Misplaced Pages

I have notified Bonkers about this. I suppose a simple solution would be to add the NOINDEX magic tag (WP:NOINDEX)? Although as KoshVorlon points out this may be something we'd want to remove for BLP reasons. OSborn _contribs. 16:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've {{NOINDEX}}ed it pending discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 16:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• It should be removed. No need to use that term except if it were the title of a notable work of fiction or scholarship (i.e. something chosen by others). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to have an unhealthy obsesion with the N-word, see User talk:Bonkers The Clown#Niggers in the White House and the article(s) related to that discussion, as well as talk page posts such as this and this. This editor seems more and more to be nothing more than a sophisticated troll. GiantSnowman 16:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, yeah - I couldn't help but notice that too... I usually balk at that sub bridge denizen term when applied to an editor supposedly in good standing, but recent "events" lead me to believe it's time to explain to "Bonkers", unambiguously, that he needs to stop doing that. Kind of right now... Begoon  16:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Boldly removed it. Per our userpage guideline, very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing should not be included in the user namespace. And if that is debatable, it certainly falls under WP:BLP, as calling someone a "magic nigga" is contentious and inappropriate. If this editor wants to stick around, he has to learn where and where not to use this word. In context is one thing, calling a notable individual on their user page it falls short of that by a mile. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - kudos for doing what none of us did, and removing it instead of talking about it. Endorse that move, and thanks. Begoon  17:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the content in question predates Bonkers's self-imposed n-word moratorium. If it didn't I'd be pushing for the race-issues topic ban that Maunus suggested at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Niggers in the White House. This isn't the first time this has been an issue either... IIRC, once upon a time Bonkers had a swastika in his signature. But I'd like to AGF and believe that he simply forgot about his use of the word on his userpage when he agreed to the moratorium. — PublicAmpers& 17:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since his last two article-space edits were this and this, both earlier today, I don't think he got the memo about any "moratorium". Mogism (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit summaries are somewhat troubling, if only because he explicitly and categorically said he wouldn't use that word any more, and it would have been fairly easy to avoid in that context. The edits themselves, however, are entirely gnomish, and in fairness he never said he wouldn't edit n-word-related articles. If he goes back to tossing it around in conversation with other users, don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to jump on the sanctioning bandwagon, but I don't see this as rising to that level. — PublicAmpers& 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are perfect examples of his trolling. I suggest a topic ban for Bonkers from using the word "nigger" or similar in any context whatsoever. GiantSnowman 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support that. Amazing that someone can see them, in context of everything else, as just "somewhat troubling". We need to be clear that this is not acceptable, and, despite my qualms about the term, I'm with GS here - it's trolling. If it's not, it's incompetence to edit in this language. Whichever, it needs to stop, now. Begoon  20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban - and make it entirely clear to Bonkers that any further trolling behaviour will result in an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're gonna go the topic-ban route, personally I'd want something a bit broader and a bit more nuanced. Something like Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any phrases or imagery that can reasonably be construed as racially insensitive, in any context whatsoever, except for in the course of contributing to the main namespace, and then if and only if it is unambiguously relevant and appropriate (e.g., an image of a Nazi uniform in an article on a Nazi military unit). In more complex cases, any uninvolved administrator may impose any sanctions necessary on Bonkers The Clown within the topic area of racially sensitive matters (broadly construed), up to and including a ban from the area as a whole (though only as a last resort). Personally, I think it would be better to wait a little bit longer and apply a broad sanction (if necessary) than to apply a narrow sanction right now. — PublicAmpers& 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Racially insensitive" is a useless term since different cultures and different individuals see different things as insensitive with a long list of "insensitive" things that may not be fully known to any given individual, a list that is ever-growing without some sort of regular update to all the hapless citizenry who might find themselves faced with someone who is clued in on all the recent changes to the Guide to Living a Politically Correct Lifestyle Unoffensive to All Recognized Victim Groups.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A fair point. You ever read Fahrenheit 451? Anyways, I was serious when I said "something like" that, though; that was just a rough draft. If we were to implement such a sanction, we could easily modify it to specify which racial groups we're talking about, or take any number of other approaches. — PublicAmpers& 21:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has made an actual case for any restriction. People are just reacting like "Shit! Someone said nigger! Get that ni- . . . uhhh . . . guy!"--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Those edit summaries are poking at it a bit, but if someone looking for an article with the word "nigger" in it is actually shocked that someone used the word "nigger" when editing the article then that person needs to get a clue. His user page preceded all this hubub so it isn't really sufficient. Bonkers likes him some abrasive humor and that, obviously, is abrasive to some people. Unless someone can point to an egregious action on his part since his pledge, then I think this type of action is unnecessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Without Pink Ampersand's exception. I don't want this person touching anything to do with race or nazism, period. When he was called out on having a swastika in his signature he said, "Heck, why is everyone so fussed up over swastikas? They embody peace, not Holocaust or anything-Nazi." He claims to be all naive about wearing a swastika while greeting newbies here and calling people niggers. His excuse is he's Singaporean so doesn't understand these weird Western ways (but when invited to a meet-up in Singapore, declined). I've met lots of Singaporeans - lots of people from all over the world - with not a tenth of his English skills, and they all know you don't call people niggers and the Swastika is offensive to Westerners (at the very least). In fact, he says in the above link he knew the swastika would upset people. He's trolling in the most offensive way possible and should be shown the door. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • To be clear, are you supporting GS's proposal, my suggestion (minus the mainspace exemption), or a new proposal of your own? Because GS's proposal only actually prohibits him from saying the N-word "or similar"; it sounds like you're talking about something broader than that. — PublicAmpers& 21:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In descending order of preference: a permanent site ban; if not that then a permanent ban on discussing or editing anything race-related, broadly construed; if not that then a permanent ban on using the word "nigger" or any racial epithet in any space here; if not that, this place is in worse shape than I thought. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Why was Anthonyhcole Googling "Barack Magic Nigga Obama"? HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I saw it on the user page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Anything Bonkers seems to edit includes the word nigger which isn't very healthy, Plus anyone with common sense would know the swastika's offensive, - .... IMO He's trolling... -Davey2010Talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support GS's proposal, although I would reword it to "use of any word, phrase or image which could reasonably be expected to cause offence". There are 3 million (or thereabouts) articles on Misplaced Pages, and I'm sure avoiding the tiny subset in which it's actually necessary to use racial slurs would cause no hardship. I concur that this looks like trolling, since it's beyond coincidence that he would just happen to come across Niggers in the White House, Nigger (2002 book) and No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs. I agree with Anthonyhcole above that his claim not to understand why this is causing offence isn't plausible. Singapore is an English-speaking country with high standards of education (and one in which you can barely walk half a mile without finding some memorial or other to its occupation in WW2), and it's not plausible that any Singaporean over the age of 10 wouldn't know that the word "nigger" and the swastika are offensive. Mogism (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You do realize that he created two of the three articles you just mentioned, right? Of course you don't, as that would require a bit of research on your part. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's okay. I have learnt that the typical American is fat and lazy. Not my words, don't chastise me for that. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but caution user. The edit summaries are pushing the boundaries, but they do actually describe the edit, and they were good edits. In the same way that Niggers in the White House is a good article (not in the technical sense, but it was featured on DYK, is likely to survive AfD, and has already produced a couple of spin-offs articles). I don't think we can fault Bonkers simply for editing pages that have the word "nigger" in them. I think the moratorium was self-imposed in good faith - Bonkers seemed to be saying he would refrain from using the word on talk pages. If all we are going on is the fact that he's been - like, writing articles, then I don't think that's enough for a topic ban. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going on the fact that he added a swastika to his name, knowing it would upset people, and then addressed people at The Teahouse and The Reference Desk as well as user and article talk pages, and he called African Americans "niggers", and I don't believe for a second he didn't know what he was doing. If I'm wrong, and it was ignorance or insensitivity, then he displays a degree of ignorance and insensitivity on issues around race that disqualifies him from working in that area, per WP:COMPETENCE. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just Google'd that phrase and Bonkers is further down on the page. Interesting that #1 is Wikipediocracy which picked up the conversation from this noticeboard. Liz 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Bonkers is trolling and playing the "cultural differences" card when called out on it. There is no cultural difference that makes overt racism like what was on his userpage ok. He knows what he is doing and he needs to stop. Now. Frankly, if there weren't already so much discussion of a topic ban here I would have just indef blocked him until he agreed to cut it out immediately and permanently. There is no place for racist trolling here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly lacking the degree of competence required to contribute in the area of race and ethnicity. Or trolling.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• You know that this guy is almost certainly ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs), right? He's clearly trolling, in the pure sense of the word: he's being intentionally provocative. Given the community's general inability to ignore trolling, the next best response here is a block. MastCell  22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've heard the name. The timing's a bit different. CoMBTC. But, whatever. He doesn't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Begrudgingly support topic ban. Though being from Singapore might explain his initial ignorance about the Nazi swastika and the n-word (I've met numerous Indonesians who put a swastika on their motorcycle, for instance, and in Indonesian "negro" is still the most commonly used term for a person of African descent), it fails to explain why Bonkers has avoided provoking people once he learned it was provocative and likely to get him blocked. He does some decent work outside race areas, so no need for a site ban. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Advocate total ban. At the moment this sophisticated former user troll is playing WP like a fiddle. Irondome (talk)
