Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Lists of people grouped by name are not considered dab pages, and therefore do require categories (such as "masculine/feminine given names", etc.) And even if they were dab pages, a dab page is still uncategorized if doesn't have {{dab}} on it so that it's properly tagged and categorized as being a dab page. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I put {hindis} on the page. I think that applies to first names as well as surnames. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

{{hndis}} is only for pages where the page title is a complete first and last name, and everybody listed on that page has both of those same names (i.e. that criterion being why they have to be disambiguated from each other). Pages which serve only to list shared first or shared last names are not dab pages, and should properly be categorized as being first or last names. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

{{given name}} does the job. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of McGraw-Hill Construction, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: publisher of two magazines that have their own articles so not an A7 candidate. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

I noticed you'd filed a swift deletion request for the page I created on Dr Fox. I wanted to clarify - I was simply following the same process as a similar online pharmacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Thom which has almost exactly the same detail as the one I created.

Can you confirm if this rule that has led to the deletion of this page applies to all, or just in my case? If so, what steps can I take to make this less "unambiguous promotion".

Thanks,

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTLangers (talk • contribs)

Have a read of WP:SPAM, especially WP:ARTSPAM and also WP:NOT. For what it's worth I am not too happy with the Dr Thom article, but at least it is not promotional. The article you wrote was not deleted because it was created by you - it was deleted because it did not fit with our policies and guidelines. I think there are far too many articles about companies on Wikipedia. I don't mind having articles about the really notable companies like Microsoft and the Ford Motor Company for instance, but there are a whole host of articles about businesses that I would like to have deleted. It seems the Wikipedia is fast becoming a business directory with a few encyclopaedia articles! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

HAND DRYER Why would you delete my posts when there are many others that are similar and if not worse than my informative contributions I suggest you should be the one who is blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.39.150 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you point out similar instances of promotional material I will willingly remove them. And of course you are free to do the same. Wikipedia has a clear policy on such material. See WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"unreviewed" Sorry I cannot see any change to the article or Talk. Do you mean the interwiki to the Spanish article? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooops. Haven't quite got the hang of that page curation indicator. I will re-review. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a bot to update stats, the stats can be found at User:VoxelBot/NotabilityStats. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 15:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Pity we can't backdate it (AFAIK). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have recently given two warnings about edits that violate your topic ban [1] [2]. Because you have continued to violate your topic ban since then, in multiple namespaces: [3] [4] [5] [6], I have blocked your account. I decided to set the duration at one month, because the last block was for one month and was lifted early to allow you to appeal the topic ban. The appeal did not result in any change to the topic ban, and ended when you voluntarily agreed to follow the topic ban [7].

Note to other admins: Alan had appealed his topic ban several times, and it has not been modified after any of the appeals [8] [9] [10]. The most recent appeal seemed like it might be developing consensus to modify the topic ban, but Alan specifically agreed to keep the topic ban in place [11]. There is no doubt that the ban is still in place and that Alan is aware of it. The topic ban is completely objective - all category-related edits outside the main namespace are prohibited [12]. The previous unblock was explicitly conditioned on Alan following this ban after he was unblocked [13]. My present opinion is that I would not agree to seeing this block lifted for Alan to pursue yet another appeal, because I do not see any new information that was not already present in the previous appeals. The issue is simply that Alan has not followed the topic ban even after specifically agreeing to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this really a violation? It's a shame if it is. Ryan Vesey 14:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(I misread the question at first). There have been previous complaints, e.g. [14], of Alan unilaterally going through and changing categorizations to fit his view of what is "better for the reader". Unfortunately, his view often differs from others', and his unilateral changes cause more drama than whatever small benefit they might have (if any). In the case of that template, it looks like Alan changed the name because the category page was a red link - but he is simply not permitted to do that sort of maintenance any longer. I don't think there is any doubt the edit to change a category name is "category-related". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason that a reader should find Template:Lists of Austrian Parliament members when searching in Category:Austria. Anyone who thinks otherwise is daft. The rest is complete crap. Go ahead, continue enforcing this topic ban because it exists, rather than it makes sense. Ryan Vesey 15:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice straw man there. No-one is putting templates into Category:Austria. The person upmerging templates is Alan, not any of the poor daft editors otherwise, and even he's doing it to Category:Austria templates, not Austria. IMHO I'd create the redlink cat instead, but it's not an unreasonable change. (Actually this name was a simple typo and should have been fixed as such.)

The point is though that Alan has a topic ban, and he's clearly ignoring it. So this is a good block. Topic bans aren't, "You're banned from doing X, unless you think X is a good idea, then carry on with it anyway." Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I did misunderstand the question. I thought it was about the "Austrian politics and government templates" category. If you look at the original topic ban discussion, there was a back and forth about that very topic [15] - should templates be included in the main categories like Category:Austria? Alan had been removing them [16]. So this issue was already considered when the topic ban was imposed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, editors who assume removing that category from the template you just linked me to are daft. In any case, you are not taking intelligent actions as an admin if you are enforcing a topic ban just because it exists. It's been made clear multiple times that you can; however, I am telling you now, and I will tell you every time that you do it, that you shouldn't. If Alan is making problematic edits, then of course use the topic ban to stop him easily, but enforcing a topic ban when you don't think his edits have been unconstructive is not intelligent. (And if you do think his edits have been unconstructive, shame on you for not reverting them). Frankly, I think you should stop acting as an administer in relation to Alan Liefting. Ryan Vesey 16:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. CBM has become Alan's personal watcher. CBM has blocked Alan five times since October, and has applied the only real blocks in that time. The project isn't going to die if CBM allows other administrators to handle this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... Sorry everyone, I have been a bad boy. Thanks Carl for making me go back to the real world rather than spending far too much time inhabiting the wiki-world. I will now get some chores done and projects finished. Made a good start on fixing the boundary fence. Mind you Garry Moore (my neighbour) is having a wedding in their back yard very soon so they want the place spruced up. Nothing like a deadline to get thinks done aye?

