Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269

Request for review of closure at AN/I

I request a review of the closing of WP:ANI#Conduct_of_J_Doug_McLean.

The closing editor suggested a content RfC as a way to deal with "insults". I made no complaint of insults. t They said they had looked at "a number of diffs", and are clearly not fully aware of the context of this conduct, which has persisted over many months.

I wrote more details and attempted to discuss the matter with the closing editor at User_talk:Drmies#ANI_closure. They sent me straight here without comment and without answering any of my questions. Please will another admin review this? Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC); edited 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• In other news, I have stopped beating my wife. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have taken offence at my underlining. I wasn't trying to shout, merely to abide by WP:REDACT. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well spotted. I did not answer any of your questions because they were loaded, and I don't like answering those. My thanks to Robert McClenon, who clearly has more patience and better phrasing than I do. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I have tried to reword my questions in a way that doesn't presume a particular answer. I would appreciate answers from either of you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure in the absence of a stronger explanation by the original poster (OP) of why the closure was incorrect. What exactly anyway is the OP requesting? The issue has to do with postings to Talk: Lift (force), which have been lengthy and tedious. The OP did not request any specific administrative remedy, such as a block or a topic ban, that could have been imposed at WP:ANI. The OP and one other editor did propose a voluntary ban on postings by the subject author to the talk page, but a voluntary ban is just that, voluntary. The OP then did propose to implement the voluntary ban by consensus, but, in the absence of consent by the subject author, there can't be a voluntary ban. They didn't propose a formal topic ban. If a formal topic ban had been proposed, I would agree that it should have been discussed, rather than closing the thread. The closer stated that this appeared to be a content dispute, and proposed that a Request for Comments (RFC) (or RFCs) be used. Maybe the closer could have waited another day or two before closing the thread, but I think that the closure was not "premature" and was within the closer's judgment. The reference to insults seems to have been misunderstood, which was that an admin could be asked to keep an eye on the RFC, and hat any irrelevant comments, and hat any insults, possibly blocking the insulter. It wasn't clear that the OP was asking for any feasible administrative remedy, and it isn't clear that the OP is asking for a specific feasible administrative remedy now. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a sensible response. I appreciate the difficulty of closing a request for a voluntary ban without explicit consent from the editor concerned. Personally I would have left it open and resumed discussion if the subject continued editing without accounting for his conduct. Another editor wanted "closure" which was, quite reasonably, interpreted as a request to close the discussion. I would have preferred acceptance by the subject, but he didn't respond.

The problem I have with the close as it stands is the message it sends that "none of them cross any kind of civility boundary". Is misrepresenting the opinions of other editors really allowed? Is it ok to persist for months on end repeating the same argument, and dismissing out of hand any rebuttals, often by usingmake strawman arguments? Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC); edited 20:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this problem for months, and when I finally asked for help from the administrators, not one of them joined the discussion. Eventually one came along to close it, saying there was no problem. I questioned the grounds for that closure and the only response I've had from that admin is that they don't like the way I've worded my questions. There has been no substantive response to the factual questions I have asked regarding how this decision was made. I have not been to these admin noticeboards before this incident, because I've never needed to. I came here to ask for help from the community and at the moment I don't feel I'm getting very much at all. A hostile environment is bad for editor retention. Please will you give me some assistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burninthruthesky (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster explicitly requested closure: "I agree it would be better for all concerned to have closure on this." So an admin took his request at his word and provided closure. It isn't the admin's fault that he believed that the original poster wanted closure. Maybe the original poster actually wanted closure in a way that would have been deeply unfair, imposing a so-called voluntary topic ban that wasn't voluntary, and without community discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Looking again at WP:CLOSE, I see it does use the term "closure". Personally I think closure would have been better achieved if the subject had responded, but WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Even some input from someone not involved in the discussion would have been helpful. To clarify, I'm not saying the decision to close the discussion was wrong. My problem is that the closing comments were made without consideration of important context. Just to take one example: unless I am mistaken, the comment I mentioned on 31 January misrepresented my views and the views of another editor. If I did make the assertion I am claimed to have made, I ask for a diff of where I made it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster is contradicting himself as to what he was asking for. He says that he finally asked for help from the administrators. He also says that he came here to ask for help from the community. Which? Was he asking for administrator assistance using administrator tools, or was he asking for advice from experienced editors? WP:ANI is the place to ask for administrator assistance, such as a block or a topic-ban. He didn't get an administrator reply until he asked for closure, probably because he didn't make a case that a block or a formal topic-ban was warranted. If he had wanted advice from experienced editors, which would have been reasonable to ask, he could have gone to the WP:Help Desk. I know that, at the Help Desk, I would have advised the use of a dispute resolution procedure, such as a Request for Comments. He got that advice in addition to closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that I'm contradicting myself seems a little disingenuous. WP:ADMINS "should be a part of the community like other editors." WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE provides ANI as the only venue for discussing user conduct issues and suggests reported users "may be warned by an administrator". I asked for "any steps necessary to protect the community" because my message is supposed to be neutral and I wanted the evidence to speak for itself. I felt I was prohibited from discussing the matter with other users or on the helpdesk because of WP:ASPERSIONS. In the ANI discussion, I presented a short summary of the evidence. I brought more evidence as the discussion progressed, but it dried up. No administrator attempted to discuss the matter with me or seek clarification. The discussion of evidence with administrators didn't start until after the discussion had closed. This seems the wrong way round. The advice that I seek dispute resolution instead of going to AN/I appears to contradict the cited policy, which says conduct issues should be brought to AN/I. I understand the procedures for dealing with content specifically exclude discussion of conduct. For example, WP:DRN says, "Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only." WP:FOC recommends not bringing up conduct during content disputes. I patiently waited until the main content dispute was settled before bringing up conduct (which by that point spanned several users and content issues). Then I'm told it looks like a content dispute. Is this maze of contradictory instructions Wikipedia's way of saying we don't care about user conduct? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster says that a hostile environment is bad for editor retention. That is true in the abstract but irrelevant. WP:ANI is typically a hostile place, because it is where administrative actions, such as blocks and topic-bans, which by their nature are controversial, are discussed. As one other editor noted, at Talk: Lift (force), there is one editor who is verbose and pedantic, the subject, and another editor who is sometimes uncivil, the original poster, so that the original poster shouldn't be complaining about hostility. The OP made a controversial request, a topic-ban under the disguise of a voluntary ban, then requested quick closure, and got quick closure, and now is unhappy. You don't always get what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment "another editor who is sometimes uncivil, the original poster" misrepresents what was said. That editor did not name the person he felt was uncivil and didn't take up my invitation to clarify. Please strike that.

I did not request "a topic ban under under the disguise of a voluntary ban, then requested quick closure, and got quick closure". The suggestion of a voluntary ban and desire for "closure" were both made by Steelpillow and I agreed. As I said, I haven't been to these boards before and I'm not entirely familiar with the available processes. The only reason I didn't ask for a formal topic ban was because I wasn't sure it would be appropriate (or necessary) in the absence of any activity by the subject.

When I mentioned a hostile environment, I was actually referring to the original discussion which I escalated, and for which don't feel I've received much support from the community. Frankly I'm not finding this discussion much better. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC); edited 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Doug McLean has demonstrably cooled down. Even the interminable content dispute was resolved amicably in the end. While I deeply sympathise with the struggles that Burninthruthesky has suffered and at one time things did need damping down, that has now happened. Several community members (myself included) with enough knowledge of both the subject and dealing with disputes eventually took a hand in that. I doubt that J Doug McLean had been relishing the heat and duration either. He is a good deal more gentlemanly than many a contentious editor. This is a cold case now and I no longer think that any kind of admin action would achieve a useful purpose. So no, I do not wish to support re-opening a discussion that has been overtaken by events. I am content with the decision to move on and would thank the closing editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree there's little benefit in reopening the discussion. That's why I didn't push for a compulsory ban. My only concern is that an official finding, that the conduct we experienced was acceptable, might be taken as licence to continue with similar tactics in future. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The conduct evidenced was judged not to be an ANI issue, which is a slightly different thing from being acceptable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Trust me, I sympathize with the problem, but ANI is not the way out of that--and it was not clear to me what was being asked for in the first place. "J Doug McLean should use fewer words" isn't really an adminny thing to say; as far as I could tell, this was still in a stage that editors could handle on the talk page, and I tried to indicate ways in which they could proceed. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that there's no point in discussing any further the past conduct of a user who clearly got the message and is currently absent. I sincerely hope he will decide to return. Please close this discussion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I also made some general comments on relevant policy which are now archived here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no agreement between myself and involved admins, I would like to request closure by an uninvolved admin. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure of BLPN discussion: Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her?

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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at this BLPN discussion regarding whether or not to include the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her on her wiki page. It would really help to have a decision on this (if there is indeed a consensus among the discussion participants) because the Emma Sulkowicz page has been protected as a result of edit warring to add this name, but the page protection ends tomorrow. Having a decision one way or the other might help avoid edit warring and the page being locked down again.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Indef-block appeal for Ratel

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.

---

• Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Old account
• Jabba the Hot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Recent account

• UTRS appeal #13154

A similar situation was discussed very recently on this very board (see here), and the user makes a reasonable case, so I am happy to submit it for community review. Ratel was blocked in 2010 for using socks to influence a !vote/discussion. They have had some socking issues for some time following that. Late in 2012, they started editing with Jabba the Hot, and edited using that account until a few days ago, when it was "discovered" they were Ratel's "clean-start". The new account's editing does not appear to have been problematic in and of itself. While a "sneaky clean start" is generally not acceptable procedure, we have what appears to be a former problem user who managed to come back and edit constructively for years, before being found out and blocked for old offenses. I think it would be reasonable to unblock Ratel (or their new account, Jabba the Hot) with a condition that they only ever stick to a single account (like they've been doing since 2012), and see how things go. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the text of their appeal, for those without UTRS access

I was initially blocked in May 2010 with reason "Abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). Basically, I voted twice not to delete the article on "Climate change denial", using the two accounts I had at the time. The vote was not even close, carried easily, so I had no logical reason for doing it. As I explained at the time, I was high as a kite on opioid pain meds (after a renal stent procedure), so that's the only reason I can think of for doing something so out of character, which was also unnecessary and pointless (as I said, the vote was not even close). But I am a good editor (other than the one mistake) and a lifelong block seems extremely harsh. Yes, I did have multiple accounts, but I had them because a couple of editors started following me from article to article, reverting my edits for sport. I never used the accounts specifically to create false consensus, ever (other than the one time). Despite being blocked, I continued to edit constructively under another account, "Jabba the Hot", but now that has been blocked too based on the fact that I am editing some of the same articles as Ratel. Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. One mistake 5 years ago. I also have had "sockpuppets" (other accounts I created to edit specific articles). Why sockpuppets? Unfortunately, there are a few users at WP who /do/ wikistalk, and I created these other accounts to avoid them pursuing me around the project. I'm not sure how else to handle this problem. My complaints about wikistalking to an admin at the time were ignored, so I created more accounts to avoid the stalker. I now think the only way to avoid a wikistalker is to assiduously avoid disagreements with other editors, which is very difficult. I'm open to suggestions on this. Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Yes. My edits are not negative to the project. I've created many articles and improved many others. I helped develop a Firefox add-on called Cite4Wiki (since taken over by Scott McCandlish). In future, I'll strenuously attempt not to get into disputes with other editors (thus minimizing the creation of wikistalkers), I'll never use multiple accounts to feign consensus, and I'll be on my best behavior. If there are any other undertakings the Project requires of me, I'll give Account links: User Page User Talk Page Block Log Find block Contribs Unblock Request timestamp: 2015-02-11 02:48:57 Status: ON_HOLD Blocking Admin: jpgordon User talk Page Email User Reserved by: Salvidrim User Page User talk Page Email User Why do you believe you should be unblocked? I was initially blocked in May 2010 with reason "Abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). Basically, I voted twice not to delete the article on "Climate change denial", using the two accounts I had at the time. The vote was not even close, carried easily, so I had no logical reason for doing it. As I explained at the time, I was high as a kite on opioid pain meds (after a renal stent procedure), so that's the only reason I can think of for doing something so out of character, which was also unnecessary and pointless (as I said, the vote was not even close). But I am a good editor (other than the one mistake) and a lifelong block seems extremely harsh. Yes, I did have multiple accounts, but I had them because a couple of editors started following me from article to article, reverting my edits for sport. I never used the accounts specifically to create false consensus, ever (other than the one time). Despite being blocked, I continued to edit constructively under another account, "Jabba the Hot", but now that has been blocked too based on the fact that I am editing some of the same articles as Ratel. If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? (this section was originally missing from this thread due to Salvidrim's error, added 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)) Various articles on euthanasia, some articles on Australian plants, a few edits to articles on metals. I generally do not have problems with other editors. I'll keep away from the following articles: Aspartame (and associated articles), all climate change articles (too much drama), the Matt Drudge article (bunfight with user Collect), and the David Copperfield article (his lawyers monitor every word). — Ratel, UTRS appeal #13154

• Support unblock with one-account condition - I hesitate to say "as proposer" since the UTRS appeal comes from the user themselves, but I do support unblocking this user for reasons laid out in my opening text. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If he's been editing constructively for a couple of years now, it's probably time to give him another shot. We've given second (and third, and fourth, and nth) chances to people who have done far worse. Hell, we have people who have been caught in far more abusive forms of sockpuppetry and were never even indefinitely blocked. Personally I like the username "Jabba the Hot" better than "Ratel", but as long as he uses one account I guess it doesn't matter. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think it is constructive to evade several times blocks due sockpuppetry and breach your own word promising you won't ever use sockpuppets to evade blocks or whatever? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• He mentions other accounts. Normally when considering this type of request a full, voluntary listing of all sock accounts is a prerequisite. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked if they would please provide said information, but from the SPIs, this list seems comprehensive enough. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox: Their reply seems consistent with the list of tagged accounts: "Hi Salvidrim That I can remember ... Unit 5 AllYrBaseRbelongUs Medic58 TickleMeister OzOke Hill-Mitchelson RxWatch Jabbsworth Jabba the Hot I did not keep track of the accounts, so that list is the best I can come up with. Thanks! Gerry (Ratel)". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Agreed. Looks to be editing constructively. Why not? The problematic behavior is very stale. Let's let bygones be bygones. HiDrNick! 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ratel was blocked due sockpuppetry, then appealed and promised not to ever use sockpuppets again, then he came and used sockpuppets so he was blocked again. Now he use again a new sockjpuppet to evade his block due sockpuppetry and is caught and blocked again, so now comes to appeal again, and you think the behavior is stale? am I missing something?--ClaudioSantos¿? 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite. The last instance of objectionable sockpuppetry that has been documented was in February 2011. That was four years ago. But since you've commented several times on the SPI page, you must already know that. 18 months later, the user creates a new account, and uses it to do some constructive editing without incident. Don't you think it's best to just let this one go? HiDrNick! 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will paste here part of a comment I did to another user since I think it is also a good answer for your comment:

Let me summarize here what the last admin discovered and stated on 2012: Ratel but using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth plead to ARBCOM to be unblocked promising he will never use sockpuppets and openly mentioned to ARBCOM three sockpuppets (RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson) he was using. On 2012 admin User:Elen of the Roads noticed that Jabssworth never mentioned but hid to ARBCOM that he was also Ratel, and he never mentioned but also hid that he was Ticklemeister. User:Elen of the Roads also discovered and noticed that he was also using another sockpuppet (Medic58), that he also kept hid during his last and all the previous SPI and also hid it to ARBCOM. So he was clearly breaching his promises to ARBCOM, deceiving them and the users, plus dishonoring his own words. That was the kind of disruptive behaviour that was sanctioned by User:Elen of the Roads by re-establishing the block that ARBCOM had forgiven to Jabssworth. Now since 2013 up to now, Ratel using JabbaTheHot evaded that last block, breaks his promises, he is caught and blocked again some days ago and you say that is a clean start, that he is not being distruptive and therefore he deserves to be unblocked again? I don't find constructive to deceive users, solely the constant evation of blocks and hidding sockpuppets is reprehensible butplease note the very first reason I suspected Jabba the Hot being a sockpuppet of Ratel was: exactly as Ratel and his sockpuppets did: he was making nasty comments on my alleged grammar and suggesting to admins that I should be not allowed to edit on english wikipedia; a disruptive conduct for which he was in the past sanctioned, a kind of personal attacks he also used against other users. So I just see a repetition of promises to game the system. --ClaudioSantos¿? 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Relentless and persistent violator of WP:BLP using multiple socks for the purpose. User:Collect/BLP shows some of his positions about BLPs and I hesitate to think about what would happen should he be loosed on them. He has used on the order of a dozen socks including but not limited to:

Unit 5, TickleMeister, AllYrBaseRbelongUs, Rxwatch, OzOke, Hill-Mitchelson, Medic58, Jabbsworth, Jabba the Hot, and likely a few more, and not counting IP addresses. .

Each was disruptive, with the latest one being less than a month ago.

Such quotes as So he's allowed to have a family and we are not allowed to add that fact to the encyclopedia because he would prefer people not to know about it? Is that your position?, UNDUE applies mainly to viewpoints, not facts. If a verifiable and sourced statement is given undue weight, it can be shortened, not excluded. And since most of the negative details about X have already been excluded (on specious grounds, like questioning the reliability of TMZ) or pared back to a sentence or two, I don't see how you could go further without actually censoring wikipedia., My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Y, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion. and on and on are sufficient to keep this perennial WP:BLP violator off still. Collect (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, please provide diffs, and note whether they are years old or recent. I have (admittedly briefly) reviewed Jabba the Hot's recent contributions and found no immediatly apparent issues, but I may very well have missed something. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• If there are BLP concerns, please present the relevant diffs, since such concerns (if substantiated) would change my opinion. (As an aside, User:Collect/BLP is a very odd page, and clearly violates WP:UP#POLEMIC). MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• He has had and abused a significant number of accounts as recently as January, and I see no reason for a person series of statement contrary to WP:BLP to be let into the project. Meanwhile I had several admins examine the BLP page and state that it was absolutely proper. That MastCell finds otherwise seems interesting. Diffs? Try [1] for one of his typical edits on a BLP. [2] another. Several hundred, but I rather thought his comments on how he views BLP are fairly clear. Collect (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• All of these diffs date from 2010 and the "recent socking" is the undeclared clean-start since 2012, which Ratel has all admitted openly. Do you have evidence of recent BLP violations or of other socking after Sept. 2012? Or is the entirety of your point that the editor should remain blocked for his 2010 behaviour (which would be a perfectly valid reasoning, mind you)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive139 Gwen Gale? She was blocked many, many times before herself, and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. You'll note that she quickly unblocked me too, and I have never contravened BLP again. And this Herman Cain edit hardly violates BLP, from my reading, especially if shortened. Jabbsworth 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Jabbsworth wrote an article for the Wiki "sourcewatch" -- then used his own article as a source I wonder, does this comment fall under "off-wiki harrassment" or OUTING? I merely noted that Matt Drudge page at SourceWatch is a repository for the data for future editors to use. Your obsessive need to attack me over this shows that your personal animus towards me far exceeds your interest in this material for the encyclopedia. Jabbsworth 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC) .

The page which he wrote at sourcewatch (which he quoted exactly, making it easy to find for sure) is [3] where you see the sort of writing done there: (deleted example) which, I suggest is not BLP compliant by a mile. That article is now noted as having been written by "Scribe". If you are really set on reinstating this person who disagrees with WP:BLP I suggest you topic ban him from all BLP articles. Else I am farily sure that he will use his old style :( Collect (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the additional information. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The two actual diffs provided by Collect ([4], [5]) do not show WP:BLP violations. They describe a well-documented allegation against a public figure. WP:WELLKNOWN states: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. These edits by Ratel meet those criteria and are compliant with BLP. I'm open to reviewing additional diffs, but if these are exemplary of Collect's concerns then I don't think they're substantive.
  Collect also links to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive139, by which I think he has in mind this thread. I don't see anything in that thread to suggest that Ratel was violating WP:BLP in any way, so I'm a bit mystified by its inclusion as evidence here.
  As for SourceWatch, I cannot verify that the material in question was written by Ratel (and with Collect, I've come to believe it's important to trust-but-verify). Assuming that Ratel did in fact contribute to the SourceWatch article, I'm not sure of the relevance to Wikipedia—because Collect has, again, provided no relevant diffs. At the risk of sounding annoyed, could you please provide diffs when you quote someone? That's a very basic expectation here, and when Collect presents SourceWatch diffs as evidence of violating a Wikipedia policy then I start to worry that we're victims of a bait-and-switch. Collect, which specific edits to Drudge's Wikipedia biography are of concern? MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I had originally failed to include a very important paragraph of their UTRS appeal, in which the user agrees to "keep away from the following articles: Aspartame (and associated articles), all climate change articles (too much drama), the Matt Drudge article (bunfight with user Collect), and the David Copperfield article (his lawyers monitor every word)." (emphasis mine). This should be sufficient to assuage almost the entirety of Collect's concerns. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock - A good contributor who went astray nearly five years ago, but who has since improved the encyclopedia, deserves a second chance.- MrX 20:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support on the condition that the user starts fresh. All of the old accounts should be VANISHed and the new username should not reflect any of the previously used names and should not obviously follow any of the same editing patterns. If questioned (such as if an SPI is opened), the user should email a trusted admin to deal with proper closing of the case. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Why? I think the current public disclosure of far preferable, for the sake of transparency. I was using the term "clean start" for its usual meaning, not in direct reference to the strict wiki-procedure known as WP:CLEANSTART. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Salvidrim!. I don't think we would want to lose the history here.- MrX 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found that people begrudge people way too long on here and a completely fresh start would be best for this user. Otherwise I fear that the user will just end up being driven off by repeated bad faith accusations and all of this will have been for not. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Meh, it doesn't seem necessary (nor desired by the user) in this case. I personally tend to favor transparency in all things and this user has seen their fair share of adversity already, and they're still around, so I wouldn't worry too much. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock For all of the reasons stated above in support, none of which have been overruled throughout the discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock Within the sake of bureaucracy, I bet you this happens a lot and we just never find out about it. A person gets indefinitely blocked for something they rather shouldn't have done, or something they feel is an injustice. They may wait for a bit, try to take advantage of the standard WP:OFFER and when that gets declined, just lose all hope. Then they create a new account and they are never connected. The English Wikipedia is certainly the largest project in the entire world where people just edit these nifty little things called 'articles' and it gets viewed by all of those near billion people. Plus, whether unblocked or indefinitely banned, you're still using Wikipedia afterwards. Their earliest conduct is very much troubling to the point where if that was happening just today, I would be supporting an all out long term block. 4/5 years is enough time to have genuine sympathy and be contrite about what they've done. Tutelary (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock for the Jabba the Hot account, for reasons stated above. Editor must use only one account, and no alarms or surprises if they are blocked for old repeated behavior. Keegan (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock as above; being naughty four years ago doesn't warrant still sitting in the Naughty Chair ~ far better to bring a potentially/actually good editor back into the fold. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock To my opinion the SPI and block were already handed out based on flimsy evidence provided by a user with a content-conflict with Ratel/Jabba the Hot. His edits were, to my opinion, neutral. So I support an unblock. The Banner talk 14:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually Ratel made no secret about it really - and the "flimsy evidence" which was provided by User:ClaudioSantos is clear, especially since Jabba sock made precisely similar edits as his Master Ratel. The prior case had evidence from User:The Four Deuces. I provided the material about Jabbsworth, who made BLP-violating edits on the Matt Drudge article. Did Ratel behave well when allowed to reappear? The SPI archive shows him saying "I'd venture that it's Collect, the right wing party apparatchik (or so it seems to me), who spends all his time reverting RS-sourced material from the bios of his like-minded brethren, who is, in fact, the truly unhealthy presence on WP - that he he showed absolutely no remorse for his personal attacks on me and other editors, and no remorse for trying to violate WP:BLP even if he did think a "clean start" allowed one to violate policies.

[6] Firstly, my original block was for socks and voting twice on a AfD on a snow-keep page. why would I bother to vote 2x on a snow keep? Reason: I was high on Oxy after a back op, using different browsers and accounts to dodge the f**king hounders and stalkers (bane of WP), and made an honest mistake. I told the blocking admin at the time but he wouldn't listen. Since unblocking, I've been involved in contentious articles like euthanasia, but if you study my edits, you'll find that they are all cited and none are disruptive. In fact, I recently made a large series of edits to Euthanasia to remove non-standard citations and some undue weight. The other editors watching that page, and there are a lot, let those edits stand. That alone says I am improving the project. As for BLP, I really urge, URGE, you to study the material that I was asking to include. When a topic is covered in at least four published (not self-published) books, numerous news and magazine articles, it deserves at least some mention in a bio. To exclude it completely is to damage wikipedia, and that's exactly what the excluding editor has done and continues to do. Think!  Jabbsworth  22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Still not showing any understanding of BLP policy.

[7] has him pointing out the Sourcewatch article he wrote as a reliable source to be used. People have been project banned in the past, IIRC, just for deliberately using their own article to back what they want a Wikipedia BLP t state as facts. [8] The diff for the BLP is [9]. So unless he is really really going to actually reform, I suggest he not be allowed near any BLPs whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Once again, all of your diffs date from 2011, and don't present any argument (that I can see) that would indicate continued recent disruption. The strength of the SPI evidence is also irrelevant since the user freely admitted to everything he was accused of all these years ago. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner: Let me recall you were the first who thought JabbaTheHot was a sockpuppet and that was the last year, some weeks ago you also took part on the SPI opened and explicty mentioned you also had that bad feeling about JabbaTheHot, now note the "flimsy evidence" was not also endoresed by the admins who finally blocked JabbaTheHot, but note it is a superfluous argument since JabbaTheHot is explicty now admitting he is indeed Ratel. Also let me recall the reason for his block was not mainly based on doing non-neutral editions or personal attacks (ythat nevertheless he did and still does, like suggesting editors should be not allowed to edit due their alleged grammar (attacks also addressed to you in the past)); but the major reason to block Ratel was due deceiving the community by using sockpuppets and hiding them, and then breaching two times his own promises and dishonoring his word that he was not going to use sockpuppets. And now he is for more than third time coming with the same promise of not engage in sockpuppetry for which he was blocked but he is coming preciselly after evading again that block using a sockpuppet. --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock for the reasons given above - no evidence of ongoing disruption, just an editor who genuinely seems to want to help. Squinge (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Evading a block for various years is evidence of disruption and acting in bad faith, doesn't it? -- --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In theory only. In practice, he seems to have been able to shed his "dark past" of problematic editing and come back as a productive editor despite the block. Everybody (including Ratel) agrees that this "sneaky clean start" was not ideal, and that it meets the definition of "block evasion" (if not its spirit, since it wasn't for continued disruption); but it still demonstrated Ratel's ability to edit constructively and willingness to be reformed. That he came clean once confronted and explained himself transparently is, in my eyes, a sign a good faith. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In practice he was the last time blocked since he promised a clean start and never use sockpuppets again, and he was blocked the last time on 2012 because that was false: he was caught evading a block due sockpuppetry. now he uses a new sockjpuppet to evade that block and you say he is not being problematic? He is preciselly using sockpuppetry to evade a block due sockpuppetry, and this happened before two times more. That is repetition of the same behavioir or am I missing something? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock: I don´t understand why it is considered Ratel is deserving to be unblocked and not clearly still gaming the system and trying to evade his block. What he thinks about wikipedia is clesrly published here on SourceWatch. He has been caught again and again evading always his blocks by using multiple sockpuppets, the last recently detected and blocked, a sockpuppet he was using for various years ago evading his last block. So what is exactly the evidence he is not willing to act in bad faith? -- --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That he has been editing productively for over two years despite meeting the technical definition of "block evasion" (but without the "continued disruption" aspect) and that he came clean once confronted and explained himself transparently: this constitutes a significant display of "good faith", IMO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The last time in 2012 he was blocked preciselly because of evading a block, and that was the second or third time. One main part of the disruption component is rpeciselly the use of sockpuppets to evade blocks, feign being another and deceive users, that is disruptive. He aleady used the ARBCOM to appeal a blocking for sockpuppetry and he promised to never use sockpuppets again and the last time was preciselly blocked since he broke his promises. He is now again evading the block and not honoring his own words but using again a new sockpuppet, so is not that disruptive for you? what kind of cleaning start to honor the noit use of sockpuppets is using a sockpuppet to evade a block? --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me summarize here what the last admin discovered and stated on 2012: Ratel but using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth plead to ARBCOM to be unblocked promising he will never use sockpuppets and openly mentioned to ARBCOM three sockpuppets (RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson) he was using. On 2012 admin User:Elen of the Roads noticed that Jabssworth never mentioned but hid to ARBCOM that he was also Ratel, and he never mentioned but also hid that he was Ticklemeister. User:Elen of the Roads also discovered and noticed that he was also using another sockpuppet (Medic58), that he also kept hid during his last and all the previous SPI and also hid it to ARBCOM. So he was clearly breaching his promises to ARBCOM, deceiving them and the users, plus dishonoring his own words. That was the kind of disruptive behaviour that was sanctioned by User:Elen of the Roads by re-establishing the block that ARBCOM had forgiven to Jabssworth. Now since 2013 up to now, Ratel using JabbaTheHot evaded that last block, breaks his promises, he is caught and blocked again some days ago and you say that is a clean start, that he is not being distruptive and therefore he deserves to be unblocked again? --ClaudioSantos¿? 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that since 2012 Ratel has been editing without problem. Our purpose here is to develop an encyclopedia, not to blindly enforce rules, and Ratel has been helping do that constructively for more than 2 years now. Squinge (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I'm saying that since he "came back" as Jabba the Hot, he has been editing constructively and has admitted openly his past misdeeds, which is a significant display of good faith, and justifies giving him another chance, instead of keeping him blocked for offenses committed years ago (2012, as you said). We should not forget, nor necessarily forgive, but neither should we allow past misbehaviour to get in the way of currently constructive editing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He did not come in a constructive way: he came on 2013 by using the very same distruptive means he was blocked for: sockpuppetry, thus faigning to be a different person, deceiving the editors and breaching his repeated promises of not use sockpuppetry. And please note the very first reason I suspected Jabba the Hot being a sockpuppet of Ratel was: exactly as Ratel did he was making nasty comments on my alleged grammar and suggesting I should be not allowed to edit on english wikipedia, a disruptive conduct for which he was in the past sanctioned, a kind of comments he also used against other users. So plus the major reason for which he was blocked (bad faith sockpuppetry)was repeated and sanctioned few days ago, he also is falling on the kind of disruptive personal attacks that were also sanctioned in the past, so do the bill.--ClaudioSantos¿? 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your accusation that Ratel (as Jabba the Hot) violated WP:NPA and insulted you for the lacking quality of your English. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They were all provided in the recent SPI some weeks ago as well as the similar PA's made using his previous sockpuppets. Take some here and don't hesitate to take the time to review the SPI: [10] and [11]. --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The last time when he was called Jabbsworth he liked to just answer me saying my comment and editions are "barely comprehensible" and tackling the thing in such a way. and he was explicty discouraged of such comments since not only me but other users found that insulting. But shall I insist: he broke his word more than two times, he hid sockpuppets and was blocked due that, he plead to ARBCOM and was unblocked, then he was blocked again not only due sockpuppetry again but due he deceived the good faith of ARBCOM and used again sockpuppets plus he was caught liying to ARBCOM since he hid some sockpuppets on his plead and also on the SPI. Now he did exactly the same again and came with a new sockpuppet (breaking again his promises and evading the block) and he is appealing again after he is caught in a SPI. That is not clean start, that is recidivism --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think the way you are operating here is showing good faith and supportive to the encyclopaedia? The Banner talk 21:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If you don't think so then provide your arguments. But if it was just a rethoric question then you can ask it to yourself. --ClaudioSantos¿? 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic

— The Banner, I'm fairly certain I said this clearly once in ANI, and I'll look it up if you really like me to: stop talking about CS, anywhere, to anyone, for any reason. You are not "CS-Patrol". You do not need to warn other editors., User:Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC) [12] In fact, I have the idea that you are trying to settle a content conflict by abusing a sockpuppet investigation. Talk:Philip_Nitschke#Discourage_the_sockpuppet is evidence that you try to do that and this is evidence how you do that. And to be blunt: you are the one that should be blocked with as reason not adhering to NPOV and disruptive editing. The Banner talk 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) In every article it could be done I restored the versions as they were previous the irruption of the sockpuppet without taking out the contributions of other editors. Versions that were not challenged by no body else and that were not considered POV. Undoing actions by a blocked sockpuppet is allowed and a good mean to discourage sockpuppetry. If you have a complaint on that, go ahead and do the accusation on the proper place. Droping here that you think I deserve to be blocked based on that, it is not only a bad faith assumption (PA) but an attempt to divert the attention out of the topic discussed. My actions reverting sockpuppet JabbaTheHot are in accord to my expressed thoughts in this matter, that I am defending with arguments here, not with accusations on other editors. ---ClaudioSantos¿? 22:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC) You have a rather long history of battles with Ratel, mainly POV-issues at euthanasia-related subject. Now you got Yabba blocked and are removing edits/part of edits that violate NPOV. It was you who was accusing me of meatpuppetry when I reverted your POV edits. Why would the community believe that you are sincere in your treatment of Ratel? The Banner talk 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Because my arguments are based on facts that can be reviewed not on my sentiments or your itchy feeling about JabbaTheHot being a sockpuppet as you firstly reported him to User:Bilby. You were also engaged in nasty confrontation with Ratel, and you yourself was insulted by him. And the last time he felt free to be even more rude because his long record of block attached was clean due he was using a new sockpuppet. Perhpas that something you should consider about "sincerity", etc. But meanwhile you were discouraged on wikihound me several times, so whathever you think or feel about my own sincerity is not a matter here but a bad faith PA, so I will ignore your off-topic comments. I have been sincere: I think Ratel should not be unblocked. The reasons are above.--ClaudioSantos¿? 03:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "Reporting" is a big word. I was asking somebodies opinion. And you make it now loud and clear that you are willing to start over you battleground behaviour that you showed in and prior to 2011 what gave you quite a few blocks. Plain to your own behaviour I have no confidence in you that you will not try to provoke or hunt down Ratel/Jabba to get him blocked again as a blocked Ratel/Jabba will suit your own agenda. The Banner talk 09:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Stop making portrayals on what you think is my agenda or my behaviour or what you think I will do. Stop trying to bring your portrayal on what you think is my past. Those are Personal Attacks. You were already blocked in the past for such behavior and explicity asked to do not engage in that useless kind of comments. -- --ClaudioSantos¿? 11:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a lot of eyes. If a user engaged in block evasion in order to improve or maintain the encyclopedia then that is okay with me. I say we unblock and all add their talk page to our watchlists. One account only. Chillum 01:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reply from Ratel - "Collect insists that I am a serial BLP violator and that I not be allowed to edit BLPs, but if you look very closely at his accusation, it does not hold water. He objected vehemently to a section I added to Matt Drudge. You can see that section currently at SourceWatch.org, where it has now resided for several years. When this was taken to BLPN, nobody said it is a BLP vio except Collect. The two non-involved editors who commented said that the edit was too extensive but that: "perhaps a brief (one-sentence?) treatment would be appropriate" and "I would suggest that a careful, well-sourced sentence might be appropriate." So that's all Collect has against me, that I attempted to insert an overly-detailed edit: no BLP vio at all. Here's the BLPN discussion to confirm.

About ClaudioSantos: it amazes me that this editor continues to be allowed to edit the project! He is extremely combative and POV, edits very poorly (grammar and spelling errors in every sentence), can be hard to understand, and has one agenda: to label everything connected to euthanasia as "murder". He has tried to insert the word "murder" on pages dealing with euthanasia numerous times, example as well as frank vandalism, example. He is now desperate to stop me returning to the project because he knows I will not allow him to deface articles on euthanasia." User:Ratel/User:Jabba the Hot 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I will personally note that I, at the very least, agree that Claudio Santos sometimes demonstrates an inequal grasp of English, and that it does not help clear communications, although I do not feel that it rises to a level where it is a problem in and of itself. Ratel also said: "But I am happy to undertake not to edit Matt Drudge, David Copperfield, and any other BLP the sysops at WP deem unsuitable.", which is a voluntary TBAN from two BLPs, coupled with a probation that he can be TBANed from additional BLPs, should future issues arise. This seems like a strong commitment and only serves to further convince me Ratel wants to come back to do good work, and not to perpetuate the issues that happened years ago. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to remain serious in spite of I was able to laugh when I found that the two provided "evidences" of my alleged vandalism were: calling murder the NAZI so called euthanasia program (Aktion T4), and that I was playing for two seconds reinserting the "monkey" that an anonymous vandal had put in the so called "voluntary euthanasia" article and immediately reverting myself, so I euthanazied the poor "monkey" out. Perhaps you can also find that hilarious while not the NAZI mass murder of patients. Me neither. But let me focus: what should call our attention is Ratel once said that he even supports some of the grounds of the NAZI so called euthanasia program. I think he evidently has an agenda on supporting euthanasia and specifically the pro euthanasia Australian organization "Exit Now" and his founder Philip Nitzchke. Proof: in SourceWatch he claimed wikipedia was coopted by "pro-life nuts" (sic!). Proof: BLP issues raised due Ratel campaign against an scholar historian on euthanasia. Other proof: JabbaTheHot and Phillip Nitzchke vs. Nigel Bradley. Now, provided he has evaded his blocks preciselly to edit those euthanasia articles and that was always the case in the past, then should not at least be him banned out of those euthanasia related topics?, I suggested during the SPI on 2012 that "final solution". I mean a minimal action to tackle the thing and provide a minimal protection to those users affected by Ratel: bann him of those topics he used to edit and led to disruption, so also out of articles related to euthanasia. So,a minimal mean to avoid him finding people like me around, people with an alleged poor grammar, people "barely comprehensible" that he wants to "involuntary" euthanize, such I did with the mentioned monkey, up to take me away from the english wikipedia. Meanwhile, don't worry Salvidrim, I am able to grasp your equal english, and in spite of your claim about my english, I can certify you were completely able to grasp my comments, you got my point and you transmited it to Ratel up to the point you came back here with his "gentle" response. Nevertheless, I also has to certify that you are still not giving me a response nor convincing me either on how could be a "strong commitment to do not perpetuate the issues that happened years ago" if Ratel recently used sockpuppetry again to evade a block that was put on 2012 preciselly due sockpuppetry and due he breached a previous compromise by which he was unblocked? I mean, is it clear that Ratel was already unblocked once by ARBCOM since he promised not to use sockpuppets and he already once broke that compromise, hid some sockpuppets to ARBCOM and decieved the community by using a sockpuppet and that was the main reason of his last block? And is it clear that he recently evaded that last block again using a sockpuppet? Why is not recidivism in the disruptive behavior for which he was blocked? Said that, let me finalize mentioning that I don't see any good will from Ratle to come and do not repeat attacks against me and other people. That was also part of his disruptive behaviour against those he considered "paid guys" or "pro life nuts", thus the people that since being allowed to edit wikipedia is a cause of astonishment, which means it "amazes" him due these "nuts" are still able to edit wikipedia ... while he is not. Salvidrim, I hope I am spelling it in a worthy english that your computer are able to understand. By the way I remember one of my students being sanctioned on the grounds of xenophobia, due she was calling other professor a "french guy who does not know how to speak english and should return to France to teach the children". Well at least I do like learning to learn with children: they enjoy and really handle to learn math, software programming and philosophy as they do with any other language. --ClaudioSantos¿? 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock on condition of never returning to old subjects and old behaviors. A clean start is good, so keep it that way. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I still would suggest he be barred from all BLPs as he "worked" on a substantial number of such including wrestlers, and celebrities in general, adding violations of WP:BLP thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ratel has agreed to a TBAN from previously problematic BLPs, and a probation that allows uninvolved admins to TBAN him from any future BLP around which issues arise. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Does it include Philip Nitschke, Ian Dowbiggin? Does it include topics like Aspartame and euthanasia? --ClaudioSantos¿? 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, he has also agreed to a voluntary TBAN from Aspartame, and explained previously. I'll ask about the specific other topics you mention. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Thank you. --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock on condition of never returning to old subjects and old behaviors. I hope people keep an eye on contributions to be sure there is no return to calling editors he/she disagrees with shills and such. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by ClaudioSantos

I'm writing a note in a separate subsection because it is not directly relevant to the block appeal, but it IS relevant to the discussion: ClaudioSantos first notified Elen of the Roads with a non-neutral summary (repeating the AN post that mentioned her), but that isn't too bad, taken by itself. It was perfectly appropriate to notify Elen, since they had been mentioned on AN.

However, ClaudioSantos then attempted to WP:VOTESTACK his losing cause by canvassing editors who he probably perceived are likely to side with him: Dbrodeck, BullRangifer, The Four Deuces, Yobol. I can see no other reason for these notifications, since none of them have been mentioned in the discussion.

I don't think this requires any action or reply, I'm mostly writing this as a purely informational note for the closer's benefit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

They all were editors involved on the las SPI on 2011 and mentioned in that time for Ratel as alleged users with alleged interests on exclude him from wikipedia since his editions on Aspartame. They received such and other personal attacks, so they deserved to be informed of the situation. In that occasion one complaint against the ARBCOM decision to unblock Jabbsworth was that no body, not even users affected by the disruptive behavior of Ratel were properly informed nor considered. I think it is fair to inform them. I invite you to review the very long archives of SPI, remind there were 9 sockpuppets detected up to now and there are about 9 SPI cases archived, where users had to spent time providing information, discussing the situation and receiving not exactly gentle comments from Ratel. Lacking a careful review on the files and missing some main points there are reasons I see for this non-neutral accussation on canvassing and on this wining impunity cause. By the way, if that was not the purpose at any rate allowing a "clean start" serves to clean also the extense record of blocks of Ratel, as privilege that no other user has, and it has also happened before: since admins were unaware that he is Ratel then disruptive actions by his sockpuppets were sanctioned as it was the first time with short-term blockings. --ClaudioSantos¿? 15:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic

— The Banner, I'm fairly certain I said this clearly once in ANI, and I'll look it up if you really like me to: stop talking about CS, anywhere, to anyone, for any reason. You are not "CS-Patrol". You do not need to warn other editors., User:Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC) [13] And what about your own sockpuppet? (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClaudioSantos/Archive) Did you ever took a clean start or did you just sent Bilby into the woods without even admitting that you had a sockpuppet? Why are you banging so loud on Ratels sockpuppetry when you did the same? The Banner talk 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC) I have never used 9 sockpuppets nor used them to evade blocks. I missed a password. I was never sanctioned by that but just the sockpuppet eliminated. You were already warned and blocked once due this kind of comments. --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Claudio, it is not off topic to discuss your own sockpuppet-history here. The Banner talk 16:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO it is. This is meant to be a discussion about Ratel's unblock request. ClaudioSantos has voiced their concerns. Let's let others chime in, and then let's allow the closer to assess consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Reporting Illegitimate Reversions

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.

---

Dear Admins,

I added recently a comment in the section "Albania" of the article Allies of World War II mentioning that:

Over the course of the war, the casualties of the Italian and German armed forces were 26,595 killed, 21,245 wounded and 20,800 prisoners.

I was reverted by a user nicknamed The Banner as POV? To the best of my knowledge, insertions which contain pure factual information and do not contain interpretative additions are not subject to being labeled POV.

I would not have given this revert a maximal attention if that would have been an isolated incident. However, since several days, the user The Banner is constantly preventing me (through reverting) from entering information on Allies of World War II, you can see also personal attacks on the talk page.

I believe this is not the editorial behavior that aligns with the Wikipedia quality we aim for, therefore I would like to ask your assistance on improving it. LupinoJacky (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User LupinoJacky is one disruptive new editor with sole purpose here to whitewash the Albanian role during World War II. Ever since he came, he incessantly tried to add Albania to the Allies of World War II diff of last exemple. The discussion has been going on for long time, see Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Albania. LupinoJacky has no sources for hi claims, not a single one saying Albania was allied country. All he does is disruptively ignoring all source provided saying otherwise and insistently trying to convince everyone that Albanian participation in the Paris Conference in 1946 is a sign that Albania was Allied. Nedless to mention that by 1946 the government in Albania had changed (it was not the Axis-allied one anymore, the war was long over, and even so, Albania only got to be considered an associated power at the conference, not even a allied country participant. When confronted with sources provided by me or others, he then changes the words in a manner clearly favoring his POV exemple1 or exemple2. Of course, scholars are wrong because he knows the truth. -_-

Before that, he removed sourced material just because he didn't like it (exemple. Of course, I am vandalizing the article by adding referenced material. I must be really a bad boy...). Of course, he did the same exact thing at Axis powerswhere he keeps on removing Alvania despite the fact that there are plenty of sources backing that fact and despite ignoring numerous editors which expressed their opposition towards his edits at Talk:Axis_powers#Albania_was_an_Allied_State_and_the_entry_here_should_be_removed. Earlier he had canvassed all Albanian editors in serach of support... For instance, I bring a source where an historian says how Albanian troops paraded in Athens along the Germans and Italians one after Axis invaded Greece and he argues those were not official Albanian troops... They were the troops of the state of Albania during WWII, but he ignores that. He ignores that Albania was in war with Allied Greece and Yugoslavia and even declared war to United States! And even after communists took power, they didn't declared war to any Axis country. So he doesn't have a case but keeps on edit-warring and discussing exhaustively, and now reporting, really time for WP:BOOMERANG. Please, no patience for such POV pushers in important WWII articles. At start I even tried to be reasonable and even helped him by bringing sources that matched as close as possible what he pretends, but that is not enough for him, he want total whitewashing of Albania, but hasn't sources for it, and it became a long time now really disruptive on his behalve. Not to mention that is like talking to a wall, he asks for sources, we bring him sources, he ignores. We ask for sources he provided none. Enough. FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Such a personal aggression is not worth of any further response from my side, since I do not belong to this level of discourse. I only kindly ask the Administrators to consider the case objectively and take precautionary measures against the behavior of The Banner and other editors exhibiting similar symptoms. All the independent historic sources regarding my claims are provided in the articles involved and in their talk pages. Therefore, I believe that it is not difficult to assess the reality going on here.