• Support total ban. We've topic banned people before, and it was about as effective as wearing shorts in the snow. Someone who knowing uses a sign that could really offend people and uses words like that should be eliminated from this site. 173.58.95.171 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as absolutely fucking ridiculous. While Bonkers was absolutely disruptive during the early stages of the recent AfD, it's utterly absurd to call those two edits "trolling". The edits in question were not only to articles that involve that word, but both edits concern the word itself. It's not unreasonable, therefore, that the word would appear in his edit summaries. (Bonkers has also recently edited many topics unrelated to that word.) I'm not suggesting for one second we "suffer his malfeasance much longer", as John Cline perfectly put it. He should rightfully be on a very short leash. But to topic-ban based on those two edits is bullshit. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support either a topic ban or an outright user ban. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly would this "topic ban" cover? I don't support outright bans on Editors that come out of the blue without even a warning notice.
  • Well, this thread would prevent any blueness, I suppose. I hope Bonkers is going to come by and explain a few things. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest I'm more than happy for my original topic ban proposal to be extended as wide as deemeed necessary. GiantSnowman 08:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Absolutely no excuses whatsoever for using this sort of language. Regardless of any "trolling" intent or not, any usage of such language is so wildly inappropriate that I find it extraordinary that people are defending it at all! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Statement by yours truly This is hillarious, a bunch of admins and whatnot debating over one word. That edit regarding "Magic Nigga" was made, what, over a year ago? (Reiterate: A year ago; before any of the "White House" nonsense) And that was in reference to a rather popular song perhaps all ya politically correct souls have never listened to before. Since the swastika was mentioned, let me tell you: To all the ignorant little souls out there, the swastika used to be a symbol of peace a long time ago. Enlightened men of the Buddha-faith carried it like a badge of honour, until a German/Austrian man with a moustache perverted its meaning. Add: More than a few million Buddhist/Hindu temples today still have the sign in its grounds. But no, no, I'm wrong, it's simply a Nazi sign, and I'm a Nazi blah blah. Woe is me. Oh, you aren't discussing about my non-nigger edits, are you? You just like to nitpick on my choice of vocabulary, eh? What me ignorant... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Good ol' bunch o' people, made me realise that we really do need to conform to the politically correct society. It's no use going against them. I'll just wait till y'all middle-aged guys kick the bucket and we Gen Ys take over. You'll see change. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • In case I wasn't so clear, I just meant that I would not use "nigger" in talk pages. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Incompetence to edit in this language? Pfft, yeah I'd suppose Greek suits me more. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Bonkers, read the swastika article. Note the difference between the Nazi one and traditional Hindu one (and also note how often the traditional symbol is misunderstood as the Nazi symbol). Even if you mean well, there's not going to be much but drama coming from that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The swastika in my old signature was never slanted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
            • What is "The swastika in my old signature was never slanted" supposed to mean? This is the Nazi swastika. Note the distinct lack of slanting.94.196.155.7 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Opened up the link. Bonkers had this swastika in his signature: 卐. There is no way to say that is a Nazi swastika or not. It's not red, it's not black on red, it's not tilted, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per StAnselm. His use of the word nigger is discontenting, but most of his edits are good and a lot of the time he's using "nigger" in an acceptable sense. Give him a warning and be done with it. — Richard BB 09:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose, per Devil's Advocate and Joefromrandb. That BTC likes to be shocking is plain. But it is also plain that people here can't make the distinction between writing about racist slurs versus actually insulting people using racist slurs. The swastika-in-username thing is irrelevant since he doesn't have it anymore (AFAIK). When he will be actually acting racist, we can discuss it again. --cyclopia 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Of course there is satire... The white presidential family and the niggers are heavily ridiculed in the poem. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)" He's a racist, or a troll, or a racist troll. Or he is so ignorant and stupid regarding race and racism that he's not fit to edit articles on those topics. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. Have you seen the title of that article? The context is obvious. Look, I understand the way he throws the N-word around can make some people squirm, but it's just because of the reflex reaction to the word, not because of its actual usage. Again, he clearly wants to be controversial, and I'd rather he didn't (I understand, I've the same childish temptation sometimes -but I try to keep it out of here). But it doesn't deserve crying outrage. Give him rope. --cyclopia 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I've seen the article. Is it OK to call African Americans niggers provided you do it on the talk page of an article that has "niggers" in the title? So, you think this person is worth keeping here, without any restrictions on his behaviour? Frankly, I'm not surprised. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bonkers is a good editor, but lacks the maturity to deal with sensitive situations. I was inclined to oppose a topic ban, waiting for Bonkers to give a response, but having done so, I can see he has no understanding of the other person's point of view, is not taking anything seriously. and does not indicate that he won't use racial epithets again. I would strongly advise Bonkers to drop the rhetoric immediately otherwise he might find the only place he can write it is in unblock requests. I'll further remind him of what happened to his friend Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) can easily happen to him too, and I do not particularly want Bonkers to dig his own grave. Ritchie333 09:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll let the more mature 'pedians do their squabbling then. I'll keep quiet and watch what unfolds. Sorry man, I don't know if it's this place or my house, but something stinks. I have to go. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support (12 month?) topic ban - the reason we give topic bans is to channel editors away from areas that they are likely to not benefit themselves or others. Per User:Ritchie333, verbatim. This is for the User's own benefit. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Addendum: I declare that I am not racist. Do I look malicious to you? I have many black friends. Period. You guys really don't appreciate thrills in life. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No, you don't look malicious to me; you look like a troll and every single one of your recent edits is just confirming that opinion. You should be indeffed, not just topic banned. Salvio 10:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Bonkers, not a single one of your posts here at AN has filled me with any confidence. Saying "I'm not racist, I have black friends" is the oldest trick in the book. The more you post, the more inclined I am to support an indef. GiantSnowman 10:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeffing him seems to be a gratuitous overreaction. — Richard BB 10:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was not going to post more, but my hormone-fuelled pseudo-ire told me to do otherwise. The heavens will weep in agony and the earth will crumble to cookie dust if I really am indeffed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sure we'll cope. GiantSnowman 10:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think the best piece of advice I can give you Bonkers is to 1) not restore what was on your userpage and 2) work on other areas of the encyclopedia where you are not using racial epithets productively for a while, to convince the community that you are here in good faith. If you don't, you're not looking at a very bright future here. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am not going to, anyways. Have you seen what I've been doing for the past two years or so? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• So you want him to work where he is "not using racial epithets productively"? Is that some sort of reverse psychology? ;) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose I should have added some commas or something so you wouldn't jumble what I actually said up. Essentially, he needs to stop targeting topics and articles with the word "nigger" or any variant and work on something else for a while productively. If he has good intentions, this shouldn't be hard. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I'm inclined to oppose, because I don't see any evidence in Bonkers's edits of a racist or neo-Nazi agenda. He's just a bit of a jerk who likes to be provocative, and who evidently thinks that US-based PC pieties are rather absurd and insular. There are several active editors here (who shall remain nameless) who clearly have a pro-Nazi and racist agenda, but who have learned to play by the rules while adding material designed to "demonstrate" the validity of racial hierarchies and downplay Nazi atrocities. Bonker's just isn't one of them. He edits mainly in the area of pop culture. He's obviously fascinated by US racial stereotypes as part of that, and has created several competent articles on those topics. Unfortunately has a rather adolescent desire to provoke, which is pretty tiresome. But like a lot of kids who seek attention by acting up, he's best ignored. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for us to let ignorant, provocative jerks edit this encyclopedia at all - especially not one who calls African Americans niggers and wears a swastika. Did you see what he and his friend User:Arctic Kangaroo did at AfC? I'm not sure this is a kid, actually. Have you met him Crisco? And if he is a kid, we're not daycare. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking Crisco, why is this inset under my comment? His preoccupations with Barbie-doll girls and naughty words are somewhat suggestive. He castigates "middle aged" editors, and self-identifies as an anarchic yoof. He may be 96 years old for all I know, but he sure acts like a teenager wannabe. I'm not sure why his biological age is relevant. In any case, my position is that his actual edits are not racist and there is no evidence in his edit history that he is pursuing a racist agenda. Sid Vicious wore a swastika. He wasn't a Nazi; he was a punk. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, he doesn't appear to be pursuing a racist agenda here. He appears to be trolling here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony, it's called "AGF". Might want to try it some times. I don't condone Bonkers' use of the word in such edits as this, but there are non-trolling alternatives. Also, where did I bring up age? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Paul did. Bonkers acts like (and I think claims to be) a kid ... a reckless kid. Or he acts like an old troll. You're in the town Bonkers claims to live in. Have you met? It matters because implicit or explicit in most of the enabling going on above is, "Awww. He's just a mixed-up kid. Cut him some slack." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. While I have somehow picked up an obsession of saying 'nigga' in the past week, I certainly do not bring it here, for obvious reasons. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Question: The original DYK nomination for one of the articles read:

  ... that "Niggers in the White House" (1902) was written after the President invited a nigger to the White House?

• Support, and I can't believe we're debating this. Sceptre 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Never mind a topic ban, that original diff of the DYK submission presented by Kablammo is enough for me to think about pressing the "indef" button. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Relax, negroes ain't gonna chop off our heads" didn't already do it for you? In BTC's words, "If anyone were to offer negative criticism of this hook, then the person would be deemed to have issues".89.240.40.140 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I hadn't even seen that. I'll wait for more input, but my inclination at the moment is, to be blunt, that we don't need that sort of shit. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Don't forget "Niggers niggers niggers niggers. There!". 89.240.40.140 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Black Kite. I don't use the term often, but seriously, ya'll are being trolled.--Jezebel'sPonyo 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The latest edits sealed the deal. Indeffed. Salvio 20:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You beat me to it by about four seconds. Good riddance. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Block

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

Bonkers got upset that people were going after him for the fact an article he created had "nigger" in the title and got put on the front page. He lashed out in response and when that inflamed the situation he backed away. Maybe he used the word in some edit summaries because he was still sore over the hostility exhibited towards him, but that is not trolling and it wasn't done gratuitously. There have been many people in this very thread who opposed a topic ban, never mind a block, and the basis for the block has been almost entirely due to conduct prior to the editor committing to not use the term "nigger" in discussions. I strongly oppose this block without consensus, which is clearly based more on personal emotion than any reasonable argument for preventing disruption.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• You did read this diff? Anyone who is going to troll the community like that needs a rest from editing until it's clear they're going to stop. An indefinite block, is, of course, not infinite. It is up to the user themselves now to show us that we can unblock without this issue coming up again. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I actually read it days before this thread even started, and I recognize two things: 1. The comment was not trolling, but an annoyed response to this comment suggesting Bonkers have the article deleted because another editor found the subject offensive and "unutterable". 2. He made this statement in response to subsequent criticism. Since then his only edits related to that subject have been to create a short article on a notable play protesting racism and discrimination that used the term in its title for effect and to use the term in some edit summaries where the article had "nigger" in the title. You could paint that maybe as a minor rebellion against such objections, but it is also not throwing the term out without reasonable cause.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I could go with that were it not for the editor's obvious fascination with many other articles containing the word (or simply just using it). Either it's trolling, or it's deliberate provocation of others, which in the end amounts to the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being fascinated by any topic as long as the edits themselves are legitimate. Some people are fascinated by serial killers and write articles about them. We don't accuse them of promoting murder. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, you're confusing Misplaced Pages with 4chan, TDA... When Bonkers provides assurances that he'll stop being wantonly provocative, then he'll be unblocked; until then, he should be prevented from trolling. Salvio 21:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• See my comment to Black Kite.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Bonkers but I find this Admin decision-making on AN/AN/I mystifying. Where was everyone's outrage during this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Niggers in the White House? What's changed? Well, yesterday someone Googled "Barak 'Magic Nigga' Obama" (why? no one asks) and Bonkers' name came up in the search engine results and that fact was shared here for some reason. That single observation prompted this discussion and an indefinite block, from out of nowhere. I'll admit that Bonkers himself didn't help his case and added fuel to the fire. But he's never had any blocks before, look at his long talkpage and you'll see no warnings about conduct at all.