And thanks Andy for finding the more appropriate category for the template. Good catch. I hould have realised that that was the correct wording.

And thanks for being jolly good supporters Ryan and Hammersoft. Shame we all waste a lot of time here.

Anyway I had better sign off. Lack of sleep and a good merlot is taking its toll. See you in a month. Maybe? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting articles into Category:Food safety in the United States. Contributions like these are very important and I am glad that you enjoy making them. If you have particular further interest in food safety then talk to me sometime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I was in the process of creating a Food safety in the United States article but now that I am blocked it will have to wait. Or maybe you might have to do it yourself. I suppose I should have asked someone to create all those food safety categories instead of doing it myself. And now that I am blocked I cannot revert all of my naughty edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you have any desire to spend your time around here for the next month or so, but I'd hate to see your work related to the notability template go to waste by virtue of you being unwilling to follow things up. Let me know if there's anything you need related to that, and I'll make sure your concerns/comments are still heard. Ryan Vesey 17:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, are there any other pages aside from the TfD that I should be watching? Ryan Vesey 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, nothing like being repeatedly being hammered with blocks to really knock out the enthusiasm. Am trying to build WP and I get my arse kicked. I should have expected it I guess. But it was frustrating havving to go around asking others to do things that I felt needed doing.

But anyway, the TfD will roll on without me, but it is a shame I cannot help out with it. We are actually getting somewhere with it! There was a shit load of other stuff I was working on, both on- and off-wiki. Have a look thru my talk page edits in all the namespaces but I am sure you have plenty of your own stuff to do. Anyway, thanks for being a awfully good sport. I dunno if I want to stop by here or not. Maybe not. Don't like all this interminable discussion about me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Taking {{notability}} may have seemed POINTy at first, but it resulted in a good discussion and improvements that attracted widespread support. Well done! BDD (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		I endorsed this discussion there and will do so again here. Unusual, perhaps slightly pointy, partially disruptive... and so a great example of where ignoring arbitrary rules can produce an excellent collegial result. Most would have been too scared to do it - I'm glad you weren't. A clever way of motivating editors to have a very necessary discussion. Stalwart111 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Imagine the result of that discussion had he gone through the normal channels and brought it up at the village pump. Nothing would have been done. Way to go Alan! Ryan Vesey 23:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in the last paragraph of User_talk:Pichpich#I_think_we.27ve_killed_it... Le Deluge (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest shown. I will complete it tomorrow as my internet connectivity is giving problems for the last two days. If you feel like, you are welcome to add and complete the balance parks. I want to post it on DYK tomorrow night.--Nvvchar. 10:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors should consider the readers of Wikipedia to be of utmost importance. Your connectivity problems and your desire to post it as a DYN should not impinge on usability for the readership of Wikipedia. Therefore, the section that is an incomplete draft should remain commented out since it is only a draft. Also, the material in the National parks section is also getting off topic which is why I suggested that it is split out to another article. Can I suggest that you use some other location for working on drafts rather than on a live article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Protected areas of Vietnam would be the place for detailed summaries. A brief overview of the parks in a paragraph r two is fine for the wildlife article. I saw you also removed two photos from the Silver Oak article too which I was going to do anyway!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Pl see this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Vietnam. Thanks for the useful suggestions.--Nvvchar. 13:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a Fox! (What did I break) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the hard work of removing links to the disambiguation page. I have one request — on articles about North American archaeological sites, could you either leave the link or let me know when you've removed it? Some of these pages, including two that you've delinked (Turpin Site and State Line Archeological District), should be changed from [[tempering|tempered]] to [[Mississippian culture pottery|tempered]], but the situation is ambiguous enough that you'd have to waste a lot of time researching whether the page's authors meant Mississippian-style tempering or something else. The edit to Turpin prompted a discussion between the author of the Mississippian article and me on fixing these links; he's a professional and will be able to find better targets for these links much more easily than you or I could. Finally, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Can do. Don't really agree with a [[Mississippian culture pottery|tempered]] piped link though. Principle of least surprise. Is there another option? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Shell tempered pottery is more useful now that I have pointed it at the relevant section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw that you've added this link — thanks a lot, since this is the best solution. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I think this is my first DYN credit! Anyway, I did not create it or substantially expand it. Can I keep the DYN credit anyway? Pleease... ( ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Shore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan, Got your message about my signature - but I don't know how to fix it. Offender9000 07:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are clear instructions at Special:Preferences and details are at WP:CUSTOMSIG. It has been changed from its default setting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have declined your request for speedy deletion of Omeida Language College as educational institutions are not legible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. If you still believe that it should be deleted, then I suggest you nominate it for WP:AFD after your block has expired. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alan,

When you get back, I found this edit. I have reversed it. Every article should have portals.

The "right" (or rather, best) place for a portalbox or portalbar is the "See Also" section, but until that opens up, they should be in the external links section. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Alan can not respond to you there because he is blocked until July. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Help:Portals, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Portals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Help:Portals during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BDD (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I created a userbox: User:Mercurywoodrose/Userboxes/Eponymous Categories, in a vain attempt to express my feelings on the matter. I also tried to bring up the category tree at Jimbos usertalkpage, but it wasnt noticed. I know the cabal is not out to silence me, because another item i left on his actual userpage remains there: a quotebox based on the I Ching. I feel honored. oh, sorry to see you topic banned. I have a feeling this can happen to any of us. I hope you enjoy mandatory retirement from volunteer work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, shit, you are topic banned from editing categories, I didnt realize. I hope my userbox isnt like chocolate to a chocoholic:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding new unblock proposal with filter. The thread is Alan Liefting again; new proposal. Thank you.

