Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 118 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 83 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Anomie⚔ 13:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 50 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles?

(Initiated 46 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 43 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	10	15
TfD	0	0	1	7	8
MfD	0	0	1	5	6
FfD	0	0	1	4	5
RfD	0	0	0	95	95
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 50 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

(Initiated 39 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Endings by year

(Initiated 36 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Category:Prejudice and discrimination in fiction

(Initiated 29 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Category:1982 Japanese television episodes

(Initiated 25 days ago on 4 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 146 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 124 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 122 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 112 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 91 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 83 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 48 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 34 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 33 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Requested move 6 September 2024

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 September 2024). Discussion has died down and last vote comment was a week ago. Raladic (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024

(Initiated 13 days ago on 15 September 2024) Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 8480 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Nabil Qaouk 2024-09-29 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Dahieh 2024-09-29 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Abbas Nilforoushan 2024-09-29 01:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Rafa Salama 2024-09-29 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ukrainians 2024-09-29 00:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Costa Rica–Libya relations 2024-09-28 21:32 2024-10-28 21:32 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Faiq Al-Mabhouh 2024-09-28 20:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike 2024-09-28 20:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page currently on the main page and if this gets moved, it should be done by an admin who can also attend to the resulting main page redirect as per WP:MAINPAGENOREDIRECT Schwede66 Talk:Hassan Nasrallah 2024-09-28 18:04 2024-09-30 18:04 edit,move Persistent non-EC edits; temporary ECR Valereee Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/diffusingchildren 2024-09-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4745 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Karl-Anthony Towns 2024-09-28 17:56 2024-10-01 17:56 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:22 2025-03-28 14:22 edit Disruption by autoconfirmed users Black Kite 2025 FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:21 2025-03-28 14:21 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Black Kite FIFA Club World Championship 2024-09-28 14:19 2024-10-05 05:13 edit At least one of the disruptive accounts was autoconfirmed Black Kite Thirumagal (TV series) 2024-09-28 12:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Ali Karaki 2024-09-28 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Samthar State 2024-09-28 09:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq 27 September 2024 Beirut strikes 2024-09-28 02:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Gangwar (surname) 2024-09-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:R from book 2024-09-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2509 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-26 22:28 indefinite edit Highly visible page I've posted the article to the main page, so if the decision is to move the page, the admin who moves it should simultaneously adjust the resulting main page redirect. Schwede66 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence 2024-09-26 17:25 2024-10-07 14:13 edit Persistent vandalism TParis Hunter Schafer 2024-09-26 08:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBGS ToBeFree United Nations Security Council Resolution 2749 2024-09-26 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Turha 2024-09-26 02:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Demographics of Somalia 2024-09-26 00:12 2026-09-26 00:12 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Kalachuri (Rajput clan) 2024-09-25 20:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Tron (cryptocurrency) 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard Justin Sun 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard

Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure

NO CONSENSUS TO OVERTURN NO CONSENSUS CLOSE, RESTORE STABLE VERSION CONTAINING COORDINATES:

This discussion reviewed whether the "no consensus to include the coordinates" RfC close is correct. The result is no consensus to overturn. Editors disagreed on how much weight should have been given to WP:NOTCENSORED, ethical concerns, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Usage guidelines.

The RfC closer MrX noted below about the "no consensus" RfC close: "Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close."

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

The disputed coordinates were added on 1 December 2015. They were first removed 10 months later on 12 October 2016. The removal was disputed on 12 October 2016 and the RfC was opened on 18 October 2016. Editors noted that the coordinates were sourced to UNESCO's http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1, which is archived at http://archive.is/QF7mZ.

Since the coordinates remained in the article uncontested for 10 months, they became part of the article's stable version. The coordinates were in the article's last stable version "prior to the proposal or bold edit". The removal of the coordinates is a "bold edit" to the article's stable version and precipitated the RfC.

Mitch Ames (talk · contribs) wrote:

As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal.

That Mitch Ames did not revert the removal as a courtesy is commendable. It should not result in the coordinates' staying out by default just because the RfC started and ended without the coordinates' being in the article. That would encourage edit warring and dissuade editors from showing such courtesy.

Per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, the last stable version for non-BLP related matters should be retained, so the coordinates should be restored and retained unless and until there is a consensus to remove them.

Cunard (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

This is a request to review the closure at Talk:Wurdi Youang#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus (or lack thereof) incorrectly. I and other editors have discussed this with the closer at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure.

The RFC was closed as "no consensus"; there were several editors on each side of the debate, and (to my mind) no indication that any editors were likely to change their minds on the subject. However I do not think that "no consensus" is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because:

• According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies"
• According to WP:CLOSE#Consensus the closer should "discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy"
• Editors in favour of including the coordinates in the article explicitly cited policies, and well-established guidelines and precedents, specifically.
  • WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia will not remove ... information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic
  • WP:5P1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. "a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information".
  • WP:GEO#Usage guidelines: In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place.
    (As is currently done on 1,000,000+ other pages.)
• Editors wanting to remove the coordinates appear not to have cited any Wikipedia policies at all that would exclude the coordinates.

Even the closing statement says that there is a policy that would have the coordinates included in the article (even when an external organization wants them removed) but does not mention any policy that would exclude them.

The result of "no consensus" is not appropriate because it applies equal weighting to opinions that have no basis in policy, whereas those opinions should have been discarded; only those opinions based on policy should have been considered. I submit that result of the RFC should have been to include the coordinates because there are several policies and guidelines that say we should include them and explicitly say that we will not remove them at the request of an external organization. There are no policies that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The GEO wikiproject can state whatever it wants, it is not valid policy or guideline regarding content, any more than any other wikiproject. The only real argument with a policy back was NOTCENSORED which relies on the information being 'encylopedic', given that the only point of co-ords is to precisely pinpoint a location, it is arguable if that is useful information if the location is in private ownership and is a culturally significant area that is highly unlikley to welcome tourists tramping over it. As the owners have specifically requested it not be geolocated, this is even more unlikely to be useful. What it is - useful information, precisely where it is (beyond a general area) - useless given you cant go to it. As there was only one policy-backed argument, which was directly opposed by people arguing the information was not encyclopedic, a 'no consensus' result is acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agreed that WP:GEO#Usage guidelines is not a policy, but it is a generally accepted guideline whose existence - together with the existence of coords on many, many other articles - tell us that the precise (precision per WP:COORDPREC) location is deemed by the Wikipedia community to be encyclopedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects only indicate that members of that wikiproject find the work they do encyclopedic. It does not necessarily make their focus encyclopedic just because a number of people are interested in what is (for a lot of projects) less-than-useful cruft. It is arguable that there is an encyclopedic benefit to that information, and since multiple people have argued that, a no-consensus result is a reasonable close to that RFC. You need a stronger argument than 'other stuff exists' and 'its encyclopedic' when people disagree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I note that I already pointed to Mitch Ames that policy reasons were presented, and that they are aware of it. It is their choice to come here and state otherwise. Diffs: Mitch Ames disagreeing with the RfC, just about the same text he posted here (but I have not compared thoroughly); me pointing two presented policies; Mitch Ames replying to me, so he knew that policy reasons were presented. - Nabla (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that the "removers" did not present any policy, I'm asserting that the removers did not present any policy that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Here's where I point out that your two policies do not exclude the coords from the article, and thus are immaterial to the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

From that point of view, then I may say that you have not presented any policy either... - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• endorse Here we are weighing potential real-world damage vs. harm to the quality of our article. This is not a trivial issue--in fact it is in many ways one of the key issues at Wikipedia. We need to weigh these trade-offs all the time here (that trade-off is, in fact, the basis for our BLP policy). The claim by those wanting to remove it is that there is no significant gain to be had by including the GPS coordinates, and there is potential harm to the site. The claim by those wanting to keep it comes down to NOTCENSORED and a wikiproject best-practices document. I think both are fairly reasonable. So I endorse given the numbers and the relative strength of both arguments (I'm honestly not sure what I'd have voted here). Hobit (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. Once something's added, and you have an RFC requesting its removal, "no consensus" defaults to retaining the content, not to removing it. Moreover, the closure depends on "ethical concerns voiced by several editors", but we aren't bound by certain groups' ethical concerns. Perhaps there's actively consensus to remove the coords (I haven't looked over the discussion itself), but if that's the case, we'll need to have a completely new close, because the current one is deeply flawed. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close. Personally, I think an interpretation of policy that would give WP:BOLDly inserted content special status is incredibly wrong-headed. Consensus requires substantial agreement which is too large of a burden to require for removing material that never had a real prior consensus. Also, you have conflated "ethical concerns voiced by several editors" with " certain groups' ethical concerns" which is a misreading of my closing statement. One oppose commenter spoke specifically to Wikipedia's overarching purpose ("The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the preservation of human knowledge and culture."), which is an argument of some merit. One commenter asked "Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners?", which is a valid rebuttal of the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments, a policy that specifically relates to removal or inclusion of offensive material. - MrX 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". — As I stated at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure, [2] taking the literal wording of the question ignores the fact that the disputed change was the removal of the coordinates, for which there was no consensus. [3][4]. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article when the RfC was started. The article did not include the coordinates at that time, nor for a full five days prior to the start of the RfC. - MrX 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NC is a tricky thing. What is the default when we can't reach a decision? An IP added the data and no one edited the article for a long time. But soon (in terms of edits, but certainly not time) after the addition was reverted, then reinstated then reverted again. It's not clear where the "bold" edit was. In cases like this, I think we need to defer to the closer. But a review is certainly reasonable. I'll continue to endorse that close. The more I think about it, the more I think the request to keep the data out of the article seems reasonable. It's a lot like a BLP issue IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

An IP added the data ... — We should judge the edit on its merits, not on the editor that made it. If we are to judge edits based on the editor, then we need to also consider that Dhamacher has a potential conflict of interest as a researcher working on the site. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My intent when researching the history was to figure out the timeline of all of this and mention them. In this case, it was an IP. I suppose I could have given a full IP address but I felt the exact address didn't matter. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot like a BLP issue ... — There's a fundamental difference: we have a WP:BLP policy; we do not have a policy that says "do not include coordinates" I know there is no policy that says "include coordinates", but see my previous points re WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines as to why we should include coords). That's why my review request says the "no consensus" result is wrong - when you exclude the arguments that are not based on policy, the consensus of editors who refer to relevant policies is that the coordinates should be included.

