Azerbaijan Known to the World, User:AdilBaguirov argues that the world’s encyclopedias are supposedly controlled by Armenians who conspired to methodically distort every notion about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. To counter that “deplorable state of affairs,” User:AdilBaguirov calls on Azerbaijanis to use Wikipedia as a tool (his word in the title) to take the ethnic war against Armenians deep into their intellectual domain. Here are some excerpts from the text:

More about User:AdilBaguirov and his ethno-racist background can be found here: [26]. Here it is also worth mentioning that in real life User:AdilBaguirov is a US-based Azerbaijani nationalist lobbyist who heads U.S. Azeris Network (USAN), www.usazeris.org. One of USAN’s main goals of is to harass random Americans of purportedly Armenian origin, especially those holding public office. USAN’s most recent target was Mr. Edward Semonian Jr. [27], who ran for the office of Circuit Court Clerk, Alexandria. USAN targeted Semonian simply because of his Armenian heritage [28]. The case of USAN’s harassment of Semonian is the real-life facet of Grandmaster’s and his meats’ main methodology in Wikipedia regarding academic sources: their racist argument is that if someone is suspected to have Armenian blood, family members or ancestry, he or she is to be automatically excluded from Wikipedia as a credible source. Just recently Grandmaster opposed to world-class academic reference the book called "The Caucasian Knot" [29] which is endorsed by Thomas de Waal, WP's top source on Nagorno-Karabakh, simply because he suspected Armenian heritage. Grandmaster’s meat-pals from RusWiki's ArbCom decision User:Brandmeister, User:Quantum and User:Tuscumbia all came under sanctions for their racist approach to WP:NPOV, e.g. [30], [31]. The article by User:AdilBaguirov heralded the emergence of an Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination and vote-staking project known “Baku’s 26 Commissars.” The project was managed by User:AdilBaguirov’s close friend User:Grandmaster. Full information about this operation can be found in an article on this page in RuWiki [32]. In particular, the article said:

The ArbCom found [33] that User:Grandmaster was the head of the cabal who coordinated edit war operations of a large number of Azerbaijani editors and organized vote-stacking during ArbCom elections [34]. Grandmaster evidently uses off-wiki coordination on the pages of English wiki as well: take a look at this curious exchange - [35], [36], which are requests of off-wiki communication between Grandmaster and User:Mursel, a suspected sock of User:Tuscumbia. A task of Grandmaster’s meat project is to create a series of articles with bogus content based entirely on propaganda material published in Azerbaijan, a country where the president-for-life Ilham Aliyev manages his oil dictatorship by whipping up ethnic hatred. Take a look at this curious series of articles whose content derives almost exclusively from Azerbaijani nationalist sources in crude violation of WP:NPOV: Guba mass grave, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre. One of such article, Agdaban Massacre, was recently deleted because of violation of WP:NPOV. These articles were created or edited by the same group of users who were mentioned in RuWiki’s ArbCom investigation: User:Interfase, User:Brandmeister, User:Tuscumbia, User:Quantum666. Winterbliss (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) has to do with all of this, and why Winterbliss keeps bringing up the name of this user. First off, contrary to what Winterbliss claims, no connection has ever been established between Ehud Lesar and AdilBaguirov. That was the finding by the arbcom: [37] One can only wonder why Winterbliss is trying to mislead others? I don't see anything criminal in the article by Mr. Baguirov on azer.com either, he just tried to popularize Wikipedia among Azerbaijani readers, and quoted paragraph is actually about Britannica. Also, any attempts to reveal other users' real life activity and use it against them in Wikipedia are punishable per WP:OUTING. And making slanderous comments about living persons even at user talk pages is unacceptable per WP:BLPTALK, and such comments should be immediately removed. However the most interesting question here, which Winterbliss failed to answer, is how he became aware of AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs), who left the project in 2008, if Winterbliss registered in en:wiki in November 2011? Winterbliss can only know about things that happened in 2008 if he edited Wikipedia back then. So it is pretty much an admission that he is a reincarnation of another editor. As for other accusations, I would really love to see any real evidence of my coordinated editing in en:wiki. I don't have a tag team of a dozen of suspicious accounts with scarce history of contributions who only pop to rv or support me at talk. I edit on my own, and I have no history of any blocks, bans or other sanctions in en:wiki since 2007, and that is longer than most people have been editing here. Plus, I never tried to conceal the history of my editing, and never created new accounts to evade sanctions, unlike certain other people. I see no point in any further discussion at this page, so this is my last comment here. Grandmaster 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The thread at WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh has now been archived for a second time, and brought back yet again. Could this be an omen? The archive bot is telling us that nobody wants to take action. The statements in the AE thread appear to be saying that everybody thinks everybody else is a sock. (I'm exaggerating only slightly). This is not helpful for admins who may be hoping to find some way to improve the editing at Nagorno-Karabakh. The result is that admins would have to find diffs on our own and start from scratch in figuring out what to do. The statements give us very little help. We could of course rate the different statements in the AE for their relative degree of BATTLEGROUND attitude but that gets extremely messy and debatable. It is safer to examine the article edits made by the participants. The thread has now been open since 26 February. Given the limitations of time, and given that the statements are not helpful, there's not a whole lot we can do. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I promised not to comment, but I want to say a few words in response to EdJohnston. I understand that there's a lot of mess at AE that makes the work of admins very difficult. Most of statements there are not really helpful, neither is a discussion here. It was not my intention to comment here, I only did that because my name was mentioned. Maybe I should have refrained from commenting anyway. On the other hand, the discussion at AE is stale now, and it is time to make some sort of a decision. If for whatever reason admins are unable or unwilling to do that, maybe this should go to arbitration (though considering that the arbs have a lot of other things to do, this might not be the best solution). Another alternative is to let all the edit warring continue, with more and more users joining in, and more and more SPI and AE requests being filed, like it was before. The article in question is the most troubled in AA, since it is in the center of the long running conflict in the region. It already resulted in 2 arbitration cases. I think rather than to deal with individual accusations in sock and meatpuppetry, it is better to find a solution that would make the use of socks and meats impossible or pointless. One can see from the history of the article that most of disruption was caused by the newly created accounts, which have no history of useful contributions outside of AA area. At this point I think that the best solution would be to limit the editing privileges of accounts that have less than 500 edits in the article space (especially outside of AA area). That would make any sock and meatpupetry pointless. At present, SPI and arbitration enforcement is pointless, because as soon as a sock account is blocked or placed on an editing restriction, the sock masters roll out a bunch of new ones. The disruption by the established users is easier to deal with, as it is easier to deal with the devil you know. As you can see, most of the long time contributors to AA articles were at some point placed on some sort of a restriction (not a good indication, but still). If an established user misbehaves again, he could be placed on an editing restriction, as usual, in accordance with AA2 remedies. But that does not work with those who do not stick to just one account. Therefore something needs to be done to deal with all those new accounts that keep popping up regularly to take part in edit wars. I think those with less than 500 edits should still be allowed to edit, because some of them might be legitimate newcomers wishing to improve the article, but once their edit is reverted, they or any other new account should not be allowed to restore it unless there is a consensus at talk with long time contributors or a wider wiki community in accordance with WP:DR. I think it is the only reasonable solution. Otherwise the community can continue dealing with disruption on an individual basis with the same result. Grandmaster 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I see that your idea has something in common with that of T. Canens (near the top of this thread). Shall we make a new 1RR for AA that references total edits and possibly the age of the account? Here are the details:
  1. Anyone can revert someone with less than 500 edits (or an IP) without being considered to break the 1RR, though they are still subject to the normal edit warring policy.
  2. All IP editors, or those with fewer than 500 edits, are limited to a strict 1RR with no exceptions.
  3. This would apply to all articles on Wikipedia wherever the issue being reverted is something to do with the AA dispute.
  4. We can require that an account *both* have 500 edits *and* have existed for three months to be free of this rule.
— EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
Yes, I agree in general with that, but 1RR may not work, because if someone controls 5 or 7 accounts, he can make many reverts without violating 1RR. I think once the content added by a new account is reverted by an established user, it should not be readded without consensus at talk, or consensus of the wider wikicommunity. And if restriction is applied to all articles, it would be difficult to control its implementation due to a large number of articles. I think the admins needs to decide about imposing this restriction on articles on an individual basis. If some article attracts a lot of sock and meatpuppetry, and is generally being edit warred at, then it should be placed on the new account restriction. The requirement for having both 500 edits and existing for at least 3 months is also fair, but I remember how sock masters like Ararat arev used sleeper accounts, i.e. registered them many months before actually using. He also hacked the stale accounts that haven't edited for years. So 3 months age limit should be just an additional requirement to 500 edit threshold, like you proposed. 500 edits must include only edits to main article space, not talk pages, user pages, message boards, etc. Also, it would be good if at least a certain proportion of them was outside of AA area. Otherwise I think you proposal is very good, and may help improving situation in AA articles. Grandmaster 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"This would apply to all articles on Wikipedia wherever the issue being reverted is something to do with the AA dispute". There is no definition of what is covered under AA, so such a proposal could (like the present AA remedies) be applied to just about whatever article anyone wanted it to. This would give carte-blanche approval for any editor with more than 500 edits to remove from hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles the edits of any editor with under 500 edits, regardless of what those edits might be. How does that benefit Wikipedia? Meowy 20:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In case if it is true that Grandmaster and Azerbaijani accounts active both in RusWiki and EngWiki are using off-wiki coordination, as was proven in RusWiki (see discussion above), which is likely, Grandmaster's suspected tag team (e.g. User:Brandmeister, User:Tuscumbia, User:Interfase etc.) will enjoy unlimited opportunity to do whatever they want. The existence of an Azerbaijani tag team similar to the one unmasked in RusWiki perhaps explains Grandmaster's longevity as an account and his ability to avoid sanctions: usually there is a distribution of roles in a meat-team. Some accounts (e.g. User:Brandmeister) may play a role of foot solders who do the dirty work of edit-warring while the team leaders like Grandmaster remain unblemished enough to be able to hold high-level behind-the-scenes "negotiations" (one we may be witnessing now) with administrators to promote the team's ability to edit in defiance of WP rules. If such a team did not exist in EngWiki, articles like Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre and Garadaghly Massacre would not have been written. Both articles are based exclusively on bona fide propaganda Azerbaijani media sources in violation of WP:NPOV, and were actively edited by Grandmaster and accounts identified as meats in RusWiki. This propaganda articles survive because any attempt to expose and delete them for violation of WP:NPOV would attract coordinated voting by meats who would bail out any nonsense in WP. This all runs counter to the spirit of WP and are a way to avoid honest talk about sources, ideas and evidence on talk pages of contested articles. If there is a talk about supposed Armenian "SPAs", there should be measures to control possible Azerbaijani meats as well. If administrators are reluctant to discuss Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination despite the evidence, please drop the discussion about phantom Armenian "SPAs" as well. WP:AGF should work in both directions not just one. Winterbliss (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Any restrictions work both ways, they do not apply only to Armenian or only to Azerbaijani users, they apply to everyone who edits AA articles. Genuine editors who came here to actually work on articles have no reason for concern, they will have 500 edits fairly quickly, and soon will become established users. The ones who should be concerned about 500 edit limitation are those who are here to edit war, evade community bans, and roll out new accounts once the old ones get banned. For them it will be difficult to gain 500 edits every time they create new accounts. You repeatedly mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, etc, but those articles were kept mostly by the votes of uninvolved editors. The only attempt at votestacking that I see is that all the new accounts from NK article voted there for deletion, and were even joined by SPAs created for the purpose of voting, such as Spankarts (talk · contribs), whose only contribution is voting at AFDs. Yes, it will be more difficult for the likes of Spankarts to take part in AFDs. As for established users, they can be placed on already existing AA2 remedies, if they don't play by the rules. Most of them are under some restrictions anyway, only the new accounts enjoy freedom of edit warring whenever and wherever they like. Grandmaster 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Spankarts can be explained by someone asking their friend to come and vote. New editors should be encouraged to participate more, educated on the way Wikipedia works and its laws. Not punished and restricted. That is the fastest way to kill this project. --George Spurlin (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we can trial this on this one article to see if it's effective. I'm not really convinced that we need to roll this out to the entire topic area...yet. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think this remedy should be tested on one article, and if effective, it could be applied to other articles if needed. Grandmaster 08:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I find such thoughts perplexing and un-WPedian. I am reading Grandmaster's comments and he is saying that the times have changed and SPIs are no longer relevant and hence new, more stringent measures against new users should be applied. I find this highly dubious. The article already has a protection and administrators can impose all kind of measures against those who is not compliant with WP. As already happened, the article can be placed on the lock until differences are resolved. Many would agree that the new measures feed into a wider tendency to make WP increasingly more restricted, shredding the idea of a free encyclopedia into dust. This step would unjustifiably limit access to knowledgeable editors who are too busy to edit frequently, and other new folks. I have also read about Grandmaster's real meat shop in ruswiki and his alleged meat shop in anglowiki and that alarms me. And then see his new AE report filed on [User:Oliveriki] [38]. It seems that groundless SPIs filed in the recent past by Grandmaster and his friends from ruswiki are now being replaced with equally groundless AE complaints (since the baseless foul-faith SPIs proved to be ineffective to discredit [Grandmaster's] opponents?). I concur that Grandmaster is a user way too controversial to suggest how to restrict access to AA2 articles to other users. Dehr (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no point in protecting the article now. Golbez protected it a few times, but every time the protection was removed the new accounts resumed edit warring. At present those new accounts forced the version of the banned user into the article without any consensus with established editors (and with misleading edit summary as well: [39]), so protection will only serve the interests of the banned user. I don't consider all the new accounts agreeing among themselves to be a consensus, it is just an imitation of it, because according to the rules all those accounts should be treated as one. WP:BAN holds that "new accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating". [40] I counted, there 7 accounts at Nagorno-Karabakh supporting restoration of edits of the banned user:
Winterbliss (talk · contribs)
Dehr (talk · contribs)
Zimmarod (talk · contribs)
Sprutt (talk · contribs)
Nocturnal781 (talk · contribs)
Oliveriki (talk · contribs)
Hablabar (talk · contribs)
Except for Oliveriki, all of them are new. Many of them have less than 100 edits, some only a couple of dozen. Oliveriki is a sleeper account with only 13 edits, it only comes to life when there's a need to revert something for Xebulon. I would not be surprised if another dozen of such accounts joined them. One must be a very naive person to believe that all those new accounts appeared at that page by coincidence and discovered the edits of the banned user searching through the history of the article. What is the point for other editors to be there, if this growing army of new accounts will overwhelm them and have the article their way? This is why frustration of Golbez is understandable, there's no way for him and other regular editors to prevent the article from turning into a mess. Grandmaster 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Also note canvassing by Dehr: [41] Not the first time, he was even warned by others not to do so: [42] Grandmaster 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't edited of late in the "frozen conflict zone" areas (Transnistria, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh,...) for a while, however, that sphere of geopolitics was my first active involvement in WP and I still follow developments closely. I definitely agree that limiting participation to established editors would be a positive step toward establishing and maintaining some semblance of order. Of course, a bot can do edits, so it would probably need to be some combination of edits as well as editorial longevity to work as intended. This might be perceived as unfair to fresh recruits, however, these conflicts have all been going on for quite a long time now, anyone with half an interest in the topic following it for enough time to have become reasonably informed would pass any bar set for edits and how long they've been a WP editor. And the conflicts will still be there tomorrow, meaning newbies who wish to participate eventually can get their WP:FEET wet in the meantime. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that imposing article-wide restrictions is unfair to new users. There could be new users who are more knowledgeable and better-behaving than older accounts. Grandmaster tries to discredit new users inventing implausible excuses like "There's no point in protecting the article now" and the like. SPIs are designed to detect socks, they were run and no socks were detected. Other measures to identify meats or socks proved the same. So, relax and assume good faith. But there are accounts that should be subjected to scrutiny in the first place - Grandmaster’s meatpuppets with identical names in ru and en wikis. Their access to editing should be restricted. It is well known User:Grandmaster is a proven and convicted meat-puppeteer. His farm of meatpuppets was discovered and exposed in RusWiki and is known as 26 Baku Commissars [43]. The ArbCom in RusWiki found that User:Grandmaster was the head of a cabal which coordinated edit warring of a large number of Azerbaijani editors and organized vote-stacking during ArbCom elections [44]. Only a blind cannot see that some or most Azerbaijani editors in English wiki too are likely to be meatpuppets managed by Grandmaster. Some of these suspected meatpuppets were so confident of their ability to evade detection that they never bothered to change their user names in English wiki. These are:

Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
Quantum666 (talk · contribs)
Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
Parishan (talk · contribs)
Interfase (talk · contribs)
Atabey (talk · contribs)
Dacy69 (talk · contribs)

Most of other Azerbaijani users may be meatpuppets who changed their user names to evade detection and identification. These suspicious accounts include User:Angel670, User:NovaSkola, User:Dighapet, User:Mursel (suspected sock of User:Tuscumbia at least per WP:DUCK), User:Lava22T (a sleeper?), and others. These accounts should undergo cross-wiki SPIs for IP identification between Ruswiki and English wiki. I would modify Grandmaster's statement "There's no point in protecting the article now" into "There was no point in protecting the article all this time" because all this time the article was under the siege of Grandmaster's suspected meatpuppets who were tasked to prevent development. Winterbliss (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest version of 500-edit proposal

Here is the latest version of my proposal.

  1. The Nagorno-Karabakh article would be placed on seniority restriction, which would be a modified 1RR restriction.
  2. The authority for this is WP:AC/DS under the WP:ARBAA2 decision
  3. An established account is one that has made 500 article edits *and* has existed for at least three months.
  4. 'Low seniority accounts' are accounts that don't meet those requirements
  5. All low seniority accounts and all IPs are under a plain 1RR per day with no exceptions
  6. Established accounts can revert edits by IPs or low-seniority accounts without breaking the 1RR, but are still subject to the general edit warring policy.