I realize you cannot respond directly there, but, if you have a comment, there will be some way to get it into the discussion. —— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried. If it's possible to do with a .js file, you can ask for assistance in constructing it, but I'm not convinced it's possible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Plant common names in New Zealand, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You were recently blocked for one month for violating your edit restriction. When I looked at your edit history today, I was sad to see you have continued to violate the edit restriction since that block expired. As you know, you simply are not permitted to make category-related edits outside the main namespace. Accordingly, I have blocked your account for the next duration in the standard sequence, which is 3 months. To admins reviewing this block: please read the previous block message, which is archived at User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive_21#Topic_ban, March 1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I find a few things with this extremely troubling:

1. CBM rarely uses his tools except it seems in cases like this where it could be argued he is involved.
2. No other admin seems to find these edits to be a problem yet its always CBM that seems to be the one to "notice" them
3. Another glaring example of an extremely poor decision by Arbcom that is hindering improvement to the pedia. There are absolutely zero edits in the last week as far as I can tell that were not an improvement.
4. That CBM seems to be stalking Alan's edits now that Rich F has been banned from the project (Another example of an extremely bad Arbcom decision BTW)
5. It seems a little disengenuous to say he was "sad" when he admit to stalking his edits. If you notice one that's one thing, if you are intentionally looking for something to block the user for, there is no sadness implied.

It is examples like this where certain admins are allowed to act this way with impunity while other editors aren't even allowed to edit protected articles or see deleted content that really solidify the problems with this site and its culture. When our policies and unequal implimentation of policy only when it suits us hinder needed improvements, its time for some change. Its unfortunate that our culture also blocks the ability to make change. Some days I see things that make me wish I had the tools to help out more. Then I see things like this that are allowed to happen and it shows me that its better that I am not. I sincerely hope that either CBM changes his mind, Arbcom unscrews their decision or some other admin with the morale courage to undo this steps up. All of these are doubtful IMO. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No other admins are as fast as CBM to notice Alan's violations. And all of the number points above are misleading, if not actually disingenious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your probably right on the first point but then most of them aren't actively watching his every edit looking for something either. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This dysfunctional admin system has become the biggest block standing in the way of developing Wikipedia. It's very good at making uncompromising and unskillful blocks like this one. The only real remedy is to dismantle the system and start again, but a partial remedy would be some sort of mission statement or constitution settings out some underlying principles for admins. The most fundamental principle, however strange and revolutionary it may seem, is that admin actions should, always, be designed to facilitate the building of the encyclopaedia. This means there has to be at least a modicum of respect for the people who actually build the encyclopaedia. Certain other principles follow automatically, such as applying common sense and basic decency rather than thoughtless and rigid adherence to arbitrary rules imposed by admins themselves. Alan's editing style needed some shaping, and a skillful admin system would have done that. Instead, we lose future work from a prolific and overall valuable editor, and other content builders are yet again reminded that on Wikipedia they are devalued and powerless. How could the system be more stupid? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least anyone who has been an admin for more than 36 months should have to rerun. Maybe even 24 months. Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about Rich F. CBM was an enabler of Sandstein when Sandstein seemed to be falling over himself in eagerness to block Rich F. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've beaten up on Alan over categorization as much as nearly anyone. This block might even be warranted. Yet it would be hard to find an action more likely to raise counter-productive thoughts of admin bias than having Carl implement such a block. It looks far too much like a biased admin, rather than a real misdemeanour warranting a 3 month block. If this action was necessary, other admins would have picked up on it. If this action was warranted, Carl could have asked another admin to carry it out. Either of these would have been far better than this. Look at Alan's block log (which is admittedly unimpressive) – most of these are from one admin. Either one admin is super-efficient compared to others, or one has something of an axe to grind. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Very good points Andy. I hadn't even looked at the block log until you mentioned it. That is indeed troubling. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Very bad point. Alan is an efficient editor; if he starts making bad edits, he can do so quickly enough that it's impossible to get back. Possibly CBM should have sent the matter to ANI after the block, but there was a real danger of things happening too quickly to easily reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The wiki fire brigade deals pretty efficiently with high-speed trolls. Even trolls with scripts. I'm sure Carl could easily have rounded up a posse of neutral admins, if preventing some clear and present danger was needed. As it is, we now have an un-block. It's not a credible block, because it looks tainted. One whisper at ANI and it's gone (we've all seen that one before). So even Carl's urgently protective block isn't going to stick and we're still at risk from the dire menace of Liefting. No-one wins. Everyone has their time wasted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...

I never know whether to not reply or to make a stand, but I think I am buggered either way. I should have expected this new block because I got a bit carried away tidying of some of the WP admin categories.

Carl, have I pissed you off at some point in the past, because it sure looks like you got it in for me. You do very few edits yet you take the time to check up on what I have been doing. As has been said above maybe you should talk it over with another admin. Or do you like the power that an admin has of kicking someone with repeated blocks? I am having trouble assuming good faith here. Another thing, why not IAR - as I have been doing - if it means there is an improvement to WP? Do you think there has been an improvement to WP with my edits? I like to think so. And it seems that the community are not concerned about my edits (under the topic ban) since they don't get reverted.

Arthur, you also had it in for me but you seem to be mellowing. I think. I am not sure if I get the gist of what you said above.