Again, I find Bonkers irritating, personally, but being irritating isn't a crime, there are plenty of Editors here in good standing who are abrasive. As I said, I'm not a fan, but I hate that this is how Misplaced Pages works...you can be editing for two years, have been granted rights to be a autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker. Then, someone posts a negative comment about you at AN/AN/I, it snowballs and, within 36 hours, you're indefinitely blocked.

What changed from 15:58, 23 September 2013 to this moment? I'm a relatively new Editor but I'm seeing this over and over again. A person gets reported or, worse, files a complaint against someone else and the gang that hangs out here immediately starts calling for indefinite blocks. It's like throwing chum in a shark tank, people don't want an Editor to get a 24-hour or week-long block, either the problem is ignored ("no consensus") or you get indef'd...there is no middle ground.

Sorry if this seems like drama to you but I'm beginning to think that any Editor can be hung out to dry if enough people start calling for a block or ban. Look through anyone's contributions and you can pull out a few questionable decisions and ill-tempered remarks. Who is safe? Only those Editors who keep their heads down, don't alienate well-known users or who have allies who will speak up for them when these discussions spiral out-of-control. It's discouraging to see, as they say, how the sausage is made. Liz 23:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: - but he has been warned about this before, by me, links in above discussion. GiantSnowman 09:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone had asked "Why was Anthonyhcole Googling..." and it was answered. Due to the irritation caused by Bonkers the Clown, Anthonyhcole has written Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House-like the way pearls are formed. —rybec 00:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping to merge them into an article on White House hospitality to African Americans. There is quite a bit of interesting and controversial history there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is a matter of experience. I have no doubt in my mind about Bonkers. They were not just irritating or misunderstood, they were very obviously being deliberately provocative in an extremely sensitive topic area. All they had to do was show some sign that they would stop doing that as it constitutes trolling, and they would not have been blocked. The "magic nigga" comment is a reference to an overtly racist song attacking Barak Obama. Not a political song, a racist song. We cannot, should not, and do not tolerate hate speech on Misplaced Pages, and that is exactly what Bonkers was engaging in, regardless of whatever weak excuses he offered to the contrary. We were being trolled, and now it's been stopped. That is all that happened here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

But Beeblebrox, he did stop. The blocking admin falsely claimed he was reacting to the "the latest edits" by Bonkers, which in fact date from several weeks ago, . Bonkers had already agreed to desist from such obviously provocative silliness before the AI thread began. IP 89.240.40.140 quoted Bonkers as saying "If anyone were to offer negative criticism of this hook, then the person would be deemed to have issues". In fact that referred to a completely different hook: the one that was actually used. And the "niggers, niggers" line is comment about 'rich vocabulary' , and, again, it is from some time ago. Was he being tiresome, yes? But it is in a context, and he had already agreed to stop days ago. This block demonstrates simply incompetence in reading the diffs in context - along with a desire to demonstrate a response to "racism" which punishes mere childishness while real racists roam free. Paul B (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying "the latest edits" does not mean "the edits he has made most recently" - it can also mean "the latest edits I have become aware of", which I presume is what was meant. GiantSnowman

I'm afraid I don't find that explanation very convincing. Those edits were made on a major forum weeks ago. If they had been seen as seriously problemartic in context by the many experienced editors at DYK Bonkers would have been reported. Salvio made a knee-jerk reaction to edits taken entirely out of context by the editors who posted them here. That is not competent use of adminstrator powers. Reading long threads and working out the context and sequence of events is boring and difficult, I realise, but that's what full debate on this noticeboard is supposed to be for. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're calling a block after a 2 day discussion "knee-jerk"? GiantSnowman 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. My point is precisely that Salvio did not follow the discusion ( he made one brief comment) or he would have recognised that those diffs were taken out of context as TDA has already explained; that they were from weeks ago and that Bonkers had already agreed to stop being silly. All of that is documented. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, because he didn't comment he can't have read the entire thing? By your logic only blocks could/should be made by admins who have commented in the discussion i.e. only INVOLVED admins should make blocks - interesting. GiantSnowman 09:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people are being creative with the truth; so here are a couple of explanations: first, it's not true that Bonker didn't receive any warnings. He received various ones, which can be read in this hatted discussion. Also, I have followed this discussion and even commented on it and, finally, the "latest edits" bit means exactly what GiantSnowman says. As a side note, is this a guy who you think is suited for an adult encyclopaedia? Salvio 10:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are being creative with the truth, as is GS. My point has been very clearly that your comment demonstrates that you did not properly follow the discussion. I've explained why that is clear several times. Your "one comment" was not the reason, as any sensible reading of my explanations should make clear. This is just defensiveness, as the substantive points are not being responded to. You know that he agreed to stop using the word because you responded to the (now hatted) discussion on this talk page in which he agreed to do so. That's also why your explanation of the "latest edits" phrase makes no sense. Paul B (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An adult encyclopedia? Did you forget that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, including anyone under 18 (like me)? namenot (talk/contribs) (formerly Insulam Simia) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support the block of the troll. He can appeal the block on his talk page. Doc talk 10:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. The trolling from that account had reached a level of disruptiveness that had long since superceded the level of constructive edits by the editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block The initial racist DYK hook alone was enough to justify an indefinite duration block in my opinion. That it was combined with other trolling makes this very straightforward. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support block given his response in his unblock request blaming the blocking admin and telling us that he will "continue editing as usual" if he is unblocked is not encouraging that he understands why he was blocked or that he is going to modify his behavior in the future. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block Just to make this clear. To Moe, his statement that he would "continue editing as usual" should not be taken as saying he will continue saying "nigger" for no good reason, but more that he would continue to do work he has done for the past two years. He did, after all, say in the very same unblock statement: "I did accommodate to early requests, which I deemed as very reasonable." The problem is that this block came after he agreed to those requests to avoid gratuitous use of the term and without any sign of him going back on that promise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block. Per The Devil's Advocate. This user has apologised and will not use the phrase again, as far as we are to believe. This block seems punitive, not preventative. namenot (talk/contribs) (formerly Insulam Simia) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right, because he didn't use the n-word after promising he wouldn't do that again and neither did he troll some more during the very discussion about his trolling. Salvio 15:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The trolling here is certainly unacceptable, but it doesn't warrant indef. An indef block after another block would be acceptable, however. namenot (talk/contribs) (formerly Insulam Simia) 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Excessive block Dropping an indef on someone with a clean block log, even for low level trolling is off the mark. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• How is repeatedly describing black people as "niggers" anywhere near "low level trolling"? GiantSnowman 15:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block - obviously. No place here for racists, no place here for trolls, certainly no place here for racist trolls. GiantSnowman 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: If someone could clarify the timeline here, that would be helpful. From the discussion above, apparently Bonkers was obsessed by the n-word and not in a constructive way. The discussion lead to a discussion on a topic ban that was (apparently) not quite concluded. Salvio blocked Bonkers. If the questionable behavior (i.e., use of the n-word in any context) continued while the topic ban discussion was ongoing, then this is a good block. If it didn't, then I'm not so sure. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support block - I'm not 100% convinced an indef is the best solution for this case; but there are definitely serious problems with this user (that have continued after their block, given their response to the blocking admin) that may take an indeterminate time for this user to mature through (crappy wording, hopefully you'll work out what I mean!) - so I'm weakly supporting. Racists have no place here; nor do trolls, and Bonkers the Clown is not an eccentric; they're a troll, pure and simple. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• To everybody opposing the block - was this an appropriate thing to say to the blocking admin in response to the block? GiantSnowman 16:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, but when someone is using official powers against you while wrongly labeling you a racist and a troll it can be a little hard to keep your composure. I am a firm believer that behavior of the accused in a conduct noticeboard discussion or immediately following a sanction is not relevant to whether any sanction would be justified. That is often the time when people are least likely to be calm and composed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hasty block, but not worth reversing. I'm somewhat split on this. First of all, I hate racism, and can't stand people who deliberately walk the line between "political incorrectness" and outright bigotry. On the other hand, it's not fair to block someone for saying things they've since agreed not to say, and, as has been noted above, Bonkers's race-related contributions subsequent to his agreement to stop using the N-word were not blatantly deliberate provocation. I appreciate that in combination with his past edits they are much more problematic than if they simply existed in a vacuum, but I think the appropriate administrative response here would still have been to leave him a final warning, saying that if he didn't steer away from race issues right now, he'd be blocked. (Not saying I'd agree with such a warning, but admins are entitled to demand anything they want of other users if they're willing to press the button if they don't comply.) On the third and most important hand, though, I'm about 90% confident that if all that had been done, Bonkers would have still slipped over the line at some point within the next month. He would have probably gamed the system in a variety of ways, pushing the envelope until he did something truly worthy of a block. I'm not a huge fan of precrime, but now that Bonkers is blocked, I seriously doubt unblocking him will do anything more than add extra complication the next time he's (more deservedly) indeffed. I welcome Bonkers to prove me wrong (which would involve demonstrating that he understands why many people take offense to non-black people using the N-word, regardless of context), and I also encourage Salvio to be less impulsive in the future. — PublicAmpers& 18:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

