text:
2012 Summer Olympics men's water polo game A6; 15:38. . (+108) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . N! Template:Db-fpcfail/doc; 15:38. . (+2,053) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Substitute - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:Luton Town F.C. squad; 15:38. . (+64) . . Haruman215 (talk | contribs) (Dean Brill) (diff | hist). . Template:The Get Up Kids; 15:38. . (-29) . . Rwiggum (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's water polo group A standings; 15:37. . (+4) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Uncle Kracker; 15:37. . (+30) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's water polo game A6; 15:37. . (+111) . . Kante4 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-spamuser; 15:37. . (+74) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Switch to template - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-spamuser/doc; 15:36. . (-7) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Formatting) (diff | hist). . Template:BC Neptūnas roster; 15:36. . (+135) . . <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) (diff | hist). . N! Template:Db-spamuser/doc; 15:35. . (+2,022) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Substitute - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:Latest preview software release/Tribler; 15:34. . (-10) . . Skype565 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Latest stable software release/Tonido; 15:32. . (-2) . . Skype565 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Chicago Cubs roster; 15:32. . (+5) . . BravesInsider13 (talk | contribs) (Braves traded Arodys Vizcaino and Jaye Chapman for Paul Maholm and Reed Johnson.) (diff | hist). . Template:Latest preview software release/Shareaza; 15:31. . (-2) . . Skype565 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:New Orleans Saints roster navbox; 15:31. . (-44) . . Eagles247 (talk | contribs) (update) (diff | hist). . Template:Coal Chamber; 15:30. . (+20) . . Digital0000 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-hoax; 15:30. . (+75) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Switch to template - see Template talk:Db doc#Too complicated?) (diff | hist). . Template:New Orleans Saints roster; 15:29. . (-11) . . Eagles247 (talk | contribs) (DL Akiem Hicks activated) (diff | hist). . Template:Tekken series; 15:29. . (+57) . . Kokoro20 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 504849890 by MrWii000 (talk)) (diff | hist). . Template:2012 Summer Olympics football convenience template navbox; 15:29. . (+9) . . Lejman (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Cincinnati Bengals roster navbox; 15:29. . (-23) . . Eagles247 (talk | contribs) (Clements activated) (diff | hist). . Template:Latest preview software release/Opera; 15:29. . (-2) . . Skype565 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Latest preview software release/Opera; 15:28. . (-82) . . Skype565 (talk | contribs) (diff | hist). . Template:Db-g3/doc; 15:28. . (+77) . . Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) (Fix category) (diff | hist). . Template:Cincinnati Bengals roster; 15:28. . (-11) . . Eagles247 (talk | contribs) (CB Nate Clements activated)

Please fix it and block/protect/everything else necessary, since I'm busy and don't have the time right now. Note a recent thread at WP:HD ("What's going on over at Current Events?") and the recent protection of PREVIOUSMONTH.YEAR. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (non admin response) I'm not seeing any difficulties with the page (FF 13.01, WinXP). Was the problem already resolved before I looked? --Lexein (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but we need an admin to check each of these template edits for vandalism, except for ones by established users of course. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed --Lexein (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Been done, cleaned, protected. All should be back to normal-ish now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hansle Parchment article hacked

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is weird... the page comes up with the following error message when clicked :- "User:Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of this article. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you."

I've checked the page history and source, and can't find any problems. Help please! (I have notified the user mentioned in the message)

Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Template vandalism.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  @ 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, please check User_talk:Earth Exploding Live - there are reports there of other articles being hijacked by this thing/person/whatever. Since he has so many socks, I'd assume he's found a way to make more.  BarkingFish 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked for emergency checkuser on a user who performed identical vandalism to another page. That user's already blocked, but CU will reveal other accounts.  Just hoping my email to the functionaries mailing list will go through quickly.  Nyttend backup (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same thing happened at ASTRO and I can't figure out which template is affected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite showing only the hijack message, the html of the page does contain all the information in the article, so you can find from that where the relevant html markup resides. (I found it in a stub template and tried to post it here, causing a mess.) --  spin control 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just got a response from my email to the functionaries list; a CU ran a check, and the dementor's kiss (otherwise known as global locking) has been performed on at least one account. I'm guessing that everything's resolved for the moment.  Nyttend backup (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, these links still exist and the vandalism still remains to be found.
 * They're mostly the result of caching issues, since the link was transcluded by a template. A null edit to pages should immediately remove them from the list, or you can wait a few minutes and they should disappear.  Nyttend backup (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

L. Ron Hubbard
Could someone please take a look at the last few edits on this that weren't me, and look through the contribs of the obvious socks, maybe get a SPI together to block the originator? It's obviously someone taking the piss, mostly, though one of them did put a correct image of Hubbard's wife on her article at Sara Northrup Hollister. I don't have the time for concentrated investigation right now. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected LRH for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning

 * Original ban discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
 * Original ban discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
 * Original ban discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362

User:Niemti was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:HanzoHattori, having acknowledged in the SPI that they were said user. However, looking over the SPI archive for him, I note an extreme amount of fishing and likely false reports on other users, which makes me suspicious of anything included in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori that is based on "behavioral" evidence. One example of a perplexing case is User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, where they were blocked because of this edit. I'm sorry, but how does that confirm anything?

Anyways, i've worked with Niemti before and he was of tremendous help on the Kony 2012 article, doing a ton of work on it. He's stated here on his talk page that he no longer has access to the Hanzo account from four years ago, so what would be the proper method of appealing the ban? Should he just do it on the Niemti talk page? Silver seren C 01:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Captain Obvious": I think the username was the big tip-off there. I seem to recall that HH had less than cordial relations with one User:Estlandia, who once went by the handle "Miacek and his crime-fighting dog". The username was clearly intended to mock. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Do you believe this to be an accident made by a careless admin or a purposeful plot against Niemti by one of the user's enemies? Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa, no, i'm not saying that, just that some of those checkuser cases in the past (all of which appear to have been initiated by different people) might have been hasty and relied too much on "behavioral evidence". That's kind of a criticism I have for the checkuser system in general though. But i'm more concerned about what Niemti's next step is, because he's a good editor and has done a lot of good work. Silver  seren C 01:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not punish. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see what this is preventing here. Silver  seren C 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good editing. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Silverseren, the best venue for the discussion would be at WP:AN. Since they were banned via a comminity discussion, the un-ban would be done the same way. You could ask the user to put together a request for un-ban and it could be copied over to WP:AN for review. -- Dianna (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can this be moved to WP:AN then? Silver  seren C 05:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Niemti should prepare a statement first, asking to be un-banned. I will post on their user talk, and see if they would do that, and someone could copy it over to AN for them. Not me, though; I am tired and will be logging off in a minute. -- Dianna (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No just block him, Niemti is threatening me again and again that he will block me and has a rude behaviour just because I did a mistake once. He doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Please I appeal you to block him and somebody please remove those block warnings from my talk page. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you keep quiet for the time being, MegaCyanide. The quickest perusal of your talk page showed things like "I am not talking about you I am talking about Niemti that idiot of a buffoon", from you. That's a clear personal attack, and if you continue to complain about the behaviours of other editors on this board, it might boomerang on you. OohBunnies! (talk)  04:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Apologies if I don't take your word for it, considering this personal attack (and this) you made on his talk page. You seem to have been far more rude than he ever was. Silver  seren C 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to propose an unblock and unban of HanzoHattori, then do it. All this talking here is going to do nothing. Personally, if we have allowed this user to continue editing while banned, then why not unban him? We'll just re-hash all that has gone on before again. --MuZemike 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd support any unblock, personally. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would support an unblock yet, but I would be willing to consider it as it has been 4 years, it sounds like his contribs are decent, his claim that he forgot his password is plausible and a reason to overlook "block evasion" (which he is technically guilty of). If he requests it, this would be consistent with my goals assuming the accounts were linked and the community had a chance to discuss the merits.  Blocks are pretty cheap nowadays. I always say to forgive in the same manner you want to be forgiven. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Dennis. And the fellow is spending 90% of his time editing articles, which is very high, and have done lots of good gnomish work. I helped with copy edits at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, an article they have contributed to extensively. Browsing through their talk page and user talk page edits, I don't see any evidence of the confrontational behaviour that got them banned in the long-ago. Four years is a long time, and it looks like their behaviour has changed. We can't afford to throw valuable contributors away over technicalities. I would support an unban motion. I am going to move this discussion to the AN board, which is the usual venue for these motions. -- Dianna (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Something to consider: this is the thread that discussed the block. I didn't participate at the time, but that proposal was only discussed for just over 13 hours (which I don't consider to be sufficient, but eh.) Maybe someone could check with Nietmi? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 15:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure as this discussion drags on, there'll be plenty of bystanders weighing in with this basic sentiment: "Support indefinite block/ban. I don't care how good his contributions have been; they were done through evading a community-imposed ban, which demonstrates a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. If he wishes to be unbanned, he may submit an appeal to the Arbitration Committee." To that I say, phooey! It may be the six or seventh most popular website in the world, but it's still just a website — it's not like he committed a felony offense. We don't mete out justice here on Wikipedia. Sure, he behaved like a bit of an @sshole back then, he didn't get along very well with people, and the community eventually got tired of it and told him to begone. This was in February 2008, over four years ago. He came back, dropped all connections to his old account (AFAIK), and is now a collaborative and productive member of our community. Unless someone provides hard evidence that his presence is counterproductive to the collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia, I'm very firmly opposed to blocking the Niemto account.  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 18:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally get that, but what about the precedent this would set? Every WP:LTA headcase will start trying to do the same thing. Some of them have been banned just as long. This is why we don't let people sneak in through the back door like this. the fact that he got caught is also telling. Of he had never returned to old habbits no one would have even suspected socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured someone would make the argument that it'd set a bad precedent. I think HanzoHattori is different from most of the people on LTA, though — he hasn't been leading a sockpuppet crusade against Wikipedia for the purpose of exhausting the patience of any admin who has the misfortune of cleaning up after him. What got him banned wasn't his idiosyncratic editing manner, it was his disregard for the concept of being polite. I've not seen any evidence that he retains said issue, so to me the point is moot. I stand by my above comments.  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 19:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a website, so what's the big deal that he can't edit it, why should we bend over backwards for him? If he really wants to come back, play by the same rules as everyone else: fulfill the obligations needed to satisfy the Standard Offer.  If ihe doesn't want to do that, let him find something else to do with his time -- it's just a website, after all, and no one has a right to edit it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, some users cannot bear to part with the website, and that's a fact. That's OK. If he gets unbanned/unblocked, I'm sure we will be discussing numerous ANI incidents, culminating with another ban proposal, within a year. Then, a couple of years later, the community will consider another unban/unblock. Wash, rinse, and repeat. --MuZemike 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. People do change, after all (especially if they're relatively young; teenagers can have a totally different personality within less than a year's time, from what I've seen). I have yet to be presented with recent evidence that Niemto is rude or abrasive towards other people. In fact, all I've seen from viewing his recent contributions are constructive edits and a pleasant (if blunt and slightly sardonic) demeanour.  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 22:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm always reading comments on the problem of editor retention. Can a brave admin just unblock him so time and valuable edits can stop being wasted? Acoma Magic (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if he would be blocked or unblocked, so I will remain neutral. I think the last time he edited before the Niemti account was, who has the same problem of incivility and tendaticidous editing, as well as the same interests in articles such as the Mortal Kombat series, the Soul Calibur series and the Max Payne series (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the comments above, I believe an unblock/unban proposal is needed in order to reach consensus. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Unblock/unban

 * Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I do have to agree that by today's standards the original ban discussion was inadequate, nut it appears they were already blocked at that point anyway. If the IP identified above was the same user, I cannot support unblocking at this time despite the "reformed" sock account. I would say WP:OFFER. They have proven they are capable of making good edits, but it also seems like they have yet to put aside the troubles of their past. The total between the socks considered confirmed and those that were just suspected is 27, if even half of those are accurate that is too much to just look the other way on this one. If they can just walk away and not sock at all for a few months I think the community would be more accepting of an unblock.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support - What's the point of walking away for a few months? If his edits were disruptive, then that would be the correct remedy. However, his edits have been constructive and a ban from Wikipedia for a few months wouldn't improve Wikipedia. Bans are supposed to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Whereas a ban of this user for a few months is just punishment. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Offer, per Beeblebrox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with the concerns by Beeblebrox, we should give them the standard offer. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see anything preventative about this block, just punitive action based on past socking. The point is, if this sort of thing happened more often with people that socked, namely, they returned with a new account, made tons of productive edits, and didn't exhibit the tendencies that got them blocked before, then I would be all for not blocking them. The whole point of the block system is to get rid of unproductive editors who are, in some way, harming the encyclopedia. If this fact is no longer true, then I don't see the purpose of blocking them any longer. At this point, even with using the standard offer, we would be harming the encyclopedia far more than we would be helping it. Silver  seren C 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the standard offer six months length isn't set in stone, per the Variations section. It is completely within policy and even within OFFER for us to decide to unblock now. Silver  seren C 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support immediate, unconditional unblock.  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've left a note at JBW's talk (the blocking admin.), but judging from comments on his talk page - he may be off-line for a while. Chedzilla (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The persistent incivility and disruptive nature of this user, in addition to the admitted intention to continue socking and ignore our rules, clearly indicates this user is a net negative to the encyclopaedia. To unblock him now as a result of his further socking would send the wrong signal, "socking can you get you unblocked", to other users, making a mockery of our rules. Nanobear (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The persistent incivility and disruptive nature of this user, doesn't apply to his edits regarding this current account. This encyclopaedia is for the reader, not for admins to be offended if people don't follow their rulings. Therefore he is a net positive to Wikipedia; I can't see anything negative he brings to Wikipedia. People edit Wikipedia because they enjoy it, they're not going to stop because of a piece of text on their account reading "blocked". When people don't learn their lesson and continue editing disruptively from various accounts, block those accounts. However, when they edit constructively then what is accomplished from blocking? The wiki rules aren't sacred or holy, they exist to improve Wikipedia. WP:Ignore all rules. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * You do realize that's something from two years ago, right? And, amusingly, the sockpuppet statement isn't followed by the usual reasoning, but the reasoning that he's going to make new accounts to continue writing new articles and improving the encyclopedia. I'm perfectly fine with that. If only all sockpuppetters followed that reasoning. Silver  seren C 22:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support unblock/unban By all accounts, the editor is peaceably improving articles. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to uphold a set of rules. Remember: We don't have a lot of spare hands. If he's willing to avoid past mistakes (and I'd suspect he'd be watched for a while) then jeez, why not?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Acoma Magic's second comment. When we ban someone for problematic behavior and find that the behavior in question has ceased, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face if we prohibit that person from contributing positively.  Let's watch HH/Niemti to ensure that the civility issues do not return, but unless that happen, no complaints.  Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Beeblebrox and (wait for it...) Acoma Magic's second comment. This is why we have the standard offer (and yes, at a reduced time, say 60 days), and I think there would be support and forgiveness if he went that route.  However, as much as I want to bring back constructive people back into the fold, I am aware that if I condone or reward socking, even if they are doing good things, I am encouraging it and I will see more of it, with the socks using this as a justification.  We can't do this.  I can be open minded about forgiving it after the 60 days, but it is in our collective best interest if we don't reward socking today and make them wait at least a token period.  I think if you work SPI a few weeks, you will understand why.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You would be encouraging people who have been blocked to return to Wikipedia in a constructive way. Vandals, trolls and POV pushers already disregard the wiki rules. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. At first I was a little confused, by after reading Acoma Magic's second comment, I must say that supporting this unblock is the right thing to do. If a blocked editor wishes to improve Wikipedia, and if consensus allows it, it is an admins duty to unblock for the improvement of Wikipedia. Here, I think it is a wise choice to unblock, as both standard offer apply and the editor has made substantial contributions as well. The only problems are the some admins do not want to make a fool of themselves "rewarding" socking. I have to say, the editor has shown good behavior in the past, and if he 'misbehaves" again (I don't see how he could, he isn't a troll or POV pusher) then you can just block him again. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  01:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose You betray the communities trust. You evade your block and make mostly useful edits. That is a nice start but it is the simplest thing in the world to accept the standard offer - apologize - and get back to work. I know that sitting quietly behind a keyboard and never having to react to an actual human makes it seem like this isn't a community worth acknowledging but that isn't true. MarnetteD | Talk 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to Strong Support: per Wehwalt. Interested in comments by both the user and JBW tomorrow. Chedzilla (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC) (edited to "Strong" support per users statement on his talk page - listed below) Chedzilla (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to be a devil's advocate here, from looking at the original ban proposal back in February 2008, while there was some support for a ban, I don't know if that was enough support there, even given our higher standards of enacting one now. Obviously, there was a bit of support (just without the "support/oppose" !votes), but the timeframe seems a bit rushed. That means that betrayal of the community's trust is fairly low if there was only a small amount of support for the ban. (Though, from my early Wikipedia experiences in 2008 and 2009, ban proposals didn't seem as structured as they seem now, and they're still not terribly that strictly structured.) --MuZemike 07:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Until the user themselves makes an unban and unblock request, there is nothing to discuss. No other user has standing to make such a request.  Sandstein   07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He obviously wants to be unblocked. There's no point in throwing away our current progress in this proposal because of a technicality. Acoma Magic (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support. Look, if he comes back and takes advantage, I'll be the first to kick him in the ribs - hell, I'll be happy to make the block myself. But based on his contributions I've got no reason to think he won't be productive. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I never encountered HattoriHanzo, but I've edited alongside Niemti (and also come under personal attack from MegaCyanide666 on my own talk page, FYI and their edits have always been solid and constructive, especially in the area of improving grammar and formatting, something a lot of articles are hurting for.Euchrid (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I remember Niemti editing some articles on my watchlist (I'll have to recheck which). Does this mean if the ban on HH stands, his sock's edits will have to be reverted?--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits by socks only get reverted if they're not constructive, unless the person is a long term vandal, then it'll get reverted without even checking the edits. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, WP:DENY encourages people to obliterate all edits by users violating bans, the better to disincentivise ban evasion. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's only for vandalism though. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironholds is right. Precisely why I heartily ignore whenever it conflicts with WP:DENY, since it's just an essay.  Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Strong Support (unbanning user) - I've have never encountered HanzoHattori (for obvious reasons), but Niemti and I have edited similar articles. The user is definitely productive and is also a good vandal-fighter. See nothing really disruptive - the HH incident was, how many years ago? Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 08:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What evidence do we have that Niemti is HanzoHattori? Did an unban request come from the HanzoHattori account? Has anyone bothered to confirm with the banned user that this is actually him? I don't see the connection apart from some questionable behavioral evidence as laid out by SilverSeren, and suspect we're being trolled. In any case, even if the user is HanzoHattori, I oppose an unban because for one thing, he says he's quitting straight away, and for another thing, the terms of the standard offer were not met. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support unbanning because I believe that he would be a great asset for the project. As a note of order, I collaborated with this user from the very beginning when he just started editing as Hanzo. Let's give him another chance. My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement from user's talk

 * Hi, I've already stated pretty much all I wanted at and I'd rather not start writing any kind of a tl;dr rant about it. Regarding past, I don't even quite remember what had happened 4 years ago and don't really want to recall (it was probably some embarrassing Internet drama that would make me roll my eyes about it nowadays). I don't have any emotional or other attachment to the old account, it's like an ancient history to me, and I'd rather rather talk about my current activity which is more relevant I think.