Epipelagic, something certainly needs to be done about how WP is administered. There are huge problems in virtually all areas of WP administration. Sometimes I am surprised we manage to get anything done around here! BTW, I am curious to know why you think my editing needs some shaping. None of us are perfect and that is the beauty of collaborative editing - all the wrinkled get ironed out. We can end up with the nicely ironed and pressed featured articles. Meanwhile, heaps of more important stuff goes undone. But that's another story.

I wonder if we should get get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation? One that uses rationality to make decisions rather than irrational aspects of human behaviour.

Hey! Maybe a three month break will cure my wikipediaholism! And Carl, you have managed to do what my partner cannot do - namely getting me away from the computer!

Anyway, we should all move on. You lot have got an encyclopedia to build. I will get back to the real world and get some more chores and projects done. See you all in three months. Or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also an admin and I agree with Carl's block. You have been given plenty of warnings and were well aware of the potential results of your actions. If you don't respect the consensus of the community, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project that requires cooperation. Openness is a double-edged sword. It allows great freedom, but also requires people to take responsibility for their actions and respect the consensus of the group. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Alan Liefting and long blocks". Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The takeaway from this is that it is ok for an administrator to closely follow, in perpetuity, the edits of an editor who is under restriction and enact blocks in accordance with that restriction. WP:HOUNDING needs to be modified to note that administrative actions are immune to this policy when an editor is under restriction. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it more a case that admins who fail to enforce community sanctions should be reprimanded? Alan's "technically" broken the rules of the community sanctions against him time and time again, and therefore Carl's slow and steady block increase seems entirely in keeping with someone charged with preventing disruption to Wikipedia, most particularly when it comes to upholding the community's consensus. Either actively seek Carl's de-sysop or stop whinging, HOUNDING is entirely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, I agree and I have just updated it. Since I am only an editor and therefore a second class citizen of the community (regardless of my 8 years and 400, 000 edits here) I wouldn't expect my actions through of invoking both WP:Bold and WP:IAR to last for long and I expect a message on my talk page soon.

@TRM, You and I both know that administrative reprimands are stupendously rare and generally can only be given by Arbcom. So that occurs what, once or twice a year out of the hundreds or thousands of policy violations performed by admins. But I do not for a second beleive that Carl is doing this to benefit the pedia nor do I think that the project is benefited in any way, even slightly, by Alan being punished. This is merely a block for the sake of proving a point and nothing else. I should also clarify you are one of the relative few admins on here that I do have a high degree of respect for so please don't take my comments as being directed at you. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, Carl is just doing what is required. I have to say that when I have encountered editors who have a reasonably troubled record, it is natural to check from time to time that they aren't being more troublesome or, in this case, breaking the terms of the community sanctions placed upon them following agreement from the community. I have defended Alan in the past, for the one or two "sanction busting" edits he makes, he probably makes one or two thousand good edits. But when the sanctions kick back in, there's no sign of any apology, which would probably go a long way to relaxing the enforcement of his block. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is required. I just wish it wasn't Carl doing it every time. It would be much more convincing of the justification of throwing around 3 month blocks for non-vandal editors if there wasn't the appearance of hounding. Other admins could cover this perfectly adequately. – and I speak as someone who has already been accused of hounding Alan for seeking this topic ban in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) @RM: Thank you for accusing me of whining. It certainly serves to improve the tone of discussion. Now, as to the points you raise... Carl has been asked, even begged, to seek another admin to perform these blocks. He has refused every opportunity to do so. It simply isn't necessary for Carl to hound Alan in this way. There are plenty of other admins quite capable of clicking 'block'. WP:HOUNDING is entirely relevant. CBM's conduct here is not collegial. It's not a question of him being desysopped, and I never asked for that. It's a question of him doing the right thing. CBM has applied six blocks of increasing length to Alan, and has failed to get his point across. It is time, long time, that someone else picked up the baton. CBM's methods are failing. This is irrespective of Alan's conduct. I made no comment on Alan's conduct, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@TRM, I think Carl did fine until about block 3, after that someone else needs to step in. No one is going to think anything other than they are being hounded when the same person keeps shoing back up. Especially when they rarely edit as is the case of Carl. If one admin does an action its less likely to be a problem. When that same admin keeps showing up and is the only one for 5 or 6 successive blocks its human nature if you are the individual being blocked to not take that person seriously. Impressions mean a lot so if the admin wants to be taken seriously then they need to act seriously and be professional. There is nothing trustworthy or professional in doing very few edits and then in the few times you log in to do something you check 1 user and then logoff until the next block. Its shady and defies the trust the community has placed on adminship.

Also I understand I have been harping about admin abuses and the us and them mentality that many of the admins have lately and people are getting tired of it. But the problems exist and they aren't going to be fixed unless the admin folks and people in positions of power like yourself admit there is a problem (which some have) and take some action. As I said before I have a lot of respect for you and I think that you have a lot of integrity and I think you have seen what I am talking about. Not all of the admins do and those that do either don't want to admit it or won't. Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hammersoft, it was "whinging", not "whining", subtle difference. If anyone thinks Carl has misused his tools they should seek to have those tools removed, or else stop the "whinging". Hammersoft seems to not really understand the point of a community sanction, i.e. one where an editor is asked to not do certain things by the community. Doing those things despite being asked not to is "not collegiate". Carl's "methods" are not really questionable here, he's just reinforcing the community's wishes. If you, Hammersoft, or anyone else thinks the community's consensual ban on Alan's edits is no longer valid, please make a proposal at the appropriate place rather than just "whinging" about it here. That won't solve any problem, will it?