Perhaps we should have a policy on not providing coordinates in some cases - I've certainly suggested it several times during the discussion, but none of the "excluders" seem to be sufficiently motivated to try to create one. But the reality is that we do not have such a policy, and consensus should be based on existing policies. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Policy follows practice here, not the other way around. AFAIK, this issue hasn't come up before and seems like something that is rare enough that it likely won't come up often. As such, we shouldn't have policy--instead we figure out what the right thing is to do. And we do use relevant policies. (NOTCENSORED doesn't _really_ apply because it's not about offensive material, but the spirit of the idea is there. Same with the ideas of BLP even though this isn't a BLP. We look to policy and history to help us make decisions, but when no policy is fully on point, we need to wing it and figure out what we think is the right thing to do.). Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Similar discussions have occurred before: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#Unsourced geocoords] is about unsourced coordinates, but also delves in to sourced but sensitive coords; Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations is about wildlife, but it's the same principle - the risk of damage to something if its location is published. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Those discussions are a bit old, and not quite on point, but seem pretty relevant. One common thread is that we shouldn't be publishing information that isn't published elsewhere (WP:V etc.) and that that argument is a fine way to keep unpublished information off of Wikipedia. Is there a reliable source for this location? Hobit (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates originally come from an UNESCO-IAU case study about Astronomical Heritage, author was Ray Norris. This case study was published on the UNESCO Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy (see http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1 ). I am the Technical Manager for this UNESCO site. As soon as we became aware of the formal request (by the traditional owners of the site) to conceal the precise location, we complied with this request and changed the original coordinates to the "cultural center" where the traditional owners are happy to receive visitors and guide them to the site. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates are reliably sourced, as mentioned several times during the dicussions: [5][6] Mitch Ames (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The second one is effectively a blog from what I can tell, and the 1st is a later redacted report. Which I will note that the owners of the site could have removed from the archive if they requested (or created a robots.txt file). I think the situation is more complex than I had thought, but I'll stick with my endorse. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

actually we submitted such a "right to forget" request to archive.org (dated october 27, 2016), but have not yet received an answer from them... Ruediger.schultz (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Endorse non-inclusion'. When it comes to inclusion or non-inclusion of material, Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out". All the wikilawyering in the world about whether the material was in or out at the time of the RFC doesn't change that basic guideline, so "No consensus" means "No consensus to include". And absent any compelling reason to include the exact coordinates -- an ACTUAL reason, not handwaving about principles -- then the cultural center is perfectly appropriate to use for the co-ordinates. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out" — What is the actual policy? (You know, those things that RFC decisions are supposed to be based on.) In the absence of policy, can you please provide some evidence to support this assertion of "Wikipedia's practice has always been ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand how Mitch Ames thinks that further ridiculous Wikilawyering would be any way convincing. It's also not my job to educate Mitch Ames on the most basic of practices here -- his entirely self-serving interpretation to the contrary . But tell you what, I'll go dig up the (ludicrously unnecessary) evidence just as soon as Mitch Ames provides NOT further bureaucratic waffle or vague, question-begging handwaves about "encyclopedic", but ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center -- which is where the general public would actually go and is therefore ACTUALLY USEFUL and ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is not my job nor responsibility to read his mind to figure out why this is so goddamn important to him yet he is unable to give a rational explanation that is not 100% bureaucratic. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

... ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center ... — The article is about the stone circle, not the cultural centre. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In other words, no, it's bureaucratic bafflegab all the way down. Is this some sort of "fight the power!" issue with you? --Calton | Talk 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the existence of coordinates on 1,000,000+ other pages suggests that the locations of places and objects of fixed location is generally considered encyclopedic, ie appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not the site is accessible is irrelevant to the fact that the location of a fixed object/place has encyclopedic value.

I repeat my earlier question: What is the actual policy or guideline, or where is the evidence that says Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out"? You may not agree with my interpretation or weighting of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines, but I have cited policy, guideline and precedent to support my case. Perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of citing some evidence for your alleged "When in doubt, leave it out". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note on "reliable sourced coordinates": We just got informed by the archive.org team, that (as per our request based on the request by the traditional owners http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/duane-hamacher/files/2016/10/Letter-to-Wikipedia-re-Wurdi-coordinates.pdf ) the UNESCO Astronomy and World Heritage Portal page about Wurdi Youang has been excluded from their index. So the UNESCO page (nor any historical snapshots of it), where the disputed coordinates originate from, can no longer be referenced as a reason to include these coordinates into the WP article.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored this unclosed discussion after it was auto-archived due to inactivity. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

what is the process to close this review and who can do this?Ruediger.schultz (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

can some administrator please formally close this discussion, as it seems there are no new arguments to be brought in. We are considering to open a respective policy discussion in village-pump, but we need a formal closure of this issue here before we can start this. 80.109.124.144 (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Standard offer unblock request

Years ago, when I was still an immature High School student, I made the mistake of block evasion and copyright infringement on Wikipedia. When I was first banned, I didn’t know anything about the possibility of a fresh start, so I simply kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern of sockpuppetry, spanning numerous accounts. Satt 2 is the earliest account that I still have access to, hence my submission through this account.

After my most recent block as Damianmx, I had an honest, off-the-record conversation with an experienced administrator @Drmies:. Drmies told me about the possibility of a clean start and encouraged me to admit to my wrongdoings in order to make things right, which is what I set out to do. Following up on that advice, for over six months now, I have not produced any sockpuppets and neither do I intend to engage in that kind of behavior in the future. Moreover, I have not engaged in any copyright-related violations for several years.