 * Also the truth is I actually wanted (want) to take some kind of a vacation from Wikipedia anyway, like to post an inactive tag here and log off, log in infrequently. I'm wasting way too much time, it's like an addiction; also, like Klimov once said about his films, I did pretty much everything that I wanted to, at this moment anyway. Minus the stuff that I didn't even want to touch, because it's just too much work. (And so the only thing I'd immediately do it would be to revert back a bunch of totally ridicalous reverts "identified as vandalism" by a "brony" who has retaliated this way for my removal of his non-notable My Little Pony'crossover fanfiction story during my cleanup of the Fallout'' series article.) For example I realized that I almost don't even play video games anymore, I just write about them on Wikipedia, not to mention personal life and work. So I'm not even all that mad about it. --Niemti (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * copied from User talk:Niemti by Chedzilla (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted those reverts; some had already been undone. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * User now unblocked after discussion with blocking admin. — Ched :  ? 08:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be much less active now, which is what I planned anyway. --Niemti (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Laughable
The ban of the original account was in place for 2 years, with the editor socking thereafter. The unban discussion here pretty clearly showed no consensus to unban, yet he was unblocked anyway. How is this a correct way to undo a 2 year old community ban? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone at least remove the banned tag from the original account and redirect it to his current account? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a cpmpletely bizzarre result. I can't say I see the strong consensus that would normally be expected to overturn a ban, and it seems the user in question doesn't really care and plans to quit anyway, meaning the entire discussion was a waste of time. This is why unban discussions are usually initiated by the banned user themselves instead of relying on conjecture and assumptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree also - the discussion was only open 12 hours and I don't see a community consensus to unblock here - I would also have opposed under the conditions of this discussion -  You  really  can  17:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The ban of the original account was 4 and a half years ago. It's correct, per Wehwalt, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, not uphold a set of rules. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion may have value - but then the unblock is not a community unblock of a community ban, its an admin WP:IAR unblock - You  really  can  17:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 admins are fine with the unblock. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Acoma Magic, you created your account less than 30 days ago yet show impressive knowledge of how Wikipedia works. What other accounts have you had prior to this one? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A month ago I didn't know much about how Wikipedia works. I've spent most of my time on Wikipedia reading rather than editing. For instance I spent about 3 hours reading through stuff to do with User:Hopiakuta but I only wrote a paragraph. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You do understand though, Acoma, that such an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia for somebody so new will arouse suspicion from people. Your fourth edit was to ITN/C, and you managed to discover the incidents noticeboard a mere four days after creating your account. You quickly learned how to undo an edit, as well as how to access the Wikimedia toolserver, both of which are quite technically advanced for someone who just registered an account on Wikipedia for the first time. Now bear in mind, I'm not making any assumptions — there is such a thing as someone simply being a very fast learner, and I suspect you are of a brighter mindset than the average Joe. But by that same token, please understand that I do have a certain degree of skepticism towards the notion that this is, in fact, your first account on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt until I'm presented with evidence that you are not a good faith contributor; thus far, you seem like a force for good. That's all I really care about. :)  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 07:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no way that people without accounts who have been editing Wikipedia for years would ever have developed any knowledge about policies or watch the admin noticeboards for their delicious dramas. OH WAIT. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Urgh. There's no way this was the proper procedure for undoing a community ban, consensus or not (and I agree that there's no way 12 hours on AN and a quick note on the blocking admin's talk constitutes consensus anyway). This doesn't reflect at all well on the unblocking admin, who can hardly be trusted not to summarily overturn future community bans on the same basis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One admin isn't able to undo a community ban. Bans can only be reversed by community consensus or by ArbCom. The unblock was out if process and should be reinstated. And the discussion above still shows no consensus for reversing the ban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd repeat what I've previously said about self-important unblockers being the principal enablers of disruption and other misconduct on Wikipedia, but I'd only be repeating myself.   Sandstein   16:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That which the community does (and this appears to have been a community ban) the community can undo (as can Arbcom or Jimmy). I know of no precedent requiring arbcom to un-community-ban, and I think there have been prior counterexamples.
 * I am concerned about the discussion above, but also the current ANI discusion where it appears to me that he's back to his abusive behavior again. The combination of odd consensus determination / process here and apparent immediate return to (at least mildly) abusive behavior...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only am I also concerned about the discussion above, but the ANI discussion is now closed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was closed because you complained about nothing. There's nothing there to be concerned about. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was seriously concerned about the user's apparent incivility, despite his good intentions. If I did anything wrong, then I am deeply sorry. It was not my intention to hurt anyone. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. Acoma Magic (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel that the unbanning of HanzoHattori/Niemti clearly violates a fundamental policy: the banning policy. The policy states that administrators are forbidden "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy." The only exceptions are with the written authorization of Arbcom, or if there is a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so (see Banning policy for more information). As such, there is no consensus to unban HanzoHattori/Niemti as he's still banned; however, the user is unblocked at the moment. Also, bans apply to all edits, good or bad. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that I may have to type a list of reasons why "I don't buy it." That's enough though. Acoma Magic (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * A vast majority of banned contributors do not contribute positively to the project, to tell this politely. Therefore they remain banned and rightly so. However, if a contributor clearly contributes positively, he should be allowed to continue per WP:IAR. The exact procedures is a different matter. If he wanted to follow procedures, he had to either contact appeals at Arbcom<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or follow WP:Standard offer. The fact that he did not follow these policies is not a good sign, but WP:IAR still can prevail. Punishing an administrator who acted by WP:IAR would not be a good idea, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I stand by my earlier opinion, and add that I feel the original discussion attracted only a few people, far smaller than I would find acceptable for a ban, and it is worth very little respect. If there is no present consensus to keep the user blocked, then there should be no impediment to his editing.  Yes, he has said he intends to scale back involvement, but I know that it's hard to stay away.  Let it go.  If he does harm, deal with it then.  I'm not expecting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since HanzoHattori/Niemti is unblocked per WP:IAR, I think we should just leave him be, but if the user does get in trouble again by being incivil, using personal attacks, disruption, or tendencious editing, we should just deal with it. Unless and until that happens, I think we should just drop it for now. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All your edits so far have been the opposite of the view you just expressed. Even the rewording and added comment at the top of the discussion you just performed suggests you're not sincere. Can an admin close this discussion so we can get on with our lives? Acoma Magic (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't make assumptions about me. I was only trying to be civil, but if I hurt anyone, I am deeply sorry. It was not my intention to hurt or upset anyone. Even if there is no consensus to unban HanzoHattori/Niemti, I also think that we may at least close this discussion. Only if he does harm to the encyclopedia should we go through the proper channels. With that said, I think we're done here. Far too much time has been wasted. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requests being handled by non-administrators
Hi, folks. I was not able to quickly find an answer to this question: is there a policy/guideline/consensus that precludes non-administrators from handling unblock requests? I've seen an increasing number handling them. Given the often-controversial nature of blocks, this struck me as odd. NTox · talk 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably not ok. Do you have any specific examples? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-admins may not directly act on unblock requests. Period.  The instructions on the unblock request are pretty clear.  They may comment in some cases, but not action.  Some examples would be beneficial dangerous panda  19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And so the unblock/unban request in the above threads would not be valid then. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean with that statement, Penguin. dangerous panda 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Non admins can't unblock. A consensus of people that includes people other than admins might direct a block to be overriden, but without admin rights, they can't "directly" act. -- Avanu (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I proposed the unblock request for User: Niemti. I am very sorry, I thought that anyone could propose unblocking on a discussion page. I have done this before in the past, so those requests should be overutrned as well. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  19:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Robby - we are talking about users requesting to be unblocked on their own talk page, not editor X proposing that editor Y is unblocked on a notice board. GiantSnowman 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the question is whether non-admins are permitted to edit an request template to set it to "declined" status -- which is all they could possibly do, since they do not have the buttons to physically perform an unblock. This would be similar to non-admins closed an AfD as "keep" -- except that policy never permits it. Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, non-admins should not set an unblock template to declined or otherwise. Besides engaging with the blocked user, the only other thing a non-admin should be permitted to do is remove obvious trolling or abuse of the unblock template, then report the user to an administrator if the user talk page needs protecting. Ol' Willy probably isn't serious about his requests. — Moe ε  20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Reading this, a part of me wishes I had written down some of the recent cases I have run in to. In any case, here is one from today, which prompted this thread. NTox · talk 19:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've notified the user in question about this thread. GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Now I see (*facepalm* -.-). That does look very bad, only an admin should close an unblock request. Just a general question, can a non-admin inform an admin of an unblock request? Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your example is inappropriate. Obviously, it was made in good faith; but the non-admin editor should be encouraged to engage with the blocked user if they like (as they did in the comments following the unblock request), and not act on the unblock request itself. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * My closing of that unblock request was erronous (in that case), but I think that non-sysops should be permitted to close unblock requests is obvious (such as at AfD).  Ebe  123  → report 20:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [EC] I've changed around the signature on the Explorationofspace talk page from Ebe123 to mine — I agree with the unblock rationale that Ebe gave, so it's my hope that my signature as an admin will resolve this specific issue. I see no reason for nonadmins closing unblock requests, since unlike AFDs, they're always contentious.  Conversely, I see no reason for objecting to the idea of non-admin informing admin of unblock request; it can be done wrongly (e.g. WP:CANVASS), but we should permit the practice itself.  Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with non-admins declining or removing unblock requests that tell someone (usually the blocking admin) to go fuck themselves with a knife or threaten to murder an entire family, and I'm fine with non-admins procedurally declining unblocks from AE and CU blocks. Beyond that, I'd rather only admins handle the request itself; I'm more than happy if a non-admin wants to comment on some aspect of the block to give context or engage the blocked user, but ultimately I think an admin should be handling the request itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or those that say "I want to continue Spam Wars!" Ebe  123  → report 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those too. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The instances mentioned here as qualifying for NAC would, in most instances, require further admin attention; i.e. the locking of the blocked user's talk. With the unblock request acted upon the page is removed from the dashboard. Perhaps there should be a closer examination of this situation.  Tide  rolls  20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I think talkpage editing access should be revoked, I go to the blocking admin's talk page.  Ebe  123  → report 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but an extra step.  Tide  rolls  21:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do go to the talk page already.  Ebe  123  → report 21:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an extra step whether the unblock request is actioned or not. Again, it's your time. If you want to notify admins of talk page abuse, go for it.  My point is that we have a process in place to handle the situation.  Tide  rolls  21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What should I do? Get an RfA in 1 hour?  Ebe  123  → report 22:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Catch the 100 bug while you can! NTox · talk 22:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll cool down about this before.  Ebe  123  → report 22:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment There is no such thing as a NAC of an unblock request. Non-admins can not decline an unblock request because it implies they would also have been able to accept it, and that's not the case. If the unblock request is an obscenity-laced attack, it can be reverted just like any other vandalism. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Thanks for the reminder; I don't know why nobody else thought (or spoke of thinking) of treating obvious bad-faith requests like the vandalism that they are.  Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Non-admins can not decline an unblock request because it implies they would also have been able to accept it, and that's not the case." I don't think that's the case. Some editors close AfD (I used to close MfD) discussions without being able to delete them. Some people do treat them like vandalism, although most just decline it and some others put Unblock abusive.   Ebe  123  → report 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not permitted to use unblock abusive because it clearly states "an administrator has reviewed this request and identified it as abusive", which you're not. Indeed, all unblock closing templates say the same thing. dangerous panda 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not stating "I", but stating different groups of people, including sysops.  Ebe  123  → report 00:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing being an "admin" means is that we have the tools to action accepted unblocks. There is no reason that any uninvolved editor in good standing should't be able to perform an action that doesn't require the sysop bit; and indeed I've seen non-admin editors with significantly more common sense than some of my fellow sysops. :) Me included. Restricting such mundane things on the principle of an RFA is silly and simply enforces the elitest "us and them" attitude that currently exists between some admins and editors. --Errant (chat!) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Admins are vested with not only technical tools but also responsibilities to go along with them, it isn't about being "better" or "elitist". There should never at any time be any such thing as a "non-admin unblock decline", and if I ever happen to see one I'd revert in a heartbeat. Tarc (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * RFA is a political process that serves to make sure someone is not going to go "batshit" crazy with sysop tools. The idea that this comes with "great responsibility" (beyond the expectation of not going mad) is a faux elitism that is one of the reasons our community is so dysfunctional. --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than obvious vandalism, non-admins shouldn't decline or remove unblock request. If you aren't allowed to accept it (and non-admins are incapable of it), they aren't allowed to decline it, either. Obviously bad-faith requests are the exception to this rule; it may, some times, make more sense to decline those than remove them, and if it clearly is one of these cases, a non-admin should be able to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I take a very limited view of what actions that don't require the tools should be restricted to admins. Just because a non-admin lacks the ability to action a request if decided one way, doesn't mean they should be restricted in actioning that request if the result is one they don't need the tools for. That said, I would still make an exception for unblock requests, as a blocked editor has very limited avenues to appeal a block, and can't just go to AN/I to request the non-admin unblock decline be reviewed. Being blocked is a serious thing, and deserves review by an actual admin in response to the unblock request. Monty  845  14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think there's an important part here: if a non-admin closes an abusive, repetetive, or otherwise wildly non-compliant unblock request, it removes it from the queue, and therefore may not be seen by an admin who can take the proper action in locking the talkpage, extending the block, etc. dangerous panda 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * In the period before I was an administrator, I would not have considered it appropriate for me to close an unblock request on a user talkpage. However, at times I would comment on the merits of the request, or when it seemed clear to me that the block was unwarranted, post to ANI urging that admins take a look at the unblock request promptly (rather than have it sit unattended in the queue until someone happened to get to it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * There's no problem with anyone commenting on an unblock request, but except for cases of obvious bad faith only admins should actually be declining or accepting them. The reason for that is simply that admins are vetted by the community and, as has been pointed out, only an admin can actually take any real action to unblock or harden the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox There's nothing wrong with commenting on an unblock request. In fact, if an editor is thinking of applying for admin status in the future, it would be good practice to think about how you would close the request. A comment, starting with "I am not an admin, so can neither accept nor reject this request, but I think the request should be accepted/rejected for the following reasons..." would be helpful for multiple reasons. If the admin concurs that the rationale is fine, then the admin can copy the wording, or refer to it and accept or reject faster than otherwise. If the admin agrees with the proposed close, but not the rationale, or disagrees with the proposed close, the admin can use it as a teaching moment. If the unblock request is deficient, as many are, and the non-admin points out the shortcomings, then the blocked editor has more time to work on a proper requests. However, as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out the request should not be closed, as that removes it from the queue. (Just now read comment from Newyorkbrad, agree with that as well.)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think the rule here is that applies here is: "Never accept a 'no' from someone who isn't empowered to say 'yes.'" Although this would be sort of the reverse: don't say no unless you are empowered to say yes.  Determining consensus at an AFD is not the same as unilaterally declining an unblock.--v/r - TP 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Determining consensus at an AfD" is an admin-only task as well. If there is even a question as to the possible close then NAC is inappropriate. As to the matter at hand, the words "This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request" don't seem especially ambiguous to me, and I'd advise Ebe123 of informing the community in advance if he decides to take the NAC concept and extend it to impersonating an administrator in random other areas of the project in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-admins should certainly not decline unblock requests, because they cannot accept them or change the block settings if that would have been appropriate, and also because they have not been elected to perform such functions. I would have thought that this ought to be self-evident.  Sandstein   16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll IAR edit almost anything but I wouldn't even think of editing an unblock request. While I kinda agree with ErrantX's comment above that admins aren't angels or supermen, they at least have some charter from passing an Rfa; a blocked user ought to have a "hearing" from an admin, even if it's it's blatantly obvious to use peanut gallery editors a decline and talk page removal is on it's way. Nobody Ent 19:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I would say we have a pretty fair sampling of uses here, several admins, non-admins, and a sitting arbitrator all seem to agree that while commenting on an unblock request can be done by anyone, only actual admins should handle the requests themselves. I think we can call that a consensus. If anyone wishes to expand the scope of the concept of non-administrative closes to include unblock request they should make a proper proposal and seek community approval of it first. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll close this. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship
Comments welcome. - jc37 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for removal of adminship
 * I'm a bit confused about asking for comments on that when Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept is still open. Shouldn't that be settled first? Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Request for Admin Sanctions. There seems to be a theme here. Chedzilla (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it's because every other proposal for a similar process has been shouted down and maybe people think that if they propose several processes at least one of them will stick? Or maybe they can eventually be merged into one good solid process. In any case, it's long overdue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to me to be massive, bureaucratic, unnecessary bloat. What we definitely don't need is for everyone to waste ungodly amounts of time on re-RfA'ing an admin every time he/she screws up.  There is already a process for removal of adminship (it's called arbcom), and no one has provided solid evidence that it is dysfunctional (to my knowledge).  Yes, it is time-consuming and the bar for desysopping is currently high, but again, there is no solid evidence that it shouldn't be high (e.g. there is no evidence that a significant number of admins are causing damage to the project and need to be stripped of the bit, but can't because the process has failed).  -Scottywong | gossip _  18:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current method is just as bureaucratic. Ryan Vesey 18:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, two overly bureaucratic methods are better than one? What is wrong with the current bureaucratic method that requires such major changes?  -Scottywong | confess _  18:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Scotty.
 * "What we definitely don't need is for everyone to waste ungodly amounts of time on re-RfA'ing an admin every time he/she screws up. "
 * The RRA proposal is specifically designed to avoid that actually.
 * As for arbcom, yes. And it still is at the final stage of this proposal too. What this does is stand in for the many WP:DR steps in between. The path to having arbcom review an admin's admin actions is a LONG, drawn-out, often drama-filled process. So the idea is to make this a straight-forward simplified process, while making sure there are safety-valves to avoid "pitchforking" and wasting the community's time.
 * If you have suggestions after looking over the proposal, I'm all ears. - jc37 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the proposal, and the only change from the current process that I can see is that it makes it far easier to initiate proceedings against an admin. The "long, drawn-out" process you describe is the current safety valve that avoids pitchforking and wasting the community's time.  The intermediate dispute resolutions on the way to arbcom are not necessarily useless drama-fests.  They serve as a venue for voicing complaints about an admin's actions and offering an opportunity for the admin to defend or correct their behavior without the immediate, looming threat of desysopping.  Again, there is no reason for spending our time inventing new processes.  You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and/or has already been adequately solved, and all of the proposed solutions (including yours) just create different problems.  -Scottywong | communicate _  21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The intermediate discussions are pretty much only a paper trail creating process. (It's been discussed several times about how RFCU has no teeth.) That same process can be done through the nomination/certification.
 * the point of having three admins certify is exactly to stop this from going beyond "attack page" status if it turns out that that's all that particular nom is. Similar to how such threads on AN/I are dealt with. - jc37 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Part of being an admin is occasionally making difficult and unpopular decisions. The nature of difficult and unpopular decisions is such that a lot of people disagree with the decision.  If all it takes is 3 admins to disagree with a decision to force a week-long re-RfA on an admin, then I think you'll find that there will be a major shortage of admins who are willing to make difficult or unpopular decisions, for fear of having to deal with the giant pile of bullshit that comes along with it.  We've all already been through RfA at least once, I certainly have no desire to go through another one (especially since all the previous unpopular decisions I've made in the past will come up at the re-RfA, and anyone who disagreed with any of those decisions will be calling for my head).  If I make a mistake and 3 admins came to me and told me they thought it was the wrong decision, then I would probably discuss it with them and reverse my action in most cases.  No giant bureaucracy required.  If there are admins out who are causing damage to the project, then they can and will be taken to arbcom.  Just last week, arbcom desysopped 2 admins.  The current process works just fine, let's stop wasting our time on inventing a new one that has no additional benefits apart from making it extremely easy to initiate (which is not a benefit, in my opinion).  -Scottywong | communicate _  19:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The three admins would be certifying a nomination filled with evidence similar to an RfC/U. - jc37 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which basically makes it a mini-ArbCom... except any admins can chime in. That makes it far more likely we'll get into these debates, for no real gain. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. because it's very limited and very specific in outcome. (Any thing more would and should require a full arbcom case.) And... if arbcom does not review, the process is overturned automatically. Arbcom is still at the top of DR, including this process. - jc37 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Scotty, the whole idea behind any of these new plans is to reduce bureaucracy, not increase it, as well as deal with issues in short order, with less drama and headaches, with a lot of checks and balances to protect admins from false claims.   One or more of the plans requires a very high bar, multiple ways to be shut down instantly and sanctions given to the certifying parties if they made a bad faith case, and allows for the admin to themselves to stop a proceeding if they have an epiphany.  I would suggest reading through all of the information available before jumping to a conclusion, as it would appear you haven't.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it's necessary to read through thoroughly until someone demonstrates that there is actually a problem that needs solving. -Scottywong | chat _  18:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is certainly within your rights, although your opinions about the plans would have more weight if it were based on the actual information therein. As many, many others have expressed an interest in such a plan, and this discussion has been ongoing for many years, I'm confident that a great number of people are already convinced there is a problem that needs solving.  But again, you certainly aren't obligated to join in the discussion, only invited to.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 18:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation in Articles for creation
WP:ANI is protected from editing, so I can't put this there, and I'm not really sure where else this should be reported. I listed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/addisoning for speedy deletion as a personal attack, but my db tag was removed by another editor because the article is supposedly not easily identifiable. That may be true to the general world, but not to the person who is being attacked. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have discovered that the editor who removed my deletion tag also removed the warning of creating attack pages from the IP Talk page of the editor who created the attack page. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I am the editor who reviewed the initial AfC and declined it (as a neologism). I then noticed the atack warning on the user page in my watchlist (auto-add).  I contested the CSD (by removing the tag) and deleted the warning from the creator ip's talk page (as the CSD, and reason for the warning, were both contested).  The article seemed simply an unreferenced new term.  While the name "Addison" was used, and in a likely negative way, there was no way of a visitor determining which "Addison."  As I pointed out, it could have even been referring to the author as a vanity page.  I will suggest it is even something certain people might be proud of doing.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It may be useful to understand how these things come about: kids teasing each other.  One kid creates an article making fun of another kid's name, and then tells the other kid to look at it, and starts laughing hysterically, and maybe tells his friends to look at it too.  The sensible response would be to ignore it, but since we're dealing with kids here, sensible responses are too much to expect.  When you see something like that, you really should just delete it. Looie496 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Nounique, I think your understanding of the speedy deletion process is a bit flawed. Being contested does not in any way negate a speedy deletion nomination. You may be confusing that process with proposed deletion. If you are not familiar enough with the criteria for speedy deletion to evaluate whether a nomination was correct or not it is probably best that you leave it for others to evaluate. I have deleted that page as blatant vandalism. The removal of the warning from the IP talk page is also completely inappropriate. You should never be removing anything from somebody else's talk page unless it is clear cut vandalism, which this obviously was not. Reviewing AFC subbmissions is great, we need those backlogs cleared put, but you should be able to recognize vandalism when you see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Attack pages must be deleted summarily, whether they originate from schoolmate teasing or something more serious. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Per the template itself, "If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." I did not create the page.  Perhaps my wording (calling it contested) was incorrect, but the procedure of removing the template was entirely within established guidelines if the template is improperly applied.  An attack page is a page that attacks.  My logic would dictate that such would require both an attack (arguably present, see my last comment) and a target.  I disagreed with the tag in both respects.  The "attack" allegation might be sustainable if (and only if) it were made against a defined target.  A quick search at the US Social Security Administration shows the name "Addison" to have been within the top 13 female baby names since 2007.  Were there an indication of a last name, then it could properly be called an attack.  (To give a real-life example, a punch is only an attack if it either hits or is clearly intended by observers as intending to hit another person.  Punching open air, such as in celebration, is not an attack.)  As for the note on the talk page, it was inexorably tied to the validity of the CSD tag.  If the CSD is invalid, the note (which is formatted as a warning) is also invalid.  Further, note that the history of the user page in question did not show any previous warnings, supporting a stance of WP:AGF.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I think you're taking things a bit too literally. We regularly delete "[insert some common first name] is a dweeb" and such, despite the fact that we don't know which individual is the recipient of this attention. It was quite clearly vandalism. Not necessarily hateful vandalism, quite possibly it was all in good fun, but it's not the type of thing we need to keep around in an encyclopedia for posterity. 28bytes (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed. You might want to consider the possibilty that the admins here telling you handled this incorrectly know what we are talking about. The page was in no way a serious attempt at creating an encyclopedia article. It was at the very least vandalism although it can easily be considered an attack page despite your somewhat novel attempts to argue that it is not. As such the warning was entirely apprpriate and should not have been removed by anyone but the user whose page it was posted to. Relevant policy on that subject is at WP:TPO and reads, in part, ". The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The CSD was valid, the warning was valid, your decline of the CSD nom and removal of the warning were incorrect. As such I have deleted the article and restored the warning. Those are the facts. I would hope you could accept that and learn from it instead of continuing to argue to keep obvious vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * My apologies, I was only looking to provide the logic behind my actions. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Sundostund
I would like to report this user since he no intentions to stop removing important part of article. In the article List of Presidents of Serbia hes non stop removing section Since independence i don't know whats problem Serbia gets there independence from Union of Serbia and Montenegro. That part should stay in article and the use is non stop removing with out explanations in my edits i explain to him but he refuse to listen. Snake bgd 13:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sundostund blocked for ARBMAC-related edit warring, Snake bgd warned about edit warring and formal ARBMAC warning issued. Block and warning logged.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sundostund
Proxied over to AN on behalf of the user Hasteur (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC) ''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''