Kumioko, I think you and I understand one another. As I said above, I've defended Alan, but when he's given the chance, he doesn't seem to want to help himself. He doesn't respond to this in a collegiate manner. But naturally, I'd like to invite you (and any other interested party) to initiate discussion at AN/I or elsewhere to bring in more opinion, and to head off Hammersoft's repetitive complaint about Carl's reasonable block pattern, i.e. to get other, uninvolved people interested. I'm sure Hammersoft has done that, although I can't find any evidence of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right Rambling Man, I don't understand. I'm just the village idiot. But, it seems to me, insane as I am, that if you keep doing the same thing over and expect a different response there's a breakdown somewhere. I'll point out once again (because it appears I need to) that I have not commented on Alan's restrictions. The point is Carl's actions, which are considerably out of line with community norms. Oh wait, I don't understand the community norms. I dunnno, I guess it's ok to repeatedly do something over and over and over and over and over and over (is that six? I lost count) when it doesn't solve a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's the point you're not getting. Alan has been warned, and blocked, for the same thing, several times. I don't know where you live Hammersoft, but if you committed the same crime six times in a row, but after the third time someone said, "stop it, if you do it again, you'll be in trouble", normal people don't do it again. Not another three times either. Maybe Alan needs some help understanding what he's doing and some assistance in interpreting his block conditions (which were discussed by the community). If Alan isn't prepared to solve this problem, he's no longer part of the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well for whatever else is true, no amount of discussion will ever make CBM admit he made a mistake nor will it make him change it. Its also quite obvious that several admins all think there is a problem, which seems unlikely since most of them would find any reason to support another one, were just wasting time and hard dive space by continuing to talk about it. Its so exceedingly rare that admins are held accountable I/we really should have known better than to think that would be the case here. Since its even more uncommon for Carl to admit he made a mistake (never as far as I know) and he never shows any remorse for the affects of his actions that I don't really feel there is a problem to call attention to those actions. Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Rambling Man: I don't know, call me an idiot, but it seems I am discussing CBM's conduct, and you keep justifying his poor conduct by way of Alan's poor conduct. I haven't discussed Alan's conduct. If you wish to continue discussing Alan's conduct, feel free to do so but it has precious little to do with what I am discussing. I'd appreciate it if you would stay on task, but if you choose not to do so we're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Carl is enforcing a community-sanctioned ban on certain edits. Alan keeps breaking the terms of that ban. I don't see what Carl has done wrong at all. I do see what Alan has done wrong. I'd appreciate it if you could stay on task too, this about enforcing a community-sanctioned block on Alan's proclivity to tamper with things he's been asked not to (following a community discussion which resulted him being banned from certain editing areas). Please define what "mistake" has been made here in an admin enforcing the wishes of the community? Of course, if you feel like continuing this whinge-fest, I'd suggest you open a thread at AN/I (again.... ) because I doubt many people are watching this page. [I am watching this page KDS4444^Talk 23:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC).] Moaning about the various injustices and malpractices you perceive here won't serve you, Alan, or the community well. Centralise the whinge, and we'll carry on there. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• TRM, you are very much focussing this on Hammersoft. But Hammersoft, as you can see in this thread, is not the only person who thinks that CBM should have left this to other admins to enforce the ban. And you can add me to that list. CBM is practically the only admin who is enforcing this restriction, practically hounding Alan. I see even one of Alans proponents here complaining that it is only CBM who is enforcing things, and that is an editor who is in favour of enforcing the restriction.

This is not about whether CBM is right or wrong, this is not about whether this was a violation of the restriction and that Alan should be blocked for it, this is about whether CBM, if he was to see the edits happening, should bring this to the attention of other admins, those who had no other involvement with the situation, and let them evaluate this (and that has been said to CBM as well). Or are you, or is CBM, afraid that a totally, completely uninvolved admin (that is, one who has never had any interaction with Alan), would not enforce the restriction, so it is best to do it yourself so you're sure that it gets enforced properly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• @TRM: This is now the second time you've decided to accuse me of "whinge[ing]". I grow tired of this. If you are incapable of mounting an argument in opposition to mine without resorting to personal attacks on me, you have no argument at all. Please stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For all those whingers above, and anyone else who think Carl's actions need to be looked into, please start a thread at AN/I or put up with it. This bluster is entirely pointless. Carl has enforced the block regime technically correctly. If you think he hasn't, do something about it rather than just use this page as a chat group. I see nothing going on here which we "solve" the "problem" that any of you believe exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• And the third time you've accused me of being a "whinger". Nice. I don't think anyone (could be wrong) is saying Carl isn't technically correct. That's not the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I chose my words carefully, read it again. If you consider yourself to be one of "those whingers above" at this point, well the cap fits. Alternatively, you may think Carl's behaviour needs to be looked into. If neither, the above was clearly not addressed at you. Having said that, what do you actually hope to achieve with this recent swath of edits of yours (solely to this talk page)? You certainly seem dedicated to the "cause", but the "cause" is unclear, Carl will correctly keep blocking Alan every time he breaks his community ban, what do you want? I don't think you'll get it in this forum, so please, let's see it centralised at AN/I or elsewhere (again) and we can then agree a way forward. In the meantime, all the complaining here is simply wasted. Do something constructive about this situation or move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point it seems clear to me and should be to all that this solidifies that admins are exempt from the policies of WP:involved and WP:Harassment. If the repeated harassment of an editor by an admin is condoned and accepted, which it seems to be in this case, then the culture of Wikipedia is truly as toxic as I had feared. People wonder why folks would want to "collect the hat" of adminship but they shouldn't when we cement in our community the standing the admins are above and beyond the policies that they are supposed to be protecting and upholding. When an admin can continuously stalk an editor without any fear whatsoever that they should consider the ramifications of their actions, then that action, or lack of action, is perpetuating the myth that admins are a class above regular editors. To me, this sort of incorrect reasoning is as much a part of the problems with Wikipedia and its editing subculture as the vandals and policy violators we try and protect the project from. I would also add that since CBM blocked Alan they yet again dropped off from editing If the only time an admin does an edit is to login and check on one editor and then logoff, that to me is a sign that the allegations of harassment are valid and not just a couple of editors "whinging". Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • @TRM: I fully understand you chose your words carefully. That you would nevertheless engage in such uncivil behavior is therefore even the more troubling. A number of people have raised reasonable concern regarding CBM's actions here. Your response has been to belittle and insult them. I understand your position fully. You may consider my response to you at an end until such time as you to decide to behave in a civil manner. If you feel it necessary, you may of course respond and insult me again. I'm confident it will have the desired effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, why isn't anyone here actually taking some action about this rather than filling up this talkpage? If someone feels the block is bad, AN/I is the place. If someone thinks admins are acting out of their scope, AN/I is the place. If someone believes there are "valid concerns", AN/I is the place, not this talk page backwater. Please, do something. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just found a thread in the AN archives which was opened and closed over a couple of days (I miss so much when I have a long weekend away), about this very subject. I see the closing (non-admin) comments were: "There is no reasonable expectation that any admin is going to overturn a legitimate block which was completely justified by the very clear topic ban which the community imposed. The editor will have the opportunity to appeal that block at the end of the month should he choose to, and the community can then remove the sanction if it wishes to. In the meantime, this is merely another thread for the same-old people to dredge up the same tired complaints and re-air them, despite their never having gained any significant traction in the past from the community-at-large. For these reasons, I am closing this thread." Oh well. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was closed after barely 12 hours, so it's no surprise you didn't see it.