Drmies has graciously unblocked me on the condition that I make this official unblock plea to you directly. After a long period of socking, I understand that many will not be eager to support unblocking me. However, if I am given a way out of this long cycle of block evasion, I intend to make the best use of this opportunity. In the past, I have authored countless well-sourced articles and edits, many that I have been thanked for. If I am given the possibility of a new start, I promise to channel my productivity on Wikipedia but, this time, as a legitimate editor. I ask that you consider.--Satt 2 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: @KrakatoaKatie: @Boing! said Zebedee: @78.26: @Drmies: @Od Mishehu: and others: I tried to keep my appeal as short and to the point as possible, so I apologize if I mistakenly gave the impression that I was not willing to be held accountable for instances of combative attitude and editing on my part. I take full responsibility for that behavior and cessation of that type of combative editing was implied in my promise to be a productive and rule-abiding member of this community. I don't know what caused me to be as pushy as I was in some of my past edits. Perhaps it is the fact that many editors I was up against employed similar tactics. For instance, my most recent "conflict" was with Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has already been subject to various forms of blocks 8 times, yet he has no longstanding bans. Surrounded by freewheeling editors like that, I was mistakenly led to believe that I could employ similar tactics and get away with it. I was wrong and immature in that belief and there is no excuse for instances of battleground tactics on my part. If I am given a one year topic ban, perhaps I could prove during that time that I am capable of being a rule-abiding and responsible editor.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• Support, of course! - We all grow up. 6 years ago I was much more immature! I initially made an account to write a shitty page about myself, thinking of Wikipedia as on the same level ar UrbanDictionary. And now see where I'm at. Time for a second chance, and thanks for deciding to stick with us and continue volunteering your time and efforts to Wikipedia despite the initial mishaps. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Addendum for the closer: The fact that I would support without a topic ban implicitly means I'd also support with a topic ban, even if I don't personally think it is strictly necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:Salvidrim!, I'll write a shitty page about you for free, any time. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Actually don't. I'm not notable (yet?), so UrbanDictionary will suffice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless combined with a rigid topic ban from all things Georgia (country). This user was initially blocked not merely for being an immature high school student, but for making problematic content edits, and his socks (up until this year) kept getting recognized and blocked not merely because of block evasion, but because they were still making those exact same problematic content edits. This user has apparently always been a national POV warrior, and I see nothing at all in his unblock request addressing this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Satt 2: Before I would be willing to consider supporting this, could you supply a full list of accounts you've used in the past? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: since the socking happened over a considerable stretch of time, and rather casually as well, I can't really give you a full list of accounts because I honestly don't remember. However, I can confirm that all of the accounts discovered through this string of SP investigations are indeed mine.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The above needs clarification. In a previous statement [7] Satt2 wrote "some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that, off the top of my head, I don't remember all the accounts that I've ever created. However, when I specifically reviewed the content and timing of Olivia Winfield's activity, I confirmed that she is simply not me! She appears to edit the same niche Georgian articles and has shown combative attitude, that much we do share, but I can't be the only person with such attributes. Also, note that Olivia Winfield was not part of the string of official SP investigations that I had pointed to; she must have been blocked separately.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming this. I was concerned that your post here could be used say that, based on that post, Olivia Winfield WAS you. But it seems they have found other ways to avoid remedying the error in that block. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support with 1 year topic ban per FuturePerfect. Saying that this behaviour was "years ago" is dishonest when the same behaviour was recurring just six months ago, though the request acknowledges this further down. I share FuturePerfect's concerns but see no reason this user shouldn't be given a second chance. They should stay out of the topic area that caused problems for them until they can establish a pattern of productive editing. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban per FPAS. I find it interesting that this OFFER appeal comes exactly six months to the day after his last edit as Damianmx. I'll extend my good faith about the socking, but I won't extend it to the POV-pushing that took place and isn't addressed in this appeal at all. Katie^talk 15:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban. If we'd had an appeal that convincingly covered the POV-pushing, I'd probably support a unconditional unblock. But as it stands, I share the concerns of others here and I would only support an unblock coupled with the topic ban suggested by Fut.Perf. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Having considered Satt 2's additional comments above, and Drmies' below, I'm now happy to change my preference to an unconditional support. My confidence that Satt 2 really does understand the old problems is strengthened. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I kind of want to stay out of this, since I am not very familiar with the editor's work. The conversations I've had with the editor have been positive, and I'm a big fan of good faith. On the other hand, I can't find fault with Fut.Perf.'s comments, and I would support the proposed topic ban. On the other hand (third hand already?), one of the edits pointed out in the SPI for Damian (behavioral proof of socking) was this one--and while it is true that it established proof both of socking and of a preoccupation with Georgia, it is also true that those tags were valid: the sentence was weaselish, not touched upon in the rest of the article. Moreover, the linked article (Greater Iran) is littered with tags that seem valid to me, and a matter of contention since 2006. (Boing, sure--POV pushing, but this time it pushed toward a proper balance, IMO.) In other words, the socking was bad, but some edits at least were valid. It is unfortunate that we're then hamstringing someone because of their bad behavior (socking, edit warring, etc.) in an area where they may well have something positive to bring. Satt/Damian, you brought that on yourself, unfortunately, and if you get unblocked with a topic ban, you'll just have to suck it up. But this is a good start. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban per reasons given above as I have nothing useful to add to the conversation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban, ans perhaps a ban on uploading images (per his last block log entry). I think we can give the user a second chance, gien that he understands that a third chance would be MUCH harder and with appropriate safeguards to kep him from the causes of the disruptive behavoir. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Question Satt2's past actions, when combined with administrator incompetence and arrogance, hurt at least one entirely innocent third party. Will Satt2 confirm here that they had no connection whatsoever to Olivia Winfield [8], an editor who was blocked for being a sock of Satt2. And will an administrator now reverse Olivia Winfield's patently unjust block. Or are they happy to create a situation where the sock is unbanned but the person incorrectly banned for being the same sock remains banned? Oh, I see no evidence that Satt2 has changed - he accuses other editors of being "freewheeling editors" who led HIM astray! This shows his lack of acceptance of or understanding about why he was blocked, and hints that little may change if he does return. I agree a ban should not last forever, so let him return, but a topic ban from ANYTHING to do with Georgia, very widely construed (i.e., including Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran) and for the suggested year, seems a minimum restriction to have in place to safeguard such a return. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unconditional support. Any further problems can be addressed as needed. Miniapolis 00:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment before I will cast my vote, I'd like to mention two things; first of all, I sincerely doubt myself as well that Olivia Winfield is related to Satt2. I in fact asked the blocking admin some time ago about this (@Daniel Case:), and I believe, if I deducted the conclusion correctly from his words (please correct me Daniel, if needed), that it could indeed be true that Olivia Winfield was blocked with an erraneous "label", but the block was simply not lifted/changed due to his/her uncomprimising behavior even while being blocked. Hence, the tag remained.

You are correct. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, on Wikipedia an editor is not allowed to express anger if they are unjustly blocked, even if their third appeal against that unjust block fails, even after the sockmaster admits they were not that editor and an administrator confirms it and the blocking administrator also admits it. And it is acceptable, as Daniel Case will confirm, for administrators to call unjustly blocked editors who express anger at their unjust block ""pissy, petulant and pubescent" who are "temperamentally unsuited to being a member of the Wikipedia community". Being "unsuited to the Wikipedia community" I interpret as engaging in the "uncompromising behavior" of questioning the decisions of administrators in ways that imply failings in those administrators. That is an unforgivable offense. However, creating multiple socks in order to engage in years of nationalistic pov edit warring is forgivable. Happy days indeed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing innocent regarding the Olivia Winfield account. The account was created contrary to policy to evade the block of this IP where it was used to continue the same disruptive edits and personal attacks as the IP. The sock tags only note a suspected master which is purposefully distinct from confirmed. The socking itself is glaringly obvious. The account should not be unblocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is absurd. Olivia Winfield was blocked for being Satt2, not for being Jaqeli. Jaqueli has never been permanently blocked, so why would Olivia Winfield bother appealing a permanent block if they were already back and editing? I have had editing contacts with Satt2 (under his later socks) and with Jaqeli, both have similar strident editing aims, but I do not see any similarity between their editing aims and the admittedly limited number of edits made by Olivia Winfield. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

None of which addresses my point that the Olivia Winfield account was created as a block evading account, specifically to evade the block of IP 68.109.175.166. You are free to make the argument that the suspected masters are incorrect, but the block is sound as the account was created and edited contrary to policy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You can provide no evidence of that. The IP address belongs to one of the world's biggest internet providers. What I do know, based on actually having edited in the same area, is that there are no behavioral connections between Olivia Winfield and either Satt2 (who they were blocked for being) or Jaqeli (the editor using that address was blocked for being Jaqeli). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence is overwhelming. Have you even looked? The account was created two days after the IP was blocked and was subsequently used to make the same arguments at the same articles using verbatim edit summaries. It's as obvious as can be. There is no point even having this discussion here, as it's using this standard offer appeal to continue your soapboxing against what you perceive to be an incorrect block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What same arguments as who exactly? Jaqueli? The IP was blocked for being Jaqueli, yes? The error is worse than I thought. As well as the unjust block for being incorrectly accused of being Satt2, Olivia Winfield while editing as an IP address was unjustly blocked for being incorrectly accused of being Jaqeli. No wonder they were so angry and utterly contemptuous of administrators! None of the edits or the editing pov of Satt2 or Jaqueli bare comparison with any edits or editing pov displayed by Olivia Winfield. The pointlessness is me expecting any administrator to remedy this - so there is nothing more I can or will add here. I will make a link to here on Olivia Winfield's page. Maybe Jaqueli could make a disclaimer, like Satt2 did. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My second point; the last CU blocked sock of Satt2 is known to have tried to move the "Transcaucasia" page to "South Caucasus" in the past, on 29 May 2016. When a RfM was made on 25 November 2016 on the talk page of the same article, in order to discuss the option to have the page moved, an IP geolocating to earlier CU confirmed IP's of Satt2 while using, as what I would describe, the same profiency in English, and signing the same way, provided support for the move. This just several hours after the request was placed. Could obviously be sheer coincidence, which (WP:GF assumed) it probably is, but I'm just wondering. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• LouisAragon, I am not sure which IP you're talking about. There's one there that links to [[9]], and I don't see your geolocation point either. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, yeah, I just noticed that I forgot to provide a link, sorry. I meant this one. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is also this newly created single issue account with an inexplicable pre-understanding of everything to do with Wikipedia: [10]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Assumption of good faith Support, while leaving open the possibility of quick reblocking if POV mentality resurfaces, despite assurances. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unconditional support - Everyone deserves a second chance and my gut says they are being sincere, so no restrictions are needed at this time. If there are problems with POV, they can be dealt with at that time. That said, they probably need to listen to Future* and avoid that area for while, as a matter of good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unconditional support – What not to give them a second chance? I hope, from the lessons learned, they will find a proper way to resolve NPOV disputes. --Kober^Talk 08:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose or 1 year topic ban - It is very interesting that Satt chooses to begin his appeal as though he has been inactive for the past 6 years, when he has continued the same line of behavior a mere 6 months ago as Damianmx. Instead he just revisions it as that he hasn't socked in 6 months. If hasn't learned his lesson in 5.5 years, how can he in just .5? We have seen nothing to indicate that he has changed in anyway, so an unconditional unblock should be out of the question. In fact, WP:CLEANSTART is supposed to be for only editing in entirely unrelated fields. Typically before topic bans are removed, the editor must prove they can edit other topics without controversy. Satt should not be an exception to this. If he can go 1 year with substantial contributions on articles with no relation to Georgia or its neighbors, then perhaps the ban can be removed. But if he goes back to POV pushing, the block should be put back with no multiple second chances. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with one year topic ban I believe in second chances, and the apology seems genuine, but they need to show they can stay away from Georgia-related topics for a year and be constructive elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was the one who handled the sockpuppetry issue in Commons. I think one last chance may produce benefit. As far as I remember most of the user's contribution was related to Georgia so topic ban to Georgian related articles doesn't make sense. --geagea^Talk 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and agree with user geagea with topic ban unblock will not have sense, if we forgive him let's give one more chance.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose or 1 year topic ban - For me its unfortunately very unconvincing as well. Sockmasters who are active on this place for the amount of years equal to Satt2, are relatively rare. Six years is not some kind of joke. As already stipulated, if all previous socks couldn't resort to proper editing, as well as the most recently blocked sock Damianmx (blocked a mere 6 months ago), why should we be willing to just outrightly believe that everything would be now "solved" all of a sudden? No, I believe that there's a very deep editorial problem with applying user in question. His three unblock requests on his last CU blocked sock "Damianmx" (first two requests were to blatantly deny sockpuppetry/any editorial issues, last one, before a standard talk page access removal would be imposed, was virtually the same text placed here on this page) are a further attestment to that, in my opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dumfounded watsD