 * Appealing user : – Sundostund (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Sanction being appealed : Banned from editing for 1 week, for edit warring and breaching WP:ARBMAC rules

 * Administrator imposing the sanction :

 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Notification.

Statement by Sundostund
I am completely aware that I made a mistake when I entered an edit war yesterday. I also know that I am blocked because I breached WP:ARBMAC rules. I completely recognize my guilt here. All of that was very stupid thing to do, and I promise that I will not continue to do that. If you look my edit history, you will see that I am not a vandal, but constructive member of this community, and that I only want to improve this encyclopedia. I just want an opportunity to continue my work here. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Toddst1
I support unblocking as editor has acknowledged issue and there is no indication that it will continue. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Sundostund

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Unblocked with the blocking admin's consent. You could have just done the unblocking yourself, you know... T. Canens (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and politics interjected into List of British words not widely used in the United States
I recently removed "citations" from List of British words not widely used in the United States that sought to define "backside" by making what seems to be a political slight at an American political candidate. I mentioned that these were not reliable sources as they were "op-eds" not facts (per WP:RS), that it wasn't a neutral portrayal (per WP:NPOV, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:SOAPBOX). Independent of political sentiment, I assert that there likely infinite better sources and neutral explanations on the web to discuss the usage and interjecting politics in an apolitical article does not seem kosher or necessary. User:Mutt Lunker continues to add unreliable "citations" of various blogs as an inappropriate biased slight.  When I have removed them citing the above policies, he claims "they are relevant" and reverts.  I have advised him and other users of such on the article's talk page.  Because of the political nature of this, and the stubbornness, I believe this is an insidious form of vandalism.

Edits:
 * 1 - User:MattLunker's insertion:
 * 2 - My first removal of material:
 * 3 - User:PRL42 reverting:
 * 4 - My second removal of material:
 * 5 - User:MattLunker's reverting:

I will avoid reverting for a third time, and will instead, advised said users of this AN, place a vandalism warning on User:MattLunker's page, and put a tag to request protection on the article.

I ask the following intervention:
 * (1) Please advise the User(s) to not continue inserting NPOV political material into this article to elucidate points that can be better explained with nonpolitical material, per NPOV/SOAPBOX/RS
 * (2) If this behavior continues, appropriate sanctions to combat these anti-policy edits.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * How is that entry an "an insidious form of vandalism" or even a "political slight at an American political candidate"? It seems to be a rather notable and well-sourced recent example of precisely the kind of difference in word usage that the article is about. And why is this even a matter for AN? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion already on the talk page. Which is where this should be discussed, not here.   Hot Stop   15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Further talk page discussion, I predict, would be futile. Users are intractably opposed and inclined to revert. Brought here because subtle political sentiments that are not necessary shouldn't be inserted into apolitical articles. There are better and myriad apolitical examples, they should be cited. Save the political discussion for articles on political issues. Unforunately, the behavior I'm bringing to admin attention seems to let the article turn into a battleground of political sentiment that I feel is inappropriate. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief! This doesn't warrant placement on the Administrators' noticeboard, which is for announcements, notices, and information of general administrator interest. At best you want a Third opinion and perhaps /Edit warring. It is certainly true that a huge dose of clue and knowledge of American English is called for. Do I have to point you to professor Spears' Dictionary of American Slang ? "backside" in this sense is a perfectly fine American word, used by NYT columnist Ben Brantley about an hour before I wrote this. Now get a grip the lot of you. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

Can someone tell me what exactly is this user doing? I've been looking over his history and he's taking a lot of non-existent pages and making them into redirects. Especially his edit summary is impossible to decipher. All I guess by this is that he's doing some sort of google bomb in association with these terms and his edits goes back years. Judging by his talk history, there hasn't been much notice at all about this habit. ViriiK (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * What is it you want an admin to do here exactly? You don't appear to have tried simply asking them. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at his edit history. I'm guessing he's manipulating wikipedia to his advantage to implement some sort of Google bomb or something similar.  ViriiK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * While his edit summaries are incomprehensible, the redirects themselves look good to me. Have you tried contacting the editor? I've notified him of this discussion. Huon (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should have been brought up with the user before running to ANI with it, but if garbage like this and this and this is not SEO then I don't know what it is. See User talk:Hopiakuta/ index Samantha Geimer Lot Elizabeth Ann Smart Gilmour Deon Baptiste Ian Baptiste Emmett Louis Till Stanley Ann Dunham Anneke Frank Annele Frank Charles Augustus Lindbergh, which is the user's talk page before it was moved to a hidden sub-page in May. Nearly every edit since the middle of 2007 has been like this.