In particular, I also would kindly request to objectively verify the validity of my request in the talk page mentioned by FkpCascais Talk:Axis_powers#Albania_was_an_Allied_State_and_the_entry_here_should_be_removed. LupinoJacky (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, this same topic was already discussed here few days ago (see: /Archive268#Albania in the Second World War). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vanjagenije thanks for your remark. In my opinion, while the actors involved are primarily the same, the evidence of a specific recent revert mentioned above and the happenings since the date of the first topic are worth of a new evaluation. LupinoJacky (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This joke has already costed me too much time. In general there is a pattern of denying the existence of an Albanian state (although it was a separate kingdom in personal union), denying the existence of an Albanian government (although the parliament had chosen a prime minister), denying of the existence of Albanian military forces & denying of Albanian participation along side Axis forces against Allies (although Skanderbeg (military unit) fought alongside the Italians in the Uprising in Montenegro), pushing the status as Allied force (although evidence stated that it was only an associated power) and the complete and utter dismissal of every source that did not support his stance. The Banner talk 20:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC) I agree when this case is moved to AN/I

See for example Talk:Allies of World War II and Talk:Axis powers (Note: discussion on top) The Banner talk 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to pinpoint to the Banner's disruptive behavior , removing sourced material per wp:idontlikeit , and wp:pov . As proven by this revert , he is claiming as pov a referenced text which states a FACT . He also seems to not take into account the wp:3RR , having reverted in a period of just 4 days more than 10 times for the same matter . As Per talk page , the vast majority -although having some reserves- are in favor of Albania being listed as an Ally . However this user seems to be seeing this as a some kind of personal conflict vs a new editor . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is definately not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from my side. It is more a case of WP:IMAKEALOTOFFUSSBUTINFACTIHAVENORELIABLESOURCES from your and Lupinos side. You guys have been told numerous times that for that treaty with Italy Albania was regarded as an associated power. Nowhere is there any evidence that Albania was an Allied Power, still you guys claim that it was. And every time you guys come with the dodgy excuse: The treaty with Italy was signed by Allied Powers and Associated Powers and Albania signed that treaty = Albania is an Allied Power. Even while there is clear evidence that Albania for that treat was regarded only as an Associated Power. Unfortunately for you, threats like this have far less effect on my than reliable sources. But you guys never came up with reliable sources. There not even an Albanian Declaration of War towards the Axis... The Banner talk 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here then , here is a second one which states Albania clearly as an Ally . For your convenience :

Axelrod, John. Encylopedia of World War II. Volume 1. H W Fowler. ISBN 978-1-84511-308-7, page 823-824 states explicitly: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy." Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your source only supports the fact that Albania signed the treaty. I does not support the fact that they were an Allied power. The Banner talk 10:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a right place for this discussion. All we have here is a content dispute, and WP:AN is not a place to resolve such a dispute. LupinoJacky claims that The Banner reverted one of his edits. That is certainly not a case for administrators. LupinoJacky does not show how he tried to discuss and resolve this issue with The Banner. Reporting an editor here just for making one revert, and without trying to resolve the issue on the talk page first, is inappropriate. LupinoJacky also claims that The Banner is "constantly preventing him (through reverting) from entering information on Allies of World War II", although he does not cite any wp:diffs to prove this. If this is really the case here, than this should be reported to the WP:AN3, and not here. LupinoJacky also claims that The Banner issued "personal attacks" on him, but I don't see any evidence for such an accusation. What we have here is basically a content dispute between two group of editors. This discussion should be closed and editors should be directed to the WP:DRR. We should not bother administrators with this, as we do not have any evidence that either party have broke any rule. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a content dispute, therefore in my opinion attempts to create a relativism of this case are wrong. I talked to him for several days (and several hours per day), however TheBanner denied taking into consideration my sources and reverted ALMOST EVERY edit of mine persistently in the last week, you can easily see it from the edit history, an example of which Gjirokastra15 gave above. In that revert, for which I raised the reporting, I simply entered a referenced fact and it was reverted as "POV". There exist statements of personal attacks too:

"Your reading of that Treaty is a very special one, LupinoJacky. And your interpretation is nothing short of falsifying. With the creative interpretation of the facts, I would really start believing that you are ready to argue that both Italy and Germany are in fact allied powers because they had a resistance movement. Please, stop with this." In the talk page of Allies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II

Even though I am more concerned with his persistent attempts to block me from entering the reference-supported inputs. LupinoJacky (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there may be material for admins as LupinoJacky keeps on inserting unsourced and contested material to the articles, and then disruptively crying and reporting when reverted. He is disruptive. The editors failed to bring sources and keep on disrupting the articles despite clear consensus against them. I already pointed out diffs here where he removes sourced content and replace it with his original research. This has been going on for weeks, they are not able to provide new evidence or convince no one and they refuse to drop the stick. FkpCascais (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me pinpoint that the 2 last editors are Serbians , and their wp:npov is questionable and nationalistically motivated . The user FkpCascais which up until now had never edited or reverted in that particular article is the one reverting or opposing the outcome the most .They are ignoring the sources , and when unquestionable sources are presented then they label them as non authority . Personally i do not see a content dispute between two camps ... the vast majority is in favor of Albania being listed as an Ally , and the sources do support so . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I edited all of those articles from the time we dealt with Yugoslav resistance 6 years ago my friend. And in fact, you questioning me based on my nationality only shows your own motivations.

Can you please be kind and name here who did agreed with you? FkpCascais (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No i am questioning you based on your refusal to acknowledge the sources , your lack of a genuine interest to produce a consensus , and the fact that you showed yourself to be the one most opposing it . I do not believe in coincidences , yet i hate assumptions . My motivation is a simple one , helping a new editor who asked help from me on my talk page and making sure that everything is done as per wiki rules by both sides . And without wanting to infest this part of wiki with our Balkan tribal nonsense , let me remind you this:

Axelrod, John. Encylopedia of World War II. Volume 1. H W Fowler. ISBN 978-1-84511-308-7, page 823-824 states explicitly: "The first peace treaty concluded between the Allies and a former Axis nation was with Italy. It was signed in Paris on February 10 , by representatives from Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Pakistan, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, Yugoslavia and Italy." Which explicitly states Albania as an Ally . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is crystal clear that they were not an Allied power:

“ United States Department of State, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. Paris Peace Conference : documents (1946), page 802, Article 26.a) 'Memoranda submitted by Albanian Government on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy' "proposed amendment...For the purposes of this Treaty, Albania shall be considered as an

Associated Power.", web http://images.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/EFacs/1946v04/reference/frus.frus1946v04.i0011.pdf

”

but when you read a little but further you can read this:

“ "Each of the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to seize, retain or liquidate all property, rights or interests within its territory, which on the day of Italy's entry into the war, and until the coming into force of the present Treaty, belonged to Italy or to Italian nationals or had been acquired by Italy or Italian nationals." United States Department of State, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. Paris Peace Conference : documents (1946), page 803, Amendments to the Draft Treaty with Italy, Article 69 ”

This quote makes loud and clear that an "Associated Power" was not the same as an "Allied Power" but that there was a difference between then. As Albania was an "Associated Power" it was not officially an ally. The Banner talk 01:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

An Associated Power is no Axis Power either( as per your initial stance).The term Associated Power was first introduced during the WWI where USA was self-styled Associated Power. It was used for countries which fought independently, without external help ( ibid). In your logic USA should be claimed an AXIS too. Shortly as Gjirokastra15 has stated and sources support the term Ally and Associated Power entrench the same position. QTeuta (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

• I believe that LupinoJacky is only here to right what they believe to be some kind of wrong, and that this has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked LupinoJacky for an indefinite period for this disruptive editing. This has dragged on for long enough, with LupinoJacky not being able to provide sources which clearly support their position - which seems to rest on interpretations of primary sources on somewhat different topics and an entry in an encyclopaedia which doesn't really support what's being attributed to it. Instead of finding better sources, LupinoJacky has been dragging the dispute out and escalating it, which is not at all healthy. I also have my doubts over whether the other brand new editors and IP accounts who have been presenting similar views at Talk:Allies of World War II are actually different people, but will assume good faith for now (and their conduct has been less disruptive). Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D ah Ok, did you by any chance, saw the initial paragraph written on Albania? It was a poorly written article with 0( zero) sources (you can see the history as per 15 days ago). It was not until LupinoJack intervened that the paragraph became somehow sane and at least had some sources. In my understanding this served well to the accuracy of the article.QTeuta (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

@Nick-D: New user QTeuta was proven not to be a sockpuppet of LupinoJacky (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LupinoJacky). IP is probably him forgetting to log in. I have to say that, although I do not agree with LupinoJacky and his methods, I think indefinite block is a little too harsh? Maybe topic ban would be enough? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Effectively the same thing. None of their edits have been on any other subject. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean?QTeuta (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

@Vanjagenije: thanks for letting me know about QTeuta. Re: the topic ban, individual admins cannot impose bans. I chose to set the block duration to indefinite as LupinoJacky's dominant purpose for editing Wikipedia has been to continue this debate, so a time-limited intervention accompanied by a suggestion that they move onto other topics doesn't seem likely to be successful on the available evidence. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Nick-D, I have dealt with only that topic because I had no time in hand to deal with other articles and since I am a newbie at Wiki, I preferred not to widen my focus. It was by accident that I stumble upon the Allies article for a paper, and discovered that an illegitimate section without any sources was provided on Albania. Than I saw the Talk section, when LupinoJack ( whom I don't even know) has already provided the necessary sources to increase the accuracy on the Albanian case of this article. Despite his methods, I see no reason, why he was banned on the topic, since all he did was providing sources and not offending anyone, which was not the case with the other members. As I have followed the debates, LupinoJack has continued the debate because his evidences where dismissed ( I repeat dismissed )without no sources and the debate was personalized from @TheBanner and other members. In my humble opinion, that is not fair and the topic should be reviewed from impartial admins. Let me express my firm intention to contribute in increasing the accuracy of the articles related to this country, as I see there is an "aggressive"( I must say) campaign toward accurate sources on this country. In my understanding, Wiki should be a place of fairness and sources, not a place where minorities are suppressed in the name of majorities.QTeuta (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

QTeuta, LJ provided two sources from the beginning and has just been insistently repeating over and over again the same arguments. Worste, besides you and Gjirokastra15, around 8 other editors participated in the discussions and all disagreed with you. So, the sources were not dismissed, but what was dismissed in consensus is your (miss)interpretation of them. And you have been presented with plenty of sources saying Albania was Axis. Your insistence on this and your intentional misinformation here on what happened in the discussions bring me to a conclusion that you as well want be moving on and will continue with this disruption in those articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You words are foam. Please don't reply to me, unless you present this so-called evidences. Albania was not an Axis Power ( meaning the Albanian official govt fought against Allies, had to pay War Reparation to Allies, a recognized govt signed under the Axis section etc). Albania was an Associate Power as stated above. Associate Power was a term used from WWI for USA to define a country, which fought without external help. You are not intimidating anybody, by making claims, as " plenty" or "misinformation" , facts are not changeable. It is not normal to say the least, that due to under-representation of the Albanians in Wiki and an over-representation of Serbs (as yourself) Greeks and friends, we should modify historical facts as a form of suppression from the majority. QTeuta (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Enough? FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• The ridiculous initial paragraph on Albania, which was rightfully modified from LupinoJack. copy-pasted

In Europe[edit]

Albania was an Italian protectorate and dependency from 1939 to 1943. In spite of Albania's long-standing protection and alliance with Italy, on 7 April 1939 Italian troops invaded Albania, five months before the start of the Second World War. Following the invasion, Albania became a protectorate under Italy, with King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy being awarded the crown of Albania. An Italian governor controlled Albania. Albanian troops under Italian control were sent to participate in the Italian invasion of Greece and the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. Following Yugoslavia's defeat, Kosovo was annexed to Albania by the Italians. Politically and economically dominated by Italy from its creation in 1913, Albania was occupied by Italian military forces in 1939 as the Albanian king [Zog] fled the country with his family. The Albanian parliament voted to offer the Albanian throne to the King of Italy, resulting in a personal union between the two countries. The Albanian army, having been trained by Italian advisors, was reinforced by 100,000 Italian troops. A Fascist militia was organized, drawing its strength principally from Albanians of Italian descent. Albania served as the staging area for the Italian invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia. Albania annexed Kosovo in 1941 when Yugoslavia was dissolved, creating a Greater Albania. Albanian troops were dispatched to the Eastern Front to fight the Soviets as part of the Italian Eighth Army. Albania declared war on the United States in 1941. When the Fascist regime of Italy fell, in September 1943 Albania fell under German occupation. The Dodecanese Islands were an Italian dependency from 1912 to 1943. Montenegro was an Italian dependency from 1941 to 1943 known as the Governorate of Montenegro that was under the control of an Italian military governor. When Yugoslavia came under Axis occupation, Montenegrin nationalists attempted to create a Montenegrin state. Sekula Drljević and the core of the Montenegrin Federalist Party formed the Provisional Administrative Committee of Montenegro on 12 July 1941, and proclaimed on the Saint Peter's Congress the "Kingdom of Montenegro" under the protection of Italy. Montenegro was caught up in the rebellion of the Chetniks. Drljevic was expelled from Montenegro in October 1941. Montenegro then came under full direct Italian control. With the Italian capitulation of 1943, Montenegro came directly under the control of Germany.

This was the paragraph which was modified by LupinoJack and Gjirokastra15, and which The Banner, without any clear source states that Albania was an Axis Power(!). Do you see any sources in this section? Let me recapitulate; according to this section "legit" 15 days ago in Wiki a small country of Albania under Italian occupation, after fighting with Greece and Yugoslavia, then annexing Kosovo, fought against the Soviets and declared war on USA!!! One wonders is this even physically possible? A nation of alien warriors. This was the starting point of the debate. I request that the ban of LupinoJack be removed and this injustice continues any time longer. QTeuta (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

I provided you a list of sources saying Albania was an Axis country, and User:The Banner edit on this exact text is taken almost verbatim from the sources. You really don't know when enough is enough. It is not our fault sources indicate that Albania invaded Yugoslavia and Greece, helped Axis efforts in the Eastern Front against the Soviets and declared war to the United States. Stop making this drama. FkpCascais (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, no words, please source this Axis position. As it was provided here Albania was an Associated Power. A term used during WW1 in the case of USA for a country which fought without any help.QTeuta (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

You can read here about Albania's declaration of war against the USA something that placed her firmly on the Axis side. The Banner talk 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are giving me a blog as reliable source. Nevertheless, I give you the chance to say that puppet govt( similar to the Vichy Regime or the Hellenic State) under Italian Occupation ( which was not recognized) declared War on USA, did it ever fight? I can declare War to anybody if I want, but that is not legit until I don't fight, and I am not a juridical person(i.e represent an official state,etc)

Definition of Axis: also known as the Axis, were the nations that fought in the Second World War against the Allied forces. This is continuing way to far, since you don't understand that any Albanian official govt never fought against any Ally. That why it was declared an Associated Power. Furthermore, as per USA state department, no Albanian state declared War. Please don't drag me in to this nonsense. QTeuta (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

QTeuta, I provided you 5 sources up there saying Albania was Axis (I had provided more during the discussions), but here comes one more:

Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume II by Owen Pearson, pag. 458, it says: "Albania was one of the Axis satellites;"

So why do you lie saying no sources were presented to you? Werent you told to bring new sources? Did you brought them? Are we still discussing with you the same sources that have been discussed for weeks and which have consensus that do not say Albania was Allied?

I am really asking the administrators to provide the same exact sanction to QTeuta since they seem unable to provide new sources or evidence, are unable to drop the stick in this case, and are now becoming extremely disruptive by attacking other editors on nationalistic basis and providing false information at reports thinking they will get some amin who will not check the events and just beleave them. WP:BATTLEGROUND all over, they are basically the manual on how not to behave in WP discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, please kindly pay attention not to make personal attacks. Claiming somebody a lair, is a big thing in my culture.

Your source, cites the MEMORANDUM of the GREEK Monarchy to London( July 18th) as you can see a bit further [https://books.google.pt/books?id=P3knunC7z_oC&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=axis+allied+albania&source=bl&ots=kwkfKCZudL&sig=ybhxIt8eKoKBXWJ76VR9Ox1KwDY&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=YhnhVMaVDIOqUf34g_AC&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=axis%20allied%20albania&f=false ( pp.457) in that paragraph, which was pretending to annex South Albania with the claims that it was an Axis. The full sentence is "Albania was one of the Axis satellites, consequently the Allies have no reason to refuse the temporary occupation of Northern Epirus, which could be carried out by an Allied force under an Allied commander, but with Greek troops taking part in it."

Basically if Albania was part of the Axis it would had ceased to exit since half of its territory would had been annexed. But this didn't happened since it was declared an Associated Power and the claims were never accepted.

• So you basically Cherry Picked a word out of context, from a Greek Memorandum with irredentist intentions to validate you claims? In other words, you are cutting words cited from Greek Monarchist as an historic sources. I don't know what is that called?? Don't know who should be banned. Contrary to you, I read the book and know that was not the synthesis.

I am spending more time debunking your nonfactual strategies than doing real things. This discussion should not continue any further in the noticeboard, and non-partial admins should take the matter in their hands. QTeuta (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

To recapitulate for impartial admins: User @TheBanner claimed that Albania declared war on USA which the State Department doesn't know about it. While user @FkpCascais claimed Albania was an Axis by taking a sentence out of the context from a Greek Memorandum which claimed to annex South of Albania ( North Epirus, as it is known from Greek irredentist) pp.457. Both debunked. QTeuta (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Ow, my goodness. Are now going have another round of complete denial of sources? There is proof that Albania declared war on the USA. There is proof that Albania fought Greece. Montenegro and the partisans. Don't tell me that you are going to deny that all? The Banner talk 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And please, mr. QTeuta, could you use sensible sources to proof your point? Your source states is diplomatic relations. The fact that it does not mention the war declaration does not say there was no declaration of war. And beside that: why would the Allies supply a resistance movement of a country they were not at war with? That sounds a bit silly. But the Allies did help the resistance: Albanian resistance during World War II#Allied links and assistance. The Banner talk 00:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Verrai ‎

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 admin has not been active on Wikipdia lately. His contributions page shows no edits for 2010, one day of editing in 2011, one day with one edit in 2012, three days with three edits in 2013, one day with 2 edits in 2014, and a few edits this February 2015.

One of Verai's recent actions was a speedy delete of a category, which I had contested on the talkpage. I have my doubt about whether that was the right call. Please see his talkpage that he has been asked about a few more recent speedy deletions.

I doubt an admin with so few edits in the last 5 years should retain his admin privileges, and in any case his recent deletions give reason to doubt his familiarity with the (speedy) deletion guidelines. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Have taken a quick look and offere the following observations:

• I can't find an RFA for this admin so it looks like another of the "old school" who got adminship in the "no big deal" era
• They appear to have messed around a bit with their talk page history, I just restored revisions between 2009-2013 which they deleted, no idea where the history from before that has gone
• If the standards we now have in place for admin activity were in existence a year or so earlier this user would have been desysopped for inactivity a long time ago
• All that being said, they have actually been doing a lot of speedy deletions lately and the percentage that have been objected to seems pretty low
• And only arbcom can remove an admin anyway, so if you seriously want to pursue this you will have to take it there

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My username was changed after I became an admin. You can find my original RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cuivienen. You can find earlier talk page discussions in my archives (e.g., User talk:Verrai/Archives, to which I have periodically moved my talk page as it became large. Also, the Category which I deleted, Category:4th century in Israel, an empty category, had no valid argument from Debresser--he or she had stated on the talk page that it was "part of a set", which is clearly not the case considering Category:5th century in Israel and Category:3rd century in Israel, among others, do not exist, and therefore there was no discussion to be had. You are correct that I have not been very active in a long time until recently. —Verrai 00:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The category tree I was referring to is Category:Centuries in Israel. In any case, I'll probably not pursue this, especially since Beeblebrox says the number of contested deletions is relatively low. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Hum1969

I might likely to have the sockpuppet investigation in for the eighth time. please have User:Hum1969 banned completely. He uses the IP ranges of the 76.6x.xx.xx 135.23.145.164 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no way on earth you can ban Hum1969 completely. He will keep on returning BTW. 76.69.39.94 (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st and User:Blue Eyes Cryin

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blue Eyes Cryin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like some advice on what to do in this situation, preferably from an admin.

1. For some time there has been an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 about the behavior of Darkstar1st. Basically he's been POV pushing on a number of articles, removing references to libertarian socialism. He's also very active on the talk libertarianism. He has a long history of disruptive editing, including anti-NPOV editing, edit warring, incivility. These are detailed on the thread. A site ban discussion was iniated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban_proposal_for_User:Darkstar1st.

2.One of his supporters at ANI, User:Blue Eyes Cryin, looked suspiciously like a sockpuppet on closer examination. Basically he has only been editing at talk libertarianism, tag teaming and offering the same arguments as Darkstar1st. The only edits made were two userspace edits, and edits in support of Darkstar1st at ANi . When confronted [14] he seemed to confirm this [15]. In the exchange that followed he didn't deny it but was insulting.

What I want to know is what the best way forward is. Should I go to WP:SPI? Or should I wait for the site ban proposal to be closed? Btw the site ban proposal has been open for nine days, so it is probably about time that consensus is assessed, and any action taken. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sock nor do I have any socks. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Blue Eyes Cryin was already an experienced editor when he created his account, but whether he is a sock of a current or blocked editor or was an IP who registered or just decided on a clean start is not clear. While he may have the same POV as Darkstar1st, there are lots of editors with that POV. His level of writing skills appears far superior to Darkstar1st's. Without better evidence an SPI would fail, so it is not worth going that route. TFD (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

far superior is perhaps an understatement. Tfd, Blue eyes even makes your contributions pale in comparison. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

HIs prose is superior to mine. TFD (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

i would venture to say superior in every way. You are a comminted editor that has contributed much to wp over the years. I hope we will remain wiki friends for a long time to come. Live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock?

• [16]

So I received this out of the blue, and afaik, I don't recall any interaction with the editor.

But the tone of the comment is enough to set off possible alarm bells. Needless to say I would be happy to be incorrect in this.

Would someone clueful in socking or whatever please check into this? Thank you. - jc37 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, it's a sock drawer. Think I got them all. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch! Thanks for checking into this : ) - jc37 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot-like edits from an IP address

User:62.25.109.197 was blocked for a month last year for well-meaning botlike edits which were damaging articles - the IP was efficiently responding to reqphoto templates in alphabetical order, but with mistakes and a tin ear (ignoring any specifics of the photo requests, using full Commons captions however inappropriate, and occasionally duplicating images), and generally making "high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make". The IP resumed botlike editing a couple of months later and is working on infoboxes now, attracting some talk page feedback about how they've broken some infoboxes in the process. Although the user seems to have taken some corrective action, they have said nothing on its talk page and don't seem to have ever talked to another Wikipedia editor about the edits. It looks like there's a useful, unpolished bot in here somewhere, but it shouldn't be running on an IP address with no edit summaries.

(Oddly the IP received some press coverage last month for being a UK parliament IP address which was swamping a government-edits-to-Wikipedia Twitter bot.) --McGeddon (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for six months. Hopefully they will speak up and we can resolve this before then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Block Review of ArmyLine

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.

---

I would like to request the review of the block on ArmyLine. The editor requested a review of conduct for an admin[17] regarding their actions and language towards me, as well as the unusual terms of my block[18]. In which the admin required me to self impose a topic ban on "Gamergate" and related items to be unblocked. For this mention it appears that the blocking admin has taken this indirect relation as a violation of the editor's topic ban.[19]

There seems to be an ongoing issue with some admins being biased and block happy. There seems to be plenty of Admins with the mindset that anyone remotely related to gamergate is automatically detrimental to Wikipedia. And being deemed related to gamergate seems to be as simple as requesting the review of an admin's conduct[20]. Is this an acceptable practice? TyTyMang (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Common sense and the administrator who reviewed the unblock request agree that there was a clear breach of the topic ban. Wikipedia is not a social networking site where justice is pursued for its own sake—the encyclopedia does not benefit when large numbers of returned users and SPAs seek to push articles on a topic (gamergate) to their favored view. Strong measures are needed, particularly in view of the off-wiki coordination that surrounds every aspect of the case. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Logged in and edited en.wiki just for more drama that had to do nothing with building an encyclopedia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Arbitration fails if the same disruption that led to the case is permitted to continue after it. --TS 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse If you have a topic ban, the only time you should be bringing up anything related to the topic ban should be in an arbcom case, or in a discussion concerning your topic ban at an acceptable venue. You shouldn't be bringing up other editors topic bans, or proposed topic bans, for the same thing when they don't relate to you. It doesn't even matter whether this was coordinated off wiki or not. P.S. I have no idea whether your proposed? topic ban was fair and acceptable but silly stuff like someone who themselves has a topic ban on the subject bringing it to ANI isn't encouraging me to look, nor for that matter is you bringing for review this fair block. In other words, it seems to me that many Gamergate supporters are their own worst enemy. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I was a little more vague than I had originally thought. Given the circumstances, was the editor violating their topic ban? They were requesting a review of an admin for his use of colorful language in regards to a person. He also quoted the admin's mention of the topic he was banned from, because it was not appropriate in the situation. So the implicit question is, can an editor with a topic ban scrutinize an admin who's action is not in relation to the topic, but is mentioned in passing?

I wasn't topic banned, and my ban wasn't related to anything gamergate at all. But the admin who blocked me said he would endorse my unblock if I undertake to avoid such material. I find it very strange that some editors get a block for quoting someone, and others actually edit their topic banned articles and are commended instead. TyTyMang (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a look over ArmyLine (talk · contribs)—I haven't checked everything, but it looks like all contributions since June 2014 are gamergate related (that's every single comment and edit in the last eight months). The talk page shows that an explanation for the block has been given. Arbcom voted 12���nil to indefinitely topic-ban ArmyLine (see ARBGG). A topic ban includes the fact that the editor must not launch ANI reports about gamergate drama (diff, archived here). I will mention again that the reason Wikipedia is "hemorrhaging users" is that there are too many POV pushers attempting to use the encyclopedia for their own purposes—dealing with them over and over and over makes all normal people leave. Some would see ArmyLine's report at ANI as a request for a "review of an admin for his use of colorful language", but experienced editors know that it was an attempt to continue the gamergate WP:CPUSH and wear down opponents. Wikipedia is a pretty simple place—doing stuff that improves the encyclopedia is good; anything else is not. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Little to do with being vague. I researched this myself before replying. In one of the links you used when starting this thread above, Amyline said "Admin .... attempted to blackmail him into accepting a topic ban involving "all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed)". Clearly Amyline was bringing to ANI stuff related to gamergate (a proposed topic ban from gamergate is clearly related). It was obvious from what they were quoting, which implied they knew it was related. But really they should have taken enough care that they should have known anyway, so it wouldn't work out much better for them if they didn't quote. But this stuff relating to Gamersgate they were bringing to ANI was nothing to do with them, which was really the only thing that might be acceptable. I wasn't totally sure when I initially replied when you'd been actually topic banned, or it was just a proposed topic ban, but this was beside the point. Whether it was a topic ban, or a proposed topic ban, AmyLine had no business getting involved in it given their own topic ban. It doesn't matter whether the proposed topic ban of you was fair or justified. That's something either your, or people the community still trust to be involve in the Gamergate topic area should be dealing with, not someone who was topic banned from the area (meaning the community don't trust them, in this case, as a result of an arbcom case). In fact, Amyline's involvement damaged any chance of you getting a favourable outcome since people get distracted by someone violating their topic ban. And fairly or not people think that perhaps there is a problem with your editing if someone like Amyline (who has problems in that area) decided to get involved. I might have sympathy for you (although since nothing really happened in the end, not much), but your involvement here kills any sympathy. To put it simply, since Amyline has no business getting involved in the Gamersgate topic area (including in appealing proposed topic bans for other people in that area, amongst other things), your inability to see this suggests may be the the proposed topic ban wasn't totally without merit, with me having to look more further in to the case. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the points you guys make are reasonable. I may have just been looking at this situation from a more personal perspective since I was part of the subject that brought this on. TyTyMang (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Because Armyline is topic banned from the GG area he has a right to question admin action against him in relation to the GG area, but not against anyone else. He broke his ban, he pays the forfeit, end of story--Cailil ^talk 13:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block -- Plus the op should go back to being blocked. The block here has been reviewed by several different administrators, endorsed and declined to unblock. Bringing this here is disruptive. The editor that started this thread is a SPA and only here to disrupt the project. That much should be obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I was going to make a bit of long rationale, but having read through the thread and the talk page, there isn't anything I can add that hasn't already been said. Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

List of educational institutions........

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – This is a content issue, not an admin issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Admins. I recently came across article List of educational institutes in Rohtak. I noticed other similar articles such as this, this, this and few other articles. I checked WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory and am still not clear if these pages should exist. May I please request your feedback on this? If you recommend that such pages do not qualify then I will nominate them for WP:AfD. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an admin issue as it is purely about content. I've been working on list articles and disambig pages, so I'll be happy to take a look. In short, list articles are supposed to contain entries only for notable members of the list - Wikipedia is not a web portal (or a directory). I'll start by removing the non-notables and will see what's left. Squinge (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I started removing unlinked and unsourced establishments from the given articles, but that has been contested at Talk:List of educational institutions in Tiruchirappalli and so I have paused. I know this is still not an admin issue, but I hope someone here will be able to point us at the best place to have a discussion on what is suitable for inclusion in these list articles. Squinge (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

VPP. These are not lists of educational institutions, but list of articles. Chances are these lists should contain a lot of red links, but never external links in place of red links. I'd be surprised if someone could quickly asses the notability of so many entries so quickly. Lack of an article is an incredibly poor indicator of notability. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Squinge, it's nice that you ask about it. But you do misunderstand about what is okay/good in list-articles. Please do read wp:LISTN and wp:SALAT. Briefly, the lists of educational institutions CAN and probably should list schools that are not individually notable. List-items do not have to meet the standard for notablity that a separate article requires. And, while source-links for every item might be nice, it is fine for any article, including list-articles, to include information that is not footnoted, if it is believed to be correct and has not been challenged. We don't have to excessively footnote every sentence or item. I would tend to AGF that the Rohtak list-article editor(s) are familiar with the area and are correct in their listing of schools. It is NOT appropriate to delete any, probably, especially not as here, deleting a whole section of medical higher ed institutions. Many items, including any higher educational institutes, are probably individually notable and worthy of having articles. So it is good for there to be redlinks for them. wp:Redlinks are helpful for identifying needed articles; "redlinks help the wikipedia grow". True, we should avoid being a directory, but that means not providing phone numbers and street addresses and opening hours and so on. Partial or comprehensive lists of schools are good, and I think many/most of your edits should actually be reverted. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is doncram's attitude to lists that has caused so many problems at AfD etc in the past and is why some India-related lists remain mothballed in userspace following consensus to delete. It is no great secret that India stuff is subject to a phenomenal amount of dreadful contributions, so why not just stick with NLIST and V? We've got enough crap to sort out without having thousands of additional redlinks to keep an eye on in this area. Alas, AGF is one of those things that really doesn't work wonderfully well in this subject area: one has to be extremely cautious. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Folks, thanks for your thoughts and for the links. The problem I have is that the vast majority of entries in these lists don't even have sources, so they could even be just made up. Even without that, we surely can't want these lists to be used to promote all kinds of businesses that have no encyclopedic relevance? (And I mean no offence to anyone in India, but the great majority of commercial pushing I've seen in the past few months has been from that country). Anyway, my real question is to ask is there a more appropriate forum for discussing such things? Squinge (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  PS: Sorry, I meant to add that if anyone thinks my excisions should be reverted then please go ahead and do it - otherwise I'll be happy to revert myself once I find the right place to discuss this and if a consensus says so. Squinge (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• And finally, I'm not going to have time to look into this properly now, so I've reverted my changes and won't be able to help, sorry. Squinge (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, though there have been some problems about doncram's overly minimal articles, his statement of what lists like this should contain is in my view quite correct. These sorts of lists can not only contain things where the artless have not yet been written, but even things that are not quite notable. They're an accepted way of handling mentions of non-notable content. And he is also correct that any degree-granting higher educational institution whose real existence can be proven is considered notable here, though that is not a formal guideline. I agree with you, though, we need to be cautious about the exact nature of Indian institutions. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that each entry should at least require a source demonstrating the existence of the institution. Squinge (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Arun Kumar SINGH's correct, [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory has this covered. None of these schools show notability, nor are they given automatic notability (like places are ), therefore I'd say remove them, as including them makes that page a directory of schools, which is not permitted. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm closing this as it is obviously not an administrative issue. There are plenty of forums for discussing content issues, this isn't one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

AFD close/review requested

Resolved

 – discussion has been closed by T. Canens. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, hoping an uninvolved admin can take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 and make a close if possible? The discussion was relisted after 23 separate comments were made, and there is a fair bit of surprise from participants about the fact that it wasn't closed. Normally I'd be happy to wait for another few days for it to come around to closing time again, but this is a rather hot issue in Australian politics, and the AFD is holding up what might very likely be an uncontroversial move. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

I almost did, but after reading it through, and seeing the relist, I think I'd like to wait to find out the reasoning behind the relist. - jc37 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, it seems like a very poor relist from a non-admin, and it is very disappointing that the editor as failed to respond to multiple requests to provide a rationale. StAnselm (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Closed. T. Canens (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Airbus A320neo family

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.

---

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and a user created today: User:Trymeonce - which possibly both are the same - editing the intro of A320neo with lengthy discussions, with the clearly wrong statement, that the A320neo is not newly produced, but built with used aircrafts.

Please: A semi-block is not preferred, it would ban me and other IPs to edit this article. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Help is needed. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor appears to be well past WP:3RR and looks to have been warned so a report to WP:AN/EW would be your best bet. But it looks like one was already made anyway Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Trymeonce reported by User:Denniss (Result: ). As for the IP, no point worrying about them unless they actually reappear. If they do, you could probably also report to EW or just to WP:ANI for block evasion presuming the account is blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

[21] Fascist? Help! 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 seems to be static regarding style and reverts. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See my comment below. A semi-block will not prevent anyone from editing the article. It only prevents unregistered editors from editing the article without creating an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Cannot create page

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.

---

I tried to create the page User talk:Epicgenius/Archive for User:Epic Failure to archive the messages left for my alt account User:Epic Failure, but it is on the local blacklist. Can an admin create this page? I'd appreciate it. Epic Genius (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, but you might hit future issues for any page you want to create that include the username of Epic Failure, because it seems that .*Epic fail.* is on the title blacklist. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Edit request for a protected talk page

{{edit protected}} The blue "submit an edit request" button does not work on protected talk pages, hence my request here.

In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting § Proposed new draft: plenary discussion at WT:MOS please change

• I have opened a new section at WT:MOS for continued development of new dash guidelines, as 16 July approaches and we need plenary discussion with fuller participation. See also a summary of the action up till now, in the section that precedes that one ("Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion").

to

• I have opened a new section at WT:MOS for continued development of new dash guidelines, as 16 July approaches and we need plenary discussion with fuller participation. See also a summary of the action up till now, in the section that precedes that one ("Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion").

Reason: links to two archive pages, to facilitate following the trail of archived discussions. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, WP:RFPP has a section for this (shortcut WP:RFED), "Current requests for edits to a protected page". Nyttend (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that there was such a place, but Wikipedia:Edit requests, the obvious page to look for it, was a dead end for me. I just updated Wikipedia:Edit requests § General considerations to more broadly discuss the purpose of WP:RFED. It would also be helpful if the magic behind the blue "submit an edit request" button were made intelligent enough to detect pages which are protected beyond the editors' privilege level and automatically redirect them to WP:RFED rather than open up an edit window that the editor can't edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has this page been protected since 2011? I don't think that is a normal practice. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the big note on the top of the page that says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.", and again on the bottom on the page? It's an archive. Whether or not it's protected is irrelevant; it shouldn't be edited, anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi,

Can someone pop over and deal with the queue at WP:AIV its not huge but theres a rather committed vandal spamming e-harmony links and my rollback button is almost worn out. Amortias (T)(C) 01:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This user has been a long term vandal - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor - Again. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh goody. I like sockfarms they tend to gravitate to my talk page and get increasingly more frustrated as I just keep hitting rollback. Amortias (T)(C) 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth your while to get eharmony blacklisted, or to get an edit filter set up. It's not like we can ever use it in a citation -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Close review requested

I closed a discussion in which I'm heavily involved, and I would really welcome review of the close. Whether that's an endorsement or an overturn, either is good, but just my eyes on this is insufficient. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't see anything obviously wrong with the close, but please don't close discussions you're involved in. Some Wikipedians are prepared to overlook procedural irregularities if the result was right, but an involved closer is one large procedural irregularity.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I completely botched that close. It had an elaborate close rationale for merge, including a note of my own involvement, and a link here. Frankly, I don't know what happened. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the close, and will not re-close, as that will make things even murkier. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Arzel (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the standard provisions. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On 11 February 2015, Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked an editor relying on the discretionary sanctions provisions for Eastern Europe. As a discretionary sanctions block it was out of process as the editor had not been pre-notified of discretionary sanctions for the topic. Accordingly, the prohibitions on modification do not apply and the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee is advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and User:Trymeonce

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and User:Trymeonce vandalizing again: [22] See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Airbus_A320neo_family.

Imho IP is static. 95.119.51.48 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenoglossy Page needs attention

I have been discussing the removal of majority of information and references from 'Xenoglossy' page with the administrator of this page for months. He does not resolve the issue and keeps giving me one sentence replies that I am not right and he sides with other people who eliminated a large body of references and data from this page. The page Xenoglossy can be visited at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy> and the administrator is JzG <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG>. The history shows that the Xenoglossy page prior to Oct 24 2014 contained several case reports and references to publications on this material but the majority of the get erased by some users and the administrator did nothing to revert the harmful changes. He has not paid attention to my reasoning and explanations in the talk section of the Xenoglossy page. Now he has semi-protected the page again so that nobody can add anything to it. We are trying to add material from the same references listed currently in the article. This is the voice of a group of us. Please help us with this issue. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation: please let me indefinitely continue pushing my preferred version of the page with all the WP:FRINGE nonosense I love so much, and thus override the opinion of every single long-term Wikipedian who has thus far expressed an opinion.

No. Just like last time you asked exactly the same question in almost exactly the same words.

Guy (Help!) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This unregistered editor states incorrectly that because the page has been semi-protected "nobody can add anything to it". That is not true. Unregistered editors make the choice not to create accounts, and continue to have the ability to create accounts. I don't have any sympathy with unregistered editors who complain about the unfairness of semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is true, but on the other hand if he did register an account, and tried to add the same material in the same way, he'd be swiftly blocked for reasons obvious to everybody but him. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But we do have a WP:protection policy. This may not be relevant here, but in the above case there was no reason to semi protect the page. The editor causing problems was editing from an account. It wasn't autoconfirmed yet so semi protection would have worked for the moment, but it wouldn't work for that long. And if they had come back as an IP, in the past their IP was sticky so that could have been blocked to. Now if they had come back with continually changing IPs, it might have been necessary to use semi protection, but there's no reason to suggest it, in cases where it's clearly not yet supported by our protection policy like the above. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was. This IP has been inserting identical text, reverted multiple times by multiple editors, for a long time. It's canonical disruptive editing. I don't mind blocking the IP instead, but I'd always prefer to let someone edit other things and actually do something productive (admittedly a forlorn hope here). That said, if you want to unprotect and block the IP instead, feel free, I have absolutely no objections. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Are we referring to the same thing? As I said, I'm exclusively referring to the Airbus A320neo family article mentioned above which remains unprotected and only seems to have suffered problems from one IP and account. Robert McClenon seems to be randomly going around making comments on IPs, and ignoring other important policies, so it seemed wise to give a reminder we do have a policy about semi protection, which means it isn't always justified, regardless of whether it was here (which I don't know since I haven't looked at the case). Also I'm not sure how I can unprotect the page and block the IP. Can you explain how a non admin can do so? I could visit WP:RFPP and WP:AIV and request these, but that didn't seem to be what you were referring to. P.S. It's worth remembering that beyond allowing other IPs to edit, there's a reason why semiprotection shouldn't be used when blocking the IP or account would work better. Semiprotecting a page only protects that page. In the case above, the account had actually started targetting other pages with pure vandalism (calling editors facists in articles) before they were blocked (and even their edits to the main article had started to include such vandalism). Semi protection would not only have prevented other IPs or non autoconfirmed editors from improving the page, but would have failed to actually stop the damage this editor was causing, when a simple action which I think would probably be equally the same amount of work (even ignoring the vandalism, the editor had hit 11R or something before they were blocked and had only engaged in minimal discussion where they failed to actually address the fact their source didn't say what they were claiming it did) would have done so. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in terms of the wider point about allowing an editor who hasn't shown signs that thet probably can't be trusted to edit generally, to hopefully edit elsewhere constructively, it's worth remembering that there's no reason why one choice is automatically superior to the other. You need to consider the circumstances. Denying all IPs and non autoconfirmed editors the right to edit an article directly and requiring them to use edit requests simply because of the wrong doings of one editor can be harmful as well. The fact that they can edit by registering, making a few edits in places they can and waiting a few days doesn't change this. So the possible harm to these many other putative editors who did no wrong, needs to be balanced against the harm to one editor who has shown signs of problems but can hopefully be redeemed if they are forced to edit elsewhere, and they are still allowed to do so. In a case where an editor is IP hopping, then the time wasted trying to stop them may likely outweigh any benefit to allowing other editors to continue to edit the page. In other cases, it may be less clear. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been an admin long enough to be familiar with all these points, thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added no Fringe references to the article in my last few edits. I have not added any reference to the article. I have added a fact from the SAME article that is listed in the Xenoglossy page now. The editors of this page have just cherry picked some sentences from one of the references and when I add another part of the same reference, you consider this as disruptive editing. I think you are doing a very poor job as an administrator. You are applying your personal taste to decide about this case. The article has reflect only takes one side and only mentions part of the reference not the entire statements. This page needs attention. Anyone who is a Wikipedia lover should help us solve this issue. JzG with biased opinion is acting disruptive to the integrity of the page. It is easy to block users who do not agree with you. But this was not the idea that Wikipedia is based on. I have studied the Wikipedia policy and I am complying with all of them. JzG has turned this into a personal battle which is totally unnecessary.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. Everyone else who has expressed an opinion, has disagreed. Sometimes when everybody tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. This is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User-rights RfC to close tomorrow

The 30 days runs tomorrow at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter; there's no advantage to keeping it open longer, so if anyone wants to join me in closing it, please say something before tomorrow. Also, please see WP:VPR#Last chance for a while; I'll be making a specific proposal there if no one else does. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete mistaken archive page

 Done Zap. Bencherlite^Talk 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally set the counter for MiszaBot automatic talk page archiving to 3, which created Talk:Enlargement of NATO/Archive 3. When I realized the mistake, I moved the page back to Talk:Enlargement of NATO/Archive 1, but it left a redirect at Archive 3 which then shows up in the Archive box on Talk:Enlargement of NATO. Should be a quick fix to delete the redirect at Talk:Enlargement of NATO/Archive 3. Thanks!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Vcorani is seeking the Wikipedia:Standard offer

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.

---

I am here in response to an unblock request from User:Vcorani. This user was blocked in November of 2013. The blocking admin is no longer around but I think it was related to the state of his user page at the time: [23]

There may be other issues I am not aware of. Below is the request. Chillum 01:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like some help in trying to turn over a new leaf. An I have waited several months, so I am not making a knee-jerk reaction here. My past reaction, I admit now, was me taking things too far, though I didn't mean to offend anyone who viewed my userpage. I can affirm I wont put controversial stuff like that on my userpage. In my favor, I have authored a few pages here since joining several years ago, so its not like I haven't contributed in a positive way. Plus I've added some helpful amendments to other articles. An I haven't tried to re-register under a new name etc, as I prefer not to be sneaky.