Have indefinitely blocked this user. They are 1) editing warring 2) copyright issues 3) civility issues and 4) they are likely not a new account. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good block. I actually came across this editor yesterday while at work and checked out their contribution history to find near constant belligerence and warring. I wanted to bring it to some admins attention yesterday but didn't have time to collect the diffs for a proper report. Capeo (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG reconfirmation

A bot approvals group member reconfirmation discussion is now open at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis 2. Please feel free to review and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting admin eyes

Admins may want to keep their eyes | on this article . Alex_Belfield has been the target of a lot of BLP violating entries today. KoshVorlon 18:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semied for three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

RFA and User:UNSC Luke 1021

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

---

Luke has been a problem for the last few RFAs. He has received a great deal of guidance from some of the best and brightest at Wikipedia. See his talk page [11] for a demonstration. I came in later after he didn't seem to get the point, and put it in "plain Texas Talk", so there is no question he understood that his actions were disruptive, even if he didn't understand how. That kind of misunderstanding would require massive WP:CIR concerns. His last activity at RFA was to repeat the question with a snide comment leading it off. I blocked him for 8 days moments ago. At this point, I don't have high hopes for the editor and my first concern is RFA as a process.

I'm proposing that UNSC Luke 1021 be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, including all subpages and talk pages.

Proposal poll

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Just get it done already and close this poll. Lourdes 01:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, this guy clearly doesn't understand what everyone is trying to tell him. ansh666 01:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support almost every RfA that happens, here and elsewhere, because I truly don't think that becoming an admin is a big deal. UNSC Luke obviously disagrees with that, and he has his own strange and ill-supported reasons. But I don't think that's a reason to topic ban him from the process, or even to block him for asking strange questions. Wikipedia has always served as a place where free speech is tolerated - you can disagree with someone, but they are still allowed to participate. I see very little value in banning him from participating at RfA. His vote doesn't count for much, and nobody seems to be buying his arguments. I also don't like the idea of banning people who don't comment on "the right reasons", because the reasons can (and should) be able to change over time. Who knows, maybe in ten years, people will think he makes sense. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support This editor does not understand rfa, did not listen to advice from many editors, disrupted rfa every time he participated, and dropped a kitten on the wall of an unsuccessful candidate he opposed for "trivial reasons." [12]. He does not need to be anywhere near rfa. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - What do we have bureaucrats for I'm wondering? I thought we'd entrusted them with the RfA process for a reason. The only proposal I'd even consider supporting is a blanket ban on discussion between editors over votes. Ask your questions if you have any, cast your vote, give your reasons if you feel like it, and get the hell out of dodge. We contribute the disruption - not to the disruption, but, the disruption itself - by entertaining the silly stuff, arguing amongst ourselves, and just generally not letting this stuff go. Let a bad vote stand, and let the bureacrat discount the bad vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. He's had more than enough people trying to talk to him about his disruption there, and he simply doesn't get it. I was thinking about proposing this myself, I'm happy to see others feel the same way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry. I just can't bring myself to ban someone completely from RFA. Even those that have previously disrupted the process have only been limitedly banned. Not fully banned from the process. I'd support a limited ban. I just can't support a full ban. --Majora (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the user isn't getting it and AGF can only go so far, He's been helped, guided and given advice all on multiple occasions and yet the disruption continues!, Enough time has been wasted on this user now!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This whole thing seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. OK, he has odd ideas, but there are plenty of (mostly oppose) voters on RfAs that I think have quite odd ideas. To me, RfA is the only place where any registered editor can have their say on who should be an admin. Crats can weigh their votes based on the content, and frankly IMO, his shouldn't have been given much, if any, weight, but that is pretty much immaterial here. This looks to disenfranchise him completely for having odd views. Who is next? Stopping him from asking questions and making comments (a plain support/neutral/oppose vote only) would achieve the goal with less force. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I've read the comments this user leaves on his RfA !votes. Truth be told, it's not the comments themselves so much as how he responds to others that makes this an easy support for me. It looks an awful lot like RfAs are being treated like a ballot box, as if someone can just oppose because they feel like it. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Seems the most efficient way to take care of this. Nothing against Luke personally, but I see this this type of behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I've seen/experienced how much time it wastes. Too bad it comes to a Tban. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Why let him continue to participate in the RFA process if all it does is waste editor's time, and create a more stressful situation for the candidate than the RFA already does? He's been warned and given advice repeatedly, he ignored it all, and gleefully continued on disrupting a new RFA as soon as it came up. That alone is enough to remove him from participating. Valeince (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It seems clear to me that this editor simply doesn't understand what it means to be an administrator. I'd strongly suggest that this topic-ban remain in place for at least six months, to give this editor a chance to become more familiar with Wikipedia and make positive contributions elsewhere in the project. –Grondemar 02:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but only with some significant caveats. Per the discussion at his talk page, the block should be lifted if this topic ban gets consensus, and he should be free to request a lifting of the ban after a year. I trust that these two qualifiers are going to happen anyway. Frankly, I share the concern expressed by some of the opposers, that this could become a slippery slope whereby RfA participants whose opinions are unpopular get kicked off. But I'm coming down narrowly on the side of support, because I do see a time sink for other editors and I do see a disruptive rather than simply nonconformist aspect to the conduct. But we need to be careful not to do this sort of thing too lightly. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that he has accepted Risker's offer (described just below), and I believe that he is sincere. I would prefer instead to go that route. I'd also like to see the block review result in unblocking. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think a middle ground is available here. It seems that the editor may be willing to step back from RFA for now, and I'd like to encourage giving him the opportunity to show some real self-restraint: say, no participation at RFA until (a) he has at least 500 article edits and (b) at least six months on the project (let's say no sooner than March 1 just to set a firm date). We have done this to ourselves a bit by boldly advertising all RFAs; the watchlist notice doesn't differentiate between fairly new and inexperienced editors and those who've been here since before we had a million articles. Risker (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although some of the user's comments are quite interesting, there needs to be a middle ground. He's already been blocked for eight days, so let the block go by, and see if he is disruptive in the next RfA...TJH2018talk 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would prefer blocking to a topic ban. If, after the current block, this editor refrains from disrupting RfA and makes positive contributions then the problem will be resolved without additional sanctions or an eventual appeal. If this editor finally heeded the advice and warnings given then a topic ban would be punitive. If the editor cannot restrain themselves from RfA, then it shows that they are incompetent and should be blocked indefinitely. Esquivalience (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support oddly enough, I prefer the topic ban to the block here. I'd prefer the editor get more experience and have the ability to edit currently and be banned by the community from RfA participation because of their disruption than not have the technical ability to edit altogether. This makes sense, and will prevent further disruption beyond what the current block will do. What are we going to do in the future? Block him every time an RfA happens? Make it a ban, move on. He'll eventually learn and mature and then it can be revisited. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Oppose While I don't participate a lot in RFA, I do read a lot of them especially the Opposes more so than the Supports. I'd be fine with a restriction that requires him to (1) ask his questions, even if it is his favourite one about Wikiprojects because that seems like a legit question to me and (2) make a simple Support or Oppose vote, without commentary. I don't particularly like the idea of excluding a member of the community from RFA without at least trying one other option. Blackmane (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and after the topic ban is in place, lift the block. Let this editor spend a year creating and improving content, and participating productively in other behind-the-scenes venues, including WikiProjects. Take him away from the area where he loses self-control. After a year, my hope is that he will understand how important it is to avoid disrupting RfA, and he can try again, and become a positive participant there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. Surprised that we didn't do something sooner (and make similar proposal for other RfA disruptors). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Luke has had ample opportunity to figure out that he needs to clean up his act. He walked through all of the stop signs right into a block and a proposed topic ban. What makes anyone believe he will suddenly start listening to advice if we let him off easy? I understand and appreciate the concerns shared by those in opposition here, but my opinion is that Luke is going to continue disrupting the process until he is forced to stop. Lepricavark (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support My reasoning is below. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I would normally not recommend a topic ban from RfA, but it's clear that this editor is being not only disruptive but intentionally disruptive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the user's contributions to RFA have little value, but that's what we appoint bureaucrats for. Those who like to argue with this user should remember it takes more than one person to create disruptive drama. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Lankiveil. The disruption is not so severe that it cannot be easily ignored. If there comes a time when Luke does things such as cover the RfA with a page-wide image, or responds to every support vote asking for clarification, then I can support a topic ban. But if all he does is oppose for trivial reasons, one can simply ignore him, and trust the closing bureaucrat to ignore him too. As for asking questions, the candidate is free to not answer. Banedon (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Seems to me like Luke needs to learn a bit how this process works before participating in it. RfA has enough voters and enough troublemakers anyhow. I also think that people need to be careful when saying "bureaucrats will ignore it" unless they are bureaucrats, as these questionable !votes still contribute to the percentage - and more importantly, together with questionable questions (contrary to what Banedon says, they are often treated like an obligation) they contribute to the perception of RfA being a gauntlet that exists merely for trolls to annoy other people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - There is evidence of disruption, but the only thing that bothers me is the questions. The !votes on some are fine. What also worries me is that he recently out of the blue put Patient Zero through an ORCP poll. He endorsed it but then asked me to withdraw it a day later. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I say this as one of the original warners on his talkpage. As someone else has pointed out above, the issue with UNSC Luke 1021 isn't specific to RFA, but is that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates but thinks he does, and consequently keeps wading into processes he doesn't understand trying to start arguments. Topic-banning him from one area will just mean he goes and disrupts something else. Either he's so disruptive we can justify kicking him out altogether—and I don't feel we're anywhere near that point yet—or he should be allowed the chance to prove he can actually participate in a collaborative project. I do support not lifting the existing block early in the absence of a detailed indication from UNSC that he understands why things have got to this point; all the commentary on his talkpage gives the impression that he doesn't take any of this remotely seriously and sees Wikipedia as a cross between a MMORPG and a chat-room, and if that attitude continues the next step will be a permanent community ban. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - and quite strongly. Those who are opposing nevertheless agree that there is a serious problem. RfA also needs to be greatly cleaned up and this is one way to start doing it. More in the Comments section below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Provisional Oppose. I don't see UNSC Luke 1021's RFA contributions as being genuinely disruptive in so far as I don't think any closing crat (should a chat be needed) would afford them any credibility. I prefer inclusion to exclusion as the better way to help new contributors learn and develop, and when that doesn't work I prefer voluntary withdrawal to forced exclusion. I support Risker's suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  "I just wanted to game the system"[13] is considered ok now by some. Perhaps I've grown too old for this game. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't see where I suggested that's OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  UNSC Luke 1021 has now accepted Risker's proposal, so I think we should try that first before a ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in principle, Support in practice but does it really take 5 senior admins with 35 years experience to ram your point home? Kudpung's and maybe the next message were all that was needed. Why for God's sake does it take a further 3 of you to join in? It looks like collective Admin bullying, each piling on and adding various 2ps which amount to no more useful advice than the original 1p. You need to be aware that for some editors with a certain mindset perceive repeated reinforcement by "senior" people to be provocative and react adversely. And so it has transpired in this case. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Leaky_caldron, check the thread in question more carefully. It's slightly misleading because all the posts appear in a single thread, but what looks like a pile-on of people warning him for his conduct in a single RFA is actually a procession of editors warning him about a different issue each time (trolling on Godsy's RFA; hassling the supporters on Boson's RFA; his "oppose, has never uploaded a fair use image" vote; his Wikiproject question; his harassment of candidates potentially discouraging people from participating). You can't see it as it was deleted as a courtesy to UNSC on "a youthful indiscretion shouldn't jeopardise a potentially promising career" IAR grounds, but I assure you that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UNSC Luke 1021 does him no credit either. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Generally, I would be very opposed to not allowing an editor to participate in the governance of the project. However, comments like this make it pretty clear that UNSC Luke 1021 is trolling us. Doing that at an RfA is very disruptive, and disrespectful of the candidates. Based on this apparently retaliatory RfA candidate poll, this topic ban should be broadly construed.- MrX 12:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mr rnddude. Block was punitive in my opinion. I get that he shouldn't have nominated me at ORCP, and in hindsight maybe I shouldn't have gone ahead with it all, but I appreciated the feedback and I know what he did was in good faith. 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 13:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, due to UNSC Luke 1021's stubborn refusal to get the point. I've seen this kind of "bargaining" here before, and it generally degenerates into a timesink. Part of the reluctance or candidates who would be good admins to submit an RfA is because it now entails this kind of gauntlet; I know from experience that it makes a stressful week even more difficult. A topic ban is not forever; if and when the bell in his head rings, it can always be rescinded. Miniapolis 14:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per MrX. Also, just hours before the latest RfA, user agreed to refrain from participating, yet went on to disrupt it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 15:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Disrupting any area of Wikipedia is unacceptable, especially after being counseled and warned multiple times. He may be productive elsewhere in the project, but his purpose at RfA seems to be purely disruptive. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - with reluctance, but put over the top by the "gaming the system" remark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Intimidation and sanctioning of !voters that you disagree with is outrageous. The idea of rough consensus is for everyone to express their views which are then assessed in aggregate. As there are typically over 100 !votes at RfA, a maverick or outlying !vote is not going to make a significant difference. A bigger risk is that the bandwagon effect and groupthink will distort the outcome. And, if we are going to challenge absurd votes, then can we start with the evidence and content-free ones like the ridiculous "why not?" Andrew D. (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, you have missed the point entirely. It's the trolling and disingenuous voting on RfA (particularly in the 'oppose' section where we can start with building up evidence against some editors have demonstrated a disquieting pattern of 'oppose' votes over many years) that are the sole reasons for the dearth of candidates. That said, 'absurd' votes are also those a maverick or outlying !vote is not going to make a significant difference that are a lone vote in the oppose section where an RfA is clearly headed for a consensus to promote. Whether such inappropriate voting will actually influence the outcome of such overwhelming burgeoning consensus is not the issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed close