Is this something like the Sven70 situation? It looks that way, except there was no problem with Sven's articlespace edits, while these ones are indistinguishable from SEO spam to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Treat me like I'm dumb. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years and I've read people's edit history which this was just the first time I've seen this long list of incomprehensible changes in the edit reasons.  I felt like there was some motive behind it like a google bomb or some form of SEO manipulation since the edit reasons do have links to the articles or redirects.  ViriiK (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting some time, leaving a note with Xeno, who at one point was mentoring said user and might be able to shed light on this. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You make up fantasy crimes that are not supported by evidence, then delete honest questions.

You have even made Uunartoq_Qeqertaq  inhabited, which is absolute nonsense.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never made up any "fantasy crimes". I simply said that your edit history is incomprehensible and it warranted my suspicion that there was some motive behind your edit reasons.  As for "Uunartoq Qeqertaq" where did I do that?  It never was inhabited in its entire history so it never was deserted in the first place.  How can you desert something if no one has lived there permanently?  ViriiK (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * (ec, responding to Penwhale:) Xeno seems to be inactive; I asked them about this some time ago (User talk:Xeno/Archive 29) and received no response. In view of talk page contributions that are ... inscrutable ... at best, maybe a preventative block is appropriate? If only because Hopiakuta appears unable to meaningfully communicate with others, which isn't good for a collaborative project like ours.  Sandstein   11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason how I came across you was because of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stericycle&action=history where you made these modifications http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stericycle&diff=502742089&oldid=502714710 that made no sense whatsoever. The company, Stericycle, has nothing to do with any of these categories.  Can you explain how you come to these conclusions?  ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A desert island is uninhabited island is an island that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans. Uninhabited islands are often used in movies or stories about shipwrecked people, and are also used as stereotypes for the idea of "paradise". Some uninhabited islands are protected as nature reserves and some are privately owned. Devon Island in Canada is claimed to be the largest uninhabited island in the world.

Small coral atolls or islands usually have no source of fresh water, but at times a fresh water lens (Ghyben-Herzberg lens) can be reached with a well.

Collaborative fraud.

I do not need to copy them all; this is from google:

Report: Romney made millions from investing in abortion related firm

article.wn.com/.../Report_Romney_made_millions_from_investing_i...

Jul 3, 2012 – Romney Invested In Abortion Cleanup Company Stericycle ..... $100000 and $250000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't answer my question on the Stericycle changes. The modifications you made to Stericycle specifically with those categories did not belong there nor was there a valid reason to do so.  Also I reverted the changes from that IP address regarding Stericycle because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:NOT  As for "Desert Island", I'm talking about this change I made specifically because you made this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Desert_island&diff=502406239&oldid=492458336 which you happened to include some non-related article's discussion on an already deleted article.  I don't care about the whole "desert island" (although you just answered your own question but I can say that this is a case of WP:COMPETENCE).  I'm calling into question how do you come to bring unrelated stuff into the talk pages or any article anywhere on wikipedia?  Doing investigation of my own, I assume you own a site called altacalifernia.com and altacaliferne.com which thankfully is broken although your name is implicated in the broken links. Chrome actually prevents me from going via to the redirect site but in the link it says var/chroot/home/content/h/o/p/hopiaku/html/htttp://reltime2012.ru/frunleh?9  However had it properly worked Chrome actually let me visited the site, it redirects I would have been sent to a malware website.  I'm suspecting that you are doing SEO manipulation on google or some other website to redirect users to malware websites.  ViriiK (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is too convoluted & I have not the slightest knowledge how to do most of what you have described, let alone the intent.