After seeing all the things Bonkers has done, I'm going to say that the block was a good idea. 173.58.53.65 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. It's a racist troll. Not because he wrote Niggers in the White House and No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs per se. But because he casually refers to African Americans as niggers, wears a swastika, and is churning out articles with "nigger" in the title so he can put them on Misplaced Pages's front page. Didn't he groundlessly decline hundreds of AfC submissions, like his friend or sock User:Arctic Kangaroo? And attitude. Check out the attitude. If you're going easy on him because you think he's a child, you're being had. What the fuck are you people doing, nurturing and protecting this? Jesus. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I am constantly amazed at the kind of behavior that some editors will defend. This is why civility and behavior policies have turned into unenforceable jokes. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good block - Sic semper troglodytarum. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban

Hello all. I'd like to direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, a new request for formal mediation by User:ChrisGualtieri. This is the dispute between him, User:Ryulong, and User:Lucia Black about how we cover the anime series Ghost in the Shell. Specifically, it is about whether we should have an article on the series as a whole, or whether that content should be merged into other related articles. As many readers of this board are probably aware, Lucia Black is topic-banned from "all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed", and is also subject to an interaction ban with ChrisGualtieri. Both sanctions are due to expire on November 1. As a prospective mediator of this case, I would like to see Lucia's topic and interaction bans amended to allow her to take part in the mediation.