A requirement of 500 article edits is similar to what is needed to get approval for WP:AWB. It is accepted that people need to be experienced to use AWB. My proposal would give an advantage to experienced editors when working the Nagorno-Karabakh article, while still allowing all editors to make uncontroversial improvements. The above version of the 500-edit proposal is what I'm intending to post in the AE thread. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ican see no reason to justify making such an arbitrary and fundamental change to editing procedures. Really, your "the authority for this" language sounds like something out of a totalitarian dictatorship governed by a shadowy and all-powerful "The Committee" whose commands must be obeyed without question. The Committee wants two plus two to equal five so The Committee says two plus two equals five, so two plus two does equal five because The Committee says it does. What actual content problem exists on this one article, and this one article alone, that needs this extremist solution to cure it? We KNOW that this one article solution will soon expand to become 10 articles, which will soon be 100 articles, then 1000, and will eventually be Wikipedia wide, and the 500-article edits requirement will be extended to 1000-edits and then to 2000-edits, and then probably into the size of the edits. The fact that you are using AA2 to validate this proposal PROVES it will expand beyond the original limits - exactly like AA2 itself did with its ever expanding range. Why is this proposal evolving on an editor's talk page? Is it because it is so extreme that to discuss it in the open could provoke an immediate dismissal of it? Why was the important point I mentioned earlier not considered: that this sanction would give carte-blanche approval for any editor with more than 500 edits to remove from Wikipedia articles the edits of any editor with under 500 edits, regardless of what those edits might be. Why should any new editor be given these automatic sanctions for no reason, why should their edits be removed without any consideration of their content? If there is a genuine problem with "low seniority accounts" then that problem can't be on just one article, so any solution surely has to be Wikipedia wide, and be fit to function Wikipedia wide. Meowy 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it be less dictatorial just to put Nagorno-Karabakh under full protection? At least one commenter at AE said that protection was a terrible idea because it would stop article development. The proposal here is intended to be more editor-friendly. Apologies to T. Canens for abusing his talk page; this whole thread should probably be on my own page. If everybody hates this idea it will surely not be adopted. AA is an unpleasant area for admins to work in and (I assume) for many of the participants. This is an attempt to make it better. There are just not enough admins to give all disputes in AA the full attention they deserve. Full scrutiny by admins of all the edits by newcomers is just not practical. Under this proposal, experienced editors get an extra edge in reviewing the work of newcomers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
EdJohnston's proposal is well intentioned but effects of his suggestion will likely be counterproductive. This is because the new division of accounts by "seniority" will actually stimulate edit wars - higher seniority accounts (the designated good guys) will easily misinterpret the new rules as a carte-blanche for removing the edits of lower seniority accounts (designated bad guys) regardless of the quality of contributions. Well, what happens next, gentlemen? This will stimulate more needless AE complaints and more administrator involvement. Then the administrators will get really mad, and will raise the edit count requirement to become "higher seniority" in order to further limit participation in the article to wash their hands of this trouble. Lastly, the article will simply be forever locked. This fate will gradually spread to ALL more or less controversial subjects in WP - a recipe of WP's slow and agonizing death. And as I argued all this time, there is yet another problem: in AA2 we deal with a well defined group of "higher seniority" problematic accounts that come from Grandmaster's legacy meat farm in Ruwiki. If this issue did not exist, EdJohnston's suggestion would be a tad less concerning. Winterbliss (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have warned User:Dehr about canvassing by notifying people of this discussion who tend to be on his side of the dispute. He is invited to extend his notification list to include users who favor Azerbaijan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Does canvasing guidelines apply when it is for something taking place on an editor's personal talk page? Anyway, as canvassing goes, it was rather unsuccessful - most of those who were informed haven't actually edited anything for ages! Meowy 20:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I support your proposal, and I think the legitimate new editors have no reason for concern. If their edits are not controversial, they will remain, if they are, they need to be discussed and get consensus at talk. If the edits by the new account have some merit, they will gain support of the established users from one of the sides or third party contributors, or they can resolve the dispute by means prescribed by WP:DR. The new good faith editor can accumulate 500 edits pretty quick. What we have at present at NK page is that a bunch of recent accounts tries to force the edits of the banned user by edit warring. I counted there 7 new accounts all supporting the banned user! And only one has more than 500 edits, while many have only a couple of dozen. The age limit would prevent throwaway accounts from popping out of nowhere and starting an edit war and will actually encourage discussion, because edit warring would be made pointless. Full protection was imposed a few times by Golbez, but it gave no result. As soon as protection was removed, the new accounts resumed edit warring. Leaving it be as it is means that those who manage to bring more new accounts to force their edits win, and that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The age restriction will reduce sock and meat puppetry, which was a serious concern in this article for years. And I don't think that there could be any serious objections to this. One objection is that it targets only new users, while the abuse by established accounts is not covered, but it is not so. The established accounts are covered by AA2 restrictions, and those who stick to just one account can always be sanctioned under the existing remedy. But those who use new accounts to evade sanctions are not covered by AA2 sanctions, sanctions only work if the sanctioned account continues to edit as the same user. With the age limit, if someone is abusing multiple accounts, it will be hard for him to accumulate 500 article edits for every sock or meat account. Also, with all due respect, at least one of those who object has a history of multiple account policy violation. Therefore I suggest that you take your proposal to WP:AE or another appropriate venue, where it could be discussed with participation of the wider wiki community, because the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh article is intolerable and reached to a point that an admin who tried to hold it together for many years gave up and quit. Grandmaster 09:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That "admin who tried to hold it together" (Golbez) summed things up nicely when he wrote "Do any of you actually care WHAT is in the article, or just who puts it there?" Your advocacy for this draconian proposal tells me that you only care about "who puts it there". Meowy 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

500-edit proposal now at AE

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by EdJohnston. Please continue the discussion in the AE thread. It should not be necessary to make further statements here. Let's give Tim a break. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

I always wanted to ask administrators like you of you are a salaried employee of WP or a volunteer or a user like me but promoted to the rank of administrator? Will be glad to receive an answer. Thanks in advance for sharing this information. Winterbliss (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

AE case

I left a comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

You helped me by putting the correct template on that courtesy blanked page. This is one of the many cases where I think in some imagined wonderful future, there will be an easier way. I don't know all the templates, and I don't want to know them. It's a shame that people need to know such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a modification to allow closing comments to be retained on courtesy blacked XfDs. I hope this will be a useful feature. It seems to me to be appropriate in this case, but if it isn't, revert away... :) Geometry guy 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2012/3&oldid=1188537763"