that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you don't own these websites despite the fact you linked them in your talk pages (which I've removed) but are now malware redirects? ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Frankly, a few minutes looking at this user's 'contributions' reveals that regardless of the motivation for making them, they are gibberish. On that basis, a permanent block per WP:COMPETENCE looks a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out what is behind this is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Egads. Block this nonsensical user now so that the cleanup can begin, i.e. "Condo Rice" redirects to Condoleeza Rice, "Mars Won" to Mars One, etc... Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He also has the following sockpuppet accounts which are: User:persina & User:Kutahopia ViriiK (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither account seems to have been used since 2007. I suspect they were never intended for socking - they should likewise be blocked, per WP:COMPETENCE, which is the only relevant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I would also cite the case of WP:ELNO because his sites which he's linked (all of which I have removed) were redirects to malware websites.  He can't simply claim that he doesn't own them since the registration is still intact and not going to expire until 2013.  The links were inserted in his sockpuppet account & his own account including external wikipedia sites.  See:, , ,  ViriiK (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked and his alternate accounts indefinitely because the above contributions show that they lack the ability to communicate (and, at least to an extent, edit) meaningfully.  Sandstein  13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may comment in place of Xeno, as I followed some of the mentoring he has done with Hopiakuta at the time. Hopiakuta is a user with good faith, who is suffering form some kind of disability. If I remember correctly, Myofascial pain syndrome, probably blindness - and maybe more. He seems to be using outdated assistive technologies. It's very difficult for him to participate, but he seems to be attached to it very much.
 * I understand your choice to ban this user, as collaboration with him is difficult. But I fear it might be a harsh decision for him. The least thing to do would be to treat him as a person with good faith, and not a vandal. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse this block. I attempted to communicate with this user in the past and they not only ignored me, but removed their talk page history by moving their talk page to this ridiculous title. This suggests unwillingness to edit helpfully (or at least incompetence), but the links to malware suggest malice. How exactly do you accidentally link to malware sites? Even if somehow this is all an innocent misunderstanding due to their disability, Wikipedia is not therapy, and their disruptive editing should not be allowed to continue.-Running On Brains (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any links to malware in previous AN/I threads or in my previous "interactions" with him. Perhaps his computer is infected.  Otherwise, I believe the situation is unchanged from that point, in which (IIRC) close monitoring and mentoring was recommended, essentially per WP:COMPETENCE.  If mentoring isn't working I see no other choice.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also don't see any other solution than to block him at the moment. The mentoring seemed to work as long as Xeno was around. If I was near from Hopiakuta in real life I would do the mentoring, or do something to help, as I have experience in the field. But from a distance, and through the obscure Wikipedia discussion system, it seems hardly feasible to me. I feel sad for him, but can't do much. Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to open a can of worms, and it is quite possible (likely even) that these are two different people, but the behavior of creating meaningless redirects is exactly what Bowei Huang (and all of his incarnations) eventually got indeffed/banned for. I think his most recent account was User:Bowei Huang 2, which clearly shows the redirect creation situation.  Now, something in the patterns of speech doesn't match exactly for me, so I'm not convinced of the connection, but given the similar MOs here, I thought it worthwhile to bring up.  Any thoughts or ideas?  -- Jayron  32  02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; it could be, but I'm getting the same sense that the communication styles aren't quite a fit. The other banned user I can think of is Shakinglord, as I remember at least one of his socks going around creating redirects like Bling Crosby, but that doesn't quite seem like a match either.  In short, you might be onto something, but I have the same pangs of doubt as you. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The problem for me isn't really the redirects: it's the addition of nonsensical "similar" words to see also sections, the way that all edit summaries consist exclusively of these chains of mechanically similar words, and that nearly all other edits (stretching back for years with seemingly no break) are completely incomprehensible garbage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Though I haven't currently got the time to go back through the AN/AN/I archives to link to diffs, I've got to say I am struck by the decrease in compassion, empathy, and AGF displayed in this forum. In earlier discussions, while editors and admins were equally conflicted about what the best course of action might be, at least they showed some desire to help this user work within WP policies. Earlier discussions took into account not only Hopiakuta's unknown disabilities, but also the ancient technologies he's forced to use; editors actually tried to conceive of workarounds and assists for him, all with the goal of making it possible for him to continue editing. Now, even though he hasn't been brought up here for a while, he's immediately accused of being a bad-faith user, a vandal, a sock, or some sort of evil entity. His contributions, rather than being viewed through the lens of his own experiences and abilities, are immediately disparaged as "garbage" and "gibberish". Even if these contributions are NOT up to article standards, the fact remains that they are good-faith contributions from a good-faith user; even if we can't keep them, they represent effort on his part (probably more effort than we can even know) and shouldn't be mocked or insulted. I'm not saying Hopiakuta is likely to become a model editor; sadly, I'll even concede that his combined challenges may make it impossible for him to continue editing at all. But there's no reason at all to make hostile assumptions about his intent, nor to disparage or dismiss his efforts at contributing. I believe there's a very strong connection between the kind of baseline hostility level shown here and the slow hemmorhage of established contributors; fortunately for all concerned, I haven't got time to go on about THAT, either. But show some compassion, people. (And Dodoiste, thank you.) GJC 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not therapy and Competence is required. Helping out fellow users is laudable, and something I do whenever possible, but we're not here to hold hands or enable the disadvantaged, we're here to build an encyclopedia.   If smart people proceeding from a stance of assuming good faith cannot make heads or tails of what an editor is saying, then the editor shouldn't be contributing here, because the net result is indistinguishable from vandalism or trolling.  I'm sorry if that's rude or appears to be lacking in compassion, but that's just the way it must be.  Our energy needs to go into writing and improving an encyclopedia, not into providing social services to the disabled.  If the latter is what  one is interested in, there are any number of worthy projects and organizations one can work with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'll re-read what I posted, you'll find that I did not suggest that anyone "hold hands", "provide social services", or anything else along those lines, nor did I contradict either Wikipedia is not therapy or Competence is required.
 * What I DID suggest was that we stop implying bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism, trollery, malice, Googlebombing, SEO manipulation, and complicity in the downfall of Western civilization; and instead see this for what it is: a good-faith user who, for a combination of reasons, seems unable to make encyclopedic contributions to Wikipedia. I am not saying that we must accept contributions that the majority of readers would find difficult to comprehend; I am not saying that this user should be coddled, babied, or condescended to (in fact, if I recall correctly, that's like a brief catalog of ways to piss this user off.) What I -AM- saying is, just because you don't understand someone, that doesn't mean that person is malicious; it's always better to assume good intentions even if the result falls short of your standards; don't accuse people til you have SOLID evidence; and if you have to "fire" an editor, there's no need to parade along behind him as he leaves, telling him his contributions were "garbage". In other words: be kind. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing to do. GJC  07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock this user. They have been editing in good faith since 2006. Every year or so, a user like ViriiK comes around and starts wondering what is going on without knowing the backstory and tries to get Hopiakuta blocked because the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it. That's very sad, but typical of human nature. Hopiakuta's contribution history shows that the user has made constructive edits for six years now. The "let's block first and then find out what's going on" reaction is really not appropriate. Please do the due diligence. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Wiki-gnoming for half a decade doesn't outweigh... what ever this sort of thing is, sorry. There's a fundamental lack of an capability to communicate here, and it is ridiculous to demand that an entire project bend backwards to cater to one person in this manner. Life sucks. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see that a person who makes easily identifiable & correctable mistakes seriously harms the encyclopedia. I think we are right in trying to be just a little more charitable than the world in general when we can act collectively. It might compensate for the unfortunate tendency of all too many individual Wikipedians to be less friendly than the expectations of that world.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, saying "the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it" is uncalled for. Second, you've made a contradiction: somehow, ViriiK doesn't know the backstory, yet he does this "every year or so?"
 * If you can explain the situation, I'm all for it, but this isn't exactly helping things. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're having reading comprehension problems. I said "every year or so, a user like ViriiKnot" does this, not the user does this.  Huge difference. This evidence is fully supported by the AN and AN/I reports and block logs. Evidence is neither  "uncalled for" nor a personal attack.  It might be time for you to look at the block logs and the associated noticeboard reports.  That hopiakuta is still blocked speaks volumes about the Wikipedia community, which I'm sad to report, I've lost all respect for. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Straight to the ad-homs, nice. I did miss the like, you're correct; that does not give you license to go straight to the insults. Your comment that was uncalled for was stating that users (and ViriiK in particular) just try to get rid of things that are "different." You weren't discussing evidence, you were just disparaging another user.
 * As to your comment about your level of respect for "the community:" "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's directly discussing the evidence—evidence that apparently you refuse to look at when pointed to it. Users like  ViriiK have reported hopiakuta over and over again for this same thing, assuming bad faith the entire time, and the reports and blocks show that. There is no ad hominem or insult here at all.  It's perfectly obvious you don't give a damn, which is why I have no respect for users like you. You've never commented about the discussion or Hopiakuta at all; instead you've gone on and on about your own personal misinterpretations of what you think someone might have said instead of what was actually said and what the evidence shows. Those type of comments are quite distracting and annoying and pretty much demonstrate the problem with the community.  Instead of getting down to brass tacks and investigating the problem, you've created your own.  What an incredible waste of time!  You're good at generating drama and distracting the discussion, but poor on reading what others are saying and understanding what you've read. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now there's the pot calling the kettle black. I understand, I simply disagree with you. That it drives you to such vitriol & self-proclaimed superiority just tells me you need a break. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * If you two are done snarking at each other, perhaps we can get back to the question at hand. I strongly believe unblocking Hopiakuta is a good idea, because:
 * They are operating in good faith; comments about SEO or trolling or trying to infect others with Malware are 100% off target
 * Historically, most of their edits have been useful
 * Those that aren't really useful (like some of the recent redirects) are not really harmful either, and can be fixed fairly easily.
 * If you make the effort to understand what Hopiakuta is saying, you will see that they are often correct on the underlying issue
 * If you don't want to make the effort to understand what Hopiakuta is saying, you can ignore them without harming yourself, or the encyclopedia.
 * It's good for us to have some good faith editors with a very non-mainstream approach. Helps avoid groupthink.
 * I'm not around enough to replace Xeno as a mentor (for lack of a better word), but am willing to look in from time to time, or be pinged by someone with questions. Looks like one or two others in this thread might be willing as well. That seems a better way to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that unblocking an editor who is simply not able to communicate with others in an understandable manner - as their continued contributions indicate - is beneficial to the project. We are a collaborative project, and without communication, no collaboration is possible.  Sandstein   06:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "...simply not able to communicate with others in an understandable manner..." is an unhelpful exaggeration. If this is your sole rationale for the block, then you should unblock. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment I came upon this user's condition and block totally by accident and decided to look into their history. I  believe the editors above arguing his case have raised very important points and I agree with them totally. If Wikipedia is a collaborative project, then that means working together as a team to built an encyclopedia, from all experiences and knowledge regardless of disability, ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, etc. Someone who may not be a "meanstream editor", can certainly bring a different dimension and add something of value to the project, knowledge which others do not possess. Blocking them on the grounds of their limitations (which is exactly what is happening here) is contracdictory  to the spirit of Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a therapy, and a certain degree of competency is required, however, this editor seems to have been doing well when he was under the mentorship of Xeno. If other editors who have interacted with him are willing to assist, then I find no justifiable reason for not unblocking this user. To my understanding, "colaboration", in order to build an encyclopedia of knowledge is the spirit of Wiki. Although other policies are very important, they are secondary to what Wiki was originally meant for. I stand corrected if I am wrong in my analysis. And for the record, I undertand exactly what Hopiakuta is saying because I want to know, and have taken the time to understand it. In that regard, I agree pretty much with  Floquenbeam. Tamsier (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the block. It's not that hard to understand this user. I've been reading through a lot of archives and past discussions for a few hours regarding this user and the problem isn't in his edits, which are usually good, but with his communication. That's the same reason for this block and discussion. From what I can piece together, his problem is antiquated equipment combined with several disabilities. His contribution is mostly redirects which are nearly always kept and is useful. He's been contributing for at least 6 years with over 6000 edits and in that time there have been few incidents taken to this and other noticeboards. He's definitely a benefit to Wikipedia and I don't think the difficulty to communicate with him is a good enough reason, since it's not impossible to piece together what he's saying. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been looking over their remarks on their talk page, and I can't make any sense out of it at all. The only thing I can say for sure is that they have not provided a coherent reson they should be unblocked. If they can't or won't do that, even with help, I can't say unblocking them sounds like a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should it be the proper time to restrict access to the talk page by now? He seems to be playing around with it as much as he did to articles and other talk pages.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 23:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm having a conversation with him, and he's not disrupting anything. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only on Wikipedia is communicating with another user considered "disruption". Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think your conversation includes this addition to the section title or whatever these edits concern.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 02:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And, there's nothing wrong with those edits. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I just realized that this user was being debated again to unblock this user. I wasn't informed that Viriditas was questioning why I reported this user.  Even though his edit history was odd, I found in his contribution history that he operated malicious websites all of which he had linked here at Wikipedia.  They were his own websites that were redirect loops to a malware websites see :, , , .  Also his own websites apparently mirrored articles of Wikipedia which if a user on the internet had come across one of his articles, they would have been sent to the malware website.  WP:ELNO applies here.  He claimed that he doesn't have the expertise to operate them but I find that odd since he still owns those websites and still linked them here recently.  If he wants to truly get unblock, he needs to fix his websites first and remove the redirect loops to malware websites.  ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Support the block. Linking to malware is terrible.  Doing it repeatedly with signs that you control the links and/or the malware is absolutely not the kind of behavior that can be tolerated here, even if the editor was perfectly capable of communicating and a big-time large-scale contributor.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm planning on unblocking Hopiakuta in a little while. There is no consensus here for a block, nor for an unblock, and it's just dragging on and on now.  Lack of consensus about a block should default to unblock.  I have a great deal of respect for Xeno, and believe that if he was still active this whole mess would likely not have happened.  Because this is not a case of an inappropriate block, I'll agree to "own" the unblock, and will keep an eye on Hopiakuta's contributions, and will step in if necessary. It is possible a future block might become necessary, but I hope not.  I think the accusations of intentional linking to malware are seriously uncool, but agree that links to that page shouldn't be re-added, accidental though it may have been (see Hopiakuta's explanation on his talk page). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the diffs mentioned above is mine. That may have been my first interaction with them, and I did call that 'gibberish'; in the context of its place, an article talk page, I believe (and still do) that it was justified to revert. If memory serves me right, I tried to engage the user on their (a?) talk page--one of the ones with a really long name, and I can't find it in the history of the 'regular' talk page. I talked this over with Floquenbeam as well, and concluded that I personally couldn't make heads or tails of it and that, as long as the user wasn't making such odd edits in mainspace, that I should leave it alone, which I did, and that if I didn't understand something it isn't necessarily the other party that's at fault. I don't understand the antiquated machinery argument--but that came from Xeno, whom I consider to be older and wiser than me. Floq, you probably mentioned the word "mentoring" in those conversations as well. I know little or nothing about malware and will leave that to the experts--in the meantime, I don't think this is something the community can't handle in other ways than blocking and am content with Floq's unblock. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=user_talk:hopiakuta&diff=505044401&oldid=505030811 >.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 06:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * don't know how anyone can even pretend they are able to have a coherent conversation with this user. If Floq is somehow able to parse some meaning out of this cryptic weirdndes, I hope they are ready to act as a translator so that those of us that can find no meaning whatsoever in the majority of this users comments are not left wondering how they translate into some sort of understandable English. This is a collaborative project. It is difficult to colanorate with someone who is basically speaking their own language and often seems not to have even read comments before replying to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is likely quite true, as even my grammar,  punctuation,  syntax,  spelling, et al, are completely different, & I never read anything on this page, as I cannot; I am incapable.

 * the “love point” (point d’amour: point d'amour.svg)
 * the “certitude point” (point de conviction: Point de conviction.svg)
 * the “authority point” (point d’autorité: point d'autorité.svg)
 * the “acclamation point” (point d’acclamation: point d'acclamation.svg)
 * the “doubt point” (point de doute: point de doute.svg)

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 07:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whereas this is internet, I do opt for «  cryptic   wiredness » & rather than «  colanorate », I do try to «  colonorate » with this  okole   cabal.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 08:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * So you edit with "cryptic wiredness" by choice? The okole cabal is not pleased.--Atlan (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking to malware, says he is "incapable" of reading this page but responds to posts here anyway, and states that he's trying to be difficult to understand... why are we still debating this? I'm sympathetic to those with disabilities, but this is just intentional trolling. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do find that ψ  is on the  punctuation  page; but, does not link to  irony_punctuation, which does amount to its own ψ. Anyhow, you do pretend to not comprehend the ψ that in each very accusation comment, you contradict that accusation with other evidence.