Thou shalt not criticise the admins, for They Are Infallible.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Andy I agree and to TRM, anyone familiar with ANI and the Admin vs. editor dichotomy here in WP know that any attempt to bring up admin abuses are dismissed as hogwash. Time and time again these things are shot down even when the abuse is blatant and deliberate. I could list a dozen just in the last couple weeks. All of which were dismissed because Admins are infallible and above policy. The community it seems can be trusted with electing an Admin for life but in order to remove an abusive one it requires action by Arbcom and in order for that to happen it takes weeks and hundreds of man hours of debate and a consensus of abuse which is extremely rare and only happens a couple times a year. Kumioko (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been mostly avoiding this thread. However, I want to respond to one comment by Hammersoft, namely, "A number of people have raised reasonable concern regarding CBM's actions here". I do not see any such reasonable concerns.

• Alan Liefting violated his edit restriction and was blocked in accordance with policy. In this instance, he made more than 50 prohibited edits over a period of two weeks, and there is no doubt he violated the restriction. He wrote above, "I should have expected this new block because I got a bit carried away tidying of some of the WP admin categories."
• WP:INVOLVED specifically states that an administrator does not become "involved" by taking administrative actions. It says, "This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I have dealing with this edit restriction at length on behalf of the community, and doing so is completely appropriate.
• If Alan Liefting is concerned that he has been blocked too many times by the same person, the simple solution is for him to follow the edit restriction, so that he is not blocked by anybody.
• The reason edit restrictions are imposed is that the community has grown tired of discussing a particular editor over and over at ANI, and wants to avoid spending even more time on such discussions. It would be counterproductive to post each block to ANI, because the entire purpose of an edit restriction is for the editor to be blocked without further discussion when it is violated. If a discussion is needed before each block, then it is as if there is no edit restriction at all.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • As with TRM, you are justifying your actions by pointing at Alan's actions. I have not discussed Alan's actions. This is about your actions. You have an opportunity to involve other administrators in blocking Alan. You've been invited on multiple occasions to do so, and have refused to take the opportunity. Whether or not there is a vendetta on your part, whether or not you are hounding Alan or not, the simple reality is that to a number of concerned editors this is the appearance that is being carried. It is very simple to sidestep this issue and allow for the same functional result (that of blocking Alan); if you see actions of his that you feel require there to be a block, bring it to WP:AN/I and ask another admin to step in. It is blatantly clear that your attempts to convey the message to Alan have failed. Whether the fault for that lies with Alan, with you, or both is immaterial. It's long past time you allowed another administrator to pick up the baton and remove doubt that it is your manner of approach that is contributing to the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your feedback. Ideally, Alan Liefting will begin to follow his restriction, and no additional blocks will be needed. In the case that one is needed, the next block will be for a period of one year, so I don't expect it to be much of a recurring problem in the future either way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec)As I stated above, it was naive of us to think that CBM would admit to fault and in fact historically even those rare few admins who lost their tools didn't think they did anything wrong. I also agree wtih Hammersoft that you are just attempting to justify innappropriate action and bad judgement in being the lone ranger in this quest to ban Alan. I can appreciate that it must be frustrating from an admin standpoint when your decisions and motives are questioned. Its also frustrating from an editor standpoint when an admin who is supposed to upholding policy so blatantly violates it and then tries to justify it with Wikilawyering. Its unfortunate that in our online society that someone with a couple of extra buttons is thought to be more trustworthy than others who do as much or more for the project and have been here for a long time are treated as though they don't understand policy. Its also frustrating when an admin violates policy and then is supported by others attempting to justify a bad decision. Wikihounding, involved and harassment operate in principle if not by rule exactly like 3RR. If the action is being done repetetiveily by the same individual over and over, especially when that individual does few other edits aside from the harassment, it gives the perception of innappropriate action. Even if the action was perfectly valid it absolutely does not give that impression. You can continue to justify it with Wikilawyering and try and kid yourself into thinking we are actually stupid enough to believe it, but we are not. And I think we all know that you will watch Alan's edits for any indication that you can block him "broadly construed". Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec) @CBM: Do we have your assurances that the next block will not be conducted by you, and that if you feel such a block is warranted you will bring it the attention of other administrators via a noticeboard? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • My belief is that an edit restriction may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator, and per WP:INVOLVED I am not "involved" in this case, because taking administrative actions does not make an administrator "involved" - "because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." If this block was not invalid, there is no reason to think that an additional block would be invalid. If you would like to argue that this block was invalid (although there was already an AN thread about it [17]), I encourage you to take the advice given above and open another thread on a noticeboard. I am not planning to reply further here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