(I can't do this myself because I've already commented)
Please close this now. 41 supporting, 25 opposing. That is a clear consensus. Proposed text:

User:[…] is topic banned by the community for six months for editing, voting or commenting on RfA, all RfA related policies, guidelines, advice pages, and their talk pages, broadly construed. Any breach of this topic ban can result in a block without warning.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• 41 out of 66 is not a clear consensus because it's just 62%. If it was an RfA, it would fail. Andrew D. (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Even though it is my proposal, I can't call this a consensus. It is frustrating, as many seem to be focused on his voting, which has nothing to do with the sanctions or the claims. Others seem oblivious to the fact that he admits he was trolling. To me, this was a clear cut case of intentional disruption and trolling which continued after he admitted it, after he tried to play off that he didn't understand, and after he made snide remarks while doing it. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement, given the evidence that was available to anyone that bothered to look. I wash my hands of the whole affair. Someone should just unblock him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think any parallels to RFA or any other type of consensus building process that attributes a "pass/fail" outcome can be made here. The question being asked here was not whether any assignment of guilt should be placed. In the vast majority of opposes, there was a nearly universal consensus that the editor had engaged in disruptive editing. The only controversy here is the selection between a block or a topic ban; essentially same sides of the coin. I think the closer should be given the opportunity to weight (and exclude if necessary) support and oppose arguments that failed to address the question at hand by being sidetracked on how they !voted as opposed to their overall conduct. Mkdw^talk 03:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Good lord, if we applied the RfA percentage as a hard cut-off for consensus, nothing would get consensus on this project. Whoever eventually closes will assess consensus the proper way, meaning they'll determine whether a consensus of editors agrees that this topic ban will prevent disruption to the encyclopedia and is warranted giving the circumstances. That goes beyond !vote totals, although I think the !vote totals certainly support consensus here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Couldn't we just ban him from asking questions and limit him to simple support/oppose/neutral? That way we stop the problem but we don't disenfranchise someone? --Majora (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The community has a lot of volunteers like you and I who spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia. It's such a waste of time to repeatedly advise editors who seem to be completely incorrigible. What we should do is topic ban him and revisit this after one year. Lourdes 01:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering he is either gaming the system or is too incompetent to participate, I would strongly be opposed to such a restriction. He would find a way to game it, and the cycle goes on. We all have better things to do than constantly monitor him. He was given plenty of warning prior to this, by many people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just really hate to ban someone from RFA completely. --Majora (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Me too, but sometimes ugly solutions are the only logical choice. If he contributes to articles in a productive way, he can always request the restriction be removed in a year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dennis. I just can't bring myself to support a full ban. Especially knowing that past disruptions by other individuals have only resulted in a partial ban while still keeping in place their ability to !vote. I would fully support a limited ban that targets the problem, the nonsense questions. I just can't support the proposal as written. --Majora (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: isn't that completely irrelevant since RfA comments are not a vote? What good is a simple support/neutral/oppose if it doesn't stand on any evidence, policy, or reasoning? AlexEng^(TALK) 02:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at RfA no. A oppose vote will still be counted, just with less weight than a well explained oppose vote. Refer to Godsy's RfA's bureacrat discussion. They explain it themselves. An oppose vote counts for more than a bad oppose vote, but, less than for a good oppose vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Precedent would be that they are banned from everything besides !voting. I didn't say they couldn't explain their reasoning. But once they hit the save button that's it. No more. They can't discuss it if someone asks them to. They can't ask questions. !vote and leave. That is the precedent that has been set already and I would fully support that restriction here as well. --Majora (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I dislike the block. Hate it even. The editor asks silly questions and makes pointless oppose vote which are a waste of everyone's time, TBAN fair enough. The vote is likely discounted by the bureaucrats at the end of the process anyway. The block isn't a useful preventative measure. TBAN yeah sure - Without disenfranchising them as Majora suggests above. -, it'll kill the issue in its tracks, but, what damage is this editor actually doing to the project that requires a block? Eight days block for that matter, I assume the choice is so that the RfA process can be completed. If you don't like how someone says something or ask something, you suck it up - are you blind to the fact that this is why we're here Dennis Brown? because we don't like what they have to say. We're all responsible for the disruption at RfA. Everytime somebody casts a shit vote, we pile on them like dogs drawn to fresh meat - I do this occasionally also. The disruption on their side is almost minimal by comparison. The bitter argument over the poorness of the vote is what takes up half a talk page worth at each and every single RfA and what some poor bureacrat then has to wade through and read. Why not just TBAN the community from commenting on each other's votes, let all the votes stand, and let a bureacrat go through and get rid of the muck. If it weren't for the questions being contributed as well this'd have no leg to stand on because we have regulars at RfA who post oppose votes for nonsensical reasons. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The block in this case is justified. This user's participation so early in the Ivanvector's rfa has the potential to severely disrupt later proceedings. I'm all for second chances, but there was more than enough WP:ROPE given to Luke, and he went and asked for some more. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I had to block to stop disruption. I instantly put up this tban. Luke has already asked if I will lift the block once the tban passes, I've already indicated I would, and gave permission to any other admin to do so without consulting me. This is exactly the proper use of a block, to stop disruption for only as long as is needed to get the job done. You can't just look at the block in isolation. Admin only have a few extra tools to prevent disruption. One of them is our words. If you look closely at his talk page, many admin, myself included, used a lot of words through three RFAs before it came to a block. The block was a last resort, and I stand by it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree. I am aware of the discussion on his talk page, I am aware that they've consistently cast poor votes and asked silly questions. That is not my concern because this is a regular process at RfA. I know why you've blocked, because this is a consistent issue, but, it's a consistent issue across RfA and is not localized to one person. You could block any number of other editors for disruption. Literally the only difference between Luke and any other case is that they post useless questions as well. None other. Yet I see very few instances of blocks being handed out for that. You didn't have to block, you chose to. Your reasons are mostly solid, disruption is a blockable offense. You bring up words, I see that you did use quite a few of them on Luke's talk page, it wouldn't have cost you to use a few more - such as start the AN discussion, leave them a notice, and warn them that any other disruption during the RfA process will yield them a block for the duration of the RfA and AN discussions. You didn't, you could have, I'd argue should have but I'd be the minority in that case. What's done is done. I disagree with what was done, but, I have no choice other than to accept it. You did whatever you thought was right, I'm not going to question your AGF. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If measures like these make the environment at rfa more productive, would you support that? You agree that disruptive actions like his are consistent there, so why shouldn't we seek to improve that atmosphere? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not supporting action against a single editor for a site-wide issue. I honestly don't think this would improve the atmosphere, and I don't think we should be disenfranchising editors whom we disagree with. Refer to Peacemaker67's comment in the proposal above which I think explains part of the issue very well. Most specifically; OK, he has odd ideas, but there are plenty of (mostly oppose) voters on RfAs that I think have quite odd ideas. Odd is being quite generous, and there's a whole heap of them at every single RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user appears to have suggested the topic ban himself on his talk page, in exchange for immediate removal of the block. Shouldn't this just be WP:SNOWCLOSEd? @UNSC Luke 1021: if you've changed your mind about requesting a topic ban, please make the appropriate adjustment to your talk page. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • He has said that, but it started as a community process and it would be my choice for it to remain a community process. He accepts this, understanding these usually take a day or less. A voluntary tban is problematic to enforce, and frankly, I think the community should decide whether or not it wants to take a firm hand when dealing with disruption at RFA. That may prevent further disruption from other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it shouldn't be snow-closed. Let's think a little bit more about the implications here. Even though I myself have suggested that it's time for some voter standards, and have counseled this user myself, I'm not certain it's either fair or reasonable to make them up as we go along and apply them to only one person; we all know there are several others who are equally as recalcitrant, but they tend to have more on-wiki time and experience, so we seem to tolerate them more. Risker (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Risker, I think that is misrepresenting it. If someone causes problems in a specific area, you give the benefit of the doubt and simply ban them from that one area, allowing them to participate in other areas but with restrictions. Arbcom made a career out of carving out special areas and granting special tools to do just that. This topic ban doesn't prevent them from editing and participating in other meta areas and can be removed once they show a willingness to comply with community expectations. As I pointed out to Boing, they admitted they were gaming the system, then continued to do just that. They are not innocently misunderstanding, they are playing you like a punk. What I don't understand is why we would put RFA on a pedestal that makes it impossible to apply the same sanctions we apply in other topic areas. My block and proposal is simply treating RFA like any other area. It is about being consistent in our sanctions, and the opposite of "making it up as I go". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Just a quick comment here. I certainly accept he was gaming us with his own RFA, as he admitted himself, and that's very much not good. Is he still gaming us? Maybe, but maybe not and maybe he's just a young person who hasn't learned how to behave properly. It's been suggested more than once that perhaps I'm a bit too forgiving on the AGF front, and that might be so. But my take here is based on what there is to lose and to gain, and I see a very low risk/reward ratio. I do not think the behaviour at RFA is causing any actual harm, as the contributions are easily ignored and are having no real effect. If he's genuine and sticks with Risker's suggestion, great, we might have a new long-term contributor. If he doesn't, we'll know for sure and can show him the door then with very little lost. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I know Dennis Brown as a straight-shooter, so I take it for granted that he (and others) see a problem with this editor's contributions to RfA, but I have to say that I just reviewed a number of them, and I don't really see what the fuss is about. I certainly wouldn't characterize what I read as "disruptive", but it's also possible that I've somehow missed the worst of it. I'm not going to oppose the proposal, but if Dennis or one of the others who have determined that the editor's contributions are disruptive would like to point me to a specific example, or provide a summary of what I'm missing, I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my stance (or non-stance). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me also add to my comment above that I don't think that disenfranchising an editor from RfA is something that should be taken lightly by the community – I almost think it should require a super-majority of 2/3rds to pass – and that it has an unsettling slippery-slope feel to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the topic-ban and everyone should, as it's a lesser alternative to just community banning him, which is what probably ought to happen. Here's why: UNSC Luke 1021 is a drama fiend. They have barely more than a thousand edits and barely more than six months tenure. And yet, they're commenting at an SPI they themselves aren't a party to. UNSC Luke 1021 has popped up at drama boards which for a new user is bad news. Only about 18% of their edits are in the main namespace. What else has UNSC Luke 1021 been doing? Handing out ratings for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks, of which he is one of only two participants! Luke has contributed meaningfully to only one article, Astroneer, which is still in sad shape. UNSC Luke readily expressed OWNership when the article was sent to AfD. We were all "new" at some point. Everyone experiences learning curve. UNSC Luke 1021, however, shows an inclination to act with really little thought to the consequences. Based on his userpage admission to being underage, I think he's not a good fit for Wikipedia at this point. Topic-banning from RfA is a slight slap on the wrist which hopefully sends a message. Aren't we here to write an encyclopedia? This way, his disruptive editing isn't going to contribute to highly-visible stressful areas like RfA. Guaranteed this is not the last time we hear from UNSC Luke 1021. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It's not about unfairly disenfranchising anyone, and It’s not a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. I’ve voted on over 300 RfA and I’ve seen ‘crats intervene about 5 times.Wikipedia has always served as a place where free speech is tolerated - it depends just how much free room users should be given to willfully disrupt the project; Wikipedia is not a political platform. What is true is that RfA has been the one venue where people can be as rude, disingenuous, and sometimes even downright nasty with total impunity. This is the sole reason why we are not getting candidates. We have to start making an example of some ‘participants’ and this is one way to show the community that RfA is serious stuff that’s not to be messed with. Even Risker and Iridescent are not denying that something needs to be done. Topic-banning from RfA is a start, and for UNSC Luke 1021, it will give him WP:ROPE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• I suppose I could just always vote the opposite of Luke with 'Anti-Luke vote' as a rationale. A shitty support vote cancelling a shitty oppose vote should mean the net result is he might as well have not voted at all - if the crats are not going to disregard his comments. And I am pretty sure I wont get tired of playing silly games before he does... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Only in death, you need to redo your maths here a bit. Every oppose vote needs four countering support votes to achieve the "75%" pass mark at RfA and 3 to achieve the "66%" crat chat mark. Case in point, 4 supports and 1 oppose achieves a net result of exactly 75% in favour and 3 in favour 1 oppose achieves us a crat chat of exactly 66%. So, your vote will only negate one quarter/one third of theirs. I'll join your game though, so, that just leaves one or two more players needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• I had actually done the math, I was hoping someone else would point out the futility in the hope more people would realise how one editor with terrible motivation can scupper the voting process ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Well played Only in death, well played... Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wouldn't 4 to 1 be 80% (4 out of 5) and 3 to 1 be 75%? Or am I missing something? Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, your math is correct, Mr rnddude's is not. Paul August ☎ 19:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ah bollocks, yes you are correct. My math was off. Absolute donkey. I was counting the supports as total votes, instead of adding the oppose as a fifth vote. I mean 4 votes total with 1 oppose, and 3 votes total with 1 oppose. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is well past the more heat than light stage. Leaky Caldron 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

2017 Arbitration Committee

The committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 01 January 2017:

• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Euryalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ks0stm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of these arbitrators will also receive (or retain, where applicable) the Checkuser and Oversight permissions. We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2016:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Departing arbitrators will retain their Checkuser and Oversight rights and will remain subscribed to the Functionaries' mailing list. In addition, departing arbitrators will be eligible to remain active on any pending arbitration cases that were opened before the end of the their term; if this provision becomes relevant this year, a notation will be made on the relevant case page or pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2017 Arbitration Committee

Revision deletion (copyright violation)

This edit by a new user blatantly copies and pastes from the reference, making it a copyright violation. The user in question is User:Iphus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done (I requested via IRC) - in future, it's good practice not to ask for revision deletion on a public noticeboard, and to e-mail a trusted admin directly/ask on IRC/use the form in the editnotice's red box. Mike1901 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, public RD1 requests are fine, although the standard way is to use {{copyvio-revdel}}. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 12:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Could someone close a Request to Merge discussion?