I do promise to avoid such over-the-top behavior - an I am not a troll, which is why I didn't mess with other peoples articles. I just want a 2nd chance, as I've learnt my lesson to not flip-out, AND ESPECIALLY, FOLLOW THE LEGIT PROCESS WHEN ADDING NEW INFO - which I suppose I only half did, an thus started me into a downward spiral. In the end, I didn't really comprehend my over-reaction - though I do now, an hence, it wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 February 2015‎

If I see no response to this by 01:59, 13 February 2015 I will assume there is no objection to unblocking this user. Chillum 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They had issues with writing material in an encyclopedic tone. I'd like to see an example of some text they'd like to add to article and an accompanying source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined towards unblock under the standard offer, but with the understanding that any return to the behaviors of the past will be met with a swift reblock. their talk page history shows a history of insults, an extremely combative attitude, and either a refusal or inability to get the point when other users pointed out their errors. We don't need that and if it comes back, so will the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, but open to being convinced otherwise. My concern is that this editor has not demonstrated a level of proficiency in editing that I believe is expected by the project. They frequently use 'an' instead of 'and'. Edits like this and this show they they do not understand WP:EL or WP:MOS. Unexplained edits like this are non constructive. Problems with original research. This and this shows a lack of understanding about our standards for new article creation, although they were provided links to the guidelines four years earlier. Here there is a lack of understanding about sources, capitalization, MOS and external link guidelines. Almost every edit that I reviewed has problems. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I'm inclined to think that Vcorani's contributions will likely be a net negative to the project.- MrX 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support Since other editors would like to see some example of good editing, then as mentioned in Wikipedia:Standard offer, there is always the {{2nd chance}} procedure, which may be the best way forward. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. (re)blocks are cheap. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've boldly returned this section from the archive. I was browsing CAT:RFU and saw that Vcorani's unblock request was still open pending resolution of this discussion. As this was archived due to lack of input I felt, in fairness, this should either have more input or at the very least an admin close this out. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Talk pages failing to move with articles

I've started a discussion on the issue of talk pages not always necessarily moving with articles when being moved by an admin (and whether there's any way to highlight this or add it to the toolset) – see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Talk pages failing to move with articles. Cheers, Number 57 18:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her

There is a clear consensus to endorse the close. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I would like a review for this closing. [24] I just don't think it reflects consensus at all, but would like others to review it.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fair close for the question "is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that [Ben Shapiro's] statement?" However, there doesn't seem to be consensus for actually including Shapiro's statement in the article, which is somewhat at odds with "...yes it's appropriate to include that source in the way that it's currently included in the article." in the RfC closing statement. The close does not address the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT; It merely assesses the question of reliability. My Facebook page would be a reliable source for my opinion, but unless secondary sources took note, I doubt it would make its way into a Wikipedia article. By the way, I do not eat children. - MrX 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I read over the RfC, the close, and the previous talk page discussion S Marshall linked to in the close, and... it looks like a perfectly reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough to endorse or not endorse, but the close looks basically within discretion. I'd make two points, though. The question asked was narrower than appears to have been called for. I'll AGF, but note that this can sometimes indicate an RFC question that is not made in perfect good faith. If I had closed this, I would, therefore, have declined to reward the question with an answer about whether the material can or should be included in the article. I would probably have instead invited further discussion. There are pros and cons to this. My approach might end up prolonging the dispute. S Marshall's approach might risk interpreting answers to a very specific question too broadly (i.e. some editors may not have considered the wider issues, because they were not asked to). However, skimming the responses, I'm not sure this is actually the case. Secondly, the close appears to recognise that the source being discussed is controversial and should be attributed. I'm not very familiar with the source, so I make no judgement on this. However, being unfamiliar with the source, I'm not sure whether the words "writing for Breitbart.com" would alert me to whatever it is I need to be taking into account. Perhaps a brief characterisation of Breitbart is also needed, but this is not really mandated by the discussion. So, if I had closed this, the fact that there were issues with the source to which the discussion did not provide answers would have been a further reason for me to invite further discussion. I'm really offering these comments for S Marshall to consider and feel free to ignore - they should not be interpreted as an overturn vote. Like I said, it looks within discretion to me. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Just to say that I'm aware of this discussion. The disputed wording is the stable version, or at least was in the article at the time of the October 2014 RfC which considered it. This is also at RSN and DRN, by the way. I'm happy to be overturned if editors feel I've made a mistake here.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Opinions are always citable as opinions." So if I find a statement on anyone's facebook page that compares the president to a Nazi, I can now include it in Wikipedia articles so long as I attribute it to the facebook account? I didn't think WP was set up to just past everyone's opinions where ever you wanted so long as you attributed them.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The key difference here is between verifiability (is there reason to be absolutely certain that this is person x's FB page) on one hand and notability and WEIGHT. Why should anyone care what person x's opinion on the president may be, and if we do find it notable, where should it be (it's more likely to belong on person x's bio than on the president's). Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical assumes the facebook page belongs to the person who said it. But, you admit there are other WP policies that apply and the statement "Opinions are always citable as opinions." is not true or sufficient. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF says that self published sources, like facebook, can't make contentious claims about others and have a whole myriad of restrictions on their use. So do you agree that those policies apply to attributed opinions from a self-published source just like weight and notability?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's true, but not sufficient. And we should always prioritise secondary sources over primary ones. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You say what's true? That "Opinions are always citable as opinions," or that other WP policies apply to attributed opinions as well? Please look at the policies and questions described and give a direct and succinct answer. If opinions are always citable as opinions, then there are no other policies relevant and any opinion can be cited so long as it's attributed. However, if other policies have to be met, like with the facebook "president=nazi" example, then opinions are NOT always citable as opinions and have to meet other WP standards.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Actually WP:BLP is the policy invoked when any notable source calls a living person a "Nazi" - and it is not the fact that it is an "opinion" in that event, and as noted Facebook is exceedingly rarely usable as a source for anything at all. For material salient to an article and allowed under policy, opinions are always citable as opinions, and are not allowed to be cited as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. In any event, the material does not impinge on WP:BLP in the manner some seemed to suggest, and the closure was certainly within normal discretionary limits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reaffirming that there are WP policies that have to be met before citing an opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close doesn't reflect consensus and misinterprets a previous RFC as the basis for its rational. The previous RFC mainly asked if Breitbart.com is reliable for its own opinion and was allowable with regards to a review by Christian Toto. The closer agreed with that it was reliable for its own opinion but didn't address the issue of allow-ability. However, the closer admitted that the inclusion Breitbart.com into the article is an entirely separate issue here [25]. So this close completely misinterprets the previous RFC to try to apply it to whether the Shapiro quote should be in the article. The close also ignored the BLP issues of Shapiro's quote and the issues of weight.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close was proper and the RFC was presumably constructed the way it was to address the specific policy claims being cited to object to the segment, as the first one was. VictorD7 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with VictorD7 that the close was proper. Atsme☯^Consult 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A Radical Suggestion

There have been too many RFCs and WP:AN threads about this article. Usually when there are too many WP:ANI threads about a topic, they indicate that there is battleground editing, and that it will eventually have to go to ArbCom. However, I don't see battleground editing, just a lot of questions where everyone is acting in good faith but getting nowhere. I would suggest that formal mediation at WP:RFM is the next step for this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's important to bear in mind how unimportant this article is. It made it into the news, it's something that people are worked up about now, but give it a year and things will look very different. I still remember how the Expelled article, at its height, was 20% longer than it currently is and had spawned 2 or 3 daughter articles. Now, few people would care if it was trimmed back to half its length, and no one has written anything new on the topic in more than half a decade. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mediation can not overturn an RfC close as far as I can tell, and a significant number of "declines" at the RfM are already noted. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would take the view that a mediator can overturn the close of a content RfC such as this one, if that's warranted. Formal mediation is a higher stage in the content dispute resolution process than an informal RfC. However, I don't think a mediator could overturn something like an RfC/U.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268 for further discussion and assessment by an uninvolved editor. It would be unfair to S Marshall (talk · contribs) and the discussion's participants if this closure review is allowed to be archived without resolution. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - if an RfC can be overturned that easily, why waste time doing it? Just skip the process all together and take it to formal mediation. Perhaps we need to exert equally as much energy into changing the wording of some core contents policies to avoid the confusion. ARBCOM and AE are beginning to look like a traffic jam. Atsme☯^Consult 00:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} removed. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Affirm I don't know why this was unachieved. We are so very far from consensus that this closure was improper. The best you could say was the RfC was too narrow for inclusion of the Shaprio quote as there were other issues then if it was a reliable source or not. Still given the contentious nature of Brietbart it makes sense that this was the RfC question (as some people were using it's contentious nature to mean it should not be included). Now that it is resolved that it is a reliable source (if attributed), then we don't have to deal with those claims anymore. --Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Affirm close noting appeals of closes should present policy-based arguments that the close was improper, and no evidence is educed that the close was improper. Collect (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

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.

---

Timeline:

1. 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung (talk · contribs) creates Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script.
2. 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung requests early closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
3. 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC) – I ask an admin to review the discussion and closure request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
4. 14:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) – Nil Einne (talk · contribs) reviews the closure request and writes, "[the RfC] should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus".
5. 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC) – I copy Nil Einne's review to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
6. 02:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung closes the RfC, writing, "I’m making the rare but not forbidden exception of closing this RfC myself. Its been going for over 15 days, a consensus was reached early, a request to close has been listed at WP:AN with no reaction".
7. 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – 50.0.205.75 (talk · contribs) contests the close at User talk:Kudpung.
8. 05:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung declines to reopen the RfC.
9. 06:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – K7L (talk · contribs) contests the early close at WP:ANRFC.
10. 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – EoRdE6 expresses weak support for reopening the RfC.
11. 23:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC) – Ceradon (talk · contribs) contests the early close at User talk:Kudpung and says Kudpung was uncivil and bitey towards 50.0.205.75.
12. 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung bans Ceradon from his talk page.
13. 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) – Kudpung collapses the discussion on his talk page, writing "The discussion is thataway".

Because several community members believe the RfC was closed too early, I am taking the close to WP:AN for a close review. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:AN:

Extended content

Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC) You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC) It should run for the 30 days. I see the original proposer, as an WP:INVOLVED editor, has taken it upon himself to close this prematurely and with his preferred outcome; this should be reverted. K7L (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I agree with K7L's comment above, which I noticed while engaged in unpromising discussion about the RFC at Kudpung's talk page. For one thing I'm perturbed by the assertion of an "emergency" that's non-existent as far as I can tell. On the other hand, the RFC really was going in the direction that Kudpung said, and the RFC is de facto about whether to protect the page WP:WPAFC/P. Usually if a page needs urgent protection, an admin just protects it (maybe with a talkpage or WP:RFPP discussion) without a full-length RFC or throwing around scary words like "emergency". Anyway: I'd support re-opening the RFC, but am ok with leaving the WPAFC/P page protected for the rest of the comment period, unless there's significant talkpage or RFPP support for unprotecting it. Added: I'm also bothered by the apparently secret off-wiki development taking place of a replacement for AFC.[26] AFC is certainly dysfunctional but we're going to replace it, Wikipedia principles generally call for open discussion instead of cabals presenting faits accomplis. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I weakly support reopening it. 30% of editors opposed the change, so it wasn't a landslide decision. For the time being we can leave it protected but that RfC is far from done. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) As I noted on Kudpung's talkpage, I strongly believe this RfC should be reopened. 30% opposition is not clear consensus and the RfC was not up to the 30 day limit. Furthermore, if all that was necessary was for the AFC script "Participants" page to be protected, that could have been done under the pretence of WP:BOLD. I think we can agree that allowing inexperienced users to approve AfC submissions (which will become articles, and carry the associated weight) is not prudent. Therefore, preventing these editors from adding themselves to the list is a bold, but justifiable move that does improve the encyclopedia. But the RfC wasn't limited to that. It became a discussion to improve AfC overall. I'd say that an RfC is a good, transparent place to do this. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment from WP:ANRFC:

I see that an involved party (namely, the user making the original proposal) has taken it upon himself to close the RfC even though he is *not* uninvolved, the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? K7L (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn. IMO, restricting access here is probably the right thing to do, but as an outcome of the RfC it is not overwhelmingly obvious that an early close is warranted. I think it is certainly inappropriate for the proposer to take it upon themselves to make an early close, given that the result is to permanently change the permissions to a page. Just the fact that it has ended up here demonstrates that point five of "Ending RfCs" does not apply. Let it run its course and get an independent close. Formerip (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - as I have noted before, Kudpung, is deeply involved in the matter. He should not have taken it upon himself to close this discussion. The beauty of Wikipedia. A nice, constructive discussion about AfC must now go to the drama boards. Sigh. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn per my earlier posts cited by Cunard. There is no emergency (protecting a page having problems is a routine measure, not an emergency response). Note that I'm also apparently now banned (along with Ceradon) from Kudpung's usertalk.[27] I actually don't mind the current situation (WPAFC/P protected maybe permanently with the script treating it as a whitelist) but some of the proponents seem to see that as a partial step towards some more obnoxious type of access management (like adding new permissions to the wiki software) that I'd consider to be a bad idea without compelling observable reasons that are not currently in evidence. If I get around to writing an RFC comment it will say something like that. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Added: Also, the right venue for discussing protecting or unprotecting a page is WP:RFPP, if BOLD or the page's associated talkpage doesn't suffice. That's another reason to think that the RFC reaches bigger issues. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn If you participate in a discussion, especially a high-profile one, you have no business closing it, let alone closing it two weeks ahead of schedule. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn, obviously. Wow. Just wow. I can't believe that an experienced admin who has been here for over eight years blatantly failed to adhere to one of the core administrative policies: WP:INVOLVED. For such as major RfC as this, it should not be closed two weeks early, and I hardly feel that 70% support is a "clear consensus". If this were an RfA, it probably would not have passed. No one is entitled to close their own RfCs merely because all their previous ones have always succeeded. As much as I hate to mention this, ArbCom is right this way for admins who are getting into persistent involvement issues. (And no, this is not a threat; I'm just saying what can happen if problems persist...) --Biblioworm 04:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn for the reason someone WP:INVOLVED in an RfC shouldn't be closing it, particularly in any way that could be controversial. As for the early closure, although my comment was highlighted above, I'm more mixed on this. The RfC clearly stated early closure as a possibility. However this doesn't override reasons we generally expect 30 days, the fact people aren't always that active and the expectation some may notice the RfC but not bother to participate (including reading that early closure is suggested) initially for whatever reason but plan to later. However I wouldn't mind early closure so much, if there was clear consensus assessed by an uninvolved admin. (Note, I'm not commenting whether there was clear consensus.) My main point with the comment highlighted above was to suggest that an admin should appreciate if there was no clear consensus (e.g. no consensus or borderline consensus), then it was fine for them to assess and note that, but they shouldn't close the discussion since even the caveat in the RfC didn't support such a closure. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Pinging closing admin. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The reasons stated by the above users are pretty much valid. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn No compelling reason shown for early closure. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn Too little time, and Kudpung was very involved. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yup, that's an overturn. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn This doesn't need an "emergency closure". The current system has worked for 5+ years, and Kudpung is trying to game the system. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Should have been open for 30 days, along with a closure from an uninvolved user. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was pinged on my talkpage for this. Best I can come up with is this: Bad close. Close it when it was originally supposed to be closed. Don't have someone who commented in it closing it. If that happened already, then revert the close and do it properly. Begoon ^talk 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to reverse protection on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants

WP:INVOLVED states that those with a strong opinion on a topic should not take administrative action concerning the issue. The RfC to implement full protection on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants was closed two weeks early with only 70%, which is not an absolutely "clear consensus". However, the original proposer (Kudpung) closed the RfC on his own and fully protected the page in question, despite being quite obviously involved. I propose that the protection on said page be reversed, and let a completely uninvolved admin judge the consensus when the RfC is fully complete and take action accordingly. --Biblioworm 04:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is the kind of bureaucratic proposal that has no place here. If anyone has an actual reason to believe the RfC should not be enacted (that is, protecting WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants is harming the encyclopedia), let them state the reason. If the best argument is "he broke the rules!", please find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• How so? If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants the page header templates are a long mess of WP:BITEy text which looks to be intended to dissuade new reviewers from joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation, all now fully protected so no one can tone this down. It was presumably dumped there when this was an editable page, in an attempt to discourage new users from randomly adding themselves, and was questionable then... but on a fully-protected page? It's completely inappropriate in tone and only serves to chase prospective reviewers away. That's very bad news given that we already have a severe shortage of reviewers and a one-month AfC backlog, which gives first-time users who submit article proposals and get ignored for weeks on end a very negative introduction to writing for Wikipedia. I don't appreciate being canvassed to break an already-broken AfC process further if that means losing new users. This "Of course AfC is broken, and there is a lot of support for that notion in the backrooms of Wikipedia. The best thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and there is a lot of support for that too. But before we can do that we have to convince the community that it's broken" seems almost to be making a WP:POINT of creating new problems. I realise there are issues with bad reviews, and I respect that, but please don't create a bigger problem by placing arbitrary barriers to entry of new, competent, good faith reviewers. K7L (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Meh If protecting that page was the only issue in that RFC there'd be less going on here. I'm not going to endorse leaving it protected but if the users of that page think it's need urgent protection, then whatever, it seems pointy to stand in the way of it unless the rfc closes otherwise. I think there's more confusion about the bigger picture. I don't think the problem with AFC is too few reviewers, but rather it's too much bureaucracy and too many crap submissions due to perverse incentives. I have to wonder what the secret plan is that I linked to above. The existence of an off-wiki cabal concocting an AFC replacement instead of with open discussion is troubling in its own right. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see any urgent need for any back-and-forth on the protection. Just let the closure review complete and then adjust the protection to whatever the final RfC outcome is. In the meantime, leaving it protected seems to best represent the consensus at initial closure time. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Nay I prefer the protection stays until the RfC gets over, atleast the reopeners wouldn't be blamed for any more illegitimate users of the script while it is going on. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support I don't think it's a good idea to let someone "win" a discussion by closing it improperly, even for a short while. Especially when tools are involved. Just a really bad plan. If there was a massively pressing reason, sure. But no one has spelled out such a reason. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that keeping inexperienced users off the list is a good idea, and it saves, say, SuperMarioMan's time. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting administrator attention

I think we have established consensus. I would prefer if an uninvolved admin reviewed these comments and made a decision accordingly or atleast give input. Not pinging any admins, since it might be considered as spam. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Although I !voted in the discussion in question (the same direction as it was closed in favor of), I think it is pretty clear there is consensus the close was improper and have undone both the close and the page protection. If an uninvolved party thinks the early page protection is warranted, I have no objection to them putting it back in place, but it was done as part of the RfC close so I think it makes the most sense to undo it as well (acknowledging the opinions above are mixed on the point.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Appeal of autism topic ban against User:Muffinator

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.

---

What follows is a copy of my appeal sent to the Ban Appeal Subcommittee. I was told that BASC will not consider my appeal due to the topic ban being "an administrative action not related to an arbitration case" and that I must appeal to the Administrators' Noticeboard instead. I have waited the recommended 6 months despite the ban being erroneous.

Username: Muffinator

Nature of ban: Topic ban on autism-related articles

Issued by: TParis

Relevant page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#User:Parabolooidal_spamming_passive-aggressive.2C_sarcastic_attempts_to_derail_discussions.2C_edit_warring.2C_and_meatpuppetry

Why it should be overturned: Unfair or erroneous - The following reasons for the ban were given at the adminstrator's noticeboard:

1) Use of WikiProject tracking banners on articles whose relevance to the project is disputed. This is a (talk page) content dispute which I had unsuccessfully attempted to centralize at the affected WikiProject. If anyone is at fault, it is the editors who insist that the issue is solely with me, on the grounds that other project members are less active. At the time of the ban, I was waiting for a request for comment to run its course, NOT engaged in an edit war.

2) False accusations of personal attacks. We can tell, based on the diffs, that they are not personal attacks, just statements that other editors do not agree with.

3) False accusations of creating WikiProject Autism to advance an agenda. The page mentions neutrality several times, urging participants to maintain it. It is only my own statements on talk pages (and not even on the WP:AUTISM talk page) that reflect a point of view, namely my opinions. Recognizing that all editors have opinions is a vital step in the process of maintaining neutrality.

4) Accusations of adding WikiProject tracking banners without explaining why, despite having explained why, several times and on several pages, including in comments that the accusing users responded to and therefore have presumably read.

5) Statements made on talk pages that are not neutral or supported by reliable sources. Comments on a talk page are not held to such a standard, and I never carried over to article text any of the sentiments in the cited comments.

6) Single-purpose account - my account has been used many times for non-autism topics, and even if it hadn't, it still doesn't meet the definition outlined at the SPA policy page. Just taking a strong interest in a particular subject does not make a user an SPA.

In addition to these 6 untruths, I believe this ban was made hastily and with regard to a democratic tallying of "support" comments rather than consensus based on the quality of arguments. Involved users who seemed to agree with me on other pages were not even given a chance to voice their opinions because the discussion was closed so quickly.

Another piece of information I consider relevant is that the user whom the ANI notice was originally about was discovered to be a sockpuppet a month later.

Lessons learned:

1) The latest revision of the WikiProject Council guide is insufficient to prevent most disputes over the use of tracking banners. It could use an update.

2) The administrator's noticeboard first scrutinizes the user who adds a complaint, and if that user is determined to be at fault, the original complaint is ignored.

Change of conduct if unbanned:

1) Although this was not a reason cited for the ban, I will be more careful to avoid edit wars, no matter how ridiculous I consider the other editor's change to be, instead favoring 1-on-1 discussions, third opinions, and requests for comment.

2) I will not start any discussions on the administrator's noticeboard.

3) Although I consider the ban frivolous, I am willing to hear out any suggestions that would normally be given for a "second chance" appeal, adding on to this list of changes.

Muffinator (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The section in "Lessons learned " comes off as a swipe against anyone that participated in the linked ANI discussion. More importantly, there's nothing in lessons learned that state why or even if you thought your conduct was innapropriate. I get the sense from reading this that you don't believe you did anything wrong, and that you were right. That's not a good attitude for asking for a ban reversal, sorry KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not looking for groveling, I don't see anything that suggests that you understand why your conduct was harmful or what specific actions you will take to avoid conflict in the future. NW (Talk) 17:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be an idea that "everyone is in error except me." JodyB _talk 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban appeal consisting of a lengthy explanation of why everyone else is wrong, concluding that everyone else is wrong and concluding with suggested behaviour changes that also manage to say that everyone else is wrong has no chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• So, the "lessons learned" can be summarised as: none. Hence oppose. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above. I've seldom seen a ban appeal that was a more clear cut case for denial. BMK (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see what I did wrong- that's the reason for appeal. Despite that, I am showing a change of attitude in the last point, which invites all recommendations. If my attitude is the main issue, please explain to me what a better attitude would look like. Muffinator (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• We are opposing because you don't see what you did wrong. Chillum 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What Chillum said. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Since the ban was imposed, Muffinator has made no main space edits, his only edits have been to talk pages either about his ban, or saying about going on a wikibreak. Whilst editing is not compulsory, Muffinator has made no attempt to show he can work with other users. In the ANI discussion that lead to the topic ban, I commented that Muffinator refuses to WP:DISCUSS issues, he needs to prove that he can edit as part of a team before the topic ban is lifted. Points above 2. [28] is a personal attack. 4. His reasons for adding the project banner seemed to consist of because he could, and ignored WP:BRD discussion here diffs [29] [30]. Muffinators behaviour at [31] was bad. Refusing to discuss the issue per WP:BRD [32] yet editting the wikiproject back in [33] after that refusal. I note also an IP [34] edited Talk:Prince Azim and other articles after the block was put in place either we have two like minded editors, or block evasion. Martin451 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have technical tools that could disprove block evasion? I know that wasn't me, so obviously some verifiable things like IP must be different. Muffinator (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia does. You can request a WP:SPI into other users (or even yourself). You can start one yourself. If you want another user to start one, I would be quite happy to, I know just the place. Martin451 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is quite possibly the worst ban appeal I've seen for a long long time. I don't insist upon begging for forgiveness, but this smug little rant that you'll reluctantly follow the rules, even though everyone else is wrong, does not give me any confidence whatsoever that the issues wouldn't reoccur Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose User has demonstrated they do not understand why their behavior led to the ban. That being the case it should remain. Chillum 05:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Question about WP:POLEMIC...

Will an admin please advise with a yes or no if the following would be considered polemic? [35] Thank you in advance.... Atsme☯^Consult 21:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Those observations are not at a specific editor - but that guide is very very true. That Daily Mail bit is in more than one way a very clear observation about yourself and other editors. The more experience you have on Wikipedia's "problem areas" the more it becomes clear. 1 and 2 are true for reasons that should be self-evident though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think any single admin can make an end-all, be-all determination as to whether this page passes beyond the line drawn by WP:POLEMIC, but my opinion is that it's fine. It's not unrelated to Wikipedia, it's doesn't attack any identifiable editor or group of editors... it's more of a wikiphilosphy thing, presenting the opinions held by MastCell (and/or the Guide's author). I present some similar statements on my own userpage. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this page is helpful, but neither is it harmful, and given the leeway generally afforded to productive contributors as to what they can host in their userspace, I can't find a reason to argue the removal of the content being discussed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I wouldn't consider it POLEMIC, as it's not targeted towards or referencing any particular person or set of people. (I mean, how many people honestly identify themselves as "stupid"? Who's going to read that and say, "Hey, you're talking about my people here!?" People may recognize particular actions as "stupid" but never themselves on a whole - so I wouldn't think people would get personally offended. It might make someone think less of the writer/re-poster, like "Wow, that person's kind of a jerk for being so judgmental" or something, but that's not a POLEMIC problem I guess.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Not at all. It reflects much truth albeit in a cynical way. So "no." Why do you ask? JodyB _talk 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I had it on my TP (have since deleted it) and didn't want to get in trouble for including something that would be considered WP:POLEMIC. There are so many PAGs to follow, and so many different interpretations it makes my head spin. Atsme☯^Consult 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder what the context might be? (No, actually I don't. See talk:G. Edward Griffin). Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• It does not attack any specific editor or group of editors, therefore is perfectly valid in userspace. If no specific editor or group of editors is identified or attacked, there is no harm done to them. Very few people wander the maze of userspace pages, by the way, and one wonders about those who seek to find something to object to. Collect (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• No problems there whatsoever. Perfectly good use of userspace. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input...(well, not quite "all", but then I kinda understand why Guy likes to taunt me over the Griffin article.) Enjoy your weekend! Atsme☯^Consult 05:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not taunting you. You are wrong, that's all. You said you'd drop it, I was happy with that because I think you are a nice person, but now you've decided to take up cudgels again and that is a major problem, because you are unwilling or unable to accept the consensus view on the mad ideas Griffin advocates. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's discourteous to discuss my userpage here without notifying me, but whatever. MastCell ^Talk 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion , A very appropriate page, that needs no apology. Well within the limits for internal comments about WP by experienced editors. Some of it may be hyperbola, in general I would endorse almost every statement there . People engaging in disputes here would do well to look at it very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The OP appears to be at risk of dressing as Spider-Man and climbing the Reichstag, which is always ill-advised. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• MastCell I actually brought it here because I had linked to that section on your user page as I noted above - I believed it to be an excellent reflection of what we sometimes have to deal with as editors. I asked a simple question that required a simple yes or no answer for my own benefit (my link to it) because I've seen accusations that similar material on other user pages was polemic. I apologize for not summoning you to join the discussion - it was an oversight on my part. I can assure you that if the discussion had shifted contrary to what I believed, you would have been notified immediately. Atsme☯^Consult 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much sums up what goes on around here more often than not. If anything, all sensible editors should have it on a sub page to remind themselves from time to time. Blackmane (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

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.

---

A little more than six months ago I was topic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the interests of Wikipedia to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always beneficial for wikipedia to have more editors constructively editing all articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that your past editing in the area concerned has been constructive? I ask this because that appears not to have been the consensus when the ban was enacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing whatsoever about Antidiskriminator or previous incidents, but "I just want to edit" is not a productive argument for lifting a topic ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which really makes sense. Is there any guideline which presents some kind of list of arguments to be used in discussions about ban appeals? If not, what do you think could be such argument? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guide specifically related to appealing topic bans, but the advice given at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked is also relevant to topic ban appeals. Generally speaking, an appeal wont be successful unless you:

• show you understand why the topic ban was imposed
• point to examples of where you have been constructively engaging in collaborative editing in one or more other topic areas
• have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident.
• state why you want to return to the topic area - is a particular article/problem you want to fix, for example?
• promise that problems will not reoccur

Deliberate boundary testing, wikilawyering, poor conduct in other areas, and a general lack of editing will typically be looked at unfavourably. I have not looked at any of the details of your ban or your contributions since, so I don't have an opinion on the merits of this specific appeal and I'm not implying that you have or have not done anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here it is:

• The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me
• For example The Fault in Our Stars (film) and bringing it to GA level together with its nominator (link to my GA review). Since my topic ban was imposed I created 40 articles and developed 27 of them to start class and 4 to C class, alone or with other editors. I had 12 of them approved as DYK articles and still have 2 nominations. One nomination (Paškal Jukić) was done jointly with another editor (link) (link and link). I also created one template (link) and most of its content.
• I have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident (with one minor unintentional breach when I added one comma to text about Albanian partisans near Tirana in article about Kingdom of Albania - link)
• I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction.
• I promise to take very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that first bullet point may be a killer to this request, so I suggest you expand on it. Can you explain what actions you took that caused the community to give you a topic ban? In particular, can you explain what you did that was problematic? You don't need to apologize for past behavior. Rather, you need to show you really understand what the problem was and have a solid plan for avoiding similar problems in the future. As written, I don't get that sense at all. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion that resulted in the topic ban is here, and the first appeal of it, five days later, is here. It's been about 5 1/2 months since that appeal, and as far as I can tell there hasn't been another appeal since. A short discussion regarding the boundaries of the ban is here. Several of the people in that discussion were of the opinion that Antidiskriminator's October 21, 2014 edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated the topic ban, but there was no consensus declared. BMK (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Since that appeal has been 191 days, or 6 months and one week, if I am not wrong.
• Hobit, Thank you for this question. It is indeed good to clarify if I have a solid plan for avoiding problems in this topic area in the future. To put it briefly: The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). Yes, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd be hard pressed to call the ban discussion a consensus in any way, shape or form, despite Drmies concluding that sufficient evidence of disruption had been presented to warrant a TBAN. The number of editors that !voted in that ban discussion was distinctly suboptimal. Six editors !voted all but two having had some sort of contact/dispute with Antidiskrimnator. I definitely couldn't say there was a sufficiently uninvolved consensus for a TBAN. Be that as it may, perhaps a probationary period of say 3 months during which the TBAN is lifted but any transgressions would result in a TBAN under WP:AC/DS? Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The discussion above of what brought about the TBAN in the first place doesn't exactly reek of contrition, but avoiding the topic for six months may be grounds to AGF and lift the topic ban, on the understanding that it comes straight back if the misbehaviour continues. How do we administer this, so that admins are aware of the probation condition? GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest allowing proposals of edits on talk pages, and see how it goes from there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected. What this particular proposal needs is a bit less sourness from Antidiskriminator and a bit of good faith from the rest, esp. the ones who wanted him banned in the first place. One of the things they should say, given that AD has been out of that area for six months, is that editing in that area has gotten easier. If they cannot show progress, or state with hand on heart that it's gotten better, then AD's topic ban wasn't much use in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Taking in consideration that most of the complaints to my talkpage behavior were related to my communication with Peacemaker67 who was blocked because of "edit warring and personal attacks" (diff) while I was banned, I am not sure if it can be stated with hand on heart that problem was (only) my behavior. Some of editors that I have been in conflict with and who !voted for my ban came again here to !vote against its lifting. To show them (or any other editor concerned about my possible "obstructing discussions") that I have a plan to avoid similar problems in the future I am willing to oblige myself to use below presented template for all comments I make at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to Post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months after the ban was lifted.

Short description	Opinion	Basis
Antidiskriminator's opinion/reply about/to xzy ....	I think that xyz...... because........ so the text should be changed to ...............	* List of wikipedia policies (with quotes if necessary) that support the opinion. or * List of sources that support the opinion (if necessary with short quotes)
.......	........	.............

Based on the discussion at WP:AN (permanent link), Antidiskriminator obliged himself to use this template for all comments he makes at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months.--~~~~ --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that putting your comments in a table avoids the problem. Quite the opposite in fact given that this would be difficult for other editors to engage with. Blaming others for your conduct is also worrying. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Antid attempts to throw mud at me for a short-term block I quite rightly received. What he fails to point out, and what demonstrates the huge difference between his behaviour over a very long period, and mine on that occasion, is that when I do the wrong thing, I unreservedly acknowledge it, apologise to the community, per this, and discontinue the behaviour. Antid shows no contrition or acceptance that he has breached community norms, he just wants to get straight back to doing what he was doing before. He keeps a list of all the "wrongs" he was not able to "right" with the Pavle Đurišić article (and others), and he will no doubt just go straight back to it, using his "policy table" above, which will just be used to make his wikilawyering look more official (and authorised by ANI). He has demonstrated a strong need to "right wrongs", generally wrongs he feels have been done to Serbs, and his subpages list is indicative of the way he goes about it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lift ban. And expecting someone to agree with you that you were right to ban them is pretty dumb. Nobody ever actually believes they were justly banned, so this is really just a demand for kowtowing, and it's petty. Everyking (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've lifted the ban. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did Lugnuts do that? NE Ent 20:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pixie dust? Magic wand? Touched by an angel?
  In point of fact, Lugnuts did nothing except type the words "I've lifted the ban. Happy editing!", and the ban has not actually been lifted. There was no closing statement with an explanation of the closer's rationale, the topic ban is still logged at Editing Restrictions, and presumably admins will enforce it if there's a need to.
  In theory, there's nothing wrong with a NAC closure of a ban appeal, but in general NAC closures should be reserved for cases where the outcome is obvious and indisputable. There's also the problem that while the community imposes the ban, admins are the ones who have to enforce it, so imposing or lifting a ban without an admin close may or may not be effective.
  Were I Antidiskriminator, I would not start editing in the topic ban area without getting this question cleared up. BMK (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• And can we have some due process here, please? The discussion has barely lasted a day. Despite relatively low participation at that ANI, I don't think Antidiskriminator was banned lightly, and the decision came after years of WP:TE and WP:CIVILPOV. To quote Fut. Perf from that debate, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. and that matches my impressions in relatively limited dealing with AD perfectly. I'm not against second chances, but I have significant reservations about AD's determinations to reform and be a net positive for the project. No such user (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban I have some recollection of all the issues from last time around. But I get the sense this user is going to take an honest shot at being a good editor in the area. I would prefer the topic ban removal be with the condition that it can be reimposed by an administrator at any time if his editing in this area again becomes problematic. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of TBan His edits are useful. I had reviewed one of his DYK,[36] they are interesting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of ban. This user's presence in the topic area was a perennial source of disruption, and I see no signs whatsoever that he has changed. This ban was imposed for a good reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes you believe he hasn't changed? 6 months in his other edits have been quite solid from what I can see. We generally give people WP:ROPE at that point. I'd not be shocked if the ban needs to be reimposed, but I'm not sure what else he could do to show things have changed. What is it that you'd want to see to think he has changed? Hobit (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TBan I am one of the editors that has objected strenuously to Antid's behaviour in the past, and also one of the editors that had to deal with him most, because he had a very particular interest in Chetniks, and I edit in Yugoslavia in WWII. I agree wholeheartedly with the observations of No such user. Antid was NOT banned lightly, so far as I can remember, his behaviour has been ongoing for the whole three years I've been editing WP. This is not a second chance, it is actually a third chance. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator. A lifting of the ban in terms of talk pages would open the flood gates for exactly the same behaviour on talk pages as he engaged in before. He created laundry lists of "issues" on talk pages on which he would demand clarification, fail to get the point, fail to accept consensus, and was generally highly disruptive, wasting editors' time. For a small sample, look at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 6, which demonstrates just how incredibly frustrating his behaviour really was. Someone above asked if it had been easier to edit in his absence. Where I (and others) edit, hugely. In fact, it has become a pleasure again after a couple of years of incessant frustration with tendentious obstructionism and poor-quality editing (when he deigned to actually edit in article space rather than carping about endless issues on talk). This is not just a matter of walking away from a disagreement. In the case of Pavle Đurišić, I took it to FA, and he fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way, creating reams of text about issues he has shown he will never accept are reliably sourced. He showed no indication he learned anything from his first brush with ARBMAC, and I doubt he will learn from this ban if it is lifted. He showed a great deal of interest in advocating for very specific points of view, and I don't believe that lifting the ban would be in the interests of Wikipedia. If he is productively editing outside this topic, let him continue to do so. Surely there is much to do to improve WP coverage of the Ottoman period. Why does he need to project forward past 1900, where he had proved unable to edit without obstructionism and tendentiousness? A lifting of the TBan will just draw him back into the same contentious territory in which he failed to get the point in the first place. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - For chrissakes. He's made a calm, good-faith request to have his topic ban lifted, he's given ample proof of having contributed beneficially in the meantime, and people are demanding he grovel. Just unban him and let him edit, if he violates policy then reban. Easy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Lifting of topic ban per my comment below, and Peacemaker's comment above. From what I've seen, the editing environment around former Yugoslavia topics has improved hugely over the last year or so, and allowing Antidiskriminator to return to this field would be a significant step backwards, especially as they appear to be unrepentant. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Your argument doesn't really take into account how the user has behaved since the topic ban. Are you suggesting that he should never be unbanned? If not, what would need to happen for you to think that removing the ban was a good idea? Hobit (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • For the ban to be lifted, I think that Antidiskriminator would need to genuinely acknowledge the problems with their behaviour, and make meaningful commitments to avoid this going forward. Not stuff like this. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - AD was very active and productive editor. Unfortunatelly, Balkans related articles often create groups and lobbies which end up trying to eliminate the editors opposing them in the discussions. The topic ban was too heavy and seemed more of a elimination of an editor than real benefit for Wikipedia. I beleave AD understood well the type of engagement that will get him into opposing editors filling reports on him, and besides those discussions he was actually a very productive editor. He certainly deserves at least a chance. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is way too cute, Fkp. You yourself got a six-month ARBMAC TBan in 2012 for behaviour very similar to Antid's. There are quite a few regular editors in the space Antid wants to return to, and I have had zero issues with any of them since he was topic-banned. They all have different perspectives, and we seem to be able to resolve any disagreements amicably and quickly. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Many users from "your side" from those discussions back then also got banned. I am not here to save you from discussions, but for the best interest of Wikipedia. I said what I have to say. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of ban. He avoided the topic for six months, to me that is grounds for a second chance. AGF, move on and lift his topic ban. Caden ^cool 16:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• If the people of good faith who are willing to extend a second chance to AD in this topic area were actually going to be there throughout the next few years to police his various shenanigans, then sure, why not. But experience taught me to have absolutely zero expectation of that, since this is a really convoluted and often toxic topic area that the bulk of the editors steer clear of. So there's little doubt in my mind that unbanning him would lead to anything other than a net loss for the encyclopedia. In fact, this discussion has only reminded me of how nice these few months of relative peace have been. That doesn't mean we've had it easy in the Balkans topic area - a recent example of wacko crap that happens around there is laid out at List of Presidents of Croatia. Who wants to police that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be fair if you have added several important clarifications to your comment, such as:
    1. that you are the editor who reported me in the first place
    2. that you were involved in numerous disputes with me
    3. that you were blocked for your actions in this topic area (diff)
    4. that your block came after I pointed (diff) at the issue with your actions
    5. that you reported me immediately after you were unblocked
    6. that few months of relative peace might be result of Peacemaker67's block for edit warring and personal attacks and warnings he received not to repeat such behavior in future (diff and (diff).
  • Taking all that in consideration, together with the tone of your comment here (i.e. "shenanigans" and "wacko crap") I am uncertain if it is my editing which needs policing. Nevertheless I am willing to address your policing concerns and, in case I am unbanned here, oblige myself to immediately report myself to WP:AN as soon as you or Peacemaker67 accuse me for being disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A succinct demonstration of why you shouldn't be unbanned, and I didn't even ask for one. Yay! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of Tban (Non-administrator comment) My reasons for opposing the removal of this topic ban are the same as listed below. Ca2james (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of having to fight all the war at the Balkan again. And Antidiskriminator was too many times involved in that. A perennial source of trouble. The Banner talk 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Concrete Proposal

IAW the discussion above, let's modify AD's topic ban from A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed) to A ban on Antidiskriminator editing articles in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed), but allowing edits to talk pages of such articles.

• Support as proposer GoldenRing (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, his talkpage behaviour was always at least just as big a problem as his article edits, and I don't see any indication why I should expect more constructive behaviour now than before. These talkpages are better off without him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until the editor frankly acknowledges the misbehavior that led to the topic ban, and commits explicitly to avoiding such behavior in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Fut.Perf. and Cullen, and I can't help but notice that Antidiskriminator's approach in this appeal is to make as few commitments as they possibly can. Their entirely unsatisfactory initial post in this thread is a real warning sign to me that problems are likely to re-occur, and the vague commitments they have subsequently made give me little comfort. Nick-D (talk)
• Oppose per my comment above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have any particular interest to edit talkpages. On the contrary, my approach will be "to make as few commitments as I possibly can", just like in this appeal. I clarified that: "I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - please, allowing a productive editor to participate in discussions but not allowing him to edit articles is like teaching someone to drive a plane but not allowing him to fly. Also, makes no sense, since AD problems came more precisely from discussions and not actual editing. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) Having reviewed the ANI topic ban discussion, it's clear to me that there were good reasons to topic ban this editor. I don't think that removing the topic ban would be beneficial to Wikipedia: in this thread, the editor hasn't shown that they understand that his behaviour was the problem and also hasn't shown that he is committed to changing that behaviour. Restricting comments to his opinion, Wikipedia policies, and reliable sources is not a change in behaviour at all. Ca2james (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of the worst disruption and drama happens on talk pages, and they are where content is very often decided. A topic ban which allows talk page edits is not a topic ban in any meaningful sense. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of having to fight all the war at the Balkan again. And Antidiskriminator was too many times involved in that. A perennial source of trouble. The Banner talk 09:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Sorry, placed in the wrond section.
  • Can you present some link or diff to the war you had to fight with me at post-1900 Serbs or Serbia topics? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure of AN topic

I don't know what is the procedure when some ban appeal discussion gets archived without being closed, so I copied it here hoping that somebody will close it. It should be taken in consideration that two oppose !votes are connected with possible canvassing issue explained in this discussion (permanent link).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the discussion is closed. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "do not archive until" tag. This discussion has been open since February 1st, that's 21 days now, more than sufficient time to have generated an admin closure if an admin felt the need for it to be closed. Allowing the thread to be archived without action is the equivalent of a pocket veto, and is an indication that no admin believes there is a need to change the status quo. BMK (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • More than one admin who participated in this discussion supported removal of ban or clearly stated they are not opposed to it, including the admin who imposed ban in the first place (Drmies) who emphasized "I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm re-adding the do not archive tag. If someone wants to say there is not consensus to remove the ban, all well and good. But in general we should have closes on things like this. It is simply rude to the requester not to do so. Ideally, such a close would give a better idea what the policy-based reason is for not undoing the ban and what steps they should take in the future. I'd close this as a NAC, but I'm clearly involved. Further, I'm not at all certain the reason we haven't had a close is because this one is just not clear. Most of those opining on one side or the other are involved and falling where you would expect them. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't you think that over 20 days is sufficient for this discussion? These things usually run about 5 days at the most. That admins are unwilling to close it one way or the other is, in my view, a collective "Meh" from them. Also, that we're going to let this sit here until mid-April is affording AD a special status that other topic ban appealers don't get.
      Ah, well, maybe someone will just close it. BMK (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

R2 speedy

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.

---

Can someone speedy these two please?

• Module:Guy, Sharyn and Clint
• TimedText:Guy,_Sharyn_and_Clint

Untaggable cross name-space redirects left by move.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above 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.

Xenoglossy page needs attention

The administrator (JzG) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Xenoglossy_page_issue) of this page refuses to remove the semi-protection without having a good reason. To whom should we complain about this? Please help.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You can post here but not unprotecting a page without good reason seems quite a good reason for keeping it protected. The reason for protecting the article still appears to be valid. If you wish to edit the article you can make a requested edit on the articles talk page.Amortias (T)(C) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the third time you have made the same request. The page is semi-protected because of the edits you persist in making. In every case your core complaint is that you are prevented from adding content despite the comprehensive consensus on the Talk page that it is not appropriate. If the article gets unprotected, you get blocked instead. I don't care which, I do care that you refuse to heed dissenting voices because you are convinced you are bringing The Truth™.

As an aside: you consistently use the plural when referring to yourself. What group is trying to add this content? Guy (Help!) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick question on WP:OUTING

Let's say there's an IP editor, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/8.8.8.8

Let's further say this IP is pointing to some corporation, which it does. It starts with a G in case anyone wonders.