I have been in touch with Lucia via email, and she is receptive to the idea of mediation. Ryulong has also agreed to take part, so the only obstacle now to the mediation proceeding is Lucia's sanctions. I don't think it would be very useful to leave Lucia out of any mediation proceedings, as any conclusion reached would fall apart when she was allowed back to the topic area in November. And if she participates, we may well be able to work out a resolution that satisfies everyone. So I see many positives and not many negatives from amending her bans. Would others here be willing to agree to this? — Mr. Stradivarius 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I should remind everyone that Lucia is also topic-banned from WP:ANI. Given that this isn't (quite) ANI, and that this wasn't her starting a thread about somebody, but me starting a thread about her, I think it would be only fair to allow her to comment here if she wants. Let's go easy on the block button if she posts here. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I'd support such a thing, but she really hasn't been doing very well on this interaction ban so far. About a month in, she already appealed to have it removed, largely on the grounds that it was "unjust", which was unanimously rejected, and she's clearly being warned about breaking it here too. I'd like to see other's thoughts I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to allow this, provided it is abundantly clear to her that the exemption is for purposes of participating in mediation only and she is still to stay away from the actual content and related talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am neutral about making the exception, but if it's supported, then perhaps it should specify participation on, and only on, a couple of named pages. Also, Lucia should be publicly warned (e.g., on her user talk page) that any behavior during that mediation that is even slightly undesirable will be given in evidence to get her topic ban lengthened, so that she understands the stakes for her behavior here, and everyone knows that she understands them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Actually, communications made in formal mediation can't be used as evidence in conduct dispute venues such as ANI or arbitration. Medcom has a policy of protecting this kind of communication so that parties are able to speak freely without worrying about it being used against them later. The reason for this is that disputes are usually a lot harder to resolve when the parties are trying to make themselves look good, or other parties look bad, with future discussions at ANI or Arbcom in mind. Taking this out of the equation lets the parties focus on the actual content rather than on each other. — Mr. Stradivarius 22:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have had little interaction with her. All recent and mostly bad faith on her part. If I had my way I would extend it to full en:wp block for a very long time. She just doesn't seem to interact very well with other editors and makes many disruptive edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support specific exception to the T-Ban and I-Ban to edit exclusively the Mediation discussion page. I understand MedCom has a history of functioning independently and if all parties involved in the mediation agree to these exceptions, I can see no harm. When bureaucracy gets in the way of progress and productive work, you know what to do. Lucia knows any unacceptable behaviour will not be ignored anyhow. I sincerely hope this won't cause more problems again. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Judging by all the ranting she's throwing on my talk page to me and people watching my talk page, over my above comments, I'm going to go ahead and say she's not really able to hold a rational discussion to editors in general, let alone someone she's got a history of not getting along with to the point of needing an interaction ban, on a topic she's topic banned from. I was intrigued by "WhatAmIDoing"'s idea, but since that was shot down as well, I just can't see these mediations going well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  If the mediation doesn't go well, then that's that; we don't reach a consensus, and we continue with the status quo. However, if mediation does go well, then the dispute gets resolved, and the editors involved can go about their editing a little bit happier. The exception to Lucia's bans would only be for participating on mediation pages, so the change we are discussing wouldn't affect normal life on-wiki. The worst-case scenario is that the parties spend some time discussing the issues, and everything continues as it is now, which really doesn't seem too bad to me. Also, mediations are a lot more structured than talk-page interactions, or indeed most other interactions between editors on Misplaced Pages, so there is a lot less scope for editors to go off-topic or get on each others nerves. This is why I say that I can't see any bad things coming from this; the worst we can have is the status quo, and the best we can have is one less problem on Misplaced Pages. It seems worth a shot to me. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Lucia Black has frequently violated her topic ban. The appropriate response to this is most certainly not to loosen up the restrictions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @serge.You already opposed serge, why bother making another oppose? What you could do is edit your own comment. There's a policy in mind for such things. and please keep you personal bias to yourself. If I'm having an argument in your talkpage, its because I'm tired of you interfering in everything ANI I bring up. I would like some fresh eyes when it comes to ANI. You have your own "personal" reasons. And it shows outside AN/ANI. What you think of me personally doesn't outweight the other aspects. For once in your life as an admin, actually start to see things more objectively when it comes to issues relating to me. Would any admin actually use an argument from an editor against them in something unrelated?
  • @lukeno94. Define "frequent"? I've edited template an american tv show neither officially considered anime nor manga. But warned because it could be "construed" as such. That's not violating the topic ban, that's pushing for the sake of enforcement. WP:ANIME doesn't have these american shows in its scope. And the reason why that matters is because of what the topic ban is even for. I've discussed about GAN stealing that related to a personal issue regarding the topic/interaction ban. "Frequent" is an exagerration. If it was "frequent" I would've been blocked.
  • You both bullied me enough in the last ANI. Can't you concentrate on real vandals? I know a dozen of editors who are much more incivil than me, the only difference is you are the only ones who interacted with me.Lucia Black (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can you point me in the direction that policy that doesn't allow me to make 2 separate posts, one as a comment, and then one as an official "Oppose" comment? Then explain to me why it matters. Then explain to me why you're trying to enforce this, when 99% of the time you don't even indent your messages. (See this is why discussion with Lucia go so terribly so often. Its either this sort of nonsense, or bad faith accusations and misinterpretations of policies. This is why she gets these sorts of bans to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia, although I can't remember the specifics, claiming you haven't violated the topic ban is simply false, and you know that full well. There have been multiple occasions, brought up at a recent ANI thread or two, where you were clearly found to have violated the topic ban, and the interaction ban; but you got away scot-free. You need to stop making personal attacks, and stop making false accusations of "bullying". The answer to this is simple: step back from all areas covered by your topic ban and your interaction ban, or you will end up blocked. That's not a threat, that's a policy-based fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are the one providing false information. i have only been brought up "once" in ANI since my interaction/topic ban, and from the same anonymous sockpuppet who just wants to cause trouble which was quickly closed. Other than that, being brought up in ANI "multiple" times is false. i have not gotten a single warning on my talkpage for such occasions. SO how can i accept what you said as true?.Lucia Black (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support if and only if Chris G supports. NE Ent 18:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Chris has clarified this below, but actually he was the editor that requested the mediation, and he had already mentioned his desire for an exception to Lucia's topic/interaction bans on the mediation page. (I should probably have made that a little clearer in my summary above, sorry.) — Mr. Stradivarius 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Terrible idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but only if ChrisGualtieri agrees as well, and only for the purposes of mediation. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am going to say let her take part in the mediation and that page only. Also, Lucia Black has been blocked for 48 hours on Sept 5th for the topic and interaction ban violation. Though Lucia has once again violated her interaction ban by continuing to attack to me on Sergecross's page, but I rather not have her blocked and see what mediation can do to resolve the content problem, though I think she should be on a week or longer block if she violates the topic ban or interaction ban outside this explicit and narrow definition: "Mediation page(s) only". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying this, Chris. A quick comment on "mediation page only" vs. "mediation pages only": I think the definition should be "Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, and any subpages of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2". That should give us plenty of room for discussions and/or drafts and still prevent the mediation from affecting other areas of Misplaced Pages. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In that case as Mr. Stradivarius has pointed out. The "Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for Mediation" and all subpages like "Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for Mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2". This way we have wiggle room and the focus is WP:RFM sections only. I don't think we need to go and make it airtight legalese, but this scope is extremely narrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Under no set of circumstances have I seen this nucleus of editors ever interact positively. An interaction ban means exactly that, A topic ban means exactly that. It is my viewpoint that the conduct issues must be resolved prior to the content issues being resolved. I am open however to a 1 strike regime (1 warning, then a block for a second failure to observe normal wikipedia behavior) to allow LuciaBlack the opportunity to participate in this instance of a DR process. I encourage the mediators to keep a firm grasp on the behavior leashes as previous interactions and attempts at DR have been worthless, long ranging, no holds barred brawls to argue about every piece of contention and massive dumps of repeated arguments. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support because the ban expires in a month anyway, and we don't get in the way of MedCom, and ChrisGualteri, who at least some of the sanctions were to protect from misconduct, has agreed to it. However, I also think that the ban be lifted to only deal with the relevant mediation pages. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, because I think that mediation can only have a chance at working when all relevant parties are involved; the alternative, from a practical point of view, is simply to wait until November to start the mediation. I trust that Mr. Stradivarius will keep the mediation moving forward properly, and, if Lucia should get out of hand, will be summarily removed from the mediation anyway. Also, to clarify, like everyone including Mr. Stradivarius has said, this exemption would be only for the mediation pages, not any other pages including the article and talk pages that are the subject of the mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

G4

Silver Lake Village (Michigan). A G4 was declined on this article by someone who felt that it was not "substantially similar". However, I remember the previous draft having virtually the same sourcing, especially the "Water Winter Wonderland" page, and much of the same information. Could an admin settle this, and see how similar the first draft was? Ten Pound Hammer • 11:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The intros are rather similar - but that's to be expected from articles on the same topic. The main body also has similarities, but is sufficiently different for me and I agree with the G4 being removed. Oh, and FYI - Nyttend (talk · contribs) is an admin. GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