          • So the response is precisely what we thought. You don't feel you are involved nor do you feel that you are harassing Alan nor do you plan on stopping. I truly wish there was some venue to take this too that had any changce of being heard but unfortunately admins protect each other here and I have little hope that any suggestion that an admin is harassing a regular old editor would be anything other than futile. If Alan was an admin we would have admins lining up to protect his rights but not here. I for one was hoping you would do the right thing but I knew better based on our interactionsn in the past. Truly disappointing but not unexpected. Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion at ANI about this situation. Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And less than 12 hours after it is opened, it too is closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, by the guy who opened it.... (see above). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It was quickly devolving into a mud slinging contest and it clearly wasn't going to change anything. Few seemed to agree that CBM was harassing Alan (which I find unfortunate and troubling and I think sets an alarming tone for future editors if Admins are excluded from the policies of harassment and involved). Its not entirely surprising but is another thing on my radar to keep in the light so hopefully it will get changed so that admins aren't allowed to abuse editors simply because they have the power to do so. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Perhaps an RFC is in order to help the community (particularly Kumioko and Hammersoft) to distinguish between regular admin activities and harassment. Clearly "involved" is not an issue as described therein, but this ongoing accusation of "harassment" needs to be met head on, and whether an admin continually enforcing a community ban is "harassment" or not. To avoid all this unpleasantness in the future, I suggest someone (Kumioko, Hammersoft, whoever...) constructs a proposal which draws definitive lines in the sand regarding what is and what isn't harassment when it comes to reinforcing community bans. I.e. should an admin be allowed to block the same user twice? Three times? Four times? Should the blocking admin have made a certain number of edits elsewhere in the meantime? How many edits? Should an admin who has blocked the same IP address for vandalism four, five, six times in a row be admonished? Should that same admin ask other admins to get involved when edits are disrupting Wikipedia? What is "disrupting" Wikipedia? Is evading a topic ban "disruptive"? All these questions need to be answered in any proposal because right now, nothing incorrect has happened, and we all know that. If people don't like the status quo, they should at least have the creativity to define what the new status quo should become, along with the rule set. If not, all this bluster here and at ANI is, frankly, a complete waste of the community's time and energy. Even if you have to appeal to Arbcom, just do it, because the number of times we've sailed round this buoy and the amount of edits wasted on this is appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I think that is a good idea and I would but I do not feel it would be taken seriously nor do I think it would result in anything. Even in clear cases like How RFA is broken we can't reach a consensus on anyting so why on earth would I waste my time drafting a useful proposal knowing that no one would take it seriously nor would it amount to anything other than a waste of time. I agree changes need to be made and clarity needs to be brought into the wording of the sanctions and the rules but anything I submit would be laughed at. If I said a stopsign was red with white letters someone would say no its white letters on a red background and if they were an admin they would win the argument. An admin doing their job should have some latitue, an admin who logs on once in a while to check in on a couple of pet sanctions and then logs back out should not be sheltered. What I do think and want to make clear is that admin actions similar to the ones against Alan should be a lot like 3RR, once the same admin has done something 3 times (not 6) they need to get some more eyes on topic. This Lone Ranger attitude that some of the Admins (CBM, Fram, Sandstein) have and that some in the admin community allow them to continually shows is just ridiculous. I also think submitting to Arbcom is a waste of time. They are as much a problem with the current environment as the vandals we fight off everyday. They create vague determinations with unnecessarily broad sanctions that invite drama. If they had more than 2 qualified people in the group and tried they could pass some sanctions that were clearly written, they could then direct that an Edit filter be created to help enforce the sanction and eliminate drama. But instead they tell all the admins that they are free to enforce their vague rulings in any way they want without question or limitation. Just go out and do whatever you want! There are so many problems I don't even know where to start and I can see that no matter how hard I try no one cares because many have a vested interest in the status quo. Those who get power want to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, it's not hard to argue when someone says "sounds like a good idea but I won't do it". Your 2Kb of answer doesn't really help solve anything, it's just more complaining really. I've given you some advice; make some proposals and let's see what goes. Otherwise, according to you, the whole thing's pointless, in which case, there's little point in continuing this discussion. I've tried to provide you a practical route. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Honestly, do you really think it will go anywhere or lead to any change? I agree that changes need to be made and I would be happy to spend the time typing it up if I thought it would be taken seriously. Dank just spent months in the RFA RFC's and absolutely nothing came out of it and everyone knows RFA is broken and needs to be fixed. Hundreds of hours were spent to generate discussion with no result. If you think that a proposal has merit then maybe you could draft something. I would also add one more little bit of logic to this argument. If the edits that Alan was blocked for are inappropriate they should be reverted. If the edit does not warrant reversion, then IAR should apply through the sanction. Was the edit disruptive? Did the edit violate any other policy than the sanction? Was the edit helpful or unhelpful? Are we enforcing the sanction for the sake of enforcement or are we preventing harm to the project? These are some questions I think need to be asked and answered in a proposal in addition to the ones you came up with. Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I just remembered you may be working on a WP version of Help:Search. The way my edits are going at H:S, we may already have one! (I tend to be overly technical.)