I have not crossed much more ocean than to drown, so, therefore, I only, likely, know American English, which, I think, is  devoid  of «  weirdndes  », «  colanorate  », as is this website, other than this  webpage. Please do quit the pretense.

I am not capable of your « ...grammar, punctuation,  syntax,  spelling, et al,... » which I have said, is true, & is ψ.

I have no idea how to create malware  @ all. What I know about these machines is entirely by trial & error, except that, a few times, people have shown me where is the  electric power button, as well as some of the other relatively tiny  minuscule  elements of operation.

Your sympathetic  is certainly stated in the further irony.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I...what? Look, I'm sympathetic to how annoying and sometimes error-prone disability-accomodating software and such can be. Something like that could explain the formatting, the weird linking habits, etc. But The complete lack of sense in these comments alarms me. I just looked over your most recent article edits, Hopiakuta, and it looks to me like those (and their edit summaries) don't make much more sense than your talk comments. Now that Floq has unblocked you, you need to really, really make an effort here - and again, I acknowledge that that might be a pain in the ass to do, depending on what technical accommodations you use - to make yourself understandable. As much as many people are willing to accommodate and help you, we can only do that if you give us something to work with. If you remain incomprehensible to all but two or three people on the entire project, the good we're assuming you can do here is going to end up outweighed by the fact that no one can make sense of the good. P.S. Your signature is sort of a disaster...any chance you're willing to neaten it up so it's shorter and links more prominently to your userpage and talkpage? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I know that millions, even billions, like to call disabled troll; but, much like my opinion of  niggerhead,  kike, et al, I do  interpret  it as equally  racist,......  handicappist,  handicappism. Each of these can, only, be justified either by linguistic  commentary or by a truly excellent  pun.

Also, I have, accurately, stated my name for six years, including @: user_talk:hopiakuta/editnotice.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The unblock by Floquenbeam of Hopiakuta is disruptive, in that it went against the consensus expressed in this discussion, and also in that it enables Hopiakuta to continue making edits that many editors have considered to be problematic at best, while at the same time being incapable or unwilling of communicating meaningfully. Frankly, anybody who writes this amount of pure nonsense is either considerably mentally disabled or a troll; in either case they should not contribute to a project that contains much-read biographies of living persons. I consider Floquenbeam to be personally responsible for any continued disruption on the part of Hopiakuta.  Sandstein   16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein, please focus on the facts. Expressing your opinion is a good thing for the project. Uncivil comments affects everyone's moral, thus its harms the community. It also a waste of characters. :-) You don't seem to know what a "considerably mentally disabled" person is. From my experience as a student in occupational therapy, such people are absolutely unable to edit a complex website such as Wikipedia - even most normal people don't figure out how it works. Let alone using such a varitey of words, complex sentences, jokes, and cynical humor. According to your definition, I would be mentally handicapped myself.
 * I'm not against nor in favor of a block, as interaction does seem difficult. Just remain fair. For now, there is no consensus to block him so he should stay unblocked. As for taking people's time, I guess this whole AN/I affair did take more time than Xeno gave to mentor Hopiatuka. So let's move on and put our brains to more rewarding tasks. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Was expecting to be near a computer this morning but I'm not. Will comment at AN in a couple hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (copied from user's talk page.) Chedzilla (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure the unblocking was necessarily wrong, but I also do support the initial blocking for the hassle alone - while those familiar with the editor can ignore the weirdness, there are many other editors on the project who are not familiar with it. That this seems to come up again and again is evidence of that, and of the time wasted each time as someone else tries to make sense of it, and that's just the times the matter makes it here. Plenty, myself included, have wound up on one of the various and bizarre talkpages for some reason or other, gotten a response that was at best confusing and more often just plain nonsensical, and brought in others to see if they could figure it out... before finally just giving up and leaving. Now I suppose we could mandate a large sign on the userpage or something saying 'this user makes no sense; ignore it', but that... I dunno, just seems kind of wrong.
 * Point is, while I believe those who say he means well, the fact of the matter remains that if the assistive technology is so lacking and the editor himself doesn't care, then there is a problem here regardless of intent. It is affecting other people, and I'm not so sure the good edits do make up for it in light of some of the more recent weirdness as well as the cleanup in general that is oft required, and the much confusion that results even when it isn't. -— Isarra ༆ 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a matter of the assistive technology failing. What I can garner out of these bizzarre comments is that this user doesn't care that we cannot understand them and is deliberately making vague replies that seem to be an attempt to show how clever they really are. Disability is not the issue here or I would be completely on the other side of it. Being arrogant and self centered knows no race, gender, creed, or level of physical or mental ability. There is a long established precendent on this site that at some point we quit babying people who cannot or will not effectively communicate with others. Floq chose to ignore that precedent, and as I'm sure he is fully aware he has the second mover advantage in his pocket now. Of course he also used his admin tools in a situation he is bery much directly involved in since he was the principle advocte for unblocking. I stronlgy suggest that he re-instate the block, with no comment on its merit if he likes, and allow an impartial uninvolved party to determine what, if any, consensus is reflected in this discsussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read through a lot regarding this user and the problem is poor assistive technology combined with several disabilities. He's not trolling or being intentional difficult. According to him, typing normally as we do causes a lot of pain. He's obviously using some sort of equipment to edit in this way, the best he can. Unless his edits on the whole damage Wikipedia, then difficulty communicating with him is a weak argument for blocking. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I've advised Hopiakuta not to post anymore to this thread, so claims of "disrupting WP:AN" shouldn't happen anymore. Claims that he is disrupting his user page by posting things there that some can't understand make no sense.  Claims of disrupting the actual encyclopedia will have to wait and see what happens. I hope not.

 * I have never interacted with Hopiakuta before this thread started; I am not previously involved with him. I made very clear the rationale for the unblock; it wasn't because there was consensus for an unblock, but there was no consensus either way, which should default to an unblock. I am no more involved in this than Sandstein; he was a principle advocate for blocking, and then did so, and it would be silly to fault him for that.  I deserve the same, though I don't expect it.

 * It seems unproductive to continue the part of this thread about whether Hopiakuta's past editing was disruptive. I've given him another chance, and I suggest we see what happens.  I've added my name to the big sign at the top of his page, so if someone is puzzled by something he does, hopefully they will ask me to help clarify, if I can.

 * Obviously I think the part of this thread about what a bad faith, disruptive, involved admin I am should die too, but if people feel there is some new viewpoint not yet expressed, I'll continue to read every word of it, and reply where appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good unblock. All that is different is not wrong; if posting odds things in talk space is grounds for blocking I've got a long list of editors... Nobody Ent 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "different" that's the problem. I've worked with people using accessibility software to help them type before. This? He seems to be deliberately obtuse, combined with "

I am not capable of your « ...grammar, punctuation,  syntax,  spelling, et al,... » which I have said, is true, & is ψ."
 * Where ψ, if I'm parsing correctly, is supposed to indicate sarcasm. So, it's both true and sarcasm... uh, okay.
 * Not going to contest the unblock, but my AGF has run out on this one. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason his signature has to take up a whole line on the screen, too? That's a bit unnecessary because it has absolutely nothing to do with his disability and it's just disruptive.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 23:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm more than happy to support Floq's efforts here. While I admit that on first read, Hopiakuta's discussions are difficult for /me/ to follow - if another editor is willing to work with someone to bring them into an acceptable editing style, then I fully support that effort. Chedzilla (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gotten a bit long, so I could see how you missed the point that this has already been tried. It didn't work. I deal with disabled people on a daily basis at my job. I can't see how any disability or flawed assistaive technology can explain a reply   like the one above, with all the nonsense about  "the love point" etc. This is a user who is deliberately not communicating clearly because they don't want to and they are blaming it on a disability because it's an easy thing to hind behind if you want sympathy. And of course he cries discrimination when it is pointed out. is it discrimination that we do not allow blind people drive cars? Is it discrimination that deaf people cannot find work as telephone operators? Is it discrimination when a quadrepalegic cannot get a job as a bicycle messenger? No. It is also not discrimination when we tell someone who refuses to even try and commuicate in a sensible fashion that they cannot be part of a collaborative project that relies on commmunication to accomplish its goals.I remain convinced that this is a problem of their own making. Plenty of folks with very serious disabilities manage to particpate here without such issues.   Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you might be right on the spot - although we can't really know for sure. But Hopiatuka's contributions in article space seems to be okay at a first glance. I still don't see a good reason for a block. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * There's still stuff like usurping this AN report and turning it into a scratchpad to get sorted out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * 6 years is a long time to troll. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This thread has been open more than 2 weeks. We may all disagree on whether Hopiakuta has been "disruptive" in the past, but he is not currently disrupting anything, and the unblock seems not to have resulted in catastrophe, and I'll do my best to take over Xeno's spot going forward. At this point, every casual comment in this thread resets the archive clock back to 48 hours.  Can we please either (a) close this (obviously I can't/won't do this myself), (b) rename this thread to "Floquenbeam is disruptive and unfit to be an admin", since that is the only conceivable remaining issue, or (c) at least sign but not date our comments, so this can finally be put to bed in 2 days? Floquenbeam (talk) (fourteen thirty-six Aug 3rd)

Wikipedia talk:Edit filter permissions requests
My own request and someone else's request have not been answered by anyone there. Can there be eyes on that page?--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about protection
I have just fully protected Syria for a week as a result of an content dispute. However, the article was previously semi-protected until October because of persistent vandalism. I have no intention to remove the semi-protection that is already in place, as the full protection is for a different, shorter-term issue. However, when the protection expires, the semi-protection will also be lost (as happened at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Is there a way to prevent the current semi-protection from expiring when full protection expires? If not, is it worth talking to the developers about? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:37, 31 July