TPH, look at the article history. You will note that the article has been edited time and time and time again. Any non-admin could tell you that there's no way that it could possibly be the same — can you imagine the miniscule possibility that tons of people would edit a page, only to have it end up being completely the same as a deleted text? Meanwhile, ViewDeleted showed me that it was a completely new text and nowhere near a repost. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not really fair to TBH, Nyttend. It was written by the same person who wrote the original article, and the other editors you mention are only bots or people adding banners or templates or tags or spelling checks. No one besides the original author has contributed substantively. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, (1) Policy doesn't assume that the original author will have done a repost, and (2) this guy isn't the original creator. To quote TPH at the AFD, I do remember the previous version having virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing, so I felt that it met "substantially similar". That's not the kind of proper investigation that's necessary to corroborate a repost. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll bet you $50 he is too the original creator. I think it was a valid G4, but I'm not going to argue with you about it; you seem to be taking this personally. I guess we can just let the AFD run. I've commented there, and restored the deleted history so non-admins can make their own judgement about whether this is "substantially identical" or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. The IP's only edits were to that article within 5 hours of DanGates's recreation. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You guys can't be serious about doubting that G4 applies to that thing. Created by the same person about the same thing with none of the original defects corrected. Are we arguing that articles recreated by people with bad memories aren't eligible for G4?—Kww(talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

policy error alert The wording of WP:CSD G4 is not "substantially similar", it's "substantially identical". So yes, G4 basically means a word-for-word repost, or something quite similar. Don't like it? Argue with policy, not me. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

policy error alert Jclemens had been using that same misinterpretation of "substantially identical" for years, and there doesn't seem to be any way to persuade him that he's wrong. "substantially identical" does not mean "virtually textually identical", it means to be matching in substance.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No way is that a valid G4. G4 is already one of the most abused speedy criteria as admins regularly delete articles effectively because they "don't address the reason for deletion" or similar. Now why it's debatable whether that should be the criteria it's not the criteria is "substantially identical" or not. IMO, there's no why an article with four times the number of sources can ever be substantially identical. Now those sources may, like the original, not meet our notability requirements but that's for an AfD to decide not an individual admin. If you don't like it get the criteria changed rather than just G4 deleting anyway. Personally I think the G4 criteria should be revisited but I don't think an article such as this should ever be a G4. Dpmuk (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: how is that thing even an article? It looks like a publicity piece in a travels magazine. If someone nominates this for deletion on account of WP:N, you have my vote. Regards. Gaba 17:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but the point is that if the article is substantively different - and new sources is a difference in substance - then that's the sort of thing that should happen in an AfD, not decided by a lone admin. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 19:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has indeed been at AFD from before the start of this discussion. Thincat (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up, I've nominated for deletion another article about a mall. Feel free to chime in. Regards. Gaba 21:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who deals with G4s quite a lot, the general algorithm I use is

• Is it the same article, or the same to all but a minimal extent? If so, delete G4.
• Is it different, but effectively the same article as before (i.e. no new sources or anything that would negate the original deletion reason). If so, delete G4.
• Is it different, and has some new element that may negate the original deletion reason - but still looks like a deletion candidate? If so - AfD or PROD.
• Is it different, and has new elements that definitely negate the original deletion reason, and looks like it would survive a deletion discussion? If so, all is well. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I do it that way also. One one hand it doesn't have to be a word for word copy to be a G4, on the other the addition ofat least one clearly reliable and relevant substantial source is usually reason for another discussion. Perhaps BK's interpretation should be added as a footnote to the policy page. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages indefinitely semi-protected pages

There are so many pages that are indefinitely semi-protected. Some years passed, and there are still too many. Vandalism for sure might not yet occur, but I see no further point of barring unregistered editors from editing such pages that are seldom or occasionally edited. I would recommend "pending changes" protection, but more inspection is needed. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As you seem to be saying, this is something that can and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. As such I would suggest that if you see an indef protected page that you think should have protection removed or altered, request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add a caveat (as a general reminder to anyone reading this thread); if the indefinitely semi-protected page is a BLP, and the reason for the protection isn't readily apparent from a review of the history, please keep in mind that there may have been extenuating circumstances leading to the protection (e.g. OTRS or OS action). Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there are some articles that not everyone should edit. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean, request 15 or 100 pages in one day? --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

15? yes. 100? no, that would be disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Recommended amount of requests? Maximum to avoid disruption? --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would go for no more than 10 requests at any one time. File 10, and wait for all those requests to be answered before filing any more. Also, leave a note at WT:RFPP that you intend to nominate a lot of pages, leaving a link to this thread. (Just my two cents.) — Mr. Stradivarius 10:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, what Jclemens and a couple of others said: bear in mind that there may be good reasons for protection that weren't written in the protection log, and talk to the protecting admin before bringing it to WP:RFPP if you can get in touch with them. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some administrators are inactive, unfortunately. --George Ho (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if some pages look like they're seldom edited, some pages like 69 or /b/ should not be unprotected for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't recommend even pending changes for these pages. Elockid 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. There aren't enough indefinitely semi-protected pages. The original request, to be charitable, is most likely based on a lack of information about why and how things are indefinitely semi-protected. If you have a specific issue, talk to the protecting admin. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I often think that all BLPs should be indefinitely semi protected, and I really think that blanket requesting the removal of protection is disruptive, no matter how many you do a day. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the case of Indian caste-related articles, the number of edits while indefinitely semi-protected may be low but, believe me, when you remove the semi you'll find that the number of contributions rises rapidly and are entirely of a disruptive nature. Those articles, as probably many others, went through periods of increasingly long semi before getting to the indef stage. Sure, indefinite is not infinite - that is actually an unfortunate reality as infinite would be better! Requests can always be made on talk pages and I'm not aware of a single indef'd caste-related article that wouldn't become a bloody nuisance again if switched to pending changes. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone is going to be going through the list, I think it would be a good idea to find articles that were controversial/in the news back when they were protected but have faded from view now. Brett Favre is a great example. He had a very high profile three years ago but has largely faded from view now, I think, so I think PC can probably handle things for that article. Mister World 2010 might be another good example. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• In a parallel discussion on my talk page, I've advised George to find specific reasons for each unprotect request as opposed to a blanket it's been too long style request.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• We do have a similar problem with full-protected pages. Sometimes an admin will protect a page because of an edit war and not set an expiry, either because they forgot or because they don't know how long the article needs to stay protected. Unfortunately this can lead to articles being fully protected for months or years because of a long-dead dispute. Hut 8.5 20:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