Here's my question: Can I say which corporation? Upon carefully reading the policy, I think I should be allowed to say it.

The policy says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. (...) If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia;"

There's a minimal ambiguity in this quote, since the link to the company name is auto-posted by Wikipedia. The WHOIS-link that reveals the corporation is auto-attached to the pages about the IP editor. The information can't be redacted because an IP editor can't ask to have the auto-attached WHOIS-link removed. Kristina451 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, there's nothing the IP editor can do to hide their location or the entity to whom the IP is registered. I wouldn't say it's outing unless you put information on Wikipedia that other users cannot easily find on Wikipedia on their own. Epic Genius (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you undertake an action to find the information, it is currently a violation. If they post information about themselves on Wikipedia and do not remove it, that is not a violation as such. Contacting their employer is verboten. Collect (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us a more specific example? Why would you want to name the origin of the IP address? Is it relevant to a particular article the IP is editing? Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There are notices on IP talk pages when the IP is attached to a school, school district or military base, I don't see this as very different. You're not outing an individual because you are not identifying them by personal information like a name, email or address. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Linking an IP address used to edit Wikipedia and a corporation or ISP cannot reasonably be considered related another editor's personal information. There is no personal information. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd never want to contact their employer. I just want to say the IP points to G... in this example, and the action I have to undertake to know this is well, click on the link already here on Wikipedia.

Here's why I may find this useful: Let's say an IP registered to a corporation is making edits in such a fashion that the fact whom the IP belongs to is relevant for WP policies and guidelines. Kristina451 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So, your question is essentially, "Can I say: This IP editor whois from CompanyG is editing promotional content in articles about CompnayG - or would that be Outing?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes TRPoD, the question could be phrased this way. Per the consensus here, it's apparently not outing. Thanks to all for the replies. Kristina451 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You can definitely make the connection between an IP and a company based on the WHOIS info, but since there is no personal info being divulged (after all, if you edit with an IP, you agree to give your location, ISP, and other info that can be found by doing an IP search), it is not outing. By contrast, mentioning their name, email, telephone number, home address, etc. is outing. Epic Genius (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Outing is publishing what you claim to be the user's unpublished personal information, derived from offline sources or from sleuthing around on the Internet — basically what the 4chan people do to people they don't like, finding home addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, etc. Things that are already made available to us, including WHOIS and geolocation information for IP addresses, aren't unpublished personal information: you're just repeating what's already easily findable by anyone. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Backlogs at WP:UAA and CAT:SPEEDY...

...if anyone can help. APK whisper in my ear 09:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Still a massive backlog (156) at CAT:SPEEDY. Amortias (T)(C) 17:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the subject of backlogs, AIV has been pretty backlogged for a few hours at least. Some reports have been waiting for a fair while. The admins already there may need a helping hand. Orphan Wiki 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I worked on the backlog at CAT:CSD today... we're below 50 now. It's of course an endless battle. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please review my actions re: User:Maxcrc

Yesterday I handled a ticket on OTRS from a person asking a question about the data at User:Maxcrc/Countries without frost, created by Maxcrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His account has been registered since 2006 and has just over 1,200 edits. I examined the page and its history, as well as some of the user's contributions and decided to nominate it for deletion via MFD. My rationale was that the page had existed for many years in that state (minus some recent IP edits), the data (if one can call it that) was completely unsourced and there was no indication that it was ever going to be an actual article. To me this was essentially an example of using Wikipedia for indefinite web hosting and personal projects. Now, other editors might disagree with me, and that's fine. That is the point of MFD. I nominated the page and went about my business. The sequence of subsequent escalation is as follows:

• TW notification to his talk page regarding the MFD
• Maxcrc posts this to my talk page (which I reverted)
• Removes the MFD tag from the page
• I ask him to please calm down
• Then this on his own talk page
• I try to explain again
• He edits the MFD (while also logged out)
• Subsequent edits to his talk page
• Pastes a fake MFD notice on my userpage
• I block for three hours to avoid more drama and hopefully let him calm down
• First legal threat on his talk page
• Block extended to indef, with explanation
• Second legal threat, including Irondome in the deal
• At that point I revoked talk page access and pointed to UTRS as last resort

The user's reaction to my MFD nomination was quite simply hysterical and disruptive, in a sense WP:OWN taken to its illogical extreme. Although the blocking policy explicitly discourages "cool down" blocks, to the extent that a block can be issued in good faith, that was really my intention. I figured perhaps they were having a bad day or something. It was never my intention to block, edit war or otherwise enter in a conflict with them in any way - an MFD is about as routine as it goes around here. However, legal threats are not a joke, in any context or situation. WP:NLT does not encode the idea that legal threats might be believable or not, but rather that they are issued to create a chilling effect on other editors and a threatening atmosphere that subverts our conflict resolution processes. I personally do not take such legal threats seriously, however the policy does not ask us to do so. It's the intent behind the threat rather than the threat itself. Since this all happened between myself and the editor in question without the input or participation of other uninvolved admins, and the user deleted the block notices rather than request to be unblocked, I ask that this incident be reviewed, with whatever outcome that might bring. I do however ask everyone to keep in mind that it's possible that Maxcrc can function within this project so long as he is not "bothered" and his projects not touched, because when he is apparently all hell breaks loose. We have processes for solving disputes without hysterics and legal threats. So I'm not sure that is the kind of contributor we value, but that's not up to me to decide, and I'm not trying to put them in a bad light beyond what the diffs already show. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello FreeRangeFrog; I stumbled on this mess when I was reviewing CSD, and other pages in the same user's userspace had been "nominated". I've been working on it somewhat piecemeal over the evening, and I'm sorry I'd not got as far as discussing it directly with you.

I suspect that the core issue is that you don't know why the user has that page in his userspace; you never asked him, but it seems you made an assumption. Userspace is a funny thing: many people have all kinds of stuff in their userspace that makes little sense to anyone but them, and the connection to the project is sometimes not obvious. There's never been a requirement or expectation that every page in someone's userspace is intended to be an article draft. So, I suggest to you that a significantly better first step in responding to that OTRS ticket would have been to ask the user about the page. Whoever stumbled on it probably uses one of the search engines that crawls userspace (Google doesn't crawl it anymore, apparently, but some others do), and the page came up on a websearch of some kind. With that in mind, a first step might also have been to put {{NOINDEX}} on the page, and drop him a note on his talk page. I hope you're seeing the theme here, though...it's always a really good idea to initiate a neutral conversation with someone before nominating a page in their userspace for deletion. Almost everyone feels ownership of their user subpages, and I doubt there is anyone reading this page who wouldn't feel at least somewhat disturbed if a page in their userspace was nominated for deletion without the nominator starting a personal discussion first. If you didn't get a response in a few days, an MfD may well have been appropriate at that point; this wasn't an emergency situation where something had to be done Right This Minute.

Given that you were in the middle of a dispute with the user, I believe that WP:INVOLVED applies to both of the blocks you made, and that your first block significantly escalated the dispute, to the point that the user was spitting mad and implying that he'd try to put you in jail. (As an aside, do you really believe that anyone can put you in jail for nominating a Wikipedia page for deletion? Is this really a legal threat, or is it someone inappropriately blowing off steam?) We've known for years that blocks almost never cool off a situation, and in fact such "cool-down" blocks have been deprecated since even before my RFA in 2008. I don't understand why you would think a 3-hour cool-down block applied by the person who he believed had insulted him would really have de-escalated the situation. Again, there was no reason for you to personally block; WP:AN is here for you to draw the attention of other, non-involved administrators and seek to calm the situation down. At this point, I would suggest that you seriously consider lifting the block entirely and allowing others to come in and try to talk to the user and get things calmed down. If he needs to be reblocked, someone else can do it; however, I have a feeling that won't be necessary. Risker (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

comment That user has a history of hysterical overreation dating back ~8yrs. It's good that you think a re-block won't be necessary, personally I'm surprised these were his first blocks in years of outbursts. 94.192.37.1 (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No comment on the first block. However, for #2, see WP:NOTBURO; this is an obvious block situation, and unblocking just so that someone else can do it is process for process' sake. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, Nyttend. What is the point in commenting on the second block, if you're not going to comment on the original block's appropriateness? That's the question FreeRangeFrog has asked about, at its core. After all, if he'd not done the first block (a block he could have asked any admin to make given he was involved) then the second block may never have been required. Risker (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that WP:INVOLVED applies to both of the blocks you made I figured you meant "all four of the blocks you made"; if not, which two? You addressed more than the first one, so I'm just responding to that part of your comment. Regardless, "Regarding your disgusting and illegal lies and defamations , legal actions will be taken. You'd better find a lawyer, but a good one.Good luck with that !" is definitely a legal threat. In straightforward cases, the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. How could a reasonable administrator come to any other conclusion? Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There are only two blocks, the 3 hour one (for disruption), and the indefinite one (for legal threats). The tweaking for level of access is not a new block, Nyttend; it is never counted that way when calculating the number of blocks a user has. In this case, the second tweak doesn't even make sense, reinstating talk page access but retaining the block on email. Risker (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there was (1) one 3-hour block (2) extended to indefinite with (3) talk page access revoked and (4) restored.

• 01:56, 25 February 2015 FreeRangeFrog (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Maxcrc (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (Making legal threats: Lifting talk page restriction, AN discussion)
• 05:25, 24 February 2015 FreeRangeFrog (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Maxcrc (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Making legal threats: Disruptive editing)
• 05:06, 24 February 2015 FreeRangeFrog (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Maxcrc (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Making legal threats: Disruptive editing)
• 04:54, 24 February 2015 FreeRangeFrog (talk | contribs) blocked Maxcrc (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Disruptive editing)

Nominating an active user's subpage for deletion without first discussing it with them: a stupid move. Telling an editor obviously upset with you to calm down: really ill advised. Cool-down block while involved: really really ill advised. Unless you were deliberately inflaming things, FreeRangeFrog. If that's the case, nicely done. If that wasn't your intention, learn from this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. It was Maxcrc who inflamed the situation right from the beginning, not FreeRangeFrog. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Neil, I'm very unimpressed with Maxcrc's behaviour. But Frog asked for feedback on his actions. It began with Frog nominating an active user's user subpage for deletion without first discussing it with the user. A dick move. It doesn't help things having you here minimising the stupidity with "but but the other guy started it" - especially when the other guy didn't start it. Frog started it with a dick move, then followed up with an involved block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And it doesn't help things when you misrepresent the situation, completely skipping over the posts that led to the block. Maxcrc could've probably gotten away with, "Hey idiot, that page is useful so MYOB" but he kept pushing. A deletion nomination within guidelines is not justification for continued disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not even I am saying that a block was completely out of the question here; however, nobody's seriously argued against the blocks being made with the administrator was involved, either. On the other hand, the blocks probably wouldn't have been required at all if proper communication had taken place before taking the page to MfD. Drilling down to the root cause here, FreeRangeFrog saw an OTRS ticket that made inquiries about the content of the page, and without prompting from the OTRS correspondent, decided to put the page up for deletion. (The correspondent's question wasn't answered, either - an answer to the correspondent would have required communication with Maxcrc.) In other words, the problem here keeps coming back to failure to communicate with the user. Risker (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, it appears that Maxcrc has withdrawn the legal threats (I have asked him to formally state as much). And for some strange reason, he continues to have email access blocked although he can use his talk page. There is no logical reason for that. The "disruption" block would have long since expired, and the "legal threat" block is no longer needed with the threat withdrawn. In fact, it looks as though the legal threats were withdrawn (by the user removing them from his talk page) a long time ago. Risker (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I suppose we can "coulda, shoulda" all day here, but I recognize that the first block was WP:INVOLVED and I should have handed it over to another admin. I have no qualms whatsoever about the second block. Whether the legal threats were a direct result of that or whether they would have materialized regardless is I suppose the question here, however the user seems to have withdrawn said threats and so the block no longer serves any purpose. We talk a lot about AGF and how admins are supposed to be better at avoiding escalation of situations like these, however my feeling is that this would have happened eventually given the user's reaction to something so routine as an MFD. Whatever arguments can be made against my conduct here should not exclude scrutiny over the user's conduct, because their reaction was outside of all bounds and reasonable expectations. We are all supposed to be adults here, not a few adults and lots of non-adults who can't control themselves. I disagree that that there was an explicit need for discussion with them as to what the purpose of the subpage is or was, because my guess is that the response would have been the same. My feeling (and thus the MFD) is that should not exist in Wikipedia. To the point about "it's not hurting anything" or "userspace pages are OK" or how they're somehow special and exempt from policies, I have to note the number of sandboxes and subpages I've deleted in the past year that contained fantasy football rankings, made-up stories about Thomas the Tank Engine, company meeting minutes, fictional pokemons and other material that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, unlike the examples given above like essays or lists of articles, which do. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and the policy does just that. Compare to this for example, which I can see being made into a valuable standalone article and which I would never nominate for deletion. As with many other things around here, I feel it's a case of "you shouldn't do it but no one has noticed so no problem", except when someone does notice and policy should absolutely apply. I genuinely and honestly believe that I would have done a disservice to Wikipedia if I had simply ignored it, and I certainly don't feel anyone has to passionately defend the nomination of such a page so long as the rationale is within policy, nor be insulted or threatened for said nomination. Yet here we are. In any case, the user is unblocked, hopefully with some understanding what these pages can and cannot be used for, and hopefully as well not discouraged from participation in the long term. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Obvious blocks are obvious. However, in future, perhaps send the correspondent the standard text on how to nominate something for deletion and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 212.199.205.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism

They were deleting okay referenced content, adding unreffed content and changing the titles of references to make them wrong. As I edit the article in question which is Medical uses of silver I am posting this block here for review. If anyone feels like overturning it they are more than welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:FRINGE, it was a case of block the IP or semi-protect the article, either is perfectly defensible in the circumstances. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Block review of User:Russian editor1996

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.

---

• Russian editor1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please read the ARCA request that I have linked. At the linked page, the request that I'm referring to is in the section "Clarification request: Eastern Europe". Now that the application of DS was rightfully overturned by motion of ArbCom, I'd like to request that Russian editor1996 (talk · contribs) be unblocked. I've explained my reasons in that ARCA request. As far as I can see, no behaviour by this editor warranted an indefinite block. Given that it is already known that the administrator that imposed it did so out-of-process as a discretionary sanction, I believe that there is no reason to allow this unjust block to stand. RGloucester — ☎ 05:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock The fact that the black was procedurally incorrect as a DS block -- because the editor had not received a prior DS warning -- does not mean that it was unjustified as a normal admin block, which it has been converted to. The behavior noted was still the same behavior, and there's been no evidence of that not being the case, so the block should stand as is. (In any case, has Russian editor1996 requested an unblock? What standing do you have to make this request?) BMK (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What behaviour "noted"? No evidence of behavioural misconduct was ever provided, which is why I pursued the ARCA motion in the first place. The issuing administrator has provided no diffs or anything. Please look at the editor in question's edit history. The only justification for a block that was provided by the issuing administrator was "arbitration enforcement", which obviously doesn't apply. I don't play legal games with "standing", whatever that is. The fact remains that this is an illegitimate block. It must be overturned. RGloucester — ☎ 06:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't do block reviews requested by third parties. The user in question hasn't requested an unblock himself; if and when he does, it will be considered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is there anything in policy anywhere that says a third party cannot request a review of a block they think is unjust? Squinge (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear RGloucester (who was recently blocked for outlandish behavior at ANI) himself stated that "[Russian editor1996] was nothing but disruptive". Seems strange to me that anyone would ask for someone who they considered to be nothing but disruptive to be unblocked... just saying. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

He will not ask for an unblock because he has no history of talk page use, or of even understanding what a talk page is. In other words, an editor has been removed from the project with no justification. I've explained my use of the word "disruptive", and explained that that did not warrant any kind of block. Coffee has still yet to provide a single diff supporting his indefinite block. I'd ask him to try and do that, so that others can comprehend the thought process that went on inside his mind at the time. Coffee, of course, likes to portray himself in a good light. In a better world, he would've blocked for what he did, so he doesn't have much room to talk. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

He has two choices: learn what a talk page is (which is not optional if you want to contribute in contentious areas), or stay blocked. Do feel free to coach him on talk page use and thus achieve the result you prefer. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't "prefer" any result. Indefinite blocks are a serious matter, and are not usually given out lightly. We have every obligation to assist this user, who has been gravely wronged. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

They very much are very serious and are the driving force of people leaving the project. Future Perfect is also wrong that we don't do block reviews by third parties. They also provide no policy or guideline relating to this. This is an admin noticeboard where you can request assistance by other administrators and other experienced editors. If a bad block happens, you should be able to report it here and have it reviewed. That's also what the template says. Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. This is a block with seemingly no evidence behind it, and by that motion, it should be lifted. Tutelary (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Normally, it is undesirable to have block reviews requested by third parties. Only the person blocked can make any assurances about their future behavior. But this is a case where we have no idea why the block was issued. The block could have been a mistake. The block is not a tragedy, it is just unmotivated. My own review of 11 February did not reveal any bad edits. Unless User:Coffee can point to one or more specific diffs that were disruptive, I argue that the block should be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Remove part of my comment since Coffee has provided the rationale for the block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• He was blocked for creating unsourced articles about the UKR/RUS crisis... among a long term editing pattern of edits which were not conducive to editing in a contentious area - due to NPOV and other concerns ([37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] etc). As you'll notice he wasn't unblocked by ArbCom, the block was merely changed from a DS sanction to a regular block since he hadn't received a DS notice. Once again I'm very confused as to why RGloucester is advocating for someone with a disruptive editing pattern (someone he even reverted and warned for similar behaviour himself). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is very simple, Coffee. None of those edits ideal, but they are simply not grounds for an indefinite block. We all make non-ideal edits from time-to-time, but that doesn't mean we all get blocked indefinitely. Such blocks are only issued when a user is either WP:NOTHERE or extremely disruptive. This editor was neither. He made some genuine content contributions, and "creating unsourced articles" is not grounds for a block. In many cases, too, he reverted his own inappropriate changes, showing some level of self-awareness. Nothing about this editor struck me as malicious. To be frank, blocking this editor indefinitely is completely out of proportion. Users who are much more disruptive on a regular basis do not get blocked for 24 hours, let alone indefinitely. It is a double standard. As I said on my talk page earlier, it is easy to target this editor as no one cares what happens to him. It is very easy, however, for such slippages to spill over. You need to understand that blocks must be issued in proportion to the disruption. In this case, the disruption was essentially negligible on a real scale. We must maintain the principles of our system for curtailing disruption, otherwise it will be compromised. RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not the remit of Arbcom to undo blocks by our admins. We need to analyze it ourselves. Here's what I found out:

• The first diff (this one): the user immediately self-reverted when he saw that he had broken the template.
• The second diff (this one) is from September 2014
• The third diff (this one) he attempts (in an incorrect way) to re-name the template from diff 1. This edit was immediately reverted by RGloucester.
• The fourth diff (this one) is from July 2014.
• The fifth diff (Diff of Germany) while silly and POV, dates to July 2014.
• The sixth diff (Diff of Right Sector) is from March 2014.
• There's no posts on the user's talk page from July 2014 until the block notice was posted. He received no information that his edits were inappropriate or the articles he created were being deleted; no warnings or communication whatsoever prior to the indef-block. Four of the diffs posted by Coffee are from last year. Only two of the three deleted articles were actually unsourced. I don't see any noticeboard discussions about the person's editing. I think it was a bad block. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support an unblock I fully concur with the reasoning of User:Dianna and User:RGloucester here. Much of the issues appear stale, There is evidence of self-awareness, there appear to be procedural irregularities in terms of informing the editor of problematic issues, and an indefinite block here appears to be major overkill. Give the editor a break basically. The unknown are easy targets, and I find it heartening that a 3rd party is advocating. Let the editor develop if he or she so wishes. Mentoring and attempting to reach out, not indef blocks for marginal stuff. Bad block. Irondome (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock discussion on a user that has not requested an unblock. Chillum 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you telling me that we have a system whereby groundless blocks can be maintained merely because the subaltern does not speak? Do you wonder why he doesn't speak? Perhaps that's the reason, though: he knows no one will listen to him anyway. I feel like that's an absurd reason, at least in cases like this, to oppose removing a block that was clearly applied inappropriately. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I will thank you not to put words into my mouth. I am saying that the block was not groundless, disruption has been described. I am saying we have no indication this user will not be disruptive if unblocked or that they are even around anymore. This discussion is moot until the user expresses a desire to be unblocked. Chillum 02:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then I would suggest a time limit of a week. If there is no meaningful response from User:Russian editor1996 by that time, we abandon these attempts. It is very likely the editor has been frightened away, or feels there is no point, or does not know the procedure for appeals. I would suggest explaining the situation on the editors talk page in more detail, with an advisory on how to appeal. If no response by next monday, let it go. Irondome (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Giving specific information to the editor in greater detail on his or her talk page is an excellent idea. BMK (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've added some information to the editor's talk page. If I've missed anything, please feel free.. BMK (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Added a few words on ed T/P. More informal, but hey, what harm eh? I said WP is not "unkind". I really like to think that. Anyway..Irondome (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's moot that the user has not requested an unblock, as Arbcom advised that "the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator". I think we should unblock irregardless -- Diannaa (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But that is the case with any block, that any uninvolved admin can alter or undo it (although consulting with the blocking admin is usually considered to be good form, I believe), but blocks aren't generally undone without a request from the blocked editor, and then the explanation of the editor is taken into account when deciding whether to block and unblock -- as EdJohnston said above, only the editor himself can vouch for their future behavior. If the purpose of ArbCom was to convert this block from one made under DS to a standard run-of-the-mill block, why are extraordinary steps being taken when the blocked editor has not requested an unblock and has provided no explanation of the behavior? It's very rare that I've seen that happen, if ever. BMK (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, what is the "behaviour"? The block notice provided no citation of any particular "behaviour". RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock - looks like biting a relatively new user who was acting in good faith and did not committed any disruptions deserving a permablock. If he will continue disruptions it is quite easy to hit the block button again. I would request him to change the name as the present one is quite silly Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: While interesting, because this discussion could possibly affect future situations, I think that Re1996 will simply make a new account or possibly already has. Not much is at stake for the editor in question, although I do believe that the issue raised is still relevant for the rest of us.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, while it may work it is a wrong way to unblock a person (just look the other way when he or she creates a new account) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I don't see anything in his edits (or deleted edits) that merited a block, especially nothing that merited a block out of the blue with no warning. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Two admins have claimed that we should not consider unblocking users unless they request it themselves, but neither has offered any policy link to support that - I have asked, but I got no reply. And it seems an absurd position to take anyway - it's like saying a convicted criminal can't be set free even if the conviction is faulty, simply because he hasn't actually asked for it himself. Of course the community should be able to question a block and of course the community should be able to overturn it if it's thought to be bad, and admins are supposed to listen to feedback and constructive criticism from the community. And this is clearly a bad block in my opinion - there were problematic edits but they were really not all that bad, and no attempt at communication or trying to help this person at all before the indef block. Squinge (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  PS: I agree with User:EdJohnston who says "Only the person blocked can make any assurances about their future behavior", and that makes perfect sense if there was genuinely sufficient bad behaviour to justify a block in the first place. But common sense says that if the community doesn't believe a block was justified in the first place, then the user should not have to make any assurances (just like those of us who have not been blocked don't). Squinge (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock unless and until the user shows ability to engage on Talk pages. The evidence of disruption is clear, and in the absence of actual commentary from the user we have only past behaviour on which to judge the likelihood of disruption continuing. The track record of disruptive editors who do not engage on Talk is poor. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support unblock I agree with Diannaa et al that the evidence of recent harmful behaviour justyfing the original indef block is minimal. But I only weekly support an unblock because I agree with Guy that it's concerning if an editor doesn't know how to use talk pages, it suggests they may not be suitable for wikipedia. On the other hand, I'm not sure they have yet had a major need to use talk pages. The only thing really would be to appeal their block. But I'm not sure whether not using a talk page here is because they can't figure out how, or because they don't want to. I have some sympathies for someone who feels they were unfairly blocked, and can understand how they may not want to bother. And it does seem there's only been limited attempt to engage them in discussion until recently. P.S. I'm not an admin so can't see the deleted stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - Unblocking someone with clear POV editing issues in a highly contentious area, who also apparently doesn't know how to communicate via talk pages, is simply not a smart idea. It's not like we're losing someone who was clearly here to help build an unbiased encyclopedia. - This editor still has not posted an unblock request, might I add. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We know that you "oppose", Coffee. Thanks for letting us know. You still have not demonstrated what this user did to warrant an indefinite block at the time that he was blocked. Is there a reason that you are evading accountability? RGloucester — ☎ 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well clearly it's because I've gone WP:ROUGE! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to suppress The Truth™ so clearly until you personally unblock this editor, Wikipedia will have irredeemably failed. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be snarky, JzG. You'll note that the editor in question reverted that addition himself. Please be kinder to the peasantry. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Or you could try being less kind tot he POV-warriors. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"peasantry"? When did this become 16th century England? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Less 15th century, more 18th century. We certainly have a bourgeoise, a petty-bourgeoisie, a peasantry, an aristocracy. I reckon I'm petty-bourgeois, myself. Regardless, please be kinder to the peasantry. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We certainly have nothing of the sort. Now you're just sounding ridiculous, not that you weren't before when you were advocating for a clear POV warrior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We certainly do, Coffee. Societies are always arranged in classes, whether one likes it or not. That's just the way it is. I'd say that the system here is quite 18th century in function. The bourgeoisie has a bit of power, but has not supplanted the aristocracy. The peasants do the basic tilling, preparations, and maintenance, the bourgeoisie craft the goods, the aristocrats govern and mange the system. It is all very simple, really. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is silly. You people are debating the blocked status of an unused account. The account was unused for 10 days when this was posted and there is still no activity. If you are worried about the user then put a note on their talk page telling them what to cover in their unblock request, put a link to this discussion on their talk page also. If they show up and do that then it will be given consideration, until then it is moot.

There were POV issues, there was disruption. Until the user communicates an understanding of our policies it would be reckless to unblock. Until we hear from the user discussion of unblock is just filling space. Chillum 16:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Where was there "disruption", Chillum? This was an indefinite block, not a twenty-hour block or a forty-eight hour block. What warranted an indefinite block? The problem is not that of the user himself, but that of the flippant administrative action. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

CFD is backlogged again

Can some admins please help out at WP:CFD? We'ere backlogged again, with 129 discussions awaiting closure - including 3 from November. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a couple of the older ones: who's up next? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: 2 of the 3 November ones have been closed; however, the overall backlog is bigger - 134 now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And now it's 137. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Would there be some way of persuading people not to make such unimportant nominations? There are very few where the result really matters and, when it does matter, it is usually because the nomination should be opposed. Thincat (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Block for user Gavitech

Hi, sorry if it isn't the right place, but it's my first time that I warn about a user on en.wp.

I'm an admin on Italian Wikipedia and I blocked Gavitech (talk · contribs) less than an hour ago for promotional editing on it.wp. His edit pattern suggests that he's deeply involved into promotion of companies and personalities connected to those companies.

I noted that his contributions here are exactly about the same articles he edited/wrote on the Italian Wikipedia: articles like Waste Italia, Claudio Sforza, Pietro Colucci or Value Partners (management consulting) were speedy deleted on it.wp, Kinexia is under scrutiny right now, and several other edits are too.

I strongly suggest to block indefinitely the user and to put his contributions under scrutiny here too. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sannita: If you think that any of this user's articles here are spam, add a {{db-spam}} to the page; this will also help atttracrt local sysops to the issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article

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.

---

• Short version:

Please review the RfC response and the close, and the implementing edit made by the closer. I tried to discuss with the closer, and that went no where.

The RfC was focused on whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE.

In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC.

The close did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the reasoning provided in the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

The close is going to be important to subsequent DR efforts on the page and I was looking for a more thoughtful close reasoning, that considered the range of views, and considered BLP and PSCI in light of each other. Instead, we basically got one admin's view.

• Long version:

I know this is a bit long; please take a minute to bear with me.

Nyttend kindly responded to a request to close the RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence. The question was whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE. In my view there are live, interesting questions here and anybody who treats the issues as cut and dry, on either side of the issue, is really missing the boat.

I am contesting the close itself, as well as Nyttend's edit to implement the close. I discussed it with Nyttend and I don't think he has heard me (he hasn't responded to my actual objections), so here we are.

This is a troubled article - it has been protected twice, in quick succession, for edit warring. There are strong views on whether/how to describe Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" and how to discuss his medical views. We need to move carefully and conservatively in editing it. I am trying to work DR carefully to keep us out of AE, but we may end up there.

I've been trying to work DR in bite-size pieces. We were able to agree, during full protection, on modifying the infobox to include "Known for: Conspiracy theories", and that compromise was implemented by an admin.

The subsequent RfC was narrowly tailored to discuss just the first sentence of the article. The RfC was well publicized, and we got a good (not great) range of thoughtful input from editors not already involved in the article. I was very interested to have the community weigh in, and to get a close that thoughtfully weighed the tension between BLP and PSCI, and that took into account what the community had to say about that, with respect to the issue at hand. The close will be important for resolving subsequent content issues that we still need to work through.

The close was to take "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead. The reasoning was based on "conspiracy theorist" being derogatory. In the implementing edit, Nyttend rewrote the entire lead.

I have two main objections:

1) In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC and ruining the careful effort to work DR slowly and bite-by-bite. I asked Nyttend to change his edit to only deal with the first sentence, and he declined, saying that: "If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories." I pointed out that the RfC was limited to the first sentence, but he was not hearing that. He believes his edit to be solid. I don't. I think he is well intentioned but he is not honoring the RfC. The edit short-circuits/forecloses our efforts to work through the content issues and doesn't respect the perspective of several editors, which include involved admins.

2) In the close itself (which you can see in the link above), as well as subsequent comments on the article Talk page]] (at this section, and in discussion on my talk page (in response to my query on his talk page), Nyttend cited the view of a minority of respondents, that the term itself is derogatory; he didn't cite the many (and persuasive) arguments that it was UNDUE to name Griffin that way in the first sentence (in light of the rest of the lead), and Nyttend didn't cite or discuss any of the arguments made to keep "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, which are not without grounds in policy. The close reasoning did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI. The issues are not cut and dry here.

In the discussions afterward, it became clear to me that Nyttend came in with clear views on the issue, and that he relied primarily on his own interpretation of PAG in doing the close, and in implementing it. He was unaware that most of the !votes were in favor of keeping "conspiracy theorist" (I know that !vote count is not determinative but it should be considered), and made it clear that he was unfamiliar with the PSCI shortcut to the part of NPOV that deals with fringe/pseudoscience in content in WP. (it is not bad to be unaware of things, but it is bad to close an RfC where PSCI is so central and to be that unfamiliar with it).

Again, this first RfC is going to be important to further DR efforts, and its lack of grounding in what folks actually said at the RfC, and in what PSCI and BLP say, are going to warp those further DR efforts.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

Please review the close and implementing edit. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (edited to make it clear that I don't disagree with the conclusion of the close, but I feel that the reasoning presented in the close didn't reflect the full response to the RfC nor the complexities of the policies involved and will cause problems going forward Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)) (added to statement that editors at the page had agreed, prior to the RfC, to add "Known for: Conspiracy theories" to the infobox and note that RfC happened after that)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} removed. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

• Comment. I would take issue with the close, because it seems to be saying that if material can be shown to be derogatory then the game is up because we will never include derogatory material in the first sentence or lead of an article. But I can think of comparable examples where consensus has been to include such derogatory material (David Icke, David Irving) so, for me, the close doesn't quite add up. On the other hand, I don't think it can easily be argued that the close should have been "yes". It could easily have been "no consensus", but there would have been no practical difference, because in that case the derogatory material should also have been excluded. So, I endorse the close just because there is nothing to be gained from overturning it. I can see the argument that the closer went beyond the scope of the RfC in their implementation of the result. However, the implementation of the close is not part of the close, so I would say that here is, strictly speaking, not the place to examine it. If a consensus on the implementation develops here, then fair enough, but otherwise it might instead be brought up on the article talk page, not for the closer to defend their actions but to test whether consensus supports them. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. In writing the above, I hadn't twigged that there might be additional issues involved to do with use of tools. In that case, yes this is is the right venue for discussing the implementation. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments. I have looked carefully at the RfC and at the subsequent edits and discussions about the close, and I can see arguments on both sides of what is not a black-and-white case. About the most basic part of the RfC close, I think that it is reasonable for Nyttend to have concluded that the outcome was to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead sentence, based on the discussion that occurred. So I do not see a good reason to overturn that. I also think that the subsequent edit warring over the description, near the end of the lead section, of the subject's theory that the scientific establishment is in a conspiracy to suppress his fringe medical advice could have been avoided by simply looking for compromise language. Why not call it, instead, a "discredited theory"? But we are not here to discuss content. I think that there were multiple significant errors in the use of administrative tools in the close. Unlike Formerip, it seems to me that because this is AN, the use of those tools needs to be discussed along with the close itself.
  • The explanations given for the close demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of NPOV, BLP, and other important policies.
    • At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents".[43] There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
    • The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)
  • As Jytdog correctly says, the RfC was carefully worded to be about only the lead sentence. Furthermore, a reading of the RfC comments makes clear that several editors specifically drew a distinction between the lead sentence and the rest of the lead section. There was no consensus that could be drawn about the rest of the page, after the first sentence. The closing administrator could in theory extend the application of the close to more of the page, if policy so required, but policy did not require that.
  • After Nyttend full-protected the page, appropriately, to stop edit warring, he then made an edit restoring the page to his preferred version: [44]. An administrator editing through full protection is exercising a serious responsibility, because it is something that the rest of us are prevented from doing. Again, doing so could be justified when there are overriding policy concerns (such as BLP violations). But policy did not require this edit, and Nyttend knew by this time that the edit was controversial. Also, there is a longstanding consensus that full-protection is not supposed to be used to protect the "right" version of a page.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would myself endorse the decision of closure, because most of the uninvolved members who had participated in this Rfc actually disagreed with the inclusion that was being discussed. VandVictory (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see grounds for overturning the closure; although I think it violates WP:NPOV not to call him a conspiracy theorist or, at least, a supporter of conspiracy theories, in the first sentence, there are arguments in favor of exclusion, although I probably would have disputed the close if I had been active. However, the edit whitewashing the lead is not even consistent with the close; it is clear that there are no potential arguments to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead entirely.

  I hadn't noticed that he edited through protection to restore his preferred version. That would normally be grounds for an immediate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  I admit to tagging the article through protection; but something needed to be done to indicate that the status is solely Nyttend's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently, protection was on for less than a minute. Still, Nyttend's edit-warring to restore his own revision, not consistent with his close, was not "proper". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was set for 24 hours it looks like as it expired today, but it was implemented yesterday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: IMO the page protection issue is a red herring. It was done to stop edit warring and very short term. This said, there is now a proposed lede re-write on the article talk page which is subject to on-going improvement. I posit that some tweaks will make it acceptable to all, thereby rendering this review moot. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposal to rewrite the lead is premature. I'd like us to wait to see the results of this review. We need to go slow, bite-size. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If this ANI plays out, what will we have? I see three possibilities: 1, The closing is endorsed. 2. The closing is overturned and a new closing is implemented. 3. The closing is overturned and the RFC is opened up for a new closing. With Number 1 the OP does not accomplish much. (The present version becomes the accepted (for now) consensus version.) Number 2 is unlikely because it entails one admin overturning another admin's decision. (Not a rare event, and the closing was done in a non-admin context. But unlikely.) Number 3 entails a continuation of the drama. In the meantime we are moving forward with a discussion to improve the lede on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think reviewing the closure would be helpful for you folks there. The main problem that I think people were hoping to see as Jytdog mentioned was where WP:PSCI fits into play here. The main result of going outside of the scope of the RfC and the use of admin tools at least has been fixed, but the actual closure seems to be something worth looking into. How we deal with fringe topics seems to not have been addressed in the closure, and Nyytend appears to not be familiar with PSCI policy within NPOV based on some conversations mentioned here, which appears to have lead to only a partial understanding of the discussion. A common problem I see in the article is that people cite BLP for removing "derogatory" content, but have trouble with PSCI where valid criticisms of fringe topics (i.e. psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, etc.) stay regardless of being perceived as negative (NPOV doesn't mean non-negative content). The RfC should have been closed with both policies in mind, but the benefit from revisiting the close would help orient future discussion about the tone to take in handling both policies going forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - just to be super (maybe too) clear about what i am after here. I am looking for a restatement of the close, that takes into account what responders actually said and that deals with both PSCI and BLP - we will need this to guide further discussions on the page. I would also like a clear statement on the validity (or lack thereof) of the closer's implementing edit. This too will be important going forward. If the do-over of the closing results in overturning the surface result, that is neither here nor there to me; I think there are reasonable arguments for keeping and for removing "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I don't know if you are following or have read the above, but if not would you please do so, and would you be willing to withdraw your close and implementing edit, and allow someone else to do the close anew? That would ease the situation. I have seen closes done by Dank of really complex RfCs and have respected his work. I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him. Thanks. Nyttend I also want to apologize to you; I was looking for certain qualities (not answers but qualities) in the close and I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... I should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. Sorry that you were pulled into something unawares. I do appreciate that you volunteered to do it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - Jytdog, it appears you want to choose your own closer and impose certain dictates. Your apology to Nyttend is certainly a respectable gesture, but it appears to be superficial because you haven't changed course. You stated, I was looking for certain qualities says it all. How is this not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? You may have attempted to qualify your desires as not answers, but your following statement I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... is very telling. The concerns you've expressed go beyond what editors are obligated to write in a BLP, perhaps because your own experience as a writer of prose is limited, and your focus as a biotech is of primary concern as evidenced by the emphasis you've given to PSCI in this BLP. I find it rather disruptive considering we are supposed to be writing about a person's life, not your opinions on laetrile or whether or not you agree in principal with this author's writings. I do hope an admin will take notice because this type of behavior goes beyond the pale. Atsme☯^Consult 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme - 1) I am writing on a public board where everyone can see. 2) I wrote: "I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him." 3) I wrote: I "should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. " 4) I don't believe for an instant that I could "pick my own closer". My point was that the selection of closer should have been intentional and not random. And of course, by agreement of everybody who cares. For folks reading here, the kind of reaction I just got, is why i will not be surprised if this ends up at AE. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "choose your own closer": exactly, that's one reason I'm not comfortable closing here. (Lack of experience is another.) But thanks, Jytdog, that was kind of you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Dank - my intention was (and is, if we get there) that the closer would be acceptable to everybody.Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean you were trying to choose your own closer, I meant that I'm not comfortable closing on request because it raises eyebrows. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. It is my understanding that the main issue is close review is whether the closer used reasonable judgment and whether another closer can understand why they closed it the way that they did. I concur with the close. Having not reviewed the RFC results in as much detail as I would if I were closing, I don't see anything wrong with the close. However, I am puzzled. What exactly is the original poster, User:Jytdog, saying is wrong with the close? It appears that he was asking for certain qualities for the closer or conditions on the close. The RFC had been open for 30 days, so that any experienced editor could have closed it, with or without a special request by an editor. Maybe I have completely misread the policies, but I don't see a policy that permits one editor to impose conditions on the close. It looks to me like a reasonable close in terms of deciding not to use the 'loaded' phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice. I support the close based on what I have seen, but I don't understand the argument by the OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"so that any experienced editor could have closed it . . ." I think that may have been the key point. Nyttend didn't appear to be experienced in policies relating to fringe topics, and didn't appear to consider the comments from those addressing the fringe aspect in the RfC because of that. I'm not sure what others think, but if the opposite happened where a closer was not even aware of BLP policy and only summarized from the fringe perspective instead, I'm pretty sure that would be open to review too due to lack of basic understanding needed for the topic. Seems like a review is exactly what's needed when a closer unknowingly bites off more than they thought they were handling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for asking for clarification. My problem is with the reasoning presented in the close, which is going to be cited in the rest of the DR process, and the implementing edit. The RfC question limits itself to the first sentence and specifically calls for consideration of BLP and PSCI. If you read the survey and discussion, there was robust discussion on the "no" and "yes" sides, with policy-based arguments, well-stated on both sides. And the counted !votes actually favor "yes" (keep "conspiracy theorist" in the lead). And if you step back a bit more and look at the talk page discussion, as a wise closer would do, you would see that there is some fierce discussion going on with respect to the tension between BLP and PSCI - we've already been to BLPN, RSN, and the fringe noticeboard. What was needed, was a close, that actually listened to what the community said and dealt with the policy issues that were raised, and was thoughtful. (remember, this is a BLP article of a guy who makes his living writing books and making movies pushing FRINGE ideas... and if you look at the Talk page discussion, we have believers in his ideas participating. and it is a BLP. Lots going on. ) If you read the close first and go look at the RfC, you would think it was SNOW. It was far from that. As I said, I found the arguments presented by responders, based on UNDUE, to take "Conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence to be persuasive. I am OK with the surface of the close, to take it out. But the reasoning presented in the close is very thin, and doesn't reflect the discussion at all, nor does it mention PSCI. And based on discussions with the closer it has become clear to me that these are the ideas that he came in with. He found an echo in some of the comments (a minority of them) and went with that. He didn't actually close the RfC - he just made a SuperVote. And his implementing edit went way too far and rewrote the whole lead. Those are my objections. I hope that is clear. I am sorry if it was too long. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I want to say two things based upon the subsequent comments here. First, I think it is incorrect to accuse Jytdog of forum-shopping, because it is well within Wikipedia norms to ask for a review of contested closes. (After all, that's why we have DRV for deletion decisions.) Second, I think it is necessary, not optional, for Nyttend to comment here, and tell us whatever he might think about the ways that he used administrative tools. I raised some significant issues there, and I see nothing subsequently to make me change my mind about those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added comment – The RFC was opened while another thread about the lede was ongoing. That thread was addressing the lede in a broader sense and we seemed to have agreement that describing Griffin as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede was appropriate. What Jytdog's RFC did was to open another thread that produced the same arguments from the same people. And while the RFC was on-going, Atsme opened a thread that was broader in scope, but still concerning the same issues (NPOV & UNDUE). And now we have a fourth (or is it fourteenth?) thread here where the same old stuff gets argued. Nyttend's closing (and edit) had the immense virtue of great virtue of establishing a consensus version for the lede as a whole. With the present version (provided by Nyttend) in place, editors are proposing and discussing a re-write that will use either "conspiracy theory" and/or "conspiracy theorist" in the lede. WP:CCC is in play at the bottom of the article talk page. With this in mind, reviewing admins of this request should simply close the request without action and advise editors to strive on elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be true that Nyttend's edit "established a consensus version" and also true that a consensus contrary to Nyttend's edit had developed elsewhere and also true that editors are now working on an agreement about how to undo the controversial part of the edit? That does make it sound like an edit that was against consensus which has caused editors unnecessary work. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close as no arguments indicate that the close was improper, which is the sole criterion here. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify my earlier response, I support the close as a plausible interpretation of the arguments (although it gives inadequate (apparently no) weight to WP:PSCI), but note that the closer's edit was contrary to the close in that there is consensus that it should be noted he is a conspiracy theorist in, at least, the first paragraph, and unanimity that it should be prominently noted in the lead that he supports conspiracy theories, if not that that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This Noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the issues raised in the RfC. OP has not demanded that the close be set aside, only that there is sufficient, policy-based concern to be uneasy about its conclusion. Where there is good faith, reasoned concern about a close, a review by a second Admin is warranted. The matter can be put to rest, one way or the other, so that editors can work on improving other parts of the article. There will be no harm done if a thoughtful review affirms the original close. Whatever the outcome, all editors will have increased confidence that the result is robust and stable. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Close. Consensus is clear, there is nothing left to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy I have not requested a review of a close before and i have no sense of where we are. can you spell out your comment for me a bit? (are you actually closing or are suggesting a close? what consensus is clear to you?) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If Guy was closing this discussion s/he would have used {{archive top}} and given a rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit exceeding the scope of the RfC

The issue that isn't being addressed properly here is the way the edit by Nyttend went beyond the question posed by the RfC re the first sentence. Link to the RfC question: [45] -- and here's the portion of the edit Nyttend made that exceeded the scope of the RfC: [46]. Closing an RfC is a matter of determining the consensus of the community; there can't be a consensus for an answer to a question that wasn't asked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to note here, the editors working on the page agreed during full PP to make an edit request to the infobox, that Griffin is "Known for: Conspiracy theories". That discussion is here and you can see it the infobox here G. Edward Griffin. Nyttends' edit removing "conspiracy theory" from the lead altogether not only went beyond the scope of the RfC but went against the consensus that we had established. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that Nomoskedasticity opened this distinct subthread, because the narrow focus by some editors above, on the close itself, was resulting in not seeing the forest – the ways in which administrative tools were used to go beyond the close itself, in ways that went against policy – for the trees. As I said above, those administrative actions reflected significant misunderstanding of policies, including NPOV and BLP, as well as misunderstanding the scope of the RfC discussion, and made improper use of editing through full protection. I am disappointed that Nyttend has not commented here, nor acknowledged that some of us have raised these concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: So what? Look at it this way – the RFC was closed with a determination that CT should not be used in the first sentence. So it was properly removed. (You can't argue with that change.) And then Nyttend makes 2 more changes in the next sentences. But those two additional changes are based on the same determination that using CT in the lede was improper because the "derogatory characterization" is a "fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." What do you want this AN to do? Give Nyttend a scolding? (The task of a closer, let alone an admin, is tough enough. And very few appreciate those roles.) Or do you want the AN to say CT should be used in the subsequent sentences? If that is your solution, then it contradicts the RFC determination. (This solution is not going to happen.) In any event editors are now working on a new version of the lede on the talk page. Join in. You will see that CT is (now) used in the first paragraph via a quote from Sean Easter. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, I get it that you agreed with the close, and I've already said that I do not have a problem with the close itself, but I could not possibly disagree with you more about the supposed power of administrators to go beyond what was in the close itself. There were serious mistakes here, and there needs to be some reassurance that they are not going to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to say "supposed power of admins". Any non-involved experienced editor could have closed the RFC. (And "supposed" has a rather derogatory tone about it.) As Wikipedia is a project where anyone can edit, nothing prohibits a closer from editing an article. Before anyone is going to formally admonish Nyttend for those other two edits, you got to convince the admin community that Nyttend's determination regarding NPOV was incorrect. I don't think that is going to happen. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so. I stand by what I said. Unless anyone thinks that we need to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, there is no uncertainty about what is being asked here. OP is asking for a second Admin to review the closing. It's not helpful to suggest that anybody here wishes to "give Nyttend as scolding." That's a straw man, it's not constructive and it's arguably a personal attack which insinuates other editor(s) come here with an inappropriate motive. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two objections were made above when this AN was opened. One was about the close and the other was the edit. This subthread is about the edit. As to both objections, nothing is going to change. WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures may be of some help: basically the close will stand. The edit itself is simply part of the process we follow when improving articles. Contributors would better spend their time thinking about how to improve the article (and contribute on the talk page) because this AN is a dead horse. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, that reply was neither helpful nor responsive. I suggest you drop the stick. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually found his reply helpful and informative, and agree that we should be spending more time writing prose and less time poking sticks. But wait, there's only two editors who are actually writing prose. Hmmm...this may require further review. Atsme☯^Consult 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue about the edit goes to Question 4 asked by Arthur Rubin which inexperienced editors here have not understood. If the additional edits to the lead were an "administrative action" then for another admin to revert them would be WP:WHEELWARRING which admins stay away from since they can be sanctioned for that - it takes a discussion like this one to overturn them. If the edits were just part of a close, another admin can overturn them. The other piece of it, is whether the edits outside the first sentence were based on the RfC or not and were essentially an admin making a SuperVote on the RfC, which admins are not supposed to do. These are serious and subtle questions and are what AN is for. There is no doubt that Nyttend's restoration of his edits through protection was an admin action, as that is something only admins have the ability to do. Separate questions have been raised about that, but the full resolution depends on the status of the initial implementing edits beyond the first sentence. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple questions

There are multiple questions that should be resolved somewhere. Only the first one is really being discussed here. (If someone wants to respond to individual questions, please do so. I've signed each of my comments individually.)