It's a request to merge acid rock with psychedelic rock, on the talk page of the former. I'd do it myself since it appears to be a snow close, but I might have a conflict of interest here because I am reviewing the "acid rock" article for GA status. -- llywrch (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin closure),  Done 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding North8000

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012. North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:

• His 2014 topic ban from gun control remains in force.
• His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics, with the scope defined by the American politics discretionary sanctions introduced in the 2015 American politics 2 case.
• His 2012 restriction from homophobia is adopted by the committee as a topic ban.
• He is restricted to one account.

These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding North8000

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

This is an appeal of the topic ban I received in early July.

Link=[14]

In the topic ban proposal my behavior in this thread was cited as the reason for my topic ban.[15]

In the future, I will take additional time to seek consensus for the edits I make and, whenever necessary, will post edit proposals on the talk page before adding new information to an article. I will also make more frequent recourse to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Furthermore, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit. Ricky81682 mentioned in the topic ban proposal that I shouldn't use sources that aren't available online, so I will also be using more websites and online articles, which I will make sure to read carefully before citing in a Wikipedia article.

As can be seen in my block log, I have never been blocked from editing Wikipedia before, and I have a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, so I feel that now my topic ban should be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewers of this appeal should keep in mind:

• a primary reason for TH1980's TBAN was his constant and flagrant POV-pushing over a large number of Japan-related articles, not just Korean influence on Japanese culture
• another primary reason was TH1980's constant WP:IDONTHEARTHAT approach to every discussion he took part in and the tendency to bury discussions in comment after repetitive comment to discourage outsiders from examining the meat of the dispute
• TH1980 has a tendency to make sneaky edits against consensus with false or deceptive edit comments
• TH1980's tag-teaming with CurtisNaito, the other party to this TBAN, and who also tried to get this TBAN lifted recently—very unsuccessfully
• TH1980's TBAN has nothing to do with using offline sources, which are never discouraged—this is a red herring. CurtisNaito tried a similar trick in his appeal. It's very likely they're collaborating off-wiki on the wording of these appeals.

TH1980 and CurtisNaito have caused a lot of editors a lot of grief—many of them gave up editing History of Japan entirely over this mess. Please, please, please don't put us all through this mess again. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey is making accusations about collusion and TH1980's intentions without evidence and should be disregarded here. I don't believe TH1980 has ever acted deceptively. I do agree that TH1980's editing has been problematic in this topic area, and that a topic ban was needed, but let's look at the appeal on its merits. TH1980 recognizes that they repeatedly used sources inappropriately in this topic area. What have they proposed to avoid this in the future? Using the reliable sources noticeboard as a check makes sense, and I'd suggest further that they do this before making edits to the article. They also seek to use online sources that are more accessible to other editors. I don't think this is a red herring at all; TH1980 has sometimes misunderstood source content or integrated it inappropriately into articles. To the extent that this content is accessible to other editors and discussed ahead of time, these problems and ensuing headaches in discussions can be avoided. A major problem with TH1980's past conduct was about failing to seek consensus from other editors about their changes. Naturally, efforts to seek agreement about article decisions in this area would be expected, rather than boldly making problematic edits and getting into more disputes. Finally, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit needs a little more specificity about how they will do this, but I recall that TH1980 sometimes wanted to include claims written from nationalist perspectives that conflicted with more neutral sources. TH1980, can I ask how you will identify sources that are more neutral moving ahead, as this was a consistent issue you had in this topic area? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT. I would carefully review a source to see if it was presenting facts in a neutral or biased manner, and I would avoid using any material that was biased. On a related note, if I came upon a page that I felt lacked a scholar's viewpoint that merited mention, I would propose edits in the manner I did at the Battles of Saratoga talk page re: whether or not Benedict Arnold was at the front during the first battle. [16]TH1980 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the allegation of collusion. Everything else stands. Don't make us go through these circles again. It's eaten through far too many people's patience already. Have you reviewed the thousands upon thousands of bytes of discussions here and at Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture that led to the two being TBANned in the first place? TH1980's bad faith was extremely well established by several editors—he wasn't TBANned for mere "slips", but for persistently misrepresenting the sources, as well as all the other reasons listed above. Please, I JethroBT—don't don't be an accessory to another three years of this garbage. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I have reviewed these discussions many times over, as I've tried to intervene in these disputes. Yes, I am exhausted, too. My read of those discussions was that TH1980 had consistent problems with sources and how to use them in this topic area. They did not adhere to feedback given by you and other editors in too many situations, and did not seem to understand why their edits were problematic. I agree that it was very frustrating. At the same time, this feedback was usually delivered by you and others in a manner I found antagonistic, threatening, and/or belittling. This kind of conduct probably feels good to say at the time to let off some steam, but it violates WP:CIVIL (which I'll readily admit I have not done the best at enforcing because this community is rather divided on the matter) and it just makes the situation worse regardless of whether the substantive advice is right or wrong. If TH1980 engages in the same behavior in this area (e.g. failure to use RS, making controversial edits without consensus, bludgeoning discussions) as before, I will reinstate the topic ban. But the appeal includes a decent plan to avoid the issues that lead to the topic ban in the first place, and that is what is expected, so I support lifting the topic ban. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "TH1980 had consistent problems with sources" sounds like a polite way of expressing what I said below. Are you agreeing that TH1980 misused sources? Do you see anywhere that TH1980 has acknowledged that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@TH1980: Do you acknowledge you have misused sources in this topic area? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT, No.TH1980 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Thankyouthankyouthankyou! Merry Christmas & Happy Emperor's Birthday, everyone! I was having a shitty day with my laptop on the fritz, but this so makes up for everything! Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, knock it off. Your mocking behavior is disruptive and absolutely unhelpful in having an actual discussion here. This is why folks take such a dim view of discussions here. TH1980, having read your response above and below, I am primarily concerned that you reject misusing using sources in this area when it was clear that you did misuse them. Whether you intended it or not, the beginning of your response below makes it sounds like I (and others) have misunderstood what the problem was. Let me be clear in saying that your topic ban was justified because you misused sources, applied the content inappropriately, and persistently edited against consensus. If you continue to fight this notion, your topic ban is unlikely to be overturned. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT Yes, I fully admitted that my use of sources needed improvement. The only reason why I was initially reluctant to accept the word "misuse" was because I thought it implied that I had put information in the article that was different from what the sources said. Of course, I never did that, nor was that the reason for the topic ban. I pointed out below just one example of how I should have used a broader range of sources and of how I should have explained on the talk page what sources I was using before attempting to add them to the article. The specific example I gave concerned rice transmission, but all the other disputes were of a similar nature. By not using additional sources from a broader range of perspective, I did misuse sources, and I noted in my initial statement how I intend to improve myself in this regard.TH1980 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Fine, I'll "knock it off", but I also expect you to examine the reasons for the TBAN—which, as several of us have told you, was not over "misusing sources". Deal? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT I understand what you are referring to, though. The problem was that I should have cited a broader range of sources and broader range of information. For example, all the books that I was using, including Rhee, Barnes, Nakazono, Imamura, etc... (as I quoted in the link above) said that rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea, and so I put that into the article. However, as all these books also stated, the ultimate source of the rice was China. Therefore, I should have also put into the article that the rice culture that arrived in Japan through Korea initially came from China. Furthermore, other sources were later found indicating that the transfusion of rice culture could possibly have come directly from China, without going through Korea. Therefore, I should have looked deeper into these other theories in advance and included them as well. In my defense, I did include the alternative theories about direct transfer from China after they were pointed out to me, but I should have consulted more sources and included the information right from the beginning. I should have explained what the books that I was using said about the matter before adding them to the article.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This deflective comment in no way reflects the extraordinarily wide varieties of behavioural issues that led to the block. TH1980 was not TBANned for neglecting to mention that rice came from China. I'm going to say this again: TH1980 was not TBANned for neglecting to mention that rice came from China. Do I need to say it again? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps KrakatoaKatie could tell us if TH1980's comments accurately reflect the nature of the TBAN. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito, Softlavender, Spacecowboy420, Nishidani, and Ricky81682:

@Mr rnddude, Johnuniq, Thomas.W, NeilN, Mackensen, and Begoon:

@Sturmgewehr88, Seth Kellerman, and Wehwalt:—have I missed anyone? The disputes were ridiculously long and spread over several pages and archives. Please add anyone I've missed. Overturning this TBAN is not a light decision to make. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus, KoreanSentry, and Homemade Pencils: were not pinged. Incidentally, this topic ban was only related to the edits on Korean influence on Japanese culture. My edits on the article History of Japan were investigated in excruciating detail by an admin who found that my edits there were not problematic.[17]TH1980 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"you are indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Japan, broadly construed"—KrakatoaKatie's message is still there on your talk page, unlike your your bizarre response, which you buried immediately before opening this appeal. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Only six of the nineteen people who stated their opinion supported topic banning me from all articles related to Japan. The source of the confusion was that member Ricky81682 proposed that I "be topic banned from the Korean influence on Japanese culture". That was actually a page ban, not a topic ban. When other users came in saying that they "support a topic ban", they were referring to the original "topic ban from Korean influence on Japanese culture", which was a misnomer, not a topic ban applying to all Japan-related articles.