True, Misplaced Pages:Database_reports/Indefinitely_fully_protected_articles is a bit outdated but it might be a good idea to ping the protecting admins from some of those. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like we have somewhere between 2 and 4 thousand articles under indefinite semi-protection, or about 1 per thousand of our articles, which, at least to my eyes, ain't that high a percentage. Having said that, yeah, I think a lot of these might no longer need semi-, although, admittedly, others might need it, and yeah I could be wrong. And it is a big task to ask one person to review all 2 or 4 thousand articles. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, if anyone with a lot of free time on their hands . . . (ROFL) . . . wants to maybe get together a list of articles to be removed, maybe at an unofficial regular RfC or something, that might get a bit more attention, where maybe like a bulk deletion proposal several can be suggested, but others can comment on lifting or not lifting protection from all of them, or separately, as they see fit. And it would probably be a good idea to leave some sort of note on the relevant article talk pages as well, to allow those who may have been involved in the request to offer input. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • actually, let's go by alphabets. I've already checked pages starting with a number. Maybe someone can review pages starting with A, another on B, another on C, etc. --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Judging from the request on my page, you haven't gotten my point: if you want a page to come off of indefinite semi-protection, please explain why the reasons it was put on semi-protection no longer apply, don't just say "it's been 3 years."—Kww(talk) 23:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Kww has a point regarding that it would really help to have a specific reason given, even if it is something like "he's dead now, no one cares anymore" (which I hope doesn't get used on any of these articles). But some very contentious court cases run longer than three years, the number given above, so in at least cases regarding such contentious legal matters, or other matters which involve some sort of pending allegations or matters pending resolution, the length of time involved won't really be sufficient to indicate that the controversy is even close to being over. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific reasons on many pages? Or page-by-page? And years are... meaningless? --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• We really can't assume in any case that there aren't good continuing reasons, so, yeah, page by page, because that is the only way to establish that there aren't specific reasons relating to that particular article. And, yeah, length of time can't be said to be directly relevant in all cases, and we can't assume that it is in any particular cases without some evidence to that effect, so the length of time in and of itself can't really be used as sufficient reason in and of itself. Having said all that, it would be really nice if some other people were to join the effort. That's one of the reasons I suggested a semi-regular review, to maybe get some coordinated activity involved. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP alone isn't enough; neither is talking to protecting administrator. Propose another process that resembles "parole hearing" (you know, at prison)? This time, have board committee review indef semi-prot. pages? --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific reasons on each group of pages that share the same reason. Think of my earlier example to you of a show that's gone off the air so fans aren't squabbling over it any more: that would be a reason to unprotect articles about characters in the show, seasons of the show, episodes of the show, etc. There wouldn't be any reason to explain it once per article. I think John Carter would agree to groupings in that kind of case. But yes, years are meaningless. Talking to the administrator would be enough if you give a reason, right now you are just saying "it's been a long time", and that's not a reason.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Would agree that if a TV show, or movie, or music release, or some other temporarily current topic has stopped being current, that would be reason to unprotect. I suppose, for things like comic books and other "continuing" or "developing" articles, which get a lot of speculative and excessive editing while the story is going on, the same would probably apply as well. If there are multiple articles which were placed under protection because of pending court cases about a decedant's will or estate, which has since been settled, they could probably be grouped together as well. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also User:George Ho should remember that Misplaced Pages has no deadline, there is no pressing need to have all these pages unprotected posthaste. Time should be taken to do things properly and the existing processes are just fine for that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• @George, I am not fussed if another admin wants to try unprotecting an article that I have protected, though I do ask that folks keep an eye on the page. I recently wiped my watchlist when it hit 11000 pages so will have no idea about many pages I watched over the years. Pending Changes is a headache as the IP requesting teh change is often gone and so if the request is obscure we have no idea whether valid or not. At least with semiprotection the IP has to stick around initially to discuss. A great many indef pages suffer from perennial vandalism, so I'd join in saying that each request needs an explanation and a promise to watch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Examining them, about one-third self-evidently ought to remain indefinitely semi-protected or indefinite subjection to pending changes; another third show clear continuing problems in the edit history--it sometimes amazes me what unexpected pages someone will pick to vandalize. The other third were the result of one or two attempts, or a short edit war, and night well have needed protection or PC for a while, should not have been applied indefinitely. So the unnecessary third will need to be checked and removed manually--the safest thing to do might be not to remove protection, but change it to expire 3 months from now.

But the other question is whether to use semi-protection of PC for each pages. Most of the protections were applied before PC became available., and this can be seen from the histories. If there are problems from autoconfirmed editors still occurring, then it would probably be wise to switch to PC. If it's only been ips, or brand new editors, I personally think that semi-protection is a lot simpler to understand and apply, but others may want to us PC much more often, & only use semi for pages edited so much that PC would be cumbersome--and a good many of the pages seem to be in that category. I think either opinion is valid: we argued this back and forth from over a year--the current state is a compromise, & I'm not aware of any actual data. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio / Revdel request

• Mark Lamping (edit|talk|history|protect|links|watch|logs)

I know revdel requests don't go here, but it's just a copyvio so no worries regarding the Streissand effect. I followed the instructions here for non-admins (check my contribs), so can an admin follow the instructions here and do steps #2-9. Rgrds. --64.85.215.87 (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

RevDel done. Dpmuk (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Noodleki

Noodleki has invoked the Standard offer in his latest unblock request. As an uninvolved adminstrator, I'm bringing it here so that the community can discuss the case. Please add your comments below. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, as someone who has worked on cleaning up the mess this editor caused by massive unattributed copying from one Misplaced Pages article to another, despite multiple warnings, I suggest that the unbllock be on the condition that they refrain from copying from any Misplaced Pages articles (not even with attribution) and undertake to contribute only completely original, well-referenced, content until Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki has been completely cleared. Of course, if they also help us to identify the remaining unattributed sources of copying at the Contributor copyright investigation it will go much faster. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Can she/he correct any copyright violations made by the Noodle90 account at the same time? Liz 02:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, on the condition that it's "one violation and you're out", given the mess this user made in the past. This is their third chance, because they blew the second one they had; if this one fails, I don't see how the user will ever be able to return. I think there's only been the one sock account so far; that was also back in March. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. As with Voceditenore and User:Liz, I'd like to know if Noodleki is open to helping identify the remaining unattributed sources of copying listed at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki, and am awaiting their response to this query (which was made on their user talk page). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As serious as attribution issues are, they seem to understand what they did wrong, so per the standard offer and WP:ROPE I support unblocking on the condition that they understand there should never be a repeat of these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Are double redirects still being fixed by bots?

I decided to post to this noticeboard due to my perceived importance of this issue. If I have posted to this forum inappropriately, I sincerely apologize. I've noticed that the redirect bots are working a lot more slowly than usual, if they are working at all. This could become extremely problematic in the event of page moves when disambiguation pages are created. Does anyone know why the double redirect bots have been working more slowly than usual lately? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Special:DoubleRedirects there is just one un-fixed double redirect. The page hasnt been updated in 16 days though. (The bots use that page to fix them) Werieth (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - This is the problem, Special:DoubleRedirects has not been updated for days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked in #wikimedia-tech on IRC and the issue seems to be related to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53227. Recent updates seem to have been done manually. wctaiwan (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - So something on German Misplaced Pages is having an effect on DoubleRedirect bots for English Misplaced Pages? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know (I'm not a developer), it's an issue that's affecting both the German Misplaced Pages and the English Misplaced Pages, not one caused by the former. wctaiwan (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Does anyone know when this might be fixed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue that affects all wikis, whether Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.. I believe the fix is currently depending on the review and deployment of this change. Malafaya (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Interaction-ban question

I've raised a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy#Exceptions question regarding interpretation of a piece of the current banning policy. One user's responded so far; your comments would be helpful, especially if you're an admin who's blocked a user or actively decided not to block a user who's in the circumstance in question. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope user talk page

See User talk:adarsh.chavakula--Musamies (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I left a {{welcome}} and moved the article draft to a new subpage. Jehochman 12:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC on NFCC

This is alert you that a RFC was placed in NFCC Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Discussion_on_simplying_the_text_of_NFCC. Your response it appreciated.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  14:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)