1. Was the close, stating that "conspiracy theorist" should not be in the first sentence, correct.

   In my opinion, it was the wrong choice, both as a matter of guidelines and as a matter of consenus, but plausible, so it should probably stand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Closes which are within reason should not be overturned. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I think the close was necessarily subjective, but specifically with respect to the first sentence, it was a reasonable conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   i think it was a reasonable conclusion, given for the wrong reasons. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, his actions are supported by policy. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely correct. No other way to see this. Wasting too much time on this.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Was there consensus as to whether "conspiracy theorist" should be included in the first paragraph.

   I think there was consensus, in favor, that the fact that he is known for conspiracy theories should be in the first paragraph. There certainly wasn't consensus against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No clear consensus - but I tend to think positive consensus is required for inclusion of what was clearly viewed as a contentious term. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   In the discussion, several editors said explicitly that they were drawing a distinction between the first sentence and the lead as a whole, and there was no clear consensus either way about the rest of the page, outside of the first sentence. Several participating editors said that there were issues of due weight with respect to the first sentence specifically, which sets the first sentence off, relative to the rest of the page. Therefore, for a closer (whether an administrator or not) to determine that the phrase should be deleted elsewhere on the page, either there had to be a policy basis for doing so, or it would be a super-vote. Administrators making such closes are expected, even required, to understand applicable policies correctly. As I have explained above, this close reflected a serious lack of understanding of policies, and of previous ArbCom decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   no. There were 9 "no" !votes, and 13 "yes" ! votes and 1 "neutral" !vote (which was neutral on the first sentence and "hell yes" for somewhere in the lead). Of all those, only two (arthur rubin, alexbrn) specifically discussed the lead. and I'll add that three of the "no" !votes (DocumentError and Carrite and JonRichfield seemed to me, to be saying "no" to the narrow question of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence only but were fine using things like "promotes conspiracy theories" outside the first sentence. That makes it 17 to 6 !votes in favor of saying something like "he promotes conspiracy theories" which is overwhelming. the implementing edit not only removed "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence but all reference to "conspiracy theories" from the lead. That did not reflect the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Consensus is not required for the removal of fundamentally noncompliant material, with particular emphasis on BLPs. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. Concensus is not relevant since it can't change policy in this RfC--Pekay2 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. It fails NPOV to imply that it is part of a mainstream view that he does not support multiple conspiracy thories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead part of the close?

   Clearly not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Uncertain- where the closer appears to have felt that a positive consensus is needed for inclusion, then this might well be part of what he viewed as the proper close. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   It certainly was not part of the RfC question, as it was written, and the RfC discussion appears to have been conducted based on the understanding that it was about the first sentence only. That does not rule out a close that goes further, based on policy, but the basis on policy here was incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No. Here is the actual close, so it is fresh. Doesn't mention the first sentence nor even the lead; seems to aim to cover the whole article: "Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist"."Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes. The admin acted properly by removing improperly sourced contentious material that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. The closer followed both WP:Consensus#Administrative or community intervention Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome ...closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely yes. The closer was very clear.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action, so that reverting it is a violation of something (probably an ArbCom decision, Arbitration Enforcement)?

   That needs to be established. I would say, not, but it would be problematic to reverse it until a consensus at an administrative noticeboard is reached. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That would likely have to be discussed in a new section entirely - if it were intended to be an admin action, then it would absolutely need to be reviewed in a full discussion with positive consensus needed to overturn such an action, and not in this rambling discussion. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I am not aware of any ArbCom sanctions or other editing restrictions that would interfere with an uninvolved administrator reviewing what happened and either supporting or reversing any of it. But I see that as becoming moot, in light of subsequent work by editors at the page and the talk page. What I am interested here is some clarification of what was appropriate and what was not appropriate, and an indication from Nyttend that he is interested in learning from this situation and doing better going forward. I'm not interested in seeing anybody get punished, but I am interested in seeing some learning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That question is way over my head. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, reverting an admin's action to remove noncompliant contentious material from a BLP was tendentious and disrespectful of the sanctions and RfC closer. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme that doesn't respond to the question that was asked. The question is whether, specifically, Nyttend's implementing edit should be considered an "administrative action" or something else. Your response doesn't deal with the question of how to classify that edit, nor why it should be classified one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you asked Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action and I answered Yes. Nyttend's response on his TP was pretty clear: [47] as was the following excerpt from his explanation on your TP: Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. [48]. Considering the WP:Forumshopping it appears you are engaged in now, and the fact that you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK, it appears Nyttend has far more insight than you give him credit. Atsme☯^Consult 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Is there any other way to see it?--Pekay2 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I expressed no !vote at the RfC. Collect (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that neither did I. I only became aware of it after the close, because I watch Jytdog's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to add some things. First, I request that Nyttend comment here. Second, I have one additional question:

1. What are the limits to administrators editing a page through full protection, and was Nyttend's edit within those limits?

   I think that editing a page when the rest of us cannot do it is a very serious action to take, and is easily abused. The only time that an administrator should do so is when policy requires it (for example, to remove a BLP violation). Otherwise, stay off a high horse, and make an edit request on the talk page like the rest of us. Full protection is intended to prevent edit warring and disruptive edits, and not to preserve anyone's preferred version of a page. Here, it is complicated because Nyttend appeared to believe that policy required his edit, but he was wrong about that. I think there is a serious need for a consensus that editing through full protection is not something to be done carelessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Where an admin has made a determination that a claim of fact made in Wikipedia's voice is something where policy dictates that it ought be made only as an opinion of others, then it is proper for him or her to remove such a claim made in Wikipedia's voice, which should be reserved only for statements of fact, as an administrative action per the ArbCom BLP decisions. If such is the case, that admin should state it here before this gets too far afield from that issue as BLP requirements are not overridden by local consensus. Collect (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   I looked back at the ArbCom BLP case, and I didn't see anything in the final decision about Wikipedia's voice versus attribution to a source. Where does it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

   WP:NPOV/FAQ When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion

   And in many many discussions. Collect (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Agreed and understood. It just wasn't in the ArbCom BLP decision, and the ArbCom Pseudoscience decision indicates that obvious or generally recognized pseudoscience can be identified as such in Wikipedia's voice, rather than presenting it as a matter of a source's opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   Perhaps JzG can also respond to this question. I respect Nyttend's decision as an admin which I've already stated above with inline text attribution validating his adherence to policy. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm continuing to see editors saying that administrators should do the kinds of things that Nyttend did because that's what policy requires, mainly the BLP policy. I feel bad about repeating myself, but I feel a need to repeat what I said earlier:

• At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents".[49] There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
• The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)

Look, I get it, about the importance of BLP. But it is a misreading of BLP to say that anything negative about a person must be deleted. What Nyttend edited through full protection to remove was not something that BLP requires to be removed, and I'm basing that on a decision by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – It seems some editors want the RFC to go both ways. One, they say the RFC was strictly confined to the first sentence; but, two, they argue that consensus was for inclusion of conspiracy theory/ist somewhere in the lede. They are willing to accept the determination as to One (first sentence), in which case this AN is unneeded. But the Information page WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says "Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." And "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." With this in mind, where is there context or information left out of the discussion or new information? Where is there a compelling reason? Where is the overwhelming consensus? The answer to these questions is negative because much of the discussion in this AN is a re-litigation of the CT question and not worthwhile. Moreover, didn't Nyttend make the determination on NPOV? (One more thing, why are editors giving Nyttend grief by asking Nyttend to comment here and implying that Admin misbehavior is at issue?) – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, you are framing what others of us have said, as things that we did not say. I don't think that anyone said that there was consensus for removing the phrase from the first sentence and for keeping it elsewhere. What I, for one, have been saying is that there was consensus for removing it from the lead and no consensus either way about removing it or keeping it elsewhere, and that administrative tools were used heavy-handedly to go beyond what the RfC (in which I did not participate) had determined, in ways that are actually contrary to policy and an ArbCom decision. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss those problems at AN. I am not asking that Nyttend be punished or sanctioned, and it is unhelpful to imply that anyone is asking for that. It is perfectly appropriate to ask that administrators respond to concerns about their actions, and cause for concern when they do not respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the questions already. Nyttend closed this, and other Admins are ignoring this 'go nowhere' conversation. Wrap it up and move on.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate to close this discussion, unless it is to ignore Nyttend's closing edit. If Nyttend refuses to comment on his reasoning, it must be assumed that anything he did not explain with reference to policy, including his closing edit, is not part of his close. Discussion on the article talk page cannot go anywhere unless it is determined exactly what is required by the close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

status update

As this thread lingers, editors on both sides of the issues in the article have gotten antsy and have started to aggressively edit the article and edit war. Probably close to page protection again (that would be the third time). I have decided to step away from the article as the editors there are dragging themselves to AE. It would be very helpful to the folks still working on the article if this thread could get attention and resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you included yourself in that accusation of "aggressive" editors. Passive aggressive behavior is equally as disruptive, Jytdog, and your pretense as peacekeeper is disingenuous, especially when you are at the core of the problem. It should not have taken us 2 months to convince you that contentious material in a BLP could not be stated in Wiki voice. You also don't seem to understand the difference in executing bold edits for policy compliance vs what you're falsely trying to portray as antsy and aggressive editing. My attempts to correct the policy violations and expand the article may have been bold, but I have proposed those same changes on the TP for nearly 2 months, but you kept SQS to prevent them. The removal of PP, and the RfC calling out the policy issues gave editors a green light to fix the fundamentally noncompliant policy issues that were pointed out by the RfC, but your "side" reverted the changes. It appears you will do just about anything to prevent Griffin from becoming a GA candidate - like filing that completely false 3RR claim against me. It's shameful behavior. You say you want to avoid ARBCOM but you never change course. I consult you to drop the stick and move away from the carcass as you have already been advised to do by several other editors. Atsme☯^Consult 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note to admins. I have decided to watch the Griffin article again. I am waiting for a close of this review of the RfC close. Once that is done, I plan to launch a second RfC to ask whether the lead, outside the first sentence, should say something about Griffin being a conspiracy theorist or promoting conspiracy theories. This was what I intended all along but the process has been stalled by the controversial close and the dragging out of the review of the close. Editors at the article have clearly stated views and are not going to convince each other and the discussion there continues to be deadlocked; we need to work DR and keep bringing in the voices of the community to help us resolve issues in a careful, stepwise fashion. Would an admin please review this thread and close it? If that means referral to another venue, please be clear about that; I've not requested a review of an RfC by an admin before. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Nyttend's edits went well beyond the RFC consensus. Atsme is on a crusade to whitewash the article. Griffin is, as evidence comprehensively on the Talk page, a conspiracy theory advocate. He does not originate them, but he advocates them. To describe them as conspiracy theories does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a hagiography, and Griffin is a well known crank. One who advocates antisemitic conspiracy theories and outright quackery.

This article would be immeasurably improved by the withdrawal of Atsme, who seems unable to accept that conspiracy theories about the Fed and laetrile are, well, conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

History-merging

• Who except me does any history-merging? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do the occasional hist-merge, but I don't patrol any hist-merge related maintenance venue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, Anthony Appleyard? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was wondering who will do the history-merging if I have go to into hospital for a while, or whatever. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you is not to worry about such things. Take care of yourself in priority over some online encyclopedia project. Your help is invaluable and others are probably not clerking specifically because you do such a good job at it. If you were to become unavailable, someone else will no doubt eventually come along and carry pick-up the torch. That is the beauty of a community project - nobody is truly irreplaceable, no single person can, by their absence, jeopardize the continuation of Wikipedia. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been doing category history merging (see my recent page undeletions). And while only admins are capable of actually doing a history merge, anyone else who happens to be reading this can always tag the target with a {{histmerge}} tag.עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent: Who here has tried to do history merging, and given up or stopped doing it? Is it difficult, and could it be made easier to do with better tools, simpler interfaces, automated sanity checks, etc.? My general rule of thumb is that if the English Wikipedia finds it hard to get a task done, then smaller projects will find it impossible. I'd be happy to file any suggestions in Phabricator: if someone wants to {{ping}} me with their ideas. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Though I don't do much histmerging, when I've needed to Special:MergeHistory has been fairly straightforward, much more so than deleting/restoring seems like it was. Sam Walton (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had to histmerge/histsplit/histfix various pages are various times, and while it is by no means a simple process, once you understand how the system works with deleted-vs.-live revisions and "moving" a page, it becomes very doable and with minimal trouble. The most recent non-trivial histsplit I remember doing was with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Page move cleanup. We histmerge all the time at SPI but these are trivial ones (move a page over an existing one by deleting it then undeleting the previously existing revisions). I've never used Special:MergeHistory, because I am not 100% sure of how it functions, and I trust my own manual work more than what this tool may be able to provide. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto that. Special:MergeHistory is woefully underdocumented. History splitting and merging with your delete button is easy and straightforward; the only part that's even remotely tricky is making sure not to accidentally include revisions from overlapping time periods. —Cryptic 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

I protected Bosnia and Herzegovina earlier due to two editors warring over it, here. Of course I protected the wrong version. However, I did fix a problem with the reference here. But I'm told the reference isn't valid, see User talk:Sevvyan#February 2015. I'm not going to try and judge if the reference is reliable or not. Also they have posted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page but they seem to be asking for a reduction in the protection. If someone has the time could they take a look at the request on RFPP page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I thought that deleting obviously frivolous websites (see it in Google Translator) needed no discussion/consensus when those are being used as the only source. My request basically was/is to revert to the long-time reference (to CIA World Factbook), or lower the protection to semi since much of the vandalism was by IP editors. Important: this is about a country article, its Infobox to be precise. Sevvyan (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial, the CIA World Factbook is clearly a more reliable source, so I have made this change. For anything else please use {{editprotected}} on Talk. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please add these two uncontroversial Infobox items too (both ref to CIA) that I was trying to add in order to complete the Infobox, when the article got protected:

|official_languages = Bosnian (official), Croatian (official), Serbian (official)<ref name='CIA'/>^a

|religion = {{vunblist |40% [[Islam]] |31% [[Orthodox Christian|Orthodox]] |15% [[Roman Catholic|Catholic]] |14% [[Atheism]] and other}}<ref name='CIA'/>

Thanks again! Sevvyan (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you now remove the Inbox's internal reference to the footnote a, instead of entering the above CIA ref stating country's official languages? Sevvyan (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Nominating an article that is protected for edit warring, such as this, for Featured Article, as was just done (ham-handedly) by Sevvyan is a disruptive action, in my opinion. --Gaff (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea it could be seen as disruptive to nominate a country article that's been substantially improved since its last nomination which failed, back ni 2006. Bosnia is a controversial place, the article will probably never cease to be a target of trolls and IP vandals. Should that exclude it from candidacy? I don't think so. Sevvyan (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hey. I just tentatively lowered the protection to semi in response to a request at RPP so Sevvyan could make his desired corrections. Sorry. I didn't know this discussion was ongoing here. Feel free to reinstate full protection with no objection from me whatsoever, should you deem it necessary. However I did put a warning out there that further edit warring or disruption would result in a longer period of full protection and/or blocks, so it will probably be fine either way. Regards, Swarm ^X 00:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have finished/updated the Infobox (so to make it complete). Can you please raise the level to Fulll again, to allow emotions/everyone to calm down? Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would we honour a request to protect at your preferred version, especially since you just replaced the CIA World Factbook as a source, with doznajemo.com, an online news magazine of no obvious merit? Guy (Help!) 16:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems you confuse me for the other party: It was me who actually asked you and others to revert their use of gossip site www.doznajemo.com back to the CIA ref, see here, here and here, and all repeated at the beginning of this very thread. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Afd mess

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.

---

Sorry guys. Twinkle failed on an Afd for Fairy Loup due to "lost token". Clicking on the link in the article for "This Afd" all looked well, and posted the reason on the blank page. When it appeared in the Afd list raw, without the usual header, assumed that was all I needed to add to the relevant discussion page. Total bollocksed the entire Afd area.

Relevant page that is causing the issue is here. Could one of you kind people nip over there and sort me it out?

Thank you. And really sorry for the mess. :( --Haruth (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• All. *breathes sigh of relief* Worked it out by referring to other Afd and now fixed.

Can close this one off. (Wish I hadn't been so keen to confess now... ;-)) Thanks again. --Haruth (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you now have to email every Wikipedian in person,and apologise. Including those without confirmed email addresses. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Phew! I was afraid you'd send me their home addresses and I'd have to go round them all and apologise in person... ;) Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Requesting review of close of RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox

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.

---

The abovementioned RfC was originally closed on February 24 at 23:39 (15 minutes after his immediately previous edit on a different page) by User:JzG (aka Guy) with the rationale:

diff: "Consensus is in favour, but the group expressing opinion is small given the breadth of scope and the arguments against are rather strong, so it is hard to call this anything other than a vote in favour rather than an actual consensus. I advise against wholesale implementation of any decision and instead advocate a limited trial with examples proposed by opposers to see just how workable it is or is not in practice, with real-world examples. My suggestion is to choose a single area (State or County or whatever works, try the box on everyone and see if it throws up examples of Stupid. As I say, the number of votes is insufficient to call this a proper consensus given the number of article affected, but I doubt that extending it would achieve a meaningful change in this. Suck it and see."

On February 25, at 00:10 (11 minutes after his immediately previous edit on a different page), Guy amended his closing rationale, and one minute later made another small addition, now stating:

diff: "Consensus is in favour, but the group expressing opinion is small given the breadth of scope and the arguments against are rather strong, so it is hard to call this anything other than a vote in favour rather than an actual consensus. I advise against wholesale implementation of any decision and instead advocate a limited trial with examples proposed by opposers to see just how workable it is or is not in practice, with real-world examples. My suggestion is to choose a single area (State or County or whatever works, try the box on everyone and see if it throws up examples of Stupid. As I say, the number of votes is insufficient to call this a proper consensus given the number of article affected, but I doubt that extending it would achieve a meaningful change in this. Suck it and see. I missed the fact that this applies only to national level (I'm British, I have no real idea about US politics). I fall back to my original statement: try it, see whether it throws up obvious bonkers result."

The timing and the twice amended closing rationale seem to indicate that the closer did not even read appropriately through the pertaining discussion. The closer said that he got aware of the existence of this RfC at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (see thread here. There had been posted a request for closure on February 21 (by User:Cunard) which expressly required to read through the discussions which led to the opening of this RfC. When I (unwittingly duplicating the request) requested closure on February 24, I did not expressly mention the previous RfCs, but the links are mentioned at the top, the commenters at the previous RfCs having been notified. IMO the three discussions would take anybody at least half an hour to read and think about it. Parsing the closing rationale we find:

1. The closer missed what the RfC was about. Expressly mentioned in the title of the RfC is "Congressmen" which is a term used only on federal level in the US.
2. The closer is under the misapprehension that the RfC is about changing the parameters of the template, which would affect all articles on which this template is used. In fact, the RfC is about the usage of what to write in one section of the template, anything you write in one infobox on any article has absolutely nothing to do with any other article. You write a certain tenure in one congressman's infobox, and another tenure in another one, the parameter for offices has nothing to do with it. The actual info, some year/predessor/successor mentioned or another, couldn't possibly result in any "bonkers" anywhere.
3. The closer admits that he has "no real idea about US politics" and uses that as an excuse for zig-zagging around. Well, somebody who attempts to close any discussion should just read through it and, when in doubt, consult Wikipedia. Besides, the difference between US congressmen and British MPs is expressly stated in the discussion.
4. The "previous consensus" (as stated in the proposal) was achieved by 14 commenters (a vote of 12 to 2), and affected, in theory, the exact same number of pages, and treated the exact same question: How to present long tenures with renumbered districts in the infobox. Nevertheless, the closer found that 20 commenters were not enough to establish consensus, whichever way.
5. The closer does not address or revise the actual arguments brought up by either side. He found that "consensus is in favour" and then relativates it to a "vote in favour" and mentions that "arguments against are rather strong" but does not cite any of the arguments. All is vague, and thus useless. At RfA we have the perennial question about 4 users voting for A and 1 user advocating B citing guidelines and policy. How would the candidate close the discussion? In favor of B, mostly, but certainly not without addressing the arguments and making a clear statement which guidelines were decisive for his decision.
6. The closer then proceeds to "advise against wholesale implementation of any decision and instead advocate a limited trial with examples proposed by opposers [sic] to see just how workable it is or is not in practice, with real-world examples." He is under the misapprehension that changing info at individual articles could be implemented "wholesale". Well, there are scripts for gnoming purposes, but I doubt that anybody could write a script to make an editorial call to find which congressmen served tenures with different district numbers, and would come within the scope of this proposal, that would need fact checking (not that difficult, but necessary). I chose the example mentioned in the proposal Charles B. Rangel as the one and only trial venue, and met with opposition not only from one of the 4 opposers of my proposal, but also from the closer who then said that diff: "That seems to go well beyond the cautious approach I advocated". One trial page is "well beyond the cautious approach"? Is it possible to do a trial on less than one page?

This closure triggered subsequent discussions at the request for closure page mentioned already, at the actual closing section of the RfC in question, at Talk:Charles B. Rangel, User talk:JzG, User talk:Collect and User talk:Newyorkbrad, and triggered a new RfC to evaluate the closure of the RfC in question at which Guy commented on his closure also.

The ensuing controversy made Guy amend his own closure again, adding the following comment:

diff: As closing admin I will say this: the result of this debate is, as I state above, a vote for, but with sound reasons against. 20 people is a small number when you are talking about a template transcluded on nearly ninety thousand pages, many of them biographies of living people. If you're not happy with that, then you can have a straight no consensus based on weight of arguments, not vote-counting.

I chose to try a middle path because the proposal is evidently popular among the small group who participated. I suggested a limited trial with examples proposed by the opponents (as well as the proponents) to test how it works. This is apparently being interpreted as blanket reversal of a previous consensus. It isn't. It's also apparently being interpreted as carte blanche to impose changes without first discussing the parameters of any limited trial. It isn't that either.

You may at this point legitimately do one of the following, I think:

1. Request the close be reviewed and vacated at WP:AN.
2. Try the limited trial, as per above, with all parties collaborating not fighting.
3. Misinterpret the result and thus more or less prove a negative result for the trial by enforcing bonkers results, in which case you revert to the status quo.

I don't really care which you do, but please note that taking aggressive unilateral action without discussion in order to impose an esoteric interpretation of the close, is not one of the options.

• The closer re-iterates his misapprehension about something that would cause a change on a "template transcluded on nearly ninety thousand pages". As explained above, the number of pages where this template is used, is irrelevant. This RfC is about changing info written in the template individually. Besides, there have not been 90,000 congressmen in history, not even 9,000. In fact the "previous consensus" was used on exactly five pages (Charles B. Rangel, Michael Grimm (politician), Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Jerry McNerney), now only four, since I changed Rangel to the new version.
• The closer re-iterates that 20 is a too small number to achieve consensus, but even after having been pointed to the fact that the "previous consensus" (treating the exact same question) was established by only 14, remains adamant to comment on the discrepancy.
• He also mentions BLP. Charles B. Rangel is a BLP, and there is absolutely no problem with this part of the infobox there. Besides, Ex-Arbitrator New York Brad said about this, at the time the "previous consensus" was established in May 2014 I do not perceive this as a BLP issue.
• The closer then waffles around, contradicting himself several times,

"as I state above, a weak vote for, but with sound reasons against" versus "you can have a straight no consensus based on weight of arguments, not vote-counting." If there is no consensus then the closer should say so, especially when he can explain it with the strength of the arguments. This clearly contradicts his original rationale that the number of voters was too small to assess consensus.

"It's also apparently being interpreted as carte blanche to impose changes without first discussing the parameters of any limited trial. It isn't that either." versus "You may at this point legitimately do one of the following, I think: Try the limited trial, as per above, with all parties collaborating not fighting." Well, it's being done at Charles B. Rangel. It follows the example and the discussion at the RfC, why should something that has been discussed and ordered to trial be discussed again?

Based on the above report I request the closure being vacated, the status quo ante, as of February 23, be restored, including a deletion of all subsequent discussions of the subject of the closure, the new RfC on RfC closure, and the new infobox format tested at Charles B. Rangel. Then some uninvolved admin should assess consensus and state clearly in the rationale his reasons, and should address as many points raised here as possible. Please note that I try not to discuss the actual question debated at the RfC, my report here addresses as far as possible, only the technical question of the closure, and the subsequent controversy caused by it. Kraxler (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Struck unprecedented proposal, it distracts from the real issue.. Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler appears to have decided that I could not possibly have read the debate in less than 15 minutes. What he appears to mean by this is that if I had thought about it for longer, I would surely have agreed with him. I have said several times that I am happy to have anyone review the close, but Kraxler's summary above is hardly a neutral description of the matter. That doesn't matter much as admins here are sufficiently experienced in presentation of cases at the drama boards that they will in any case check for themselves. My close is I think a valid summary: the vote went one way but there are strong counter arguments, so I proposed a limited test. Kraxler seems unhappy with this. He also seems to think that all subsequent discussion should be deleted, which would be pretty much unprecedented in my experience. I fail to see any grounds at all for doing that even if the close is vacated. Kraxler has also suggested on my talk page that I am WP:INVOLVED, and seems to think I was recruited tot hat close (which is almost true, as I would never have seen it had he himself not added it to the list of debates needing closure transcluded on this page!). I remember now why we are always backlogged. Who wants this kind of crap? Guy (Help!) 16:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The limited test is already under way. The user who is unhappy with it is Collect. The backlogs certainly don't exist because one closure out of a thousand is questioned. I never questioned any closures before. I always abided by and respected consensus. The problem here is, that we don't know what was the consensus. You have contradicted yourself so many times, that we need clarification. Besides, Ididn't accuse you of being involved. I certainly was suspicious about your interaction with Collect only muinutes before your closure, but I'm willing to accept it as a random occurrence. Kraxler (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Kraxler's, your complaint comes across as angry griping. If you have a point to make, I suggest you edit your comment down by at least 80%. It's much too long for anybody passing through to want to read it all. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The report states clearly what it is about. If you don't want to read it, then don't. We'll have to be patient, someone else might appear to take the time. In my experience, many editors, admins or not, write and read much more than such a small complaint, like this one. It's not urgent anyway. The Rfc had been open for months... Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse close. It can be frustrating for an editor who has little expertise to come in an close a discussion that's important to you, but that's the nature of RFC. Because we expect that RFC closers be uninvolved, they are almost never subject matter experts. We give closers wide latitude to judge consensus, and so are unlikely to overturn a close unless it's just completely off its rocker. That's not the case here. Some times an RFC is like a weighted coin flip, and that's OK: it would be best for the involved, invested, and expert editors of this topic to rally around the close, implement the consensus found, and see how it goes. If it's a bust, then there's no deadline. HiDrNick! 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RE "unless it's just completely off its rocker" Well, I think it is. Besides, you and Jehochman seem to think that the close was against my proposal. That's not the case. My proposal was approved by the closer, and ordered to trial. I started the trial already. The so far only voters who commented on the new format approved the general outline, and are only debating the numerical sequence of the district numbers. That can and will be fixed. The new format is also used now for state legislators. So, with the actual discussion and my proposal, there's no problem at all. I take exception to the close itself. It left many points open, and it caused unnecessary drama and disruption. And the closer refused to clarify the crucial points. Kraxler (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, the drama seems all to centre around you. You might want to think about that for a minute. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the drama consists of Collect asking you what you meant with your close, Collect opening an RfC to have people comment on the meaning of the close, Collect pestering NewYorkBrad about it, and Colect opposing the start of the trial although I showed him to have a clear mandate to start it. Kraxler (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse close and offer Kraxler a mild suggestion that he back off a few yards now, and especially keep away from accusing anyone of bad faith or of being WP:INVOLVED. Fully covered now in at least four venues, IIRC. Opening a fifth sounds too much like Baseball Bugs. Collect (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You voted in the RfC, you can't close or endorse it. Kraxler (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler, you are skating on extremely thin ice here. You just struck someone else's comment on the baseless grounds that having opined in the RfC they are not entitled to opine here, as if you are permitted to act as policeman of this discussion despite precisely the same issue applying to you. It's not your call. Acting like a spoilt child with the admin community looking on is ill-advised, to say the least. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Response to an archived thread

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.

---

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive871#Possible compromised account?, a response was left directly in the archive, and I thought I'd bring it out here. I don't believe it's actionable, but I just wanted to keep things consistent. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The response

Hey. This is Jaywubba1887. My apologies for the editing errors. I have been using the Wikipedia (Zero?) mobile app and for some reason when I edit some articles, the app, once it saves and processes my edits, will delete large sections of the article by itself. I have no intention of deleting the sections and will edit on the full version of Wikipedia from now on, so this won't happen again. I feel like it is a code error or something on the mobile version of Wikipedia. Additionally, I'll be more specific with the edit summaries on the regular version of Wikipedia from now on. Sorry again for everything. Jay (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Normally I would file this under WP:BROTHER, but judging by this conversation on his/her talk page, it appears that it really was just an honest mistake. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Being insulted.

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.

---

Just got insulted and called a "jackass" within an ANI discussion [50]. I take that as an insult by Hijiri 88. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you seeking some sort of administrative action? Chillum 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, thats unless this is considered normal conduct by users. BtW Might have left the notice on the wrong end of the talk page of the user in question. The user discussed with me in the past few days in what I consider an uncivil manner but being called "jackass" goes a bit to far. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh Nice in his latest edit I am now “only” called “Jerk”. That is within the ANI. Even in the discussion within the talk pages in question his/her conduct was in my books rather irrational. I do work on contentious issues dealing with Nichiren Buddhism here in general but this goes a bit too far.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea: stop behaving like one and maybe he won't call you one. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is one: Stop changing the subject and plastering my talk page and talk pages involved. Stay on the subject and not call me names. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that the noticeboards in general are among the places where editors are most often not at their best behavior. "Jackass" is a bit strong, I admit, but probably not necessarily out of line in such discussions. Unfortunately. Having said that, should such conduct continue, there might well be grounds for some sort of interaction ban. I know some people around here come from areas with pronouncedly different standards of popular or polite decorum, unfortunately, and that some words are more offensive in some areas than others, although, honestly, I don't know anywhere "jackass" and "jerk" are considered acceptable. If it continues, though, I might see taking action reasonable.... John Carter (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted certain edits and included references … I now find myself in an ANI just after I sought RfC and being called names. I have a history on working on articles that due to content tend to be disputed – learning curve still goes up. Never the less being called names is a no go. My edits on articles involved remained minimal, the discussion however hefty.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Jackass" seems to be a fairly mild description of your behavior... 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread is simply another example of Catflap08's forum-shopping. I opened an ANI thread on him because he made disruptive edits to the Kenji Miyazawa article, refused to discuss it on the talk page with the few other users who reverted him, started an RFC so he wouldn't have to discuss, and then when the RFC didn't go his way he waited a few months before making essentially the same edit and opening another RFC when he he was opposed. This behaviour is extremely frustrating for me and the others who have had to deal with him. My using ever-so-slightly foul language in reporting this behaviour is an extremely mild infraction. I would request that this thread be closed and the discussion moved back to WP:ANI#Catflap08 ignoring what I say and abusing RFD, and seems to have serious CIR issues, where it belongs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Administrative advice

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.

---

I'd like to ask the advice of administrators, if you please. This might well be outside your purview, but I figure I'll ask anyway. Mondolkiri1 (talk · contribs) is an editor that was indefinitely blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. Prior to his block, I had worked with Mondolkiri1 on multiple articles. Whilst he was always a bit eccentric (not that I'm not eccentric), he never struck me as completely mad. However, it seems he's gone off a cliff. Yesterday, an IP address posted on my talk page, making all sorts of weird insults. He later identified himself as Mondolkiri1. That IP was swiftly blocked. However, the same Mondolkiri1 has now made the equivalent of a death threat at my French Wikipedia talk page. Now, as I know, this user is already indefinitely blocked here. However, this type of behaviour seems completely inappropriate. I'm not sure what action can be taken against him. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to contact the WP:STEWARDs to ask for a global lock, or at least contact the French admins to block him for a death threat there. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged, Beeblebrox. I've contacted a steward. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Has the IP done this sort of thing on any other wikis? Global blocks can be applied to IP addresses, although you shouldn't request one if the IP's only been disruptive here. I know there's a page that will show any IP's global contributions, but I don't know where to find it. 03:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Nyttend (talk)

The discussion above 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.

Page unlock

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.

---

Hello, can an administrator unlock Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Newsroom/Old? This may have been OK in 2008 but we have {{Historical}} for this purpose now. Thanks, ResMar 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Proposal to allow editing by all mobile users

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites

Sorry for writing in English but I thought as administrators you would be interested. Thanks, Nemo 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Above message refactored to fix link and simplify heading. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Yagmurlukorfez

I'm suggesting a topic ban for Yagmurlukorfez (talk · contribs) on articles related to Central Asia. The reason for why i'm suggesting this action is because Yagmurlukorfez has been engaged in widespread meatpuppetry on behalf of Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), who has been making extensive disruptive editing for years through the use of more than fifty blocked socks. To protect Tirgil34's edits, Yagmurlukorfez has engaged in disruptive editing on articles related to this subject, which i will illustrate here:

1. Meatpuppetry for Tirgil34: Because of his similar editing behaviour to Tirgil34, Yagmurlukorfez has been investigated as a sock of Tirgil34 numerous times and by several editors. These investigations have so far been unable to find a technical connection between the two, but it is clear that Yagmurlukorefez is involved in meat puppetry with Tirgil34. Already in May 2014, Yagurlukorfez' has a a conversation in Turkish with Hirabutor (talk · contribs), a sock of Tirgil34, on the former's talk page. My translation indicates that they appear to agree on coordinating their edits privately, alternatively on the Turkish Wikipedia. Meanwhile Yagmurlukorfez asks on the talk page of Su4kin (talk · contribs), yet another Tirgil34 sock, for help on Kyrgyz people, with the two later promoting each others views on the talk page. Yagmurlukorfez has been engaged in cordial conversions at the talk pages of at least four of Tirgil34's socks: Radosfrester (talk · contribs), Hirabutor, Su4kin and Ragdeenorc (talk · contribs), where they have praised each others edits, awarded each other barnstars and so on. It is interesting to note that at the talk page of Radosfrester, where Radosfrester and Yagmurlukorfez praise each others for their edits, the section below consists of a very similar discussion Tirgil34 is having with himself through Radosfester and another sock User:Daru Dakitu. In July 2014, when these socks were exposed, Yagmurlukorfez blanked his talk page, possibly to hide evidence. Examples of Yagmurlukorfez and Tirgil34 coordinating their edits include:

1.1 On Andronovo culture he restored an edit by Tirgil34's sock Radosfrester[51] no less than four times.[52][53][54][55] The confirmed Tirgil34 sock Kervani (talk · contribs) made the same restorations at the same time as Yagmurlukorfez.[56][57]

1.2 On Issyk kurgan he restored an edit by Tirgil34's sock Radosfrester[58] twice.[59][60].

1.3 On Paleolithic Continuity Theory, regarding an edit of self-proclaimed OR by Tirgil34's sock Ragdeenorc,[61] Yagmurlukorfez steps in for[62][63][64] Ragdeenorc[65][66] in the ensuing edit war to ensure that Ragdeenorc's OR can be inserted again and again while avoiding the 3RR rule. Tirigl34's OR is eventually removed by the experienced user User:Dougweller. In a subsequent discussion began by Dougweller, and involving Paul Barlow, Yagmurlukorfez steps in for the now banned Ragdeenorc in defending these edits.

1.4. The article Wusun has been frequented by blocked Tirgil34 socks' Sirivsk (talk · contribs), Radosfrester, Hirabutor, Poikdiyma (talk · contribs) and the suspected sock Mrliebeip (talk · contribs). Lately i've been engaged in an effort to remove these edits (primarily made by Radosfrester[67] and Poikdiyma[68]), which also contain fringe theory and serious misrepresentation of sources (as discussed here), in accordance with CFD G5. Yagmurlukorfez has continiously restored these edits and removed my additions in coordinance with various IP's who are obviously Tirgil34, as can been seen from the revision history.[69]

2. Pushing fringe theory: In addition to restoring Tirgil34's fringe additions to Wikipedia, Yagmurlukorfez has been adding some of his own. Notable examples include claiming that the Anronovo culture[70] and the Afanasevo culture[71] were of Turkic origin.

3. Edit warring: Yagmurlukorfez has been engaged in edit warring to push both Tirgil34's and his own edits. For example, concerning the fringe additions on Andronovo culture mentioned above, he made five reverts within one hour to reinsert his edits.[72][73][74][75][76]

4. Vandalism: While edit warring against me on behalf of Tirgil34 at Wusun, Yagmurlukorfez displayed clear signs of vandalism. In this edit, Yagmurlukorfez removes references to a large number of distinguished scholars and restores Tirgil34s material, gaming the system through a fraudulent marking "POV views fixed" to push a content blanking without valid reason.

5. Yagmurlukorfez has resorted to numerous personal attacks in his frequent edit wars, which i will illustrate here:

5.1: He has accused Zyma (talk · contribs) of being an "anti turkish-turkic etnocentirst indo-euoropean nationalist".[77]. At other times Yagmurlukorfez has presented himself as a victim when recieving similar accusations, showing that he is well aware of the the fact that his own accusations are in violation of policy.[78][79]

5.2: When IP's clearly related to Tirgil34 entered ANI to baselessly accused me of vandalism, sockpuppetry and making obscene racist comments,[80] the same IP then recruits Yagmurlukorfez to join,[81] and Yagmurlykorfez immediatedly appears to express support for the IP's allegations and also levels accuations of sockpuppetry, without evidence.[82]

5.3: On Turkic peoples he has designated those who disagree with him as "Aryan nationalists".[83]

5.4: At the article Issyk Kurgan, Yagmurlukorfez writes that a disagreering user needs "to go to a mental institute".[84]

5.5: At the talk page of Dougweller, Yagmurlukorfez states that Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs) is a "convinced" Neo-Nazi.[85] Such personal attacks (Godwin's law) are strictly forbidden.

Through his tendentious effort to obstruct work to clean up Tirgil34's edits, Yagmurlukorfez has done significant harm to Wikipedia's coverage of Central Asia. A topic ban is therefore necessary for this user.

• Support as nominator. Krakkos (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nice try. First I accused for being sockpuppet by User Krakkos, but it doesn't worked. Now the Florian accusing me for being meatpuppet. As I already said thousands of times, I have nothing to do with Tirgil34. As for the personel attacks, user Florian Blaschke accused me too for several times being Turanist/Pan-Turkist. Which has nothing to do with the "topic ban" subject. Besides, those "personel attacks" happaned at almost 1 year ago. And I'm wondering, why now? why you decided to report me for those "personel attacks" after all those months? Why just after the sockpuppet investigation, which is you didn't get the what you wish?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The meatpuppetry claim is still reasonable, since you have regularly supported Tirgil34's socks. Only some of the attacks are from last year, but that only demonstrates a long term problem. It is fair to accuse someone of being Turanist (or whatever-ist) if they regularly push a particular POV against academic consensus. If you weren't pushing a Turanist POV, you would have more support than just socks of Tirgil34. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If that "someone" isn't a "turanist" or something like that, it would be only one sided claim. (or blaim) And according to Wikipedia, this is a violation of personel attack rule. You can't blame an editor as a nationalist, turanist or etc. just beacuse of his/her contents of edits. Your nonsense arguments are really waste of time. You're not even aware what you're talking about.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Points 1, 3, and 5 have sufficient evidence to justify some sort of action. Point 2 I would have to research more, but given other behavior, I'm not inclined to disbelieve it. Point 4 I would generally call "disruptive editing" (though I do see that WP:Vandalism does count those edits as vandalism), but is sufficiently evidenced as well. Points 1-4 support a topic ban, while 1, 3, and 5 could be used to argue for a block that I won't define. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I have been fighting Tirgil34 (along with his zoo of sockpuppets) and Yagmurlukorfez for years, with little to no support from admins (even receiving a ban instead of a thanks once), and am burned out. The Turanist vandal-fest needs to stop. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. At first, I wasn't going to bother, but upon a closer look at the edits made to the Hunnic language the evidence became quite clear. On 23 June 2014, I started a discussion on the talk page of the Hunnic language, outlining the undue weight given to a singular theory. User:Yagmurlukorfez arrives 25 June, having never edited the article, even to this day, and states his opinion along with his typical attempt to make the matter personal, "Wikipedia does not care "all theories." most important ones, a major theories. Turkic theory is the major one. You can't delete information like that. You doing wrong". With a little bit of searching the past edits on the Hunnic language article it had been edited by, you guessed it, Tirgil34.[86] This information added to what user:Krakkos has already posted, I would have to agree that user:Yagmurlukorfez is here to push a pro-Tirgil34 POV over the same articles(ie.meatpuppetry). Yagmurlukorfez's interaction with Tirgil34 socks proves that he is here to support Tirgil34's edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, let's make it clear. Stop playing the fool now. Apparently Krakkos summoning specific users to comment against me. I'm reffering to Kansas Bear's argument, Tirgil34 editing all the Central Asian related articals since 2012 with his around 30 accounts, or maybe more. There are no articles left that didn't edit by the Tirgil34. According to Kansas Bear's logic, whoever edit a Central Asian related article, that person is a possible supporter (meatpuppet) of Tirgil34. I personally contact with his several accounts on wkikipedia (such as Hirabutor, Radofrester) and each of them talked me like a different person. I didn't even know that they all sock accounts until the last investigation. That guy is not stopping and probably he won't. He is even banned in Turkish wikipedia for using sock accounts and not sure but he is also active in German wikipedia too. Now I'm here and troubling with his mess. Some users united and seeking for a witch to burn. Today me, tomorrow someone else.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to conceal disputed section on Gregorian calendar

In this edit User:156.61.250.250 removed a disputed section template after restoring once a again the section Gregorian calendar#The adoption paradox after it was deleted by several users: [87] [88] [89].Jc3s5h (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is canvassing. There is already a reference to the OR noticeboard discussion on the talk page. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked 156.61.250.250 for 31 hrs for edit-warring across several articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

An idiot writes...