I see nothing in your subpages or todo list on this. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 23:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Cpiral. I have done quite a bit of work on WP:SET, and will leave some comments on your talk page about Help:Search. Best regards,  LittleBen (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Alan. I discussed this with Cpiral here and threw together a draft of the intro for discussion here. Your ideas on this would be most welcome. LittleBen (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. — CpiralCpiral 17:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude. I totally just came here to reiterate my [now pointless and belated] support for your [unfortunately failed] proposal for deletion of the article on the Mineral County Technical Center and to say that I thought the arguments in favor of keeping it, namely that it appears on a list of similar institutions, looks like pretty weak (read: invalid) reasoning for keeping the article, even weak enough that it should be worth a second run through AfD... I wish I had not dropped the ball after seconding your nomination for deletion. But oh well, I had limpets to draw SVG pictures of (silly limpets, nobody cares) and got rather lost in that. And then there's all this business about you getting banned for being a naughty boy for editing... what was it, now... categories...? when you shouldntadun. Dude. Anyhow, come back soon. And if you are interested in taking a second swipe at a non-notable school in West Virginia (West Virginia? Is anything in West Virginia notable?? I am being crass) I will gladly reiterate that support. By then, you probably won't care. But just in case. You can reply on my talk page. you know the drill. KDS4444^Talk 00:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This block has run more than long enough now. Is no admin willing to terminate it? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It was a bad block to begin with but I doubt anyone is going to do anything about it. Its a punitive block because Alan made some category edits. So much for blocks only being preventative and not punitive. Its especially unlikely if the user isn't requesting an unblock themselves. Kumioko (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm wondering what caused you to delete so much of the content on the "CyberTracker" Wikipedia page?

Thanks, -Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsteventon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conservation Management Strategy. Since you had some involvement with the Conservation Management Strategy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Widefox; talk 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand Centre for Sustainable Cities may interest you.—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi I was not sure where you were going with removing the 2013 in space category from GRB 130427A, but it seems that you are happy about Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2013. Is that correct that a narrower cat is what you are after? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had overlooked adding Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2013. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan, how are you? I hope you'll log into your account again and start editing some time. I know it must hardly seem as if editor contributions are appreciated here, and the bureaucracy is in disarray. I know Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (And merely for the fact that an encyclopedia and a bureaucracy cannot be one and the same, but Wikipedia sure does have a bureaucracy surrounding it!) It is unfortunate that so many community members with varying degrees of influence don't seem to be here to appreciate other people. You are talented, and this encyclopedia is a great project. Italick (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

How am I? Do you want the five minute answer or the full half hour? But seriously, it is not so much the bureaucracy that I find annoying and frustrating (after all a bureaucracy is necessary for a project of this nature) but it is how editors (and admins in particular) interact. Thank you for considering me to be talented, but is that a considered opinion? How many of my edits have you waded though to arrive at that conclusion? Anyway, I don't like using WP as if it were Facebook. There is too much work to do. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is a considered opinion. I casually sampled a few of your edits surrounding New Zealand and environmentalism contributed a few years back. Your contributions looked carefully thought out. I think you made edits summarizing provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, and I checked to see if they were still present in the article. I'd like to be able to call it up again, but I'm not sure I could easily find it. Summarizing legal provisions is the sort of thing I have enjoyed doing here, in respect to Italian Nationality Law. I think I first became aware of your presence at Wikipedia after you pointed out on the Wikiproject Italy talk page that the flag of Friuli-Venezia Giulia needed a replacement because it was deleted from Commons. I proceeded to upload it to English Wikipedia and then argue for its use as a free image. To form a free flag, I copied the crest from an "edict of government" and put it on a blue rectangle. That seems to have been accepted for the time being. Italick (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alan, it's good to see you back.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note. Might have to get myself listed at Wikipedia:Mental Wikipedians or Wikipedia:BDSM Wikipedians for even thinking about coming back! . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that you are still (indefinitely) topic banned: from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted.". Edits like [18][19][20][21][22] (all from your last 100 edits, and since your return) are not allowed under your restriction. Getting yourself blocked again so soon would be rather pointless. Fram (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

those five edits add wiki project tags, modify category sort keys, and ask about appropriate categories for an article. I do not think they constitute a flagrant breach of the ban. The extent of the ban should be clarified.-gadfium 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sort key issues was one of several reasons for the topic ban. The main issue (which is again shown here by his continuing to evade the ban) is that he has his own opinion about categorisation, and continues to refuse to listen to the community. After several AN and AN/I discussions, and repeated WP:IDHT, the topic ban was enacted.

And I agree, it would be a shame for Alan to be blocked again. - jc37 18:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to help Alan a little with these kinds of edits, so it does't trigger yet another ban. For what it's worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree that the first four of those are no problem for any sort of past issue. The last one [23] is a bit closer as it involves a directly edited cat sort. However Alan's change here is in line with how consensus for such sorts generally handles them, so again I don't see this as any flagrant breach. Making Alan change cat sorts the way other editors change cat sorts is surely the point of these restrictions? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• • No, a ban is not meant to be "you are allowed to do this as long as you do it correctly", the ban is meant to be "you are not allowed this at all, no matter if you do it right or wrong". The ban follows too many problems and discussions with earlier edits in the topic areas; this doesn't mean that all or even the majority of his edits wrt categories were problematic, but too many were. The ban is not "let him edit cats until he makes an error", the ban is "let's prevent him making any more errors", eliminating the correct cat-related edits at the same time. Fram (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flag of Brevard County, Florida.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Charities Commission logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Alan Liefting. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)