What's the mystic incantation to depopulate a category after CFD? I'm blessed if I can remember. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Some sort of mantra to Cydebot, I think. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nearly. WP:CFDW as you run round your computer three times counter-clockwise singing "we love categories". Bencherlite^Talk 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there something about looking in a mirror when you say it? Guettarda (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Block review

Mohamed Hacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have blocked the above account for 24 hours for vandalism. Please could another administrator take a look and decide if an indefinite block is in order as it is a vandalism only account to date coupled to the name of the account. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked him/her indefinitely as a vandalism-only account Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Two Old Gods at work. Swarm ^X 00:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the first time in my life somebody called me a God. Reminds me of an old joke about de Gaulle and his wife. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you. You'll always be a legend in my book Alex. Swarm ^X 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1 closed

The Toddst1 arbitration case is closed following Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) being desysopped for inactivity, pursuant to the following motion of the Committee:

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:UAA

Would some admins hop on over there, please? It has been backlogged for at least 24 hours. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Block user (requesting review of block)

I have blocked User:DeDe4Truth for plagiarism for 72 hours. Was notified of the issue here [90]

This edit [91] has content basically all from [92] including the refs.

We had some discussion of other issue around sourcing before I blocked them. Happy to have someone review this block and unblock if they see that it is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Previous edits were also copied and pasted and the user appear to lack the understanding that this is not allowed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request was declined by User:SarekOfVulcan. I was also going to decline the request with the same reason, but there was an edit conflict. MER-C 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatantly WP:INVOLVED, punitive block -- after this exchange [93] Doc James blocks them over a content dispute? NE Ent 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry Ent, but a block for copyvio is not a content block. Whether the block needed to be made in the first place is another matter, but the history of this user is not good; here's the talk page at the time of a block made by FreeRangeFrog. The litanies, the wikilawyering, the lack of basic understanding and the refusal to hear what's being said, the accusations of collusion and corruption are already there, and this time seems to be no different. FreeRangeFrog blocked them after this edit, which, like the maggot edits and the conversations on the topic, combined with the user name, suggest this user is not here to improve the project, but rather to publicize an agenda of truth, or truthiness. Now, and Dr. James, sorry, I don't believe a block for copyvio was warranted, but as far as I'm concerned the user can be blocked indefinitely, since they're NOTHERE and they're a net negative. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my experience this user will understand policies and guidelines being repeatedly explained to them only after they are blocked. Before that it was edit warring and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with a side of "but this is the truth" (the username doesn't help, obviously). Having said that, in my case the block did do its job, so there's that. So in this case I don't think it matters who applied the block, I think it was pretty much inevitable. And I'd say it's far more warranted given the topic. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

WP:UAA is backlogged. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we're getting a lot of poor reports there. Many of the reporters are happy simply to click "report at UAA", I think, rather than talk things over or look twice. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Best known for IP"

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP has been updated to reflect the return to LTA status of the IP in question. Drmies and Yngvadottir unblocked the editor based on a 0RR restriction. Both Drmies and the IP have failed to live up the agreement: the IP by not following it, and Drmies by not following through on AN3 reports in order to enforce the 0RR restriction.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• So sue me, Kevin. Drag me before ArbCom. That ANEW discussion was pointless, as pointless as your continued blocks and mass rollbacks. What Hafspajen thinks now of having started that report, I don't know, but at least it served your purpose, didn't it. Did you want me to have blocked Hafspajen as well for their edit warring based on a misreading of user talk page guidelines, or do you think that only some people should get blocked for breaking the law? To a hammer, not everything looks like a nail, apparently. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this IP has on more than one occasion promised not to edit war to be unblocked and proceeds to edit war as soon as they change IPs I think we should just start treating this person like someone who is engaging in block evasion. Chillum 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That is where we were before I attempted to cut the Gordian knot. These long-term abuse pages are a courtesy to fill in background that not everyone can be remotely expected to know, but they're also a scarlet letter, and they are not official. This editor is not under any formal sanction. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since when do we need formal sanctions to handle an IP hopper? Nobody is suggesting that an LTA page = banned. I am suggesting that a long history of blocks for edit warring and block evasion and lying in unblock requests = banned.

This is a user who has been blocked countless times in for edit warring and incivility and who lies to get unblocked while regularly changing IPs. Trying to work with this user was noble but they were just as disruptive. This is not a case of Wikipedia causing a good editor to be disruptive, this is a case of a disruptive user on Wikipedia. This is no different than the last several thousand users who did not want to play by the rules of the project, if not for their regular changing of identity they would have been indeffed long ago. Chillum 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• That's exactly the point. There's nothing unusual in this case except for the efforts to keep him unblocked. He's a disruptive editor that shows no capability of ceasing to be disruptive. There's been no effort to "cut a Gordian knot" here, simply to unblock a misbehaving editor on the basis of content contributions. "A long history of blocks for edit warring and block evasion and lying in unblock requests = banned" is, indeed, standard practice.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question, after years (are we at a decade yet?) of personal attacks, edit warring and block evasion was inexplicably unblocked based on a promise to abide by a 0RR. They quickly "forgot" that agreement under yet another IP and were blocked for a week. One week after that block expired, they were back on the 3RR noticeboard. Why is that not blockable? Well, "They were unblocked under a 0RR condition by Drmies but were subsequently blocked by another admin and served out the block. So the condition has been superseded."[94] You see, if you agree not to do something, do it anyway, get blocked for it and do it again, it doesn't matter. Or something like that. Also expunging their record is that they were blocked for a personal attack and later unblocked by an admin who was unaware of their history. That makes them "an editor among editors".[95] Or something like that. They aren't blocked for 3RR because both editors have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.[96] Or something like that. This editor either cannot or will not follow any rules (including, but by no means limited to 3RR, NPA, CON and EVADE). I no longer care which one it is. I no longer care if any of their edits make sense. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with kww that there is nothing unusual in this case except for effort to keep the IP unblocked. Given that somehow that lack of formal sanction is an issue[97] perhaps we should just make a decision here. Normally a serial block evader could be handled less formally but it seems that the lack of formal sanctions/restrictions is a sore point somehow. Chillum 02:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP was formally blocked. They were unblocked based on an agreement. Two admins involved in the case have argued they are not compelled to enforce that agreement, that being blocked for violating the agreement removes the restriction and, now, that the agreement was not formal. I imagine any formal restriction will need to be lawyer-proofed. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also at a loss to explain why what should be routine is being made so complicated. Chillum 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Two points here. The first is that the majority of IPs on the LTA page are dynamic. There is no practical benefit for blocking longer than, say, 24-72 hours. They're also from all over the place, which leads one to reasonably conclude that there is more than one person who finds superlative descriptions to be unencyclopedic. I was more disturbed by the edit-warring to return really poorly worded sentences. I cannot help but wonder what people would do if a registered user copy-edited the junk out of some of these target articles. Assuming good faith is really important here: instead of having a knee-jerk reaction that any edit removing an unnecessary descriptor, read the before-and-after diff. If the article is improved...who cares? Are our readers not better served by such improvements? And why in heaven's name has "is best known for" become a commonplace phrase in this encyclopedia? Risker (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that some of the more far-flung IPs are actually unlikely to be him. If this was only content, I agree that this IP would win on that. His behaviour is abominable, though, and that's the problem. Good behaviour doesn't excuse bad content, and good content doesn't excuse bad behaviour.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that removing superlative terms from articles is disruptive. It is edit warring and personal attacks coupled with block evasion that are the issue. Chillum 02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the editor's changes to articles. This is about the editor's edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion. The list of IPs on the Long Term Abuse page is "massively incomplete".[98] - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above: the content of this editor's edits is not at question, although I think the value of it has been overstated at times. The issue is his behaviour, which has been called into question dozens and dozens of times; he has been blocked dozens of times, evaded those blocks and has had a decade or more to address his problem. He has never shown any inclination to curb his disruptive tendencies and co-operate constructively, and worse, has even promised that he would do so simply in order to get unblocked, and then continued where he left off. Decent editing cannot overrule endless disruption, or this project can never function adequately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We could try another experiment. Given that the IP frequently makes good edits (as we all should) and explains them in edit summaries (as we all should), we could try not to revert them, for no reason and/or with no edit summary. Crazy thought, I know. It'd be interesting to see the total of their article space edits, and how many of them he had to make two, three, or more times, just because they got undone for whatever reason (often no reason). I think we'll see a seriously inflated edit count, and it's not his fault. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Chillum, I thank you for your edit on that "LTA" page. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we experiment with having repeated and egregious personal attacks lead to sanctions including blocks. Crazy thought, I know. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, SummerPhD, given that there's actually not a lot of evidence that this is happening with a single individual editor, I can't understand what you're after here. In fact, the "evidence" we have shows that multiple IP editors get testy and rude when reverted for no good reason. Have you tried doing that yourself? (i.e., editing without logging in) The last time I made a concerted effort to do so, I found 80% of my (well-described, entirely correct and per policy) edits were reverted, most without explanation, and often with a vandalism warning thrown in. I find it entirely understandable that people react negatively to such behaviour, and it seems to me that this focus on IPs that remove flowery prose ("best known for") are now pretty consistently being treated as this IP "vandal", compounding the problem. I've called other editors to task for knee-jerk reversion of IP edits (as recently as last night) and I'll keep doing it, because it's harmful to the encyclopedia. It's baiting behaviour to revert good edits. While I don't approve of snark in return, I think we're missing the point of this project when we treat unregistered users this way. Risker (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that the editor involved has admitted that most of the IPs involved are him, and has gone well beyond "snark". Again, the quality of his edits isn't the issue: he behaves unacceptably, and must be removed from the project for that reason.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is about one unregistered editor with easily identifiable traits who has repeatedly admitted to deliberately evading blocks for years. We are not here discussing the thousands of editors your theory would imply have been edit-warring, making personal attacks and evading well over 60 blocks. Unregistered editors can "reacting negatively to such behavior" all they want. I have not reverted without explanation. The "snark" I got was being called a "fucking retarded little cunt". (Other favorites include "prick", "infantile twat", "fucking moron", "fuck you cunt", "You dopy little fuck", "if you're all upset that I'm rude, well, just stop being a retard", "fucking idiot", etc.) That is not "snark". According to the editor, of course, calling him a "vandal" is more offensive than any of that and he has repeatedly demanded apologies for calling him a vandal. The editor in question is either unable or unwilling to not make personal attacks with very little provocation. The editor in question has stated he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same". The editor in question has stated he sees absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior and evading the dozens of known blocks applied to him. He sees edit warring as perfectly acceptable. All of this is antithetical to our core policies and a collaborative project. It has earned him over 5 years of block time. There is no indication that he sat out any of it, other than a 1 hour block for a personal attack and 1 week for violating his 0RR agreement (which, apparently, means the 0RR was no longer needed at Yngvadottirpedia). They have repeatedly agreed not to edit war, not to make personal attacks and such. Whether they were simply lying, unable to control their own actions, unable to understand what they agreed to or simply decided they could get away with it again is a moot question. As for the current block, one of the two admins actively defending this editor fully expects that he will evade the block.[99] To repeat: After all of this, his biggest defender expects him to continue with the same bullshit that has brought us here repeatedly and, it seems, is destined to continue bringing us here. His behavior is unacceptable and he cannot or will not change. At what point do we accept the obvious and show him the door? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Risker there is no doubt this is the same person coming back. They have a very clear pattern and they even go so far as to ping Yngvadottir and Drmies for help. While some of the IPs on the LTA may not be applicable we are talking about a specific person. This is not some poor soul seeking to improve the encyclopedia and getting bitten, this is a nasty character who reacts badly when people disagree with him. Chillum 06:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I love both Dmies and Yngvadottir dearly, I really do - they are long time friends of mine too. I like the way they show goodwill towards a lot of editors, help them and try to calm down situations where it will be more drama than there is need to be. Very unfortunately for them and myself - I was involved with this IP, (well, obviously) - and it was one of the few editors that succeed driving me mad in a very short period with that style of his that honestly I didn't care any more I was to be blocked myself - because I just couldn't handle this editor. And generally I am a patient person who tries to solve thing, try to discuss - I really tried this time too - but there is no way discussing a thing here with him about his edits. I am just telling that if he succeeded with his behavior to do this - (not with his edits, his edits we could have discussed and we could have come to some kind of consensus) - but with his ways to disregard the other editors as they were a non-existing element - just bothering him in improving his Wikipedia - sorry - but this is a serious issue. That IP frequently makes good edits it's not the issue here. About Drmies - it was a situation that he was trying to bring to an end and he was going to be shouted at by everyone for it. In my "dispute" (for want of a better word) with the IP, Drmies didn't want to upset Yngvadottir by going against the IP but he certainly didn't want to upset me either or risk me being blocked so he took a road that he thought would at least bring it to an end. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding even more naive than I am, some context. Yes, this is one editor. I got involved at either this noticeboard or AN/I, I believe the latter, where I sought to cut the Gordian knot and have us be able to keep a good editor while not subjecting other editors to vitriolic remarks. The agreement was that the person would stop edit warring and instead contact Drmies or me regarding their edit, and that they would stop hurling insults. We had increasing success with the latter; SummerPhD's examples are all old, and the person (a Brit, with the resultant initial unawareness of the force of the "c-word" to a speaker of US English; they may also have been unaware that Summer is a woman) considerably toned down their invective. Until last week I thought we'd turned a corner and they were now only recognisable by the focus of their edits. We were less successful in getting them to stop edit warring, but I saw improvement there too. Unfortunately the scarlet letter of the Long-Term Abuse page, and some of their choices of articles to edit (to name the two most recent, Tosca is a FA, and at Wilderness hut Hafspajen's method of work and theirs clashed badly) led to their being blocked several times more. Drmies' unblock on a condition of 0R was followed by another admin's block for a different reason. They sat out that block; in fact they've been noticeably not IP-hopping since the experiment started. After that block happened, they made it clear that they didn't wish to be tied to our apron strings any more, and since that block had happened and been served, I agreed, they were on their own. So the experiment is over. I disagree with Kww's rationale, since it rests on the assumption that this is an abusive editor and that that either constitutes a formal sanction they are under or makes one unnecessary. But we've discussed this before, and it appears that view dominates. I think it amounts to assuming bad faith since it ignores the quality of their edits to identify them by their past offenses no matter what, and moreover that the editor addressed the concerns by improving greatly, and that they were and are a net positive. But clearly I'm against administrative consensus in this view, so ... I don't see anything but to chalk it up as a failed experiment, apologise once more to those the IP hurt, and hope that after serving out the current block he or she returns no longer behaviorally recognisable, since he or she refuses to take the other option and register an account. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good faith (which, BTW, the editor does not assume) is not at issue. Whether or not they have tried to stop edit warring and making personal attacks, they have not stopped. When released from a formal block with a hard-fought condition (formally described at WP:0RR) attached, violating that condition and being blocked for it does not demonstrate the condition is no longer needed. It demonstrates the editor would not or could not keep the terms of the condition. When -- one week later -- they go beyond violating the 0RR to violate 3RR, arguing against blocking them with the post hoc argument that they are now "beyond" the restriction is beyond absurd. Arguing against blocking them because it was good faith edit warring does not sound like an argument someone who has read WP:EDITWAR would offer: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." Later saying thatyou expect them to violate their newest block simply reinforces the view that you are placing this editor above our policies. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see that I wrote "that after serving out the current block", or that I wrote that the subsequent block was for another reason. However, we also disagree on whether the editor improved, and since they are on a dynamic IP it is by their edits that they are recognisable, so perhaps the other concerns are understandable given that we differ so radically on that issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It was "technically" the other guardian who said, "I know you'll be back, and it'll count as block evasion (technically correct, of course)". Not truly, formally block evasion. Just "technically", because they famously freed themselves of blocks by breaching the well-known (but conveniently forgotten) agreement that got them out of five solid years of blocks which moves them beyond all that. "Cunt", of course, is not offensive in the UK, it's a term of endearment, like "fucking retarded", "prick", "infantile twat", "fucking moron", etc. It is, of course, big of you to "apologise once more to those the IP hurt". For clarification: Are you apologizing for them because they refuse to or are you apologizing for enabling their edit warring and personal attacks? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. This editor has been reverted many times for many years, by many editors with accounts, and in many cases they were reverted for nothing at all. So yeah, they got angry. So yeah, they got blocked, cause no one cares about IP editors. We do care about civility, but only in the area of dirty words, not when it comes to actual behavior. Let me just hit rollback on a bunch of your edits, like a few thousand of them, for no reason related to content. "Enabling" my ass ("enabling" is a personal attack, of course). Because I don't agree with you, or with those who just block, and block for so long that everything is block evasion? I can't believe you, of all people, would think so simplistically--I'm for you or I'm against you. "Guardian". You don't need a guardian, but the project does. Now, I'm out: there is no point discussing any of this with you. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Could someone possibly explain what exactly this fracas is about? The behaviors described above -- edit warring, calling folks the c-word, are against the rules regardless of whether someone's IP is listed on some page, right? So if an unregistered editor is doing that stuff, why don't ya'll mop-wielders just deal with it? In the context of IPs:

• Name calling / personal attacks should just be given short blocks. A reasonable grown up who starts IP editing should know that already, and if they don't, after being blocked a time or two an editor they'll figure it out. (Assumption here the IPs rotate so it's not the same as marring a registered editor's Permanent record.
• Likewise edit warring; block if the editor has been properly reported to AN3, or simply semi the page for awhile.

Wouldn't that just be so much simpler than trying to figure out if a particular individual who recognizes "best know for" is lame writing is the same as another particular individual or not? Oh, WP:GUARDIAN is a redlink; WP:MOP is not. NE Ent 01:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• And when the same editor violates the same policies hundreds of times and is blocked dozens of times, what normally happens?—Kww(talk) 02:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally, involved admins stay out of it, evasion results in extension of blocks, further violations lead to further blocks, the blocks get progressively longer and the editor ends up here, where they are banned. Further evasion results in mass reverts so they stay gone. Formally. Normally. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here we are, all of 4 days into a 3 month block and the user is evading already.[100][101] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Vietcong nuturlizer

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.

---

@User:Vietcong nuturlizer posted a personal attack on my talk page ([102]) after I warned him[103] for personal attack against another user (@User:Mbcap) in his talk pageUser talk:Mbcap# ([104]). --Seyyed(t-c) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This really belongs at WP:ANI, but since it's here...it looks like Mbcap forgave Vietcong nuturlizer for the comment (I'm not sure why s/he would forgive VN after a comment like this, but hey, that's his/her choice). As for the comment on your talk page, Sa.vakilian, I believe some sort of block is necessary for that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• That was a couple of days ago, but a quick perusal of the editor's work makes it clear that they're here only to yell, basically. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The personal attack was originally posted on my talk page. When faced with such a statement, what can you do? The editors seems to have repeated their action on another users talk. I will let the record speak for itself. Mbcap (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Possible abuse of user talk page

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.

---

Vietcong nuturlizer posted a pretty childish personal attack (I guess that's what it's supposed to be) on his/her talk page not even ten minutes after being indeffed. Should talk page access be revoked, or was that too minor an edit to warrant that? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The one about me being gay? And Agnostic Preacher Kid being a lesbian? We're an odd couple, I suppose. Yeah, that's handled--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Question about ANI closing

If I started a thread that became a fustercluck and then decided to withdraw it (after 2 of the other active posters in the thread also !voted to close with no result), is it okay for me to just close it myself? Or does an uninvolved user (admin?) need to close? I've been out of the game for the while I can't find the rule on this. If I need an admin can someone here do it? It's here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 DoneNE Ent 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Hey admins, I know that you are volunteers like the rest of us and that you work on what interests you, when it interests you. But WP:COIN has been mostly bereft of admin attention for quite a while now. Would very much appreciate participation there from folks in the admin corps. Thanks for considering it. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on exception to OUTING policy for editors advertising Wikipedia editing services for pay

While I am here, I'll take a moment to further publicize an RfC.

RfC is here: Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: the RfC was just amended Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations backlog

Big backlog at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations -- Moxy (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review closed

The Infoboxes arbitration review has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.
2. Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.
3. Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Travelgenio: Anonymous user keeps reverting criticism-edits since January.

Travelgenio Anonymous user with IP 95.39.155.245 95.39.155.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted sections of sòurced criticism on this page about a Spanish travel agency in past two months. His last edit deleted the whole section 'criticism ' while mentioning comment '(Minor edit. Modify broken link and advertising info)', which appears to me that user knows what he/she is doing and tries to stay under the radar. I've put details about reasons for accusation on users talk page.

Revert1 Revert2 Revert3 Flekkie (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the website you're sourcing to looks like it fails RS. When I went there and looked at "About us" it really didn't give me much info, but when I looked at "FAQ's", specifically the question "What do you get from all of this " the following sentence jumped out at me " At the moment - nothing ! We are consumers that have been ripped off by a fraud site and we were incensed by the fact the site was pretending to be a UK website! One day maybe the advertising revenue might help us pay for some nice looking buttons :-) ". There's nothing there to indicate otherwise, so as much as you disagree with the I.P, they appear to be correct to remove that.

This [| revert ] is even more troubling, as you've inserted a nasty comment about the travel agency and your source, although reliable, doesn't mention this at all. You appear to be trying to right great wrongs, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. If you had this same information cited to a reliable website, it would be different , but at this time, I believe I see a boomerang in your future. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear KoshVorlon, thank you for your funded reply and extensive edit on the Travelgenio page itself. First of all: I apologize for the 'nasty' comment (that 'malicious') you refer to. I admit that I added this while being in an excited state after having a bad experience with the company myself*. You can read the details about this beneath, but let's not get distracted by that since this is not a travelagency-forum here.

Secondly, I was not aware of the lack of RS concerning the website scamadviser and I respect your remark about removal. Thirdly I certainly value your new contribution to the article as they are neutral and opinion-free statements.

Still, I like to point that to me it remains clear that the editor 95.39.155.245 serves an other goal than objective reporting of the travel company's structure. The repeatedly deletion of section 'criticism', written by different users, without interacting on talk pages and the recent removal of the complete section criticism with '(Minor edit. Modify broken link and advertising info)' is to me not an edit based on questioning the reliability of cited sources. (note that there is no fixing of any link in that edit btw)

I understand that this by itself can be considered as not enough to deny access for the IP (for now), but apart from it I do think that a section on 'criticism' is a right addition to this article. Based on these series of customer reviews on travel fora, i believe it is quite objective to say that there is at least some criticism on pricing and customer support?:

[lonley planet] [hotukdeals] [moneysavingexpert] [voyageforum (French)]

Surely the 'fraud' suggestion that has been made earlier (by others and me) cannot be sustained without respectable new sources reporting, but I believe that mentioning this kind of criticism is a correct if not needed addition to the article.

but I'd be happy to listen to your advice. Also: do you think its a good idea to use aforementioned websites as refs for this?

(* = they charged me twice my €1900-order without sending any tickets. After which I subsequently called my bank and credit card to cancel all those payments and refund the money)

Flekkie (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is a terrible article--a bit less terrible now. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• And Flekkie, if you add that "malicious" commentary again, I will have to block you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Talk:Travelgenio contains nothing but potentially libelous criticism (some from 2014). Should it be deleted? Squinge (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, Flekkie when you say "funded" reply , are you in someway implying that I'm either paid by that Travelcompany ? I sure hope not, as I'm not, I'd not heard of them until your reply, and the rest of your comment referring to my "extensive edit" on that page is definetly false. I have zero edits on that page. So, may I ask that you strike your remarks about "funded reply" and extensive editing. By the way, if you really think I'm editing that page in any capacity (logged out or not ) feel free to file an SPI on me. Also, the list of reviews you linked to fails WP:RS, so none of them can be used on Wikipedia.KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear KoshVorlon. Sorry to upset you, but not at all, not at all, where these remarks intended that way you just interpreted them. I am not an native English speaker you should know, I am Dutch speaking. I used the word as I thought I could use it like it means in Dutch: 'goed gefundeerd': 'based on something solid', 'legitimate' (see this [dictionary]). I should have looked it up, didn't know that this word does not exist in English. (and very unfortunately has a complete other meaning in this context).

And further on: 'extensive' just reffered to the fact that you had just done an edit of 4800 characters, which was quite a huge edit an a big effort in my eyes and I wanted to stress that. Reàlly I was giving nothing more than compliments :-) There was absolutely no sarcasm involved. Just had a very unfortunate choice of words, sorry to upset you.

And about the whole topic: thanks for all your reply's and edits. I realize that I was (am) too biased to write about this company and will stop doing that. I was apparently strengthend by discovering edits before me that had the same bias. After all, I learned the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS-principle en I surely was completely applicable to me in this case.

Sorry to bother you, thanks for the insight, and please don't shoot me anymore, I really have best intentions for wikipedia. (I'm doing small edits here and there and I am yearly donator), being in this position feels very uncomfortable :-) Flekkie (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After edit: 'well-founded'. That's the equivalent in English I was looking for. Stupid mistake, sorry.

user 67.131.235.220 tries speedy deletion process with several articles about people with origin Ghana / Vandalism

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.

---

I am not a person of many words. See yourself I think its urgent to respond.Spearmind (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am starting the speedy deletion processes because these articles have copyvio issues. Deleting the banners is not the way to respond to these requests. However I will start a regular copyvio process instead. 67.131.235.220 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, I have nothing against Ghana, it just happens that there is Nkansahrexford (talk · contribs) has a slight copy/paste problem, and he happens to write articles about Ghana. 67.131.235.220 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And now Matiia (talk · contribs) removes the copyvio banner without any justification. 67.131.235.220 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. Please react asap.Spearmind (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think this is Vandalism, just a bit of a harsh trigger finger on the SD button from 67.131.235.220. The articles do seem to have big swaths of content copied from other sources, although I'd say that a copyvio report would be more appropriate than a SD request on them, which he already has done for one of his SD requests (Rocky Dawuni) after getting reverted. Honestly, User:Spearmind seems to be doing just as much damage here by not following procedure on copyright violations and acting a bit harshly with the undo functionality himself. MyNameIsVlad ^{💬 | 📧} 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the wrong board for this. WP:ANI is thataway. I have opened a case there on Spearmind's removal of the copyvio tag. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you did so, the save must have failed. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree it's not the right place, I was just providing my 2c on the matter as a whole since I had reverted one of the original edits. :) MyNameIsVlad ^{💬 | 📧} 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry that took me a bit longer than i anticipated... was trying to track down difs. It is here Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If we talk about edit warring MyNameIsVlad used 3RR while I dont see any clear/unquestionable copyright violations on the articles of the 3 Nigerians. Im astonished by the extensive use of copyright-issue templates and immediate deletion requests here.Spearmind (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that I used my 3rd revert (and was very clear in the message that I am), but that does not mean that I violated 3RR, which says that the maximum is 3 reverts. In terms of not seeing "clear/unquestionable copyright violations", each box comes with a Duplication Detector link (with the SD version also having a Copyvios report link) which shows which sections are potentially copied, and big parts of the articles are flagged. In any case, this is not the proper forum for this, and if you have objections, I have already listed what you should do on your talk page. MyNameIsVlad ^{💬 | 📧} 01:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore Vlad did not claim an 3RR exemption on talk violating WP:NOT3RR. There was clear doubt about copyright issue claims and he should not have reverted me and Matiia . Spearmind (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: This appears to be a duplicate to a report at WP:ANI, where the other opponent started the report. We don't need battling reports on two different boards. Lets sort this out in one location. --Jayron32 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

WP:OUTING Repeat offender

It recently came to my attention that User:Kristina451 has been posting my personal information (employer) on Wikipedia. [105] [106] [107]

• 1) If you see Kristina451's block log, he was previously blocked for outing with the same information. [108] His two edits on 09:21, 7 June 2014 and 09:18, 7 June 2014 were redacted for this reason. [109]

• 2) He claims to have gotten permission to do this from the administrators, whom he manipulated into suggesting that the outing might be allowed by omitting that he was previously blocked for the same outing. [110]

• 3) The WHOIS info that he is outing me with also seems to be fabricated. [111] If you visit the actual WHOIS link that he provides, the information that he posted is not there, [112]. The only hint of my employer is in the "IP location" field, which does not locate or name my employer correctly. (We are not in Somerville and there are multiple letter typos in the field.)

• 4) The reason that he knows my employer's name was because he created his account name guessing from the above IP location field to resemble my boss's name and provoked me into telling him to stop harassing my employer. [113]

• 5) I believe his account was solely created to harass and provoke me, since his edits have all been on articles about my employer's business. By tracking the character count on his contributions, you can obviously see that this is unusual activity for a bona fide editor:

Kristina451 user contributions: He spends almost all his time arguing on ANI/COIN/SPI. His article edits have mostly been undos, which is reflected by the negative trend in the characters added.

PS: For complete disclosure, this user also started a SPI investigation on me, which I expect to be cleared.

PS2: I refer to him as a male because the username change proves that "Kristina" is not his real name. [114]

PS3: I guarantee you he will begin WP:wikilawyering here very shortly. I would be careful to listen to what he says with a huge pinch of salt, point 2 and 3 show that he is not afraid to manipulate administrators and cunningly fabricate half-truths that he can twist and he has proven to be proficient at that. Quacks like a duck to me.

I haven't edited on Wikipedia for a very long time because of this guy. I'm seriously tired of waking up every day worrying if he would post something on Wikipedia about me that isn't true like the recent SP investigation to hurt my professional life. He claims to know my personal identity with absolute certainty and is borderline using it to blackmail me:

"That's just an arbitrarily chosen alias and I know who he [sic] is with certainty." - Kristina451 [115]

Admins please let me know your thoughts. :(

Thanks. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• My thought is that I'd love to see a CU take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sophie.grothendieck. DoRD? Ponyo? Elockid? Drmies (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've previously asked this editor to contact the functionaries list for assistance. There have been a number of revdels here that admins don't have access to so I'm not sure how much assistance we can be. Nakon 04:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

* Hey Nakon, thanks for your earlier help. One of the partners at my company reached out to them but I think it is taking some time because Wikimedia's legal team have to process it first? Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If an Oversighter can confirm that those suppressed edits were indeed outing, then this is entirely unambiguous: the user should be speedily banned. As it is I am blocking per WP:NOTHERE based on a sample survey of the last 100 edits. There seems on the face of it to be a long-term pattern of revert-warring and other issues, largely related to discussion of a number of people in the same line of business as the user self-identifies as pursuing. I am very uncomfortable with the edit patterns and would like to see the user give an account of themselves. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is quite concerning but Kristina451 has been indef blocked now [116] and although I know indefinite isn't permanent, in this case I'm not sure there's much point discussing much further since I think it's unlikely they will be unblocked and in any case, it's difficult to discuss the case when we quite correctly can't see much of the evidence. As for the SPI, well it seems to have been endorsed. While it's unsettling if it came from some who may be trying to out a contributor, if people feel the evidence is strong enough, it should probably be allowed to run. I suspect someone would be willing to take responsibility for it anyway if necessary. Oh and as for the real life stuff, I don't think this is something we really should be offering much advice on except to say if you should probably make any reports you feel are necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear: indef is inevitable for repeated outing, but we don't know if that's happened, we have the word of the OP and only an oversighter can check. I'd say the evidence thus far is plausible, and separately I have looked at the edit history and seen other concerns which I think (as a paid up evil suspicious bastard) warrant a block right now. My standing statement is that anybody who disagrees is free to reverse the block (give or take the usual niceties). Experience suggests this will end up nowhere else other than a ban, but human fallibility and something not obvious on the surface must always be allowed for. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick attention. Was really worried you'd miss this and am sorry if this isn't the right place to post this incident.

* I'm very supportive of the SPI and Oversighter check to clear my name. His rebuttal to Guy hinges on this SPI. [117] Why can't he calmly wait for the verdict of the CU before calling me a "serial sockpuppeteer" or finding excuses to post my personal information? His motive since 8 Sep 2014 has been to post my personal information, pretty sure the SPI is just new pretext he is coming up with to do that.

"If desired, I will provide a short instruction how to find this video on the web and can do so without disclosing information that this editor did not disclose himself already. So here we have this guy's firm/employer and they identified themselves... during a public presentation, ..." - Kristina451, 8 Sep 2014 [118]

* Rest of his defiant tone is telltale. "Simply put, what I did was not outing. Please do restore my recently hidden edits. I believe you are not doing Wikipedia a favor by overprotecting a dishonest, interest-conflicted serial sockpuppeteer." - Kristina451 [119]

* He claims he only has a problem with a few individuals, but he has been using inflammatory language ("propaganda") to describe whole companies like my employer [120].

Best, Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sophie, unless you specifically said that an off-wiki video features you, using information from that video is outing. Given that Kristina has clearly and repeatedly said "Sophie works for X", this is clearly an outing attempt, and WP:OUTING prohibits attempted outing, regardless of whether the attempt be accurate in its claims, i.e. even if you work for a different company, sanctions are warranted. It's one thing to unblock someone who's seemingly become repentant after violating this provision, but seeing that that unblock has already happened and Kristina's done it again (including at his talk page), a block without talk page access is warranted, and there's no reason even to consider an unblock. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I didn't mention any video about me on Wiki and the creepier part about it is that I don't even know which video he is referring to (there's a few possibilities). It's emotionally distressing. Thanks for your clarification on this matter, it helps put this incident behind me. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

He claims I have a COI on 1 article although these were the last things I did for that article [121] [122] before he wrongfully reported me for COI [123].

He is now demanding an unblock by claiming he needs to respond to a threat. [124] First sentence referred to Wikimedia's legal team reading an email and causing delay, not a threat. In the second I was shaken with fear and on the defensive, I'm truly sorry if that violated WP:NLT and have removed it. I hope this removes any pretext to allow him to emotionally torment me further.

The SPI investigation had been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See, it was a bad faith accusation all along, he just wanted another pretext to out me. :sigh: Since I have nothing to do with it, could someone please remove this sentence in the SPI page?

"the named account 'Sophie.grothendieck', is involved in <my employer's name>" - Kristina451

Thanks, Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Block review requested

I'd appreciate it if one or two other administrators would review the events leading up to my recent block of User:Arianewiki1 and the block itself. Potted history, from my perspective:

• I spot an ongoing edit war occurring on User talk:Tetra quark. Arianewiki1 is striking Tetra quark's swearing, and Tetra quark is removing the strikes.
• Since Tetra quark has asked Arianewiki1 (not very politely) to refrain from posting on his talkpage, I point this out and ask her to stop, in the interests of de-escalating the issue.
• A conversation ensues on Tetra quark's talkpage and on my own, in which I ask Adrianewiki1 to stop reverting.
• Noting that Arianewiki1 has continued to revert I warn her for 3RR violations.
• I place a related warning on Tetra quark's talkpage, and a brief discussion results.
• Arianewiki1 continues to revert. I impose a 24 hour block for 3RR violations (she has previously been blocked for a week for edit warring, but it was over a year ago and I'm inclined to keep this block as short as possible).
• Further discussion occurs at Tetra quark's talk; I concede that reverts in his userspace are exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRNO, and he reverts to his preferred version.
• Arianewiki1 requests unblock.

I think that brings us up to date. My problem is that, while I think my actions were in line with Wikipedia policy, I'm less than happy with the outcome. Rather than - as I had hoped - preventing an emerging conflict, I ended up with one editor blocked and the other happily lacing his talkpage with obscenities. I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what I could have done differently to obtain a better result.

I'm heading offline fairly shortly; if any administrator wishes to unblock Arianewiki1 - either because they feel the original block was flawed, or because they accept her unblock appeal - they should feel free to do so without waiting for a comment from me. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared to endorse the block. Both users behaved like idiots, and for such edit-warring on any other page both of them should have been blocked. But since the edit-warring was occurring at the talk page of one of the users, and they are free to do with their talk page what they want, they should not have been blocked. They should have been warned though, and they were. The other user did not stop and was blocked. I do not see any problems with the block, and in fact unblocke was already declined.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would offer an unblock conditioned on Arianewiki1's agreeing to stay off Tetra Quark's usertalk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

He's not quite exempt from 3RR. User page can be exempt from 3rr so long as the user respects the user page guidelines. Per The user page guidelines material that attacks other editors cannot be on the user pages, so I disagree, and believe striking out or removal would be appropriate. But yeah, Arianewiki1 did violate 3rr, so yes a block is warranted for her on that ground. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui:, I don't think you can really avoid that sort of result here, given the way in which the users have carried on. Whether you'd cited 3RR or the user space guidelines, the effect is unlikely to have made a difference in this particular case I think. The only thing which could possibly improve it is the offer Newyorkbrad proposes, but there's no guarantees either way. Certainly worth trying though (whether it's Newyorkbrad, you, or someone else who is online). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not object to Newyorkbrad's proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I advised you to not make a big deal out of this, considering ariane's history. He/she just likes to put fuel in the fire. Anyway, all I want is my right to be left alone, so I agree with Newyorkbrad, except that I think that ariane really should remain blocked for today. I just don't want any more edits on my talk page coming from that user and I will report to you if that happens in future. That's it - I'm not going to talk about this anymore. Bye Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand no editor with administrator privileges wants to get sucked in the quagmire of civility enforcement. I understand we generally let "fuck off" (where fuck is used as an emphatic) go. But has the scale really slid so far that calling other editors feces: "pieces of shit", "you little shit" is allowable? Tetra quark should be directed to remove those insults from his talk page, and, if they refuse, indef blocked until they do. NE Ent 17:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've chosen to decline the unblock request; ariane's behavior seemed certain to escalate rather than diminish conflict, and that should have been obvious to all at an early stage. (I've long believed that telling people to "fuck off" in so many words is a lot more economical and a lot more honest than wasting keystrokes with far more verbiage, and no less civil; civility is not restricted to avoiding saying "fuck".) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Neither of them was being particularly civil, but I concur with the block on the basis that Tetra was exempt from 3RR in their own talk page. It also put a stop to the disruption, at least temporarily. Perhaps the best thing these two can do is simply walk away from each other. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your comments (this isn't an attempt to end the discussion, I just happened to be online for a few minutes). I must admit, I'm coming to feel that NE Ent has a good point, especially in light of this bit of gravedancing. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. (The reference is to this edit, especially the last sentence.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After inserting pornography as the lead image of prominent BLPs and major religious figures, revert wars, etc, I thought you all agreed with @John:'s last chance. How can TQ continue to be allowed to edit after calling another editor "you little shit" etc? This should clearly trigger the indef he was warned about. --99of9 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. This user was on a final warning. Per the diff highlighted, I have blocked indef, while pointing out that the user is welcome to come back as and when they can edit productively. Any comments welcomed. --John (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In light of this outcome, I propose to unblock Arieanewiki1, as the block no longer serves any purpose. I will act on this shortly unless I hear any strenuous objections. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally I would wait longer than this, but I think it's important that this block be undone before it expires by time. Reducing to time served and unblocking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just noting my endorsement for these actions also (and the importance placed on doing this properly and in a timely fashion). Thank you John, Newyorkbrad, and Yunshui. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

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.

---

Not that it affects anything, but I would like to see if I can find consensus to unblock User:Martinphi after all these years. It's really a symbolic gesture on my part, since I do not believe that user will ever edit Wikipedia again. The original community block was here and I believe has outlived it's usefulness, if it was indeed useful to begin with, which I don't think it was. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dreadstar ☥ 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks, from Martinphi's block log, that you unilaterally took it upon yourself to remove the community-imposed ban already (an action that was quickly overturned by another administrator). You also blanked Martinphi's user and talk pages. It's not usual to lift community bans without a request from the editor involved—and a discussion involving the community that placed the ban in the first place.

Gotta ask—what prompted this all of a sudden? And why should we go a looooong way from the usual practice and entertain an unban request from someone who isn't the editor in question? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did all that. I had the recent opportunity to revisit the ArbCom case on Paranormal and it raised memories of how I felt this editor was treated unfairly. They didn't request an unblock beyond what was asked six years ago, I did it on my own - out of an intrinsic sense of fairness. Pardon me for not following proper process, but I am now. And why wouldn't you entertain a request from me, who is clearly not the editor in question. Why not? Dreadstar ☥ 01:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, blast from the past. To answer your question: if Martin himself requested an unblock, then we could have a discussion about what his goals are, and what we could do to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate patterns that led to his initial ban. We can't really expect you to speak for Martin or to make assurances on his behalf, which is why we usually need to see some involvement from the banned editor in processes like this. In this case, we're talking about overturning a ban which was marked by clear community consensus, and which was the culmination of numerous blocks and ArbCom findings against Martin, so while I genuinely respect your belief that the ban was unfair, your personal conviction alone isn't enough to overturn the consensus judgement of people who saw Martin in action back in the day. I had my share of interactions with Martin, mostly negative, so I'm arguably not entirely objective here, of course. MastCell ^Talk 01:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) That's exactly why we wouldn't entertain a request from you—because you're not the editor in question. We don't do unblock and unban requests posted by third parties, especially when those requests are placed without the knowledge or consent of the banned editors.

As for the "gesture" on your part, the symbolism is concerning. Since and because you've made this request, I've looked into the history you have in this area, and your administrative actions today don't look good in that light. As you well know, Martinphi's ban was for disruptive conduct related to his interactions with ScienceApologist. You, Dreadstar, have been a staunch advocate for Martinphi both before and after his ban. At the same time, you seem to have an extremely personal, vehement dislike for ScienceApologist, going so far as to create (and immediately delete) a mainspace article that consisted solely of a vicious personal attack. "Before I forget, FUCK you [ScienceApologist]. You're forever in my mind as a supreme asshole." (admin only link to deleted page).

In other words, the "symbolic gesture" appears to be an extended middle finger at ScienceApologist, as part of a grudge that you've been holding on to for the last five years. Move on, leave this issue alone, and don't ever misuse your admin tools to unilaterally lift a community block – especially where you have a personal involvement – again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't create that article, I accidentally recreated it. If you want to come after me, then do it. Let's not play little games here; my request was an honest one and I don't need to be attacked for it. Dreadstar ☥ 02:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: There's no evidence MartinPhi was community banned; therefore, while Dreadstar's unblocking may have been poor judgement it was not a violation of policy. I state this because a) there's no listing of a community ban at WP:Editing restrictions and b) I can find no evidence of an admin notifying MartinPhi they were community banned as specified by WP:CBAN, and c) the badge of shame posted on MartinPhi's talk [125] says indef blocked, not banned. Note WP:BLOCKBANDIFF defines a "defacto ban" as In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned. Since Dreadstar was willing to unblock the MartinPhi, they are not defacto banned. NE Ent 12:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that, despite certain bureaucratic t-crossings and i-dottings being missed, Dreadstar should have been well aware that Martinphi was under a community ban. Dreadstar participated in a previous unsuccessful request to unban Martinphi ([126]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we did the whole logging at at editing restrictions back in 2009, I don't think we even used the term CBAN at the time. It is still a community ban even if we were less formal about it back then. Chillum 14:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My mistake all the way around, apologies for the ruckus. Won't happen again. Dreadstar ☥ 17:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Kiko4564

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 user has used socketpuppetry and manipulation to corrupt the system, for the benefit of using for mainly vandalism, an example is that this corrupted user who has been for a while using multiple accounts, manipulating the system by deleting new users' reliable edits and giving unnecessary warnings to new users. His actions went against the fact that Wikipedia is a free opportunistic website where any user can edit freely using reliable sources. Therefore I propose that he is banned indefinitely particularly considering the fact that he continued with his sockpuppetery not only after being blocked but whilst appealing his block. Even after his latest appeal was declined he persisted with that. 84.51.131.252 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have anything that resembles evidence? Your edit history(lack of history) does not give any clue as to what the specific complaint is, who were you editing as when you had this problem? Chillum 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyways Kiko4564 is already indefinitely blocked, has been for months. Chillum 17:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kiko4564 shows most of his sockpuppets and states these were confirmed by checkuser. Im CVN. The specific complaint is block evasion on multiple occasions. On top of that theres also another account that you can see on his talk page. 84.51.131.252 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but it looks like they are already blocked and their sock puppets are blocked on sight. Did we miss an account? Chillum 17:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No but the fact that he persisted in sockpuppeting suggests that we should consider banning him. 84.51.131.252 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Adding a Bio to englisch Wikipedia from german Wikipedia

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.

---

Hi

Wante to see if someone could post this on the english wikipedia site. I am the person in the bio, competed for the US Ski team and would like to see it in englisch asa well. Attached is the link from the german site.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Stolzlechner

Thanks fo your help ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.4.170 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• That'll be 20 bucks. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Try the help desk, but there's no guarantee someone will write the article. APK whisper in my ear 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Protected article 1 month

I have protected rhinitis as different IPs keep adding "Christianity, Islam and Freemasonry related vasomotor rhinitis. Alternate nostril breathing is a masonic plan" Posting here as I have edited that article before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not file a WP:RFPP request like any other editor? NE Ent 23:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The edit-warred content is, bluntly, batshit insane. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I consider this pretty obvious vandalism, that even an admin who has worked on the general topic can protect against. It was nonetheless right to bring this here to check for possible objections. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

UAA backlogged, again

There's a huge backlog at WP:UAA, if anyone could pop over and assess a few reports that would be great. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place:

1. User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned. Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
2. User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
3. User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring. In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Blocked User

Blocked my user, thanks--Lucapaz1000 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you requesting that your own account be blocked? 28bytes (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes--Lucapaz1000 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You can lock?--Lucapaz1000 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes he can lock but youd best follow the WP:RTV procedure for a permanent block otherwise try an admin willing to do it46.208.117.56 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bitafarhadi

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.

---

hi plz block the Fsb1234 (talk · contribs) he is Sock puppetry of Bitafarhadi and blocked in fawiki --Florence (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, seems pretty obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Blocked IP 72 hours

I blocked this user for 72 hours for calling two other editors "terrorists" [127] The last one following a warning. Have edited the page involved thus posting here. Happy for others to review and unblock if they wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a little premature, since the IP hadn't done anything else whatsoever, but I suppose someone who starts off this way won't likely be dissuaded by anything less than a block. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog

CFD still has a major backlog. Can more admins please help out? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Rocky Dawuni

I undelete this article pending an investigation of its history. I'll make sure to redelete it so that copyvio parts are not kept. We do not have so many African participants nor so much african content and I think some people need to get a better understanding of what is copyvio versus not, and of what is ok versus not ok to put in the articles. I think reviewing the history of this article might help. Thanks Anthere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Revdel logs

I made four logged revdel actions between 17:35 and 18:07, 8 March 2015. Two were multiple deletions and two were single entry deletions. I am not entirely confident about what I actually deleted, but it is nothing that is linked from the deletion logs. The multiple deletion counts don't even add up. If anyone's really interested in what I did in the short time after 17:35, it was this and similar/related logged contributions, which I could probably track down. I'm not sure if this is a new bug, but I suspect it's caused by a recent change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It would appear to be a bug in the sotware - and the solution would be to either ask at WP:VPT if anyone there knows what's going on, or to follow the directions at WP:BUGS for opening a new bug report. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging while blocked

When an editor has been blocked for an infraction, should that editor be using the ping feature (or similar) to send messages to other editors intended to influence discussion of article content? Seems to me this would be inconsistent with the notion of being blocked. Perhaps the issue has been discussed before; if so my apologies for taking people's time here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if an editor has been blocked for something, their talk page is not to be used for anything except requesting an unblock. Pinging people to influence an article discussion is effectively looking for, at best, proxies, or, at worst, meatpuppets and is a form of canvassing. Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've often seen blocked users use their talk pages in beneficial ways, ranging from "I found vandalism here; please fix it" to writing a message for the blocking admin. In particular, when blocking people whom I think might be constructive users (especially simple non-abusive username violations), I've specifically suggested that they ping me if they reply. Modifying the software or modifying relevant policies would be bad ideas, since there are constructive ways of using this feature when blocked; we ought to treat it like any other kind of talk page communication, permitting it unless the person gets to the point of having talk page access revoked. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, okay -- but what do we do if it's just run-of-the-mill attempts to carry on editing even though blocked? Nothing? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you meaning something like @Nomoskedasticity:, please uncapitalize "Individual" and the first "Team" in Nils Stolzlechner? Depends if it's productive; if we benefit, good; if we don't, bad. If it's good, or if it's just a few bad ones, no big deal. All that matters is that the encyclopedia be improved; aside from outright abuse (e.g. "NOMOSKEDACITY YOU ARE A *****") or other stuff that we're all prohibited from doing, the worst that can happen is wasting other people's time. If the pinging is wasting people's time, we should warn and eventually shut down talk page access, but if it's helping, we shouldn't object at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Blocked", then, doesn't mean what it used to. It's almost as if one is now able to edit article talk-pages while blocked. That's a change from past practice, and I'm not aware that it has been adopted as such. And of course different people have different notions of what counts as "helping". But it doesn't seem that concern about this issue is widespread. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember blocks aren't punitive. They're supposed to stop disruption to the encyclopedia. If a user is suggesting good, sensible, changes on their talk page I don't see an issue with that. Sam Walton (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane is wrong. NE Ent 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've actually wondered about this recently as well though. I thought Blackmane's stance was the generally accepted one, but I couldn't find where exactly it was cited, so it's not something I've personally enforced. This might be a good thing to clarify... Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I too had thought that my view was the typical view and have seen a number of times in the past while browsing unblock requests at CAT:RFU where admins have revoked talk page access when it was obvious the user was not seeking to be blocked but was either pinging other editors or leaving messages on their talk page in the expectation that others who have watch listed their talk page will make the edit. Of course, this would be based on the admin's assessment and discretion, but I'd seen it enough times to get the feeling that this was standard practice. I'll have to go do some digging. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty indeterminate area. Using the talk page to harass other editors is definitely not okay, and pinging could be used in a harassing manner. It also would be worth looking at if the editor was using the ping feature for canvassing in order to continue an edit war that led to the block in the first place. Otherwise, I'd say it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, especially in light of the length of the block. I'd also suggest that the concept of proxying has little meaning in the context of a block rather than a ban; canvassing would be the more pressing concern in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

−

(edit conflict)It's not uncommon, but it's not policy. As the replies here show, there's no consensus. I have previously raised the pinging issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notifications/Archive_6#Blocked_users_pinging but the conversation didn't go very far. NE Ent 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This lowly regular ed thinks pinging is fine, provided its so unquestionably open and broad there is no hint of WP:CANVASSING. If the blocked ed is picking and choosing, that should be considered canvassing unless they can show they blanketed all participants in some prior discussion regardless of their stance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

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.

---

user:Tabithalol115 might as well be blocked without further delay; probably a sock of User:69intenso (blocked 16 hours ago) and User:R15plus (final warning 16 hours ago). Schwede66 09:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues

Does anyone ever review Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The instructions say that the users should be removed from the category once they're indef-blocked or have not edited for several weeks. Anyone could do this step, you wouldn't have to be an admin. The first two I checked were already blocked and I have removed them from the category. There's 1,336 in the category presently. I will do some more later, I have to go out right now -- Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked the 5 more - 4 were removed, User talk:2007Cyberstalking should still stay. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've requested bot assistance. Of course that won't help with "have not edited for several weeks", but it will be able to remove the indef-blocked users. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The category is populated by a template (a user warning IIRC). Could the template be recoded to not apply the category to pages of blocked editors? Normally, the user warning (and thus the cat) is removed by the admin who blocks the account when it is supplanted by the block message, but I guess not all admins are dutiful enough to leave a block template or to remove the previous warning. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I never remove previous warnings when adding a block template. I don't think we are supposed to. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that after an admin blocks (or not), the {{uw-coi-username}} template must be removed manually from the page. It's usually under a "Your username" heading. But it's hidden, so you have to edit the section, select the span of text that includes it, and save. It would be super awesome if there was some more automated way of doing so, so I suspect the reason that category is severely backed up is because there isn't one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Review request for non-admin closure at WT:NCF

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.

---

I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#RFC: Series subject as a name to discuss that page’s advice to use (and, presumably, the actual use of) the “subject” of a film series as its proper name when that series is known to have no official or commonly used name. At one point I posted (what I consider) a very strong argument as to how this practice would be inappropriately misleading [128]. Rather than responding, another user who had been opposing from the beginning (using a repeatedly refuted argument) decided to request closure to discourage further discussion [129], before 30 days had passed and without notification on that Talk page. The closing user closed the discussion when several of the questions and concerns I raised had not ever been addressed, and I contend it was closed without considering the strength of the arguments. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, the ideal outcome here would be that the discussion is reopened and one or more editors discuss the merits of the linked argument, such as explaining why it’s wrong. Or even that it’s not reopened and that happens. What it seems like is people just don’t want to acknowledge the problem because they can’t dismiss it, and that’s frustrating as hell… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, friend. The close seems sound to me. A quick read of the linked discussion, and the one above it, make it pretty clear that it's time to drop the stick. HiDrNick! 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said in that discussion, I will happily drop the stick once the issues (see my first diff) are addressed or explained away. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually included a DNAU at the top for that very reason, so I’ve removed yours. But thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:SNOW, WP:BURO and WP:DEADHORSE.- MrX 01:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:DEADHORSE would apply if there was anyone claiming that it was not misleading, or that it was acceptable (not in violation of WP:AT) for it to be misleading. That’s not the case here; it’s not a horse, it’s an elephant in the room. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FFS, you still banging on about this? LET. IT. GO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and I've explained why. You've made it abundantly clear that YOUDONTLIKEIT. If you have nothing else to contribute other than calling me a troll in edit summaries, I'll thank you to stay out of this. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies here. Or troll. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How about WP:NPA? Or WP:KETTLE, for that matter. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your forum-shopping trolling at ANI has just been closed. WP:KETTLE indeed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate the gross bad-faith mischaracterization or the violation of WP:STICK (at “If you have ‘won’”), but yes, I think we’re both guilty of WP:KETTLE at this point. But let’s stay on topic here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse NE Ent 10:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. IP: Even if you still disagree; even if your arguments have not been answered, or have been ignored; even if everything you say is true ~ and i don't believe it is, having read the RfCs and tried to wrok out what is happening; even if all these things, and despite your protestations to the contrary, DEADHORSE is completely applicable: The community has decided that the issue is closed, at least for the present, and as part of that community it is up to you to accept that. That's not to deny that the community may have made a mistake, or that it may change its mind at some point. Simply put, it is time to admit that you will not win this argument. Put it down, edit elsewhere, come back to it later, if you believe the time to be right. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @LindsayH: Thank you very much for that very civil and well-reasoned explanation. Seems to be a bit lacking of late (not to disregard others who’ve given similar non-combative advice). I still wish that someone who disagreed would actually provide a direct counterargument, but you’re right. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this IP troll and their WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse the horse is dead. It is not going anywhere anytime soon. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

გიორგი IV გურიელი

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 title (გიორგი IV გურიელი) is restricted to administrators at the moment. There is a request at redirects for creation, which I could not entertain due to limitation. Please look into the matter.  SAMI  ^talk 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so why would we even need such a redirect? De728631 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There are certain instances when non-English redirects were created such as Винни-Пух.  SAMI  ^talk 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Lucia Black Topic Ban Review

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.

---

Friends and colleagues, on August 19, 2014, I imposed a topic ban on Lucia Black, restricting her from participation in all Japanese entertainment-related topics, broadly construed per this thread. In my closure, I commented: "I would assert that productive and non-tendentious content editing in another subject may ultimately demonstrate ability to return to this topic area, where her interest ostensibly lies." Lucia has previously been banned from filing reports at administrative noticeboards, so she approached me a few weeks ago about modifying the ban, as she has no interest in contributing to alternate content areas. I am aware of the great trouble that many editors have experienced with Lucia over the years, but even the most ardent opposition to her editing concede that she has the capability to make productive content contributions. Consequently, in the spirit of second chances, reconciliation, and content development, I propose the following modification, which seeks to assuage the concerns of those who have dealt with Lucia in the past, and provide a path forward for Lucia to contribute: Lucia Black is indefinitely banned from editing articles related to Japanese video games broadly construed. Moreover, she is restricted from interacting with the following editors with whom she has previously had disagreements and who supported further sanctions six months ago via a one-way interaction ban: Sergecross73, Salvidrim!, Ryulong, Hasteur, Mendaliv (note: any of these editors may request to be removed from the interaction ban at any time for any reason). To be honest, this is the best path forward of which I can think at the present juncture, but I am open to other suggestions and civil discussion. Thank you all in advance for discussing this topic in an intelligent, measured, and civilized manner. Go Phightins! 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've no issues with Lucia and don't wish to be involved in a TBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed you. I was only judging based on comments in the previous discussion, not being overtly familiar with the topic area. If you have any substantive comments on the concept, I would love to hear them. Go Phightins! 21:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but I really never interacted with Lucia outside of ANI, and don't need an interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Does this mean that she may edit on Japanese entertainment other than video games? Is my parsing correct? Is she interested in editing on Japanese entertainment other than video games? Also, will she still be restricted from interaction with a banned user? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

She has repeatedly commented that the ban was too broad for her to contribute to anything in her interests; she is also interested in comic books, literature and some other non-video game cultural items, I do believe. I only included Ryulong should he be reinstated at some point. And Mendaliv, I will remove you as well. Go Phightins! 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that she continued to complain and not "get it" regarding the topic ban a half year after it happened. Even still I feel a strong WP:IDHT vibe... Sergecross73 msg me 01:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

After reading the January 12, 2015 comment linked to directly above, I share Sergecross73's concerns. I recommend that LuciaBlack edit productively and collaboratively for six months outside the area of the topic ban. Surely, there are a few of our 4.7 million articles outside this topic area that she can help with. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Her behavior is concerning, and my interactions with her have been mostly negative. If I remembered right, her debating skills results in walls of text and conflicts. If she was limited in her privilege to debate on "big things", she'd be less problematic; she is perfectly behaved in articles no other editors take up. If possible, I may also consider an interaction ban with her though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify along with this that my suggestion that I don't need a tailored one-way interaction ban with her doesn't mean that I think the topic ban should be lifted. Cullen's suggestion is a wise one. If Lucia hasn't put forth serious efforts in trying to edit outside of banned areas, I don't know why lifting it on anything but a time-limited test basis is even being considered. When you've shown that you can't edit collaboratively in an area, as Lucia had shown in that prior case, there's a burden to be overcome before the ability to edit in that area should be restored. I mean, come on, there has to be something. I've even seen experience editing collaboratively on high-traffic Wikia wikis considered when lifting a siteban before. If Lucia is actually incapable of editing outside of this one narrow topic area (despite the breadth of phrasing, the topic ban does not preclude editing of most articles) or outside of English Wikipedia, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of removing the topic ban being successful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cullen's suggestion is wise ... except that she rightly asserts "Japanese culture" is a broad topic, so there legitimately might be nothing else on which she would enjoy working. If I was banned from editing anything related to American culture, that would encompass all of my editing interests too. My proposal here essentially allows for Cullen's end state, though ... video games were the root of the problem, and she would remain banned from editing articles about them, but would be allowed to edit other articles on Japanese culture, be they literature or whatever, provided she does not interact with editors who have previously had issues with her -- essentially, don't disrupt people, but prove yourself before we lift the ban completely. Go Phightins! 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ryulong is currently indef blocked per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, fwiw. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am aware. Only included him as there was previously conflict. Go Phightins! 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose lifting as suggested; overly complicated remedies are more trouble than they're worth. (It's a bit absurd to be talking about a one-way interaction ban with an indef'd editor.) I prefer Lucia's suggestion [130] better; lift the ban and if the problems recur simply site ban her. NE Ent 02:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would too, but anticipating there would not be consensus for that, I sought to come up with something that, though somewhat complicated, might be a workable compromise. Go Phightins! 02:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:IDHT, and my dif above. Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting current ban While i have great respect for Go Phightins! and his concern for "second chances, reconciliation, and content development", i would note that second chances have been offered to this editor and declined previously, reconciliation is not something she indicates she is interested in, and content development is only of interest on her terms. I remember several blow-ups involving Lucia, including the one(s) which resulted in the current ban. I have looked at her contributions since that time to see if she has shown any signs of understanding and taking to heart what she was told; briefly: None. Her most recent mainspace contribution was 26 September, 2014, over five months ago. As Mendaliv says above, surely there is something she could have done in that time? Even a bit of gnoming, correcting spelling or formatting, something? Instead, every single contribution i looked at revolved around the correction of the injustice perpetrated by the community. Without any sign of self-awareness or willingness to live within the community's standards, i recommend Go Phightins! return to Lucia and suggest to her she pay attention to what the community wants to see from her. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 03:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment@Mendaliv:/@Cullen328:/@LindsayH: I've attempted time and time again, but it comes to the point that my edits don't stick, i go back and try to start over with the edits and its a vicious cycle of not pressing the "save page" button. The most I've done were GANs of others, and making heavily minor edits and reconstructing. But those are incredibly minor. I don't feel like i'm making any contribution at all. For the record though, iv'e done plenty of edits in wikia. But that rarely proves much. And typos, i literally have to look for those articles. But honestly, i dont think it really matters. Do you genuinely believe this will solve things for good? Or are you hoping that this is just a temporary resolution that will backfire until i get sitebanned for good?

@Sergecross73: You mention WP:IDHT, which is incredibly vague to what it applies to most (it appears to be mostly article space, not editors). When you say things such as refusal to "get it". These things are heavily insulting. Yet, when i ask for more clarity on the situation or when i ask for answers, i receive no response whatsoever from the very person accusing it. I get ignored, and what good does that to me and my progress in Wikipedia? It provides no self esteem, nor does it even give any motivation to continue editing at all when there's this type of community to look forward to.

@DragonZero: Your proposition is too convenient to benefit you specifically. Proposing something "big" shouldn't be a legitimate issue. The problem is that I've proposed things in the past in WP:ANIME and it has indeed accepted it to a significant degree. It even affected one of the articles you were concerned about when the structuring had to get reverted (with consensus). You're proposition literally is saying to make no positive contribution to any areas where you feel against. Lucia Black (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I need to simplify this. I was trying to propose a third solution. Return, but be restricted from debates. Your current outlooks right now are status quo, and the proposer's options which does not seem to be passing at the moment. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

restricted from debates isn't a problem. its about proposing something "big". But then again, the exact same opposers return. its not the debates that are the problem, its the avalanche that occurs only in WP:AN. i'm constantly getting called out. I would love it if other editors received the same standard they place on me in WP:AN.

Support i'm working part-time, going to school full-time. I have even less time then before to edit. The ban is indeed broader than those make it out to be. Mainly because you may all have bigger interests in Wikipedia. Heck you're interest may not be any topic at all, it may just be wikipedia in general. Me? i edit to promote a topic intellectually that i'm interested.But when things have boiled over not because of actions, but because of history, it gets to the point where no editor is truly looking for a resolution that will make everyone happy and allow me to continue to edit. I'm looking for a final, permanent, resolution.

This current proposal speaks volume. More than the current topic ban i'm in. I know some of you who are opposing this current proposal know that editing elsewhere six months of minor edits wont fix "me". This second chance doesn't come with rehabilitation, it doesn't avoid the future problem that will eventually come back. I want to prove something, and here this proposal comes up, and it is the perfect chance to actually see in my own element, and what kind of editor i really am. WP:AN is only a fraction of it all. its not what makes me a good or bad editor, yet WP:AN is the sole reason i'm at where i'm at, and the opposers recognize this.

This current proposal, allows me to prove so much more than the one i'm under now. Other wise, i request a site ban under my terms because i literally do not have time to dedicate an area where i'm not interested in, and i don't have a good standing with the current group that provided this consensus (and no, this current consensus does not speak for all WP:AN, it only speaks for one group). All i ask is to allow this proposal to prove what I've been trying to prove all along. if it fails, i lose more than you know. If it is proven successful, it shows a lot more than six months of tiny edits elsewhere. Lucia Black (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Strong oppose As LindsayH points out, Lucia, you haven't made a mainspace contribution in five months. How is anybody supposed to assess that you're ready to edit within that topic area again? I don't have a crystal ball. That's just how topic bans work. The burden is on you to demonstrate that you are able to edit in the topic area from which you were banned, and pretty much the only way you can satisfactorily do so is by showing a pattern of editing since the topic ban took effect that you're capable of editing in a collaborative environment. Even if I assume you are physically incapable of editing outside of the topic area from which you were banned, I've personally laid out several options. You could show you edited collaboratively on some other wiki, whether it's another language variant of Wikipedia, or Commons, or Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikidata, or even on a Wikia wiki. Another option might be a temporary lifting; let you edit in the topic area for six to twelve weeks, with the topic ban automatically reinstating at the end unless there's consensus to lift the topic ban. But let's be honest: You are physically capable of editing in another topic area. I'm going to be frank: If you can't push yourself to edit in another topic area, something that all productive Wikipedia editors use as a means of stepping away from a dispute, what are you going to do when you hit your first dispute after the topic ban has been lifted? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• • To answer your question Mendaliv. Editors do indeed leave a certain article and work on another when there is a dispute that can't be resolved. I've walked away from the same dispute dozens of times at this point (which is the majority of my history here in WP:AN). Constantly comes back and it never gets resolved by the same editors who have been here before and were also questioned. WP:ANIME recognizes all of this, other editors outside WP:ANIME recognize this aswell. When it came to finally resolving it, finally giving it the attention it needed, it was broadly construed. However your question is what happens when there's a dispute? i resolve it with help of the community. if it can't be resolved, then i go to another article. You're trying to justify moving from another article to moving from another topic. Editors still move to another area within their own means, and their own interests, and especially in their own time. I'm not banned from one article, or a group of articles relating to a single topic, i'm banned from a large array of articles regarding media, specifically relating to Japanese media. It is not controlled by media, by series, or even by the same Wikiproject. It involves multiple mediums, all regarding a culture i am very passionate about. Back then, if there was a disputed problem, i look for another that i'm interested and go to it, and improve it to the point that it was at least considered "c-class". But of course, all within comfort of having the choice to edit the articles i'm in. But again, regardless of that being your concerned, the topic ban isn't related to the issue in the first place.

And like i said i have made contributions to Wikia. i've made edits in several areas. Lucia Black (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting, but we need to see progress since the topic ban was put in place. To put it another way, show me the edits. The ideal is to see you editing and discussing collaboratively with people despite having a disagreement with them. Show us that happening anywhere since the topic ban. I can't say I'll flip on my oppose, but I'm not going to ignore honest-to-goodness progress if you've made it. All I'm saying is that your conduct since the topic ban, as far as I've seen, does not inspire confidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, formalizing my earlier comment. There are millions of articles here that have nothing to do with Japanese culture, entertainment, comics, anime and manga. Go edit productively and collaboratively outside the area of your topic ban, then come back in six months and explain convincingly how you understand that you screwed up, and why you will never, ever do it again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:No one ever mentioned wikimedia, wikicommons, or even wiktionary were viable areas. So how can i ever believed that wikia was a viable option in the first place? I've been editing without a user name. mainly because the majority of my edits were cleaning up typos, flamboyant dialogue, and misinformation. I wasn't adding ground breaking content to take credit off them. if i show you my edits in those areas, i will be revealing my IP address, which i do not want to happen anytime. All i can say is that I've been editing on Final Fantasy Wikia, Kingdom Hearts Wikia, and Legend of Zelda Wikia.

And i understand those sound convenient for me to say, but for the longest time i believed Wikia was independent from Wikipedia in every way. therefore, that was the only place i can breach this topic ban because it wasn't within Wikipedia's jurisdiction. So i don't gain anything from saying that i worked in wikia. because that's easy. REGARDLESS, if you need proof that i can work with editors, then definitely I've proven it long ago. For example: here, even under pressure of a full siteban from the same editor who proposed it, i still discussed things constructively. And made sure i revealed proper information and not take it personally. Lucia Black (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Because of how things came about, i can't say what you would like me to say, and i promise it wont be said six months from now. The way things came about to get this topic ban, was "broadly construed". Which means, the motive behind it, the reason behind it, the consensus behind it was "construed". if this was as solid as rock, if this was 90% of the entire community that i had ever had an encounter with outside WP:AN. Then yes, i would find away to say those words. But unfortunately, a community actually agrees with me. Lucia Black (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, I keep giving you ways out but you keep slapping the olive branch out of my hand. I want proof that you have edited collaboratively on any project since the topic ban took place. You've persistently refused to provide the proof to support your claims that you've done so. And now, you're linking to one of the very discussions that led to your topic ban? Be serious. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Its been almost 6 months and this has amounted to almost like a block for her not editing in the mainspace. Phightins, you can remove Ryulong as he has been banned by arbcom. I do not see why Lucia needs to continue having this ban imposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting of TBan The Tban has had the affect of being a full ban from Wikipedia. Many editors from WP:ANIME pointed this out during the original discussion nor did anyone from that WikiProject support the original ban. LB has been able to work with other editors in this topic area with only a couple of exceptions—Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri. Both of which are as strong headed as she can be, but did not receive any sanctions for their conduct in this topic area. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Lucia Black, to clarify, my objection is this: Last August, you were given the ban due to your inability to discuss constructively with others. So what did you do after you're banned from your content areas? You hounded a related user for months on the subject. And Thibbs isn't an Admin or the person who closed the ban discussions, just a random participant who didn't agree with you. The extremely long winded rants here and here are exactly what I find so troubling. Even in the time of your ban was in effect, you still had long disruptive discussions that showed that you still don't understand why the ban was put into effect. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• No LB has known for a long time what they needed to do in order to regain the community's trust. The repeated "It's someone else's fault" coupled with repeated attempts to move the goal line closer indicates that LB still doesn't see the problem with their actions. The never ending ranbling arugments that bring in anything that might have a hope of overturning the sentiment against them clearly shows that they miss things like brevity. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment- I did not support the topic ban or the dubious way it was enacted. It is unnecessarily broad in scope. I support overturning it. However, it's clear that there is not going to be consensus for that. The reality is that people think you're argumentative and don't collaborate well with others. Your long, repetitious, impassioned pleas will not persuade these people to change their minds- quite the opposite, in fact. I think you are out of options for the time being, and I think you will have to edit other areas of the encyclopedia if you want to get back to editing your favourite areas. Take the opportunity to expand your knowledge. The way you are carrying on right now is only making things worse for yourself. Reyk _YO! 20:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Have any replies here been from uninvolved parties? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't consider myself involved. NE Ent 23:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't commented on this issue before, so I'm definitely uninvolved. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Point taken, good to see some new faces here. I want to add though that so far three members including myself that are involved in the anime and manga project have voiced support for the removal of the topic ban, is there a way to narrow the scope of the ban? I have a hard time believing that Lucia was ever disruptive in every area. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  For the record, i don't consider myself involved either; though i commented once or twice at AN or ANI, i have no editing involvement with Lucia or the area of the topic ban. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I'll support this, as if a topic ban is so overly broad that it encompasses everything on Wikipedia you're actually interested in editing, then it may as well be a site ban as you're unlikely to continue to bother editing at all. Reducing the scope of the topic ban doesn't hurt, gives Lucia a reason to remain on Wikipedia, and if she (supposedly) violates these terms, she'll just get re-blocked and no harm would be done. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Involved) Comment - I can't support this proposal, but I'll refrain from actually opposing and instead leave it in the hands of the community. My original (circa Aug 2014) thoughts about the best way to apply sanctions in this case are actually quite close to the current proposal but in the intervening months my concerns have grown. Specifically I'm concerned by Lucia's continued insistence that she doesn't understand her prior blocks, her suggestions that they were largely unjustified, and her evident preference for arguments and promises over demonstrations of ability. She has both good and bad characteristics, but I can't in good conscience support a request to restore her privileges without a demonstration that she can handle them collegially. -Thibbs (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose revision of topic ban at this time. As has been pointed out, there are millions of articles outside the topic needing attention. Turn some attention to those and use them to hone your editing skills with a focus on the product rather than the topic. Fix typos, grammar errors, disambiguation links, bare URLs, and the like. At a higher level, find underserved articles and figure out what improvements are needed to make them good. You can find a dozen articles needing such world merely by clicking "random article". There are also entire projects dedicated to fixing particular classes of errors. We also have many categories of missing topics. Try filling in some of the blanks for missing woman scientists, for example. bd2412 T 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I previously proposed that the topic ban be rescinded, but there wasn't a consensus to do that at the time. I still think Lucia Black was making good contributions to anime and manga articles, and wasn't causing significant problems on anime and manga articles outside of Ghost in the Shell and related pages (I don't know if she was causing problems on video game pages). I'm also still of the opinion that that the topic ban shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, as the problems that lead to it seemed to mostly related to Ghost in the Shell (from which she was already topic banned) and posting on AN/ANI (which she was topic banned from doing without getting permission). Since she was already topic banned from the places where she was causing problems, and was productively working on other anime/manga articles, it seemed wrong to topic ban her from those other articles. It also seems completely nonsensical to require her to work in an area she isn't interested in when she was already working well in an area that she is interested in. I therefore support modifying the topic ban in the proposed way that would make it apply to video game articles, but not to non-video game Japanese media pages (again, I can't speak for whether she was disruptive on video game articles, since I don't edit those as often as anime/manga articles). Calathan (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Solution/knowing the root cause

All i want to do is prove something...that i am a good editor, that i contribute well, and i'm always being rolled into this situation in WP:AN where i am told i'm something else entirely and it boils. i have to deal with that. I get ignored. And i'm not taken seriously. Editors who claim WP:IDHT when i ask them for an answer, it gets ignored. It makes me feel no matter what i say, no matter how constructive it is. it has boiled over time and time.....i can't stay in wikipedia under these circumstances. Like i said, i work part time, go to school full time. i have 1/4 of free time, some of it involves sleep, studying, and shopping for groceries. I literally don't have the time to make edits the way i used to. So i especially don't have time to get used to a new topic where i have no interests.

But worst of all, i want people in WP:AN to stop seeing me the way i am, just because of an interaction. I want them to understand that this "broadly construed" doesn't work, it doesn't convince me. It doesn't make me believe that this ban was necessary. in fact, looking back, it just sort of happened out of nowhere. One editor just admitted, even if they saw good contributions, they wont promise with anything. Another admitted they were driving the bandwagon of anger, that i didn't deserve this. An entire wikiproject supported me and they know the root cause, and yet....thats all ignored. I'm sorry, but i don't want to be in a community that ignores more than a third. That WP:AN always gets it right when theres a group already believing otherwise and actually challenged it thrice.

So what hope is there for me in Wikipedia? i don't feel welcomed at all. i don't feel like i'm wanted. i especially don't feel like what i say is taken seriously. I'm called many things in WP:AN, and no one is ever held accountable.

All i asked was gto given the chance to prove directly what i've been wanting to prove. 1-way itneraction bans from the editors mentioned, shows ALOT. for one, it will free me from the harrassment, from the dismissal, and from the propaganda that i'm far worst....it gives me a chance to prove to neutral editors that i am a good contributor. That what was said about me, is far worst than what it actually was. yes, i speak A LOT. but thats not a crime, especially in WP:AN where you have to prove yourself. TLDR doesn't apply. if it does, plenty of editors got the wrong end of the stick. Lucia Black (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to prove that you can edit collaboratively, then go do it. Nobody is stopping you. If you want people to take you seriously, then show how you've actually tried to edit collaboratively. Everything you've posted here (as in the prior threads) has been long on claims and short on proof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR absolutely applies. Failure to take the time to concisely express what you're saying is trading other people's time for yours.

Oppose for now. If Lucia can make a "no-fuss, no blame, it's not anyone else's fault" unban request in another six months I'd support. NE Ent 23:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I could get on board with that too, since it'd be a huge improvement from what we've seen in every request for lifting the topic ban thus far, including the current one. I don't even think we need to see an acceptance that the topic ban was correct. I'd prefer to see other editing, and if there's still none of that in six months, it'll be an issue, but I don't think it'll be insurmountable if Lucia's conduct shows the requisite collegiality for continued participation in the community. Lucia, I strongly suggest that if you don't want to have to show your IP to have your interim edits vetted, you start editing while logged in. I look for a lot of things when I evaluate editing patterns, and respectfully, I'm not willing to just take someone else's word for it: I draw my own conclusions, and I'm pretty sure most other editors who evaluate these cases do the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:, I've already proven this time and time again. In fact, the way i'm treated often times is the proof itself. How quickly it goes to a siteban. But the proof is all around you. Also look at how things are discussed as well. Here's something to consider, if you don't take me seriously, at least take consider the other members who agree with me and at least try to see what they see. I'm not telling them what to say. So its not like everyone believes this is the issue.

Look at Ne Ent's comment, he just said "TLDR, therefore oppose, you wasted my time". Those comments are unnecessary. First of all, his time is completely controlled by his choice. He is blaming me for the choice he made. he doesn't need to spend time in this, but she chooses to. second, TLDR in good faith would be left "undetermined" or "no vote". but knowing he voted means, that TLDR was just convenient to use. His vote was made before it, so whats the use? to give a reason as to why he didn't read? WP:TLDR#Maintain Civility says to go to the editors talkpage and ask them in good faith to paraphrase. That was not the case, quite the opposite.

Whether you agree with me or not, i should be taken seriously from the beginning. Especially if it involves my editing. Other wise, anyone can make any accusation, no prood whatsoever, and get away with it. (the only proof ever used is how the AN plays out, which is mighty convenient for the accusers). I can't be part of a community that openly insults me and ignores me. something has to change. Go Phightins is giving me the biggest chance to prove something...something bigger, the proof that you claim there isn't any. its right here. Lucia Black (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But the proof is all around you. Proof of what? That you can contribute collaboratively? Not to my satisfaction, unless there are diffs you can provide of your editing in some other topic area. You've been aware of what the community wants to see from you from the git-go, and asking for evidence of editing elsewhere is a routine part of any request to lift a topic ban: You knew or should have known that this evidence would have been requested. Furthermore, if you edited solely while logged out, you knew or should have known that such edits wouldn't be considered in a future request to vacate the topic ban without revealing your IP. Your continued argument on this point is tantamount to arguing that your persistent refusal to provide evidence that you are capable of editing collaboratively should be counted in your favor: It's nonsensical. If anything, it's clear evidence that you are unwilling or unable to comply with the reasonable requests of the community. And to address your persistent long-winded, winding, and frankly unfocused method of argument, it's ineffective at best. While I won't say TL;DR, I will say that you are bordering on being disrespectful when you do not make your arguments more digestible by the volunteers who will read them. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to take (and make) your own arguments seriously. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but it's the truth. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree, Lucia Black, TLDR does apply: If you cannot be concise then that means something, clearly to NE Ent if not to you. As for your reply to Mendaliv, that's the essence of non-responsiveness. He wants to see some evidence of your ability to edit without conflict ~ as do i ~ and we both suggest editing in an area other than the topic ban; your reply that you have edited but aren't willing to show it, and the way you are treated is proof...well, that's a non sequitur. I'm not trying to be rude or nasty, but at this point i have to think that you simply don't understand how to operate within a community ~ this one, anyway. I'd be happy to see another request, maybe even before six months, not necessarily expressing agreement with the topic ban but accepting that the community imposed it, showing productive edits elsewhere (by which i mean simply edits you can point to as yours, here, on another project, substantive or minuscule, something we can judge); then i'd be delighted to help lift the ban. Boil it down: Show the community what it wants to see if you want to be part of it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

TLDR isn't suppose to use as an argument against anyone. There's no policy, guide, or even essay that supports that idea. WP:TLDR is designed so that readers can "ask" the person to be more concise within their own talkpage for the sake of understanding them. it clearly states in WP:TLDR openly using it as an argument is considered as an ad hominem, which is a form of incivility. I've literally seen the same editors make longer comments, and never and i mean never get called out on it. Remember, you're entitlede to your own time, not me. Don't blame me for your own time. if you still bring up TLDR as an argument, then fine

I'm perfectly willing to paraphrase, so long as editors are willing to know more if there's information i left out. but i suspect. But for the rest, i'll comment in another area. All i will say is that you over-paraphrased the non-sequitur. you combined two different points. Lucia Black (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Being able to succinctly present your thoughts is central to good communication. I personally tend to be verbose when I speak but when I type, I type it down then distill it before saving. This is what others want from you, Lucia. I'd have to look back through but I believe that I, and one other editor, first proposed of the broadly construed ban, for better or worse. You say that you "..want them to understand that this "broadly construed" doesn't work, it doesn't convince me. It doesn't make me believe that this ban was necessary..". To be blunt, the broad ban has kept things quiet for a very long time with regards to you and from that perspective, it has worked, partly. Topic bans can be seen to have two basic functions. 1) It seeks to remove, what others have determined to be, the source of aggravation from an area and 2) it seeks to encourage that editor to expand their horizons. Relatively speaking your topic ban, despite encompassing all that you are interested in, is in reality quite narrow. However, it may be considered a shame that you haven't thought about expanding your view to other articles related to Japan rather than this one small facet. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Blackmane Reason 1 is completely based on the editors who "CHOOSE" to continue the aggravation and the negligence that had made me who i am now. Cynical of the community and have absolutely no trust in it. In fact, it makes me louder, it makes me more angry, it gives me a lot to say. If things were done right from the beginning, if they acknowledged this, then just imagine how little interaction within WP:AN we would've had. Now I've seen little to investigate the issue. But of course, any editor can say "things are quiet because we restricted her from editing". That's not true. Things are quiet because i've literally given up on the community, which is why my alternative is just a site ban on my terms. For reason 2, thats not a real reason.

But like i said "broadly construe" doesn't mean "distinctively clarified" meaning, there's no official reason for it. Its there because of a technicality that refuses to be revised. So like i said, things will be quieter, because i don't want to be part of wikipedia anymore. Not because i'm banned from a topic i was good at and was actually beneficial to. (my words, but not false either). if you want things quiet, and you want me here, hear me out. Try to see my side of the situation. At least "try" Lucia Black (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Lift TBan on anime/manga related articles only

Since every editor from WikiProject Anime and manga has supported the lifting of the general topic ban (Knowledgekid87, Calathan, and myself), I would suggest that her topic ban be modified so that she may edit articles that are under the project's scope, excluding those relating to "Ghost in the Shell". Lucia Black has worked well with most of the other editors within this topic area and we are more than willing to have her back on board. This will also giver her the opportunity to "prove herself" to those who insist she demonstrate her ability to collaborate. However, you can't demand someone work in a topic area that they have neither knowledge of or interest in. You must allow them an opportunity to work in a topic area that they have some degree of familiarity with. Otherwise, they will have nothing to contribute. For those who are inclined to oppose this, what is gained by preventing editors who are willing to collaborate with Lucia Black in a subject area if you are going to use her ability to collaborative as evidence to lift of the broader TBan? —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Minus the iban part, how exactly is this different from the original proposal? Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese media covers a very wide scope that include video games, movies, social media and the like. Articles like Sailor Moon, or Ghost in the Shell which are more anime and manga related shouldn't have to be under this scope per the requests of the project members. In short I feel that members want her back, they are very aware of her disruption but know she has her good points if focused in the right areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was, how is it different from what GoPhightin proposed at the beginning of this ANI thread. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any difference from the proposal above except that there are no one-way interaction bans. I think, if there's consensus that we should let Lucia prove her ability to edit collaboratively by permitting her to edit topics inside the scope of the current topic ban (and I don't think there is such a consensus), then the only way it should go forward is by allowing a temporary lifting of the topic ban with it to be automatically reinstated at the end of the temporary period unless there's consensus that Lucia has proved her ability to edit in the topic area. In any event, I don't think there's been any real demonstration that Lucia merits a special exemption from the community's normal standards for lifting a topic ban. Broad topic bans are nothing unusual. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that project members have voiced support in getting her back, people who she has worked with. How would her topic ban being lifted from these select things effect you? I for one want to see some good contributions from Lucia to anime and manga articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't affect me at all. Lucia contributing period doesn't affect me. I've never encountered her outside of AN/ANI. I'm merely offering my opinion as a frequent discussant and observer of situations like these. Granting Lucia need a tailor-made exemption from the standard practice of requiring editing outside the ban area prior to a ban review is just bad policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's how I read it too. It sounds like removing the iban part - ironically the part that none of the opposers cited as a problem, and then re-proposing it. This section needs to be closed, it's entirely redundant to the one already running. It's not an "alternative" at all. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Honestly this entire discussion is going nowhere. Since there's no consensus to lift the ban, furthermore, such a closure would preclude further challenges to the propriety of the ban generally. Cf. the second bullet of WP:CBAN, which allows the conversion of an indef block into a ban where an unblock discussion results in no consensus to unblock. The challenges to the portions of this ban that are argued as unilaterally imposed without consensus have failed in the same manner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

She isn't community banned though, just topic banned. The articles involved would just focus on anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Which is a form of community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

{{u

Mendaliv, i see a lot of symptoms of groupthinking within WP:AN and WP:ANI (refusal to look deeper into the situation, speaks for AN and ANI just by individual members. claiming everything was done correctly, ignore the idea of it ever being wrong). But basically, if you're calling this a "tailor made exemption" you probably don't remember how tailor made the ban itself was. Lucia Black (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see any way forward if you're going to continue arguing on the basis that the topic ban was wrongful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I also think the topic ban was wrongful, so it isn't just Lucia Black suggesting that (I'm talking about the topic ban from Japanese Entertainment articles in general . . . I think her topic bans from Ghost in the Shell and from starting threads on AN/ANI were both justified). I agree strongly with Farix's point that all the people who interacted with Lucia Black on anime/manga articles who have posted here have opposed the topic ban. It seems completely nonsensical to me to topic ban Lucia from working in an area where all the editors (or at least those who have spoken up) want her to be allowed to work. What purpose does topic banning her form anime/manga articles serve? Who is that topic ban benefiting? I get that Lucia Black was disruptive here, on AN/ANI, but that is no reason to topic ban her from anime/manga articles, where she wasn't being disruptive. I honestly think the original proposal to site ban her in the discussion that led to the topic ban was reasonable (though I personally would be against it), due to the fact that she was continuing to be disruptive in the areas she already had topic bans (e.g., here on AN). However, the end result of the discussion, where additional topic bans were added covering areas where she wasn't disruptive, just seems completely unjustified to me. Calathan (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, under the policy it states "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive" There are areas where she was never disruptive in so why would they apply? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NO When LB and their white knights ceace trying to argue that the original escalating topic bans (Initially interaction ban, then a topic ban for specific properties, then extending to Japanese Entertainment) because of the repeated perceived infractions of the topic ban and failure to reform their disruptive behavior, I will consider relaxing or reducing the topic ban. Not before. Anything else serves only to show LB (and others) that if they ask enough they can get any decision overturned without any sort of reform. I say again to LB Prove to us that you can edit in a collegial manner that does not involve rambling paragraphs of text to try and convince other editors to your viewpoint. I exhort any admin who deals with this long ranging topic to consider that we still have yet to get an acknowledgment from LB that the original topic bans and their expansions were imposed for cause and that the will try to prevent it in the future. The basis of all sanctions is Prevent disruption to Wikipeda and LB's behavior in this entire appeal inspires zero confidence in further disruption from her being prevented. Hasteur (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Or you can look at it that it has been almost 6 months and she has not disrupted anything. As for your bold No opinion I think once is enough don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, I agree that Lucia Black should admit that her previous topic bans (e.g., from Ghost in the Shell) were justified, and I think that it is a problem that she has not done so. I also agree that she was still being disruptive at the time of the latest topic ban. What I disagree with is that the area covered by the latest topic ban is the area in which she was being disruptive. Can you please explain to me why her making yet another AN thread about Ghost in the Shell (both areas where she was already topic banned) should have lead to topic banning her from the rest of Japanese media. If you just expect her to continue to be disruptive in general, then that would be a reason to support a site ban, but how did topic banning her from places where she was working constructively while leaving her free to edit in general help anything? Calathan (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Only because willful innocence compels me.

Knowledgekid87 She's not disrupted anything because she has effectively gone link dead since she was topic banned from editing Japanese Media. As I recall, we imposed a "you must show progress outside your desired area in order to convince us that you can work cooperatively" prior to being allowed back in. Therefore the basic condition that they show progress outside your desired space is deficent.

Calathan LB's topic ban was Initially over specific articles, when they continued to be disruptive, we expanded it to subjects (i.e. Specific series ban Anime/Manga). When they continued to be disruptive via proxy articles (Video games of the series) a broad Japanese Entertainment ban was imposed because (as I recall) we were tired of seeing LB come back with one or more other editors who disagreed about how to divide/unify somethings, we were tired of having to read through multiple kilobytes of text that LB either could not or would not condense to be brief so that a consensus of uninvolved editors could determine a best fit solution. That one of LB's favorite disputants has been indeffed does not excuse the fact that LB's own behavior was atrocious. Has Wikipedia/AN*/WikiProject Anime been better without the reams and reams of text that LB would have contributed? HELL YES. Based on LB's own behavior in this "appeal" indicated that previously sanctioned behavior will not continue? HELL NO. Therefore the only solution is to deny and point LB back at the terms of her ban (Work on a topic besides Japanese Culture and show that you can contribute positively). Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, I think you are misjudging the rest of Lucia Black's contributions based on primarily interacting with her here. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 59, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 60, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61 (59 and 60 are the last two fully before her topic ban from anime/manga, while 61 has some contributions from her from before the topic ban took place). Among those three archives there are more than 150 posts from Lucia Black, and not a single one is a rant, and perhaps one at most could be considered "reams and reams of text" (and that is part of an overall constructive thread). If you read through the threads there, you will see that she worked well with the other people posting, including seeking additional opinions when she had disagreements with other users. She was one of the main people replying when others had questions, and one of the main people organizing work to improve articles that needed improvement. Sure, there was one thread where she disagreed with Ryulong from archive 59 where she made a less-than-helpful comment, but that was one comment compared to 150+ useful comments. I think the talk page archives show that she was a highly productive contributor to the project not just in article space, but also in terms of discussion with other editors. Instead of saving WP:ANIME from rants and incomprehensible posts as you seem to think, this topic ban has instead removed one of the wikiproject's best contributors. Calathan (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Move to close

There's clearly no consensus to lift the topic ban at this point. This thread is going nowhere, and the wall-of-text rants above are only making it impossible for new discussants to evaluate the merits of the actual request here. The propriety of the original topic ban has been discussed, repeatedly, and has never been found to be wrongful. Enough is enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Request to site ban per user's personal request

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.

---

i personally don't like the current community controlling my editing. Especially for the most shallow reasons possible So i request to be banned indefinitely, on my terms.

Reasons why: i want a real solution. I want things rectified, and i'm tired of looking like the worst editor here, just because a group of editors choose to get involved, and choose to find bans as the easiest way to solve their own personal problems. WP:AN is a choice to use, if an editor out there feels insulted to waste their own time to the point they prefer a ban to no longer hear of the situation, then that is completely on them. This community has given me nothing but trouble. And i'm tired of being treated like this. Haphazardly looking into my situation, never understanding or wanting to understand. And even ignore those who actually know what their talking about. So i'm requesting to get indefinitely banned under my terms. If i return (which will be unlikely), i would have the ability to return upon request.

Of course having the option to edit in my own talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry the community has given you nothing but trouble, but this is a community project. While I am sure you can find an admin who is willing to block you I would suggest just taking some time off. Chillum 05:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

While I supported your being sitebanned in the original discussion, there was no consensus for that, and I doubt there'll be consensus now. If you don't want to participate with the project, your better bet is to just leave, but what you're saying here sounds more like you want to be symbolically banned. I can't support that: bans and blocks are to be preventive, not punitive, and definitely not symbolic. However, I do suspect that you're violating your AN/ANI ban by opening a new subthread after the closure of the above discussion. I suggest that this subthread be closed, or simply collapsed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this really necessary at this point? I'm requesting to get banned on my terms. I've seen plenty of editors done it before, and i know the option is there. Plus there's no "symbolism" involved. Editors wanted me banned indefinitely anyways (at least the ones who followed me only in WP:AN). SO i'm not accomplishing anything with anyone. No one is going to see my choice to leave as anything else. POssibly only WP:ANIME, but if i really wanted to make an impression, it would be WP:AN (which i'm not). I'm finding my way out without losing sleep. Lucia Black (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Is there a board that sets protocols in terms of gender?

I ask here, bc this is where the more experienced editors are. The Bruce Jenner talk page seems to be (more than) a little confusing. One of the editors made reference to a protocl where he do not address sex-change personal descriptors (he or she, for instance) until we have a rs'd statement from the individual "only". I was wondering where (and when) this was determined, and if this is set in stone. quick Google search seems to point out that the individual ins indeed pursuing gender reassignment, and yet there is no mention of it in the article. Some guidance here would be helpful. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity, and in particular the bit which states, "An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise." And no, this isn't set in stone; you are free to propose changes to the Manual of Style on its talk page. However, you would do well to review the past discussions before doing so; simply retreading old arguments is unlikely to work unless you have good reason to believe that community consensus has shifted. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing about the other precedent; Chelsea Manning unambiguously stated that she was a woman, and that was that. From my understanding, people continued to refer to her as a male even though that self identification thing. I see on the talk page that it's concerning that the individual has never made a public statement one way or the other. While I do appreciate vigilance in the topic area, we have to be careful not to assume that they are coming out or the like if they really haven't. The BLP implication is also there, and swings both ways. Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Both excellent points and posts. Thanks for the input. I wasn't really seeking change, but instead a go-to place where this subject has resulted in some community editing standards. I've got that now. Thanks, people. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Final chance to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and the community comments phase of the process is approaching conclusion.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Those who have not commented yet, are encouraged to do so over the next few days.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sizable backlog at WP:TFD

Hey. I don't know if this goes here or in the requests for closure, but WP:TFD closures are backed up by more than a week and counting. Discussions up through March 4 and including some of March 5 should already be closed, but there are a bunch of seemingly uncontroversial requests still open going all the way back to February 24 and earlier. If some of you guys could take a look at them, that'd be awesome. Thanks. TCN7JM 19:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CFD is worse, where we still have open discussions from December. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for assistance with old merge discussion

I discovered an old, old merge discussion that had consensus for no merge back in 2011, but was not closed, nor were the merge from/to templates removed from the pages involved (Windows Services for UNIX, Interix). However, someone commented in the discussion on Feb 17 asking if the pages could be merged – the first new message in the discussion in four years. My own opinion is to keep the pages separate, as per the original consensus, but seeing that the other editor has asked for a merge I wonder what the proper procedure should be in this case.

I'd like to ask an admin or more senior editor with merge experience to come have a look, and decide whether this discussion should finally be closed (with merge or no merge outcome decided) or if it should stay open until a new consensus emerges (if one does). On that note, is there anywhere to list merge discussions for attention, like a counterpart to AfD? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion: Close the old discussion, keeping the new comments outside the closure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: thank you for the advice. I've taken it, and further posted to related WikiProjects to get some attention for the proposal in order to determine a new consensus. (Given how long the old discussion took, I'd rather it not take another four years, lol.) // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:C2014 Q2.jpg

Resolved

Could some admin create File:C2014 Q2.jpg with the following content: {{Featured picture|C/2014 Q2}}. Thanks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your request is  Done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Tanner Mainstain Glynn & Johnson

Resolved

Could an Admin please look at Tanner Mainstain Glynn & Johnson.. Taskmaster.wikimanagement (talk · contribs) keeps removing the speedy deletion tag. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anon edits on articles by NYC police headquarters

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.

---

As per this news article, apparently, some anonymous edits are being made to the articles of Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo":

"Computer users identified by Capital as working on the NYPD headquarters' network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations, including entries for Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses."

Is this being discussed somewhere? I know this is nothing new; members of Congress and other politicians were caught using playing dirty pool with opponents or opposing views, and of course the perennial nationalistic nonsense that crops up all too often. I just think it is more depressing when cops try to erase an article that points out mistakes they have made. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this thing on? (tap tap)... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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 person is removing sourced material

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mashaunix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.195.69 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an editing dispute. Please discuss at Talk:Metalcore. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

here at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatebreed&action=history 73.193.195.69 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the Metalcore issue is the person saying a band can't be a pioneer only a person can. "Undid revision 651263564 by 73.193.195.69 (talk) "pioneer" indicates a person" even though by definition thats not correct. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Topic ban for Pincrete

An editor is engaging in revert warring on several Malagurski-related articles, pushing his POV on the issue for years. He started his editing on The Weight of Chains talk page, and stated that he's an "Englishman with no connection to anybody or anything in former Yugoslavia", ([131]) but oddly enough, edits with reference to sources that are mostly written in Yugoslav languages, he quotes them, often falsely. Now, it's one thing to be dishonest about not having connections to Yugoslavia to seem neutral, but to edit according to sources he doesn't even understand is very damaging to Wikipedia. Not to mention that Pincrete is constantly edit warring (again, just in the last few hours [132], [133], [134]), removing sourced material and sources ([135], [136], etc.), manipulating Wikipedia by moving material to a page ([137]) then nominating it for deletion the next day ([138]), canvassing editors to create consensus ([139], [140], etc.), even writing in French to hide communication with other users in regards to Malagurski-related articles ([141]), he has attacked me on several occasions in the past, and when I write on his talk page to clear up some matters ([142], [143], [144], etc. - I used to be more polite, but I'm slowly losing my patience), he deletes them ([145], [146], [147], etc.). As someone who is interested in this topic area, I can safely say that despite the fact that Pincrete does some good work in regards to finding grammar mistakes in these articles, he is doing more harm than good. I'd like to request a topic ban on Malagurski-related articles for Pincrete. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, 'Plus ça change', is a standard English expression, meaning (approx.) 'nothing really changes'. See here:-List of French expressions in English and here:-[148].Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Pincrete

Recent 'ANI's'. In September 2014, UrbanVillager initiated an ANI against myself & Bobrayner, here:-Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles No editor supported any action against myself or Bobrayner, a clear majority supported a WP:Boomerang against UrbanVillager. This ANI however 'disappeared into the archive' without action, as no admin closed it.

In October 2014, following numerous requests for him to stop making accusations on article talk pages, UrbanVillager initiated this 'sock' investigation. The closing clerk, JamesBWatson, later modified his closing remarks here:-[149]. The 'sock' investigation was in reality a content complaint, but UrbanVillager had not attempted to discuss on talk, and no editor has challenged the content at any time since.

Shortly therafter, a 'Boomerang' against UrbanVillager was initiated by Ricky81682, here:-Topic ban for UrbanVillager, which was closed by Drmies, with no clear consensus, here:[150].

UrbanVillager's previous ANI's were spurious, and appear to be designed for no other purpose than to waste admin time and the goodwill of any editor who contested his WP:ownership of the Malagurski articles.(The collapsed section below, is my response to this PRESENT discussion, I have collapsed ONLY so that it does not clog discussion, NOT because I withdraw it or consider it 'inappropriate'.)

Pincrete's reply to present discussion

Edit war : What UrbanVillager describes above as an 'edit war', is an attempt by him to overturn a consensus that the article should not go into the details about a controversial court case that Malagurski was involved with, full discussion here:Talk:Boris Malagurski#Proposed text. UrbanVillager's final remark in that discussion is "I think it's enough to say that the authors** received threats, reported them and three were convicted, without what Malagurski or the defendants said about the trial. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)". If UrbanVillager has changed his mind about the need to go into details, why has UrbanVillager not attempted to argue his case on the talk page, before initiating this ANI? Also why are the only details that he wishes added 'pro-Malagurski'? … **(nb by 'authors', he means 'film-makers') Language skills and neutrality: My Serbian is not 'native level', I am open about that, for this reason I am cautious, and if uncertain, call upon a native speaker, within or, sometimes 'off-wiki'. However even a rudimentary understanding of a language, enables one to understand the difference between a publication saying 'the filmmaker announced today on his Facebook page', and the paper writing in its own voice, or the difference between an 'ad' and an article. To the best of my memory I have never 'quoted' any Serbian, other than copy-pasting it entire from a source. It's a trivial matter, but having re-looked at the sources UrbanVillager uses to prove my 'mis-quoting', I am still unable to find any mention of this film critic being 'known for her interviews'. But, even if UrbanVillager is right, why does he not argue his case on the talk page, or tell me what I have missed instead of bringing the matter here? (his edit reason, in Serbian [151] translates as 'If you do not understand Serbian, do not interpret texts in a language unknown to you, or admit that you are not a "neutral" Englishman'). My talk page: UrbanVillager left a fairly ill-mannered message on my talk page,[152] I replied that the article talk pages were the proper place for such discussions, and asked him to confine himself to discussion about content[153]. I left my reply for 3 days for UrbanVillager to read and then deleted the section (my normal practice for 'closed matters'). UrbanVillager reverted my delete of my talk page and added further fairly rude and irrelevant messages[154] (the Serbian part of this message translates (approx.) as 'Since you interpret references in Serbian - speak and understand Serbian (or Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, irrelevant which). First, I would prefer you not to remove comments that I leave on your talk page, it is very ugly. Second, you presented yourself a long time ago as a neutral Englishman who, well, was just interested in this topic, and it is obvious that you are not neutral … and that you come from our region. Above I wrote that I was willing to turn a new page, but no pretending that you are neutral, because you are obviously vehemently anti-Malagurski and his films (most likely anti-Serbia and Yugoslavia), I followed your changes to other articles and it is not even close to the same manner - Wikipedia is not a place for propagating ethnic agenda.) & later [155]. I deleted these half-read as I had already made it clear WHERE content discussions should take place and that there was no reason for us to discuss other matters, especially since UrbanVillager sought to do so in such a belligerent manner [156]. Despite this UrbanVillager left a further message in a similar vein shortly therafter.[157]. UrbanVillager links to WP:Dispute resolution, claiming he was attempting to 'clear up matters', perhaps he should read there 'Talk page discussion is a prerequisite … … be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page' … and most importantly … 'Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor.' UrbanVillager's statements are not even coherent, at one point we have 'If you do not understand Serbian, do not interpret texts in a language unknown to you', and on the same day 'it is obvious that you are not neutral … and that you come from our region'.

Personal abuse: UrbanVillager says I have attacked him 'on several occasions in the past' .

In the collapsed section immediately below are examples of UrbanVillager's personal abuse against me (which are all over a very short period and which I have largely copy-pasted from a previous ANI, here:-[158]. I collapse them as I do not wish them to 'clog-up' this page).

Evidence of personal attacks by UrbanVillager against Pincrete

Below are the examples of personal abuse against me, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context. Do you speak English? [159] ... This was a response to my comment that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself. In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[160] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==,downwards:-[161] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[162]. (large sections of the article, and 3 years of edit history ,were deleted shortly therafter for long-term copyvio of the film maker's website. All of this copyvio material had been inserted by UrbanVillager) Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article (nb. the diff for this has since been deleted, I will attempt to find other proof). (before I 'started editing' was the period when almost the whole article was a 'copy-paste' of the film-maker's website and press-pack). The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[163] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality', my response is in the 'next' edit. your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[164] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper announcing a future event at Google (ie self-sourced of the 'well next month I'm giving a presentation at Google' variety), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having actually given this presentation at Google headquarters (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice'). No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [165] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit. His Royal Highness Pincrete[166] ... This also misrepresents the 'reviews', since 'Markovic' is not a Professor, and when an original source was finally found, it turns out to be a paragraph long report of a discussion, written-up by a student. There are many other abusive comments, and whole sections such as here:-[167], my reply is (bottom 2 paras) here:-[168]. Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[169] ... I was informing and checking, the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[170] "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[171] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. The entire original article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for blatant copyvio of the film-maker's website. UrbanVillager has also made offensive racist comments (to Balkan editors, not to me). UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me.

Pincrete (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete is skilled at writing tons of pages of content with no purpose other than to muddy the water and cause independent editors to lose interest in the issue, but everything I wrote still stands and I'm still requesting a topic ban for Pincrete. The most critical articles which he abuses are Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains, The Weight of Chains 2, Revolucija (TV show) and The Presumption of Justice. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Also a note that Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted my comment above. This user has blocked me without reason before and is now deleting my comments. Great. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you initiated the thread you probably shouldn't be the one to collapse replies from a concerned user. –xeno^talk 14:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Pincrete collapsed my comments in the past, I thought Pincrete wouldn't mind. In any case I apologize. Xeno, any comments on the subject matter? --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NOTE, UrbanVillager and Xeno are discussing this edit by UrbanVillager:[172].'. I later collapsed parts of my response voluntarily.Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you have not responded to my question as to when I have attacked you personally … You have provided no examples of what you consider to be my 'abuse' of these articles … You have not answered my question as to why you initiated this ANI, without having even attempted to discuss disputed content on the article talk pages.Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Question, at the risk of behaving like a turkey voting for Christmas, isn't this on the wrong noticeboard,(should it not be 'Incidents'?). I intend to assume it SHOULD and would be grateful if someone would 'name' or 'ping' me if anything here requires my attention.Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

forum shopping advice

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.

---

Note: Do not search because I ask you, administrators, a general question, not about a specific edit..As such, I am not naming name or naming the article.

Unrelated background: 2 editors act like they own an article. OK, that happens. The article is about an American film. The search to find a director for a film was hard. One famous director chased them out of his house saying "Go find someone else to direct this piece of shit." Burt Lancaster remarked "Jesus, you must need the money". The owners of the article want this article sanitized. They even successfully got me blocked for edit waring even though neutral parties said in the 3RR board that I did not 3RR. However, I am nice so I am letting them win and let the matter go.

Related background: Now, I am on a campaign to make the article so good it is a featured article. I did make a mistake thinking that the plot of the film needs references but someone showed me that original research is ok if you use your own words to summarize what you think is the plot (choosing what to write and what parts of the plot not to cover). OK

Current issue: I made a very good point about the cast list should be a list of names, just like hundreds of other articles, not put part of the plot next to names of the cast. That type of question is best posed to a wide group since it applies to all films, not just to the owners of the one film article. To that, I am accused on forum shopping (even though I posted on only one forum, Village Pump) and am threatened with being blocked.

Question: Should we let the editors who act as owners continue to act as owners? I am inclined to let them bully, to some extent Question 2 (bigger question): Is it not forum shopping to ask a question on one forum? ...and to address a wider question that applies to many articles of the same type?

Thank you.

Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

See [173]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This is spill-over from The Sound of Music (film). No one got WZP blocked but WZP for persistent edit warring and possibly even a bit of sock/meatpuppetry. --Drmargi (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A neutral review by Jetstreamer (stop calling him/her a meatpuppet because he/she and I have little contact except we oppose each other in an AFD) showed that an editor (BL) made a false report about 3RR. However, this post is not about that but about forum shopping. If you post in one and only one forum, is that, by definition, NOT forum shopping. I say it is. Another person claims that if you post a question on only one forum, that is forum shopping. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Uncolsed CFD delaying other things

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 7#Template:StLouisCityMO-geo-stub, which I nominated, is still unclosed despite the fact that it could have been closed a month ago and seems to have a clear consensus. Given that it's delaying more stub sorting related to the city, it would be nice if someone closed it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done - maybe? Cfd closing instruction aren't the best ... what template is supposed to be used for the close?? If I understand things correctly some bot will fix the pages. How does the original template get deleted afterwards? NE Ent 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

While the instructions aren't clear about stub tags (I intend to fix this issue), the markers for the top and bottom od CfD are supposed to be {{subst:cfd top}} and {{subst:cfd bottom}}, not {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}; the parameter used is the unnamed one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I updated the instructions. NE Ent 11:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

pls accept this link :)

http://www.tourism.australia.com/statistics/10455.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sancejajb 4everaussie (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is an issue for this board. Please go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist instead. Epic Genius (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally, I think posting at WP:RSN would receive a better response, as the spam-whitelist appears to have all the posts in random order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Protect page

I have protected Multisystemic therapy for six month as it appears that the head of marketing at MST services is paying someone to edit the article on the topic per [174]. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you did the right thing? Looks to me like it's only semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen

A discussion over renaming WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen is currently underway at its talk page. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. SD0001 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Block review - Skookum1

Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have just blocked (warning, response) this user for battleground activity, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. This relates primarily to an ongoing dispute with WhisperToMe, primarily on the articles Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. This was brought to AN/I in February - unfortunately that thread did not lead to any sort of resolution. The problems have have continued apace since then. However, it is part of a long pattern of on-wiki battles connected with this account.

Skookum1’s position on this editor is that they are guilty of neutral point of view and original research violations in the above articles and elsewhere. WhisperToMe has requested review of the content by several editors. None have substantiated these concerns. WhisperToMe alleges that Skookum1 has engaged in personal attacks, edit-warring, and incivility. Several editors have agreed with that assertion (see below).

I do not feel good about making this block - I have worked with Skookum1 on articles in the past, and have a long history of trying to help him through his near-constant disputes on wiki. However, this last episode has convinced me that Skookum1 is completely unwilling to compromise, and that his angry, highly personalized approach is damaging to the project. Dozens of editor hours have been tied up by Skookum1’s battles, and it needs to stop.

Skookum1’s battleground approach is seen in his angry, wall-of-text approach to communication, attempts to canvass discussions, and deep, prolonged grudges against editors that disagree with him. He has left numerous personal attacks in talk page threads. (see below) He has also taken to leaving sarcastic and insulting hidden comments in article space. From what I have read, WhisperToMe has tried in good faith to deal with Skookum’s concerns, and has been subjected to an alarming level of abuse in the process.

Examples (this is far from an exhaustive list, read these two talk pages for more):

• [175] “Go find a kite to fly … patronizing and arrogant and pretentious” (note that Skookum1 also demands money from the editor in this diff)
• [176] “You are an essayist with a fetish for format expounding on a vast subject that you have extremely little genuine grasp of”
• [177] “it's being authored by a student in Texas who doesn't have any clue even about basic Canadian terminology or political realities”

A look at Skookum1’s talk page contributions will show at consistent pattern of angry, belittling comments directed at WhisperToMe, among others.

There has been many recent attempts by editors to reason with Skookum1, including Anna Frodesiak (thread), Moonriddengirl (thread), Viriditas (thread), Resolute (thread), myself (thread), and others at the Canadian Wikipedian discussion board (thread). He has roundly rejected the advice of these editors. I have opted for a three-month block, as it's clear to me that Skookum1 needs a long break from Wikipedia and to regain some perspective (his longest prior block was three weeks: block log). If this behaviour continues after that, an indef block may be necessary. If there is consensus to overturn this block, I will accept that. I do ask that admins do try to wade through the previous discussions before doing so, as painful as that is. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed. NE Ent 10:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be more politicized than I had realized:

"when a Chinese-background American sets out to rewrite British Columbia history on biased sources to the exclusion of anything else" diff; "since he first invaded Canadian article space...being discussed by foreigners, quite frankly, who don't know the subject matter... content of the article WILL be offensive to the general readership in BC" diff.

I note now that not only personal attacks against other editors but his political perspective has been added to article space in the form of hidden comments. A look at hidden notes within the article Chinese Canadians in British Columbia shows a ton of original research and comments such as this:

"what rubbish this cite is!" "Lai doesn't know what she's [sic] talking about" "this is complete bullshit and from ONE study only, by a nobody" "Sahota is blowing smoke through his hat".

This has been the most unpleasant, prolonged harassment I have observed on Wikipedia in nearly eight years of editing. Edits like this one seem engineered to only one end: to discourage an editor in good standing from contributing. I'm amazed and impressed that WhispertoMe has persisted and tried to compromise, even to the point of investigating submitting articles he wrote through AFC as Skookum1 insisted he should here. (WhispertoMe has been an editor for 11+ years with 388,623 edits, 82% article space, at this writing.) By contrast, Skookum1 doesn't seem willing to go through dispute resolution processes with this. This situation long ago went off the rails. (For transparency, I'll note that my efforts to stick to WP:UNINVOLVED have resulted in Skookum1 perceiving me as derelict in duty.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching this since seeing it on MRG's talkpage, and entirely endorse the block. If anything, I think three months is too lenient—I know "indefinite as in undefined" has fallen out of fashion, but this case appears to me to be an absolute poster-child for "you're not coming back until you agree in writing to abide by Wikipedia's rules". Given that this has been going on for literally years, and that Skookum1 makes it very clear that he sees himself as a lone fighter for truth standing up against a conspiracy by The Establishment, I don't see any reason to assume anything will change in three months. – iridescent 12:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorse block, especially having regard for the hidden personal attacks in article space. Hope springs eternal that this approach will have changed in three months. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm I hardly paid attention to this dramafest because I've already been involved in too many of Skookum's little wars. I never actually realized how bad this has gotten. Definitely endorse. I hope Skookum can return in three months with a refreshed perspective, but based on history, my view is that he is unlikely to take a more collaborative attitude when his views are challenged. Resolute 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I also recall working with this user some time ago. Back then he didn't act like this, at least not towards me. I don't know why anyone, ever, could possibly think it was ok to add criticism of other users into actual artiles, even if it is hidden. I don't think a timed block is an appropriate response, this is the sort of thing that easily justifies an indefinite block until such time as the user shows an undertanding of where they went wrong and a commitment not to return to such behavior in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• If there's consensus here (and there appears to be at present), I'm fine with this being modified to indef. Agree that Skookum1 needs to show some sort of desire to do things differently before returning to editing. The Interior (Talk) 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you did good. Leave it, and see what happens when it expires. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support the block, and would support indef. But, should we consider a lone wolf option? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What a great idea, Anna! Let's wait for the reply at user talk:Skookum1#Maybe the subjects are the problem. As you say, chances for success may be low, but it comes at (almost) no cost, and it is a great chance not just for Skookum1, but also for all of us, to practice patience. (That is, in the second most likely event, that Skookum1 changes somewhat, but maybe not enough to meet everyone's expectations.) I also applaud you for another reason: After The Interior's very fair and even initial post, the discussion here turned a bit one sided, which had a strong tendency towards group think. For example, this edit was characterized as an example that "seem[s] engineered to only one end: to discourage an editor in good standing from contributing", which is a bad faith interpretation. With some AGF, the statement can easily be seen as a very reasonable request to pause editing for a moment, and to not duplicate material that is rightly covered in a different article. Similarly, the reactions to his adding ones opinion in a hidden comment are overly dramatic, in my view. I applaud Anna for keeping that spirit of AGF, and for creatively looking for a way out of the group think. — Sebastian 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC), Amended 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe your reading of my interpretation as bad faith is ill-informed. But, then, I've been watching this unfold for months, and my conclusions are based on those months of observation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Anna, I don't want to get distracted from your thoughts by the above. If you're willing to keep an eye on this, I would support your alternate proposal. I do not have a lot of hope that the situation will de-escalate at this point without that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree that the block is fine and that under the circumstances, indef (which hopefully wouldn't be permanent) wouldn't be remiss. The personal attacks and persistent incivility is troubling enough, the fact they actually added such commentary of editors to articles, even if in hidden text, really pushes it in to completely unacceptable territory. I think Anna's proposal would be fine, even if it doesn't seem that likely it will work. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll endorse the block as well. It doesn't matter if Skookum was correct in regards to WhisperToMe or not, we simply can't abide by that sort of disruptive conduct. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

• Good block. [178] is beyond the pale. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A query about speedy deletion tag removal

An article is tagged (rightly at the time) A7. The author removes the tag (wrongly, of course) and adds more to the article. Another editor comes along. In the case I've just dealt with, the tag was replaced and left on, presumably because they didn't realise the tag was wrong. If an editor comes upon a situation like this and does realise that the tag was wrong, should they replace the tag and then in a separate edit remove it? If they don't do this, the tag remains still illegally removed. (In the case here, it was a fine point of notability that made the tagging wrong, and I've explained it to both editors. It's the procedure of dealing with the removed tag that I'm interested in.) Peridon (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing a deletion tag might go against policy or standard practice but it isn't "illegal". Since you've spoken to both of the editors are you asking whether the tag should be placed on the article again?

Is it still valid considering the improved state of the article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the original author improves the article to where it no longer qualifies for CSD A7, then there is nothing to see here. Move along. —Farix (t | c) 21:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that an uninvolved user has to determine that the article is no longer an A7 case; on the other hand, you should never re-add the tag just because the user who removed it was the original author, if you think it no longer applies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If a speedy deletion tag clearly no longer applies, it doesn't matter who removes it. —Farix (t | c) 02:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If A7 is being challenged, take it to AfD. This is pretty obvious. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• The point of this is that if one editor sees the article is improved, but does nothing about the removed tag, the tag is still liable to be replaced by someone who only sees that it has been removed. When the actual thing that saved the article is fairly obscure, not everyone will spot it. The article passed notability, not just A7, after it had been improved - but I had to dig to find the section that actually specified 'this is notable' to be absolutely sure. I think some here are missing the point that a speedy tag may not be removed by the author even if they have improved things to GA standard overnight, or haven't fully understood my post. My point about re-adding the tag was to make sure that it then got removed properly by someone uninvolved so that the history would show that. The actual case I'm basing this hypothetical one on had the tag replaced and not removed - because the editor that replaced it had missed one of the finer points of notability, or wasn't sure and wanted someone else to look again. I know that if I had found the article before the tag was replaced, I'd have replaced then removed. Possibly no-one has come upon a similar situation and thought on. Peridon (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Fie on process. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And WP:IAR and all. If it's been removed for non-policy-ish reasons and there's a good reason for it to stay off, there's absolutely no need to put it back on just so you can take it off again immediately. ansh666 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

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.

---

Hey all,

There is a rather large copyvio in the history of Judy Genshaft. If someone can revdel it all, that would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, Mdann52. For your future convenience, there's an article template for that - {{Copyvio-revdel}}. :# --Moonriddengirl ^#talk# 12:08, 19 March 2015 #UTC)

Wow, wasn't aware of that - many thanks :) Mdann52 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – No current backlog. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV currently has a backlog of about 20 listings. Could a few admins please have a look? It's been backlogged frequently this week, I think because one of the more prolific AIV patrolling admins has been on wikibreak, so it may need extra attention from other admins in the foreseeable future as well. Deli nk (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization rename announcements are going out

Cross-posting to a few places

I'm sending out messages to the user accounts here who may be potentially renamed in mid-April. This includes accounts who are blocked indefinitely and have their talk pages protected. Fear not, those accounts are not being allowed back, it's just a part of the automated process. A great number of these accounts likely just need to log in and visit Special:MergeAccount to make sure they are attached to the right global account and avoid renaming. Also, users who have been renamed may be contacted about their old name being up for renaming. These users are free to ignore the message if they're fine abandoning their old account. We're well over half way in notifying users and my meta talk page exploded along with my inbox, I anticipate this likely happening here. Any extra eyes on my talk page will be greatly appreciated in case I get caught up answering emails first. Thanks, all. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User name Nomorejapansea

I posted this user name to WP:UAA as offensive and promotional. However an admin rejected as "Not a blatant violation of the username policy".[179] The naming of Sea of Japan is disputed. See Sea of Japan naming dispute. I think in these situation, such promotional naming should be avoided. It is like someone who advocate the annexation of Crimea uses a user name "NomoreUkraine". Any suggestion?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, by the letter of WP:IU this user name isn't a violation of policy. However, I will agree that the name is controversial and may lead to disruption. Without User name policy changing to exclude controversial topics from being used in user names, I don't think there's anything actionable here.

By the way, I noticed that you did not notify Nomorejapansea on their user talk page as required. I've gone ahead and posted notice there. Also, this kind of topic more likely belongs in AN/I instead. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wp:IU

• Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities.
• Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").

Also this is not a dispute resolution.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've soft blocked the account indefinitely. They can create another one if they wish. If the user had been editing Country music bios or butterfly taxa then there would be no problem, but in this case, in context, the username is a clear advocacy position that benefits no one in those kinds of articles. WP:IU is very clear in this regard. No one will be able to assume good faith or otherwise treat them neutrally. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone and updated WP:IU to include controversy in usernames in the Disruptive or offensive usernames section, because unfortunately, it isn't clear in that regard. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 10:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that merely the faxt that a user name includes controversy shouldn't be a problem - as long as the name isn't part of a bigger scheme to try and handle the controversy on Wikipedia - as FreeRangeFrog pointed out, the use of the account is part of the reason for the block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Will you be changing your name? Just think of how offended victims of avid attacks might be by your use of the word.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Move review close review review

• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February § War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

I think I correctly assessed the balance of opinion here but it may be that I erred towards vote counting, so if anyone thinks I have missed a compelling argument that should have pointed me to another close, please feel free to either comment here or reverse and enact any change. This is a best-efforts close, I would be completely unsurprised to learnt hat I had fluffed it entirely. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the move review itself, but in future, please don't move a highly trafficked page like that without leaving a redirect. That caused a chain of redirect deletions that I've just undone. Graham87 16:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It was in a template. I have already discovered that problem. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Permalinking

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.

---

• Didn't there used to be a feature on Wikipedia where one could just hover over a subject editing and then a § symbol would show up that would allow the option to permalink right to that section? Is that not there anymore, or is it just malfunctioning? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • They stopped it again because it was causing problems. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Any_way_to_remove_the_.27link_to_this_section.27_icon.3F I don't think it was the objections from some of us to it - rather more desperate. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I actually thought it was pretty convenient, but ah, well. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Closure review

Can a competent editor re-analyse WT:Protection policy/Archive 15#Own userspace pages protection policy and provide a more detailed closing summary? The closing editor, Nathan Johnson is retired. The close is only one sentence long and appears to be inadequate. Although the consensus that userspace pages be preemptively be protected upon request is recorded, the closing summary does not address the question as to whether or not userspace pages should be protected with any level of protection, or for any duration of time. Also, no comment is made regarding the suggestion for automated protection of new user pages.

I understand that the discussion is around 2 years old, but still a reanalysis is required. After the closure, no action seems to have been taken. The policy page was updated only very recently by me. SD0001 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh wow, I remember this discussion. Making the main userpage only editable by the user to who it belongs and advanced user-right holders (equivalent to TPP or FPP) would require further discussion IMO, probably on WP:VPP. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The request here is only for expanding the closing summary so that it gives the full details. Unless anyone has an objection, I may do it myself. SD0001 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • As you made the change to the policy page, I have expanded the close myself, although pre-emptive protection appears not to have reached a secure enough consensus to be implemented, purely due to the numbers opposing it. Additionally, most of the comments refered to situations where protection was applied after a need has been shown, and there appears to be no need to move from the status qou. In any case, WP:IAR covers this, I see no need why this is written into policy like this. Mdann52 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • That was somewhat absurd. I have reverted your edit. Well, nobody asked you to – neither do you have any right to – overturn the recorded consensus. As far as I see, there is overwhelming consensus for user pages to be preemptively protected upon request – both in terms of strength of arguements as well as the number of !votes. I count 36 votes for support (including the proposer) and 12 or 13 for oppose. I also noticed that you don't seem to have read through the arguements (did you?). We don't use phrases like "seems to be" in closures. The closer needs to read all the opinions presented and record the consensus firmly. I also saw that one shocking statement by you "consensus seems to read that user talk pages can be protected upon request, however only if this proves a benefit to the project". I assume you wanted to say user pages (not user talk pages). Not even a single person has endorsed the protection of user talk pages, which obviously should never be protected as it makes communicating with the editor impossible. SD0001 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Mdann52:I see that you edited the policy page too. Don't you understand the difference between user pages and user talk page? Note that the main user talk page is of the form User talk:Example, other user talk pages are of the form User talk:Example/anything. The consensus is for proecting-upon-request all pages except for the main talk page. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@SD0001: There are circumstances where user talk pages are protected (eg. banned users, or users with high rates of IP vandalism), although usually semi-protection. You posted here asking someone to review the close, I did so, so I fail to see how this is inappropriate (especially as the close didn't address the question). As for the rational of my changes, there was a lot of issues with users raising the issue of requests for the sake of it, as well as the issue of subpages – I base my closure not on vote counting, but the arguments raised. However, rather then debating an old RfC, why not just start a new one and see what the current consensus is? Mdann52 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

When we already have a firm consensus in a previous RfC, a new RfC should not be started without any good reason as it only wastes time. Your closure is downright absurd. Just because you think one or two oppose rationales are strong (not that I think they are) doesn't mean you can ignore the landslide 75% support. You say that the main user talk page may be protected when there is a good reason. Can you please tell me which editors have raised that view? Nobody has. I would appreciate if someone more competent such as Dank, Cenarium or Beeblebrox (Well, not Beeblebrox, as he was involved in the discussion) make a proper closure. SD0001 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points were made about user talk page protection, seemingly concluding (as far as I read it) that this definitely should not be common, although there are circumstances where it is appropriate. Mdann52 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kronf

Please can someone memorialise the user page of User:Kronf, per this and the German page to which it links. Guidelines are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive request for eyes on articles

On Friday night, Mexican professional wrestler Perro Aguayo Jr. suffered a fatal in-ring injury during a match with Rey Mysterio. I haven't seen any signs of problems at them yet, but rumors are starting to fly elsewhere that Mysterio has been or will soon be arrested for manslaughter/murder in the case; maybe we should have some people keep an eye on those articles to make sure nobody starts plugging that into either one until/unless it can be reliably sourced? (Thus far, it all seems to stem back to one fan-made YouTube video making the claim.) rdfox 76 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass Rollback

Hi

I've been using Rollback for a while now to revert vandalism and am finding a lot of cases where one account or Ip is purely vandalising, is the mass rollback script purely for admins or is it acceptable for any user to use this for the purpose of quicly delaing with massive amounts of vandlaism. This being an example form today that could have saved me some time. Amortias (T)(C) 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Any rollbacker can use the script. I can't seem to get it to work though. :( Swarm... ^—X— 13:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A rollbacker who uses the script will only be able to roll back a maximum of eight edits a minute. Also, the script doesn't work in IE. Graham87 08:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please restore Walsall F.C. matches category

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.

---

Could an Admin please restore Category:Walsall F.C. matches. The Admin who deleted it is not very active anymore, Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 18:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

CSD

Hi,

Quite a backlog at the above category. A few mops could be helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, I've noticed this phenomenon for at least several days now. As a frequent patroller of CSD, I wondered why. Is it because fewer admins are patroling than usual? More pages being created? More pages being tagged? A combination? Seems like more than just an anomaly, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Theres been quite a few backlogs over the past few months that I've noticed. Would offer to help but unfortunatley im still working with the blackboard eraser to clear mess and havent been entrusted with a mop to deal with bigger spillages.

I'll do some CSD grinding for a bit. Maybe it's even worse than normal now but it seems like CSD is always ridiculously backlogged. We simply don't have enough admins regularly working there. Thinking about requesting a mop Amortias? Swarm... ^—X— 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try. My only issues would be I'm not great on the creative front and it seesm article creation appears to be a significant requirement which is a shame as im quite happy tidying up.Amortias (T)(C) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't been perpetually backlogged but it does seem to pile up quite quickly from time to time. Sam Walton (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. It's only lately that it's more backlogged than usual. When it gets into the 30s and 40s (A7s alone), that's a bit of a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the CSD area but compared to a year ago, I'm seeing fewer and fewer regularly patrolling admins at AN/I or CFD. And as I'm checking on some user accounts (I do this when I run into people new to me), I'm noticing some "active" admins that have no recent admin activities or who just check in and make an edit every 4 or 5 months and retain their active status but aren't making admin-related edits. I guess they just want to hold on to the ability to do admin tasks should the mood strike them? There seemed to be a dropoff in active admins over Summer 2014 but I might be thinking of a few individuals in particular.

I'm beginning to think that the number of really active admins is actually less than 100 users. Maybe a lot less. But this is just an impression from wandering around admin spaces over the past few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[180] --Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting points from there: 34% of the 1359 admins have made no admin action over the past 12 months, 68% have made less than 50 admin actions over the past 12 months. We essentially have ~400 'active' admins. Sam Walton (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Samwalton9 - wow, those numbers are crazy. I mean, I've always felt like there wasn't quite 1400 of us out there working on things, but I didn't realize how many were just "minimally active" like that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, for the stats, Ymblanter. So, 43.4% of admins have made ZERO admin actions since September 2014? I underestimated the number of truly active admins but there are probably many more working in areas where I don't encounter them. Still, I'm beginning to think that the criteria for "deactivating" admins shouldn't be whether or not they have made any edits in the previous 12 months but whether or not they have taken any admin actions in the previous 12 months. Regular edits shouldn't count towards being considered an active admin, IMHO. I don't see any reason for an editor to have the mop if they don't even use it even once a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously welcome to start a discussion and eventually a RFC suggesting a different, more strict, inactivity policy, though to be honest I do not currently see how it could pass.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel strongly enough to start an RfC that could result in a battle. But the prospect of drawing out inactive admins to come and protest the proposal is almost tempting enough to prompt me to do it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh. I only ever created one start-class article, did it in one day. But it was decent enough to demonstrate that I knew what I was doing and that completely satisfied the community for my RfA. Contributing at least one article will significantly boost any RfA, but the expectations in that department aren't too outrageous. Many admins are people who are inherently more inclined to do "janitorial" work behind the scenes as opposed to content writing, and there's nothing wrong with being up front about that. Swarm... ^—X— 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just a thought, surely it would help for more non-admins (those who properly understand WP:CSD) to keep an eye on CAT:CSD and reject the obviously inapplicable ones? Squinge (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about other admins but I rarely come across CSDs that are so blatantly wrong that this would decrease the backlog significantly. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

On my very small sample, you're probably right. I've been watching for a few hours on and off this morning and I've seen only two that could be easily addressed by a non-admin. Oh well. Squinge (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

On area that creates a backlog are the abandoned draft articles. I check the history to make sure the bot did not err but so far I have not found problem. Maybe an autodelete for such articles? JodyB _talk 11:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they need to be looked at because sometimes, though not often, there are the seeds of a worthwhile article there, but the originator failed to follow up the advice given when the draft was declined. JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've jumped in to do a few - I don't mind doing this, I can keep helping with this some. Please let me know if I'm making any mistakes in how I'm doing it though. I've really only done CSD stuff here and there in the past... Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages without discussion

I have created a page EDMI Limited, and the page was deleted without closing the discussion. After that I have recreated the page again with proper secondary sources. Then again the page got deleted without closing the discussion. If you see the similar pages like Itron, there are not even single valid reference in it and still there in wikipedia. What is the actual criterion for an article to be in wikipedia? Can I propose Itron and other similar pages for deletion in the similar way? --Anee jose (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I didn't see the EDMI Limited article before it was deleted, but as for your suggesting to delete articles that you think are similar to that one, well, that really isn't a wise idea. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

EDMI is publicly traded company in Singapore stock exchange, Valid independent sources were given as references, and still the page was deleted. I don't understand the logic behind this. Pages without even single reference are existing here and pages with all requirements are getting deleted. --Anee jose (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted after consensus was established in the deletion discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter No, the person who deleted has just decided the sources were unreliable. Some time should have given to the editor before deleting it. And the second time the article got deleted for the reason that the content was identical. Yes, the content was identical, but with better sources provided. Did someone reply for the discussion in the talk page? --Anee jose (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It was only deleted twice: First, as the result of the deletion discussion; second, because you recreated the same article, at least the administrator RHaworth thought it is sufficiently similar to the previous version, and then the article can be speedy deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just notified Rhaworth of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Having compared the different versions, the only additional sources were a passing mention in a list of awardees and a press release. The text was virtually identical. G4 deletion was entirely appropriate. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that you can now show that the subject is notable, it is best to go through the Requests for undeletion process. Please do not re-create articles that have been deleted after a discussion (or they can, indeed, be speedily deleted). -- Luk ^talk 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And also best to declare any conflict of interest and cite sources that are provably independent and not based on press releases... Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to unmove a page

Hi, I'm really not sure how to unmove a page. Oded Golan (artifact collector) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch was moved from Oded Golan (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

If you could tell me how to properly unmove a page I'd be happy to do so. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case the article could be moved back via move: if the target is a redirect without further edits, you can move it to the proper title and it will replace the redirect. Jarkeld (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, had no idea, and my brain was thrown lopsided from the lack of logic in the move. Jerodlycett (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to allow non-admins to revert theior own moves, while preventing the disappearance of possibly relevant edits for redirects with histories. A redirect without a history clearly doesn't qualfy for the second issue, while a redirect with a history may. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jerodlycett and Jarkeld, see the history of User:Odedgolan/sandbox. A user with the same name decided to write an article about himself and presumably planned to move it to mainspace, which of course would necessitate moving the artifact collector's article. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Issues on Middle East Articles (What else is new)

Hello Administrators!

So, I'm not quite sure where to put this situation, whether this belongs in dispute resolution or requests, etc. Regardless, here is the situation:

I have been watching History of the Jews in Kurdistan for a couple years now, and I have seen several different conflicts arise over a myriad of ethnic issues (whether Kurdish Jews are Jews or Kurds, whether they are considered Assyrian because they spoke Aramaic, etc.). Many times these discussions break down into the usual "who was there first" and "who massacred whom" arguments, which are naturally unhelpful in this arena. In investigation today, I noticed that several of the editors involved in this situation either have redirect accounts or are in the middle of ongoing sockpuppet investigations. While I respect their desire to defend their heritage on the internet, perhaps Wikipedia is not the best venue for such situations.

Any guidance on this situation would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Bkissin (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your example of a redirected account was a redirect from an old, inactive editor account (which made one edit in June 2013) to a currently active editor account. This isn't really a problem if the accounts weren't editing simultaneously. I don't think this is improper or cause for investigation. As for the SPI case, it looked like that closed on March 18th so that either has been resolved or is in the process of being resolved.

No doubt this is a highly contentious subject area, but unless there is further evidence of article disruption you didn't share, I don't think any admin action is called for at this moment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

2 users please check

User:Chak 141p and User:Babar Ali 141 used same picture and have same facebook address.--Musamies (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Chak's page they are brothers. The accounts are brand new and I don't see any evidence of malicious intent or editing. JodyB _talk 10:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if they are the same person, Chak 141p only edited Feb. 10-11 and the Babar Ali 141 account was just created 2 days ago so they aren't editing simultaneously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

false info

You claim that your info has to be verifiable yet on one of the pages - has incorrect info that was taken from a magazine that was false. just because it was in a magazine doesnt make it true. Your Kate Roberts (days of our lives) is false. Kate roberts was never a doctor. Kate Roberts never used the alias Kate Winograd. they are two separate characters who both had affairs with Bill Horton.

fix it and stop lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.141.98 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrators have no particular ability to influence the content of individual articles. Judging from the recent history of the Kate Roberts (Days of Our Lives) article, you appear to be disrupting that article pretty significantly as User:HitMe42 regarding this claim. If you have references to reliable sources that support your view, please take this up - politely - at Talk:Kate Roberts (Days of Our Lives), noting WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, you have one edit only, and that's to this page. When I looked at the Kate Roberts (Days of our lives) I see someone attempting to edit in the same information, with nearly the same text in their edit summaries, I'm thinking that's you no I won't say who, as it would constitute outing , but, why then, would you post with an IP here and only here and not with your actual account ? KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It could be the IP simply forgot to login. Also linking the IP to User:HitMe42, or any other account or IP, based solely on information they themselves have voluntarily revealed here on wikipedia is explicitly not outing. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)