The vote was as follows:

• Ricky81682=proposed Korean influence "topic ban"
• TH1980=opposed
• 1=Softlavender=supported Japan topic ban
• Nishidani=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• Homemade Pencils=opposed
• Piotrus=opposed
• 2=Curly Turkey=supported Japan topic ban
• CurtisNaito=opposed
• 3=Spacecowboy420=supported Japan topic ban
• Tivanir2=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• Johnuniq=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• 4=Thomas.W=supported Japan topic ban
• Blackmane=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• KoreanSentry=opposed
• Mackensen=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
• 5=Begoon=supported Japan topic ban
• 6=Sturmgewehr88=supported Japan topic ban
• H.Humbert=opposed
• Seth Kellerman=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682

Six out of nineteen does not count as a consensus. In fact, the thread was originally archived because a consensus was not reached, but Curley Turkey reactivated the thread. 1 TH1980 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

*eyeroll* I JethroBT—seriously, man, can you still AGF with TH1980 after this performance? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I'm assuming good faith here, but as an uninvolved editor, I'm not familiar with the context of the dispute. Could you please explain how you chose this list of editors to be pinged into this discussion? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

AlexEng—from scanning Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination for non-trivial commenters. This is only one of many such exasperatingly long discussions at ANI, ARBCOM, and many talk pages (particularly Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan) over the last three or more years. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng: I cannot find where I contributed to this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

NeilN—you're right. Sorry for the false ping. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

AlexEng—note well that the thread linked above gives barely half the picture, as the discussion spilled out into the Korean influence on Japanese culture talk page, where several of those who had been defending TH1980 came to realize what he was all about and returned to ANI to get TH1980 and CurtisNatio TBANned. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• The problem was not related to seeking consensus and so forth—it was because the edits were consistently and persistently slanting the articles towards a certain POV. The topics are obscure and not easily evaluated by editors who have not studied in the area. However, it is easy for anyone to cherry-pick factoids or draw inappropriate conclusions about what sources say, then consistently and persistently slant the articles towards a certain POV. The topic ban is helping the encyclopedia and removing it would be unhelpful. The OP above reads like a how-to WP:CPUSH guide—it is not reasonable that the few editors with knowledge in the area should be expected to battle each factoid and inappropriate conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reasons for the topic ban were many and extensive and longterm, and involved obstructionism, deception, manipulation, tag-teaming/collusion, and endless amounts of IDHT non-collaborationism and POV-pushing. The wording of the topic-ban itself should not be taken at shallow face value; the background for it requires reading of the entire interminable thread starting here: [18]. It hasn't even been six months since the indefinite topic ban was imposed. I honestly think that the accuracy and reliability of the project is at stake if TH1980 goes back to his deceptive, manipulative POV pushing. His appeal request bears similarity to the equally blithe appeal by his tag-team pal, CurtisNaito: [19]. I really think the TBan should stay indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - At this time, I am not convinced that overturning this ban would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but the appeal itself is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - God no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose—the appeal addresses virtually none of the wide variety of behaviour issues that lead to the indefinite TBAN in the first place, and the appeal has misrepresented the TBAN as being related to a single article rather than what the TBAN explicitly states: "articles relating to Japan, broadly construed". Note: while this member of the duo has a clean block log, they do have an an interaction ban handed down a year ago from the Arbs for WP:HOUNDING, relating to articles involving Japan-Korea disputes. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for a closer

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

---

I think the we need an uninvolved, level-headed, perceptive admin to close the thread about User:Sander.v.Ginkel on AN/I. It's been going on for 17 days now, and there are 5 different proposals (one of them admin-closed as nonsense) about how to deal with the problem. Some kind of closure -- adopting one or more of the proposals or declaring that there is no consensus to do anything -- is needed to put the community out of its misery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it and will post it shortly, although I wouldn't mind having at least one other admin eyeball my findings (which will probably upset everyone). -- Avi (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts in a very difficult situation. I have posted the red text from the close on S.v.G's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for informing Sander. -- Avi (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: in your supervote close (you acknowledge consensus, but don't agree with it, so you change the proposals to some weaker undiscussed ones, weaker still than the clearly opposed Proposal 5), you say "a list of Sander's existing problematic BLP articles" should be made. Is this a list of all his BLP creations, or only the already known problematic ones, or should all articles be checked and the problematic ones be listed? Fram (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Hi. All BLP articles are assumed problematic. The onus is on those who want to keep an article to confirm it is properly sourced and not a BLP violation. If they (others, not Sander) can do that in the preparatory week, fine. But afterwards the articles get nuked and need to be built properly. As for "supervoting", closing these discussions is a bit different from 'crat chats as the closer needs to factor in their understanding of the best application of policy and guideline in addition to consensus. I hope I explained what I did clearly enough and why I thought it was in accord with both the letter and spirit of our project. -- Avi (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Supervoting" is every discussion where the closer is supposed to judge consensus and discard !votes which are against our policies our guidelines. This goes for AfDs, discussions like the one you closed here, and (I hope) crat chats as well. The support for e.g. an indef block didn't go against policy or guidelines, you just interpreted the !votes as being emotional reactions to "proposal 4", which seems rather belittling of the opinions of the people who commented: most of them have a long editing history and sufficient knowledge of our policies and guidelines as well. Similarly, your change from "delete all BLP creations" to "delete all, but only after someone has created a list, post it in some unnown public location, and then let anyone who wants to adopt every article they want" doesn't seem to be anything that is mandated by our policies and guidelines but simply your personal preference. Fram (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fram. What I interpreted as emotional was SvG's proposal 4, not the reaction to it. What was overriding in my mind is that blocks and bans are not to be used as punishments but as measures to protect the project. Should the offending articles be removed and Sander only edits exactly in accordance with the limitations (based on other proposals) then the project is protected. So applying the block now would be punitive and not protective. The block can be applied the moment Sander violates those terms. So the issue is not at all belittling the righteous frustration felt by those having to deal with Sander. If the close came across as condescending, I apologize.

The reason for creating the list was the valid concern raised by a number of people that there are valuable articles there. Having a list of articles to be deleted allows people to fix the low-hanging fruit now and gives them a list to work off of in the future. For what it is worth, User:Tazerdadog wants to batch undelete articles into draft space and check them by chunks there. I suggested he bring that up as a new discussion on ANI. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But the concerns were explained repeatedly during the lengthy discussion, and Sander.v.Ginkel chose to go on with similar edits (like sourcing doping cases to utterly unreliable sites) anyway. The indef block prevents further such occurrences without the need to check all his edits. What you do is add a considerable burden of work to protect an editor who has continued to violate our core policies during all this, and who hasn't given any indication of understanding the problem. You are not protecting Wikipedia here.

As for the "valuable articles": no, there are articles on many subjects who are notable, but that doesn't make them valuable articles. Having a list of all deleted articles would also give people the chance to recreate them. Very little actual value would be lost by deleting all these, as was the wish of the community.

Your close consists of a series of replies you could have given as a !vote in the proposals, and which may have convinced others (or not). But as a close, it was a supervote and did not represent consensus (or indicate where a proposal violated policy: the claim that an indef block would be only punishment and not also preventative is of course not correct). Fram (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram, is it possible you misread the close? Every BLP article is to be deleted. There is a grace period of one week to allow projects like wiki project cycling to identify, adopt, and fix easily corrected articles. Also, while an indef block would protect the project, it would not do so more than the current restrictions would. If Sander adheres to all these restrictions, then protecting the project is served. If he doesn't, any admin could indef him at first violation. The only difference is he is not indeffed now. My understanding of our blocking policy in light of all the options shown in the four reasonable proposals is not to allow him an opportunity based on the suggestions in proposals 1, 2, or 5 would be punitive. I thought I made that clear; I guess I didn't. If your perspective on Sander is correct, he'll be indeffed shortly with almost no danger to the project. If your perspective is not correct, proposal 3 would have been punishment. It's not our job to punish people but to ensure they edit in accord with Wikipedia policy or not edit at all. -- Avi (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I join Fram with my abject embarassment at how Avraham decided to supervote close to a outcome that was clearly unsuported (even to the point of being explicitly rejected by proposal 5). I strongly suggest that the administrator revert their closure and allow another admin (possibly NYB?) who has experience with closing contentious ANI discussions to consider. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Abject embarrassment" is pretty strong, but like all contentious discussions it was impossible to please everyone. Taking all the reasonable proposals into account together with the purpose of blocks and bans, I believe my close solves the issues raised in accordance with the predominant views held by the participants and guided by both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not perfect, but I do not think it such an egregious error as to warrant reversion. If you believe my behavior was that inappropriate, the proper response is to take me to arbitration. Which is your privilege, of course. -- Avi (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think an ArbCom case will be accepted on a single incident, I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you. You've has suggestions from several people observing your closure is inappropriate. Do the right thing, revert, and let someone else who clearly isn't supervoting the opportunity to create a truly community consensus based closure. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Two people disapprove, including in one whose support for proposal 3 clearly stated support for the other non indefinite proposals , whereas more than twice as many have overtly posted or thanked me for the close. Now 5/6 people isn't a significant sample either, but it's more than 2, is it not? If you read every statement multiple times, as I did, there was no way to please everyone, let alone uphold the spirit AND letter of EnWiki. I respectfully continue to disagree that the "right" thing would be to reopen the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Hasteur and Fram here. This was a bad close. Why seek community consensus at all if discussions are going to be closed without any regard for any consensus reached? I have to say, also, that it was not accurate to characterise support for an indef ban as just a reaction to Sander's silly tit-for-tat Proposal 4. Reyk _YO! 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So you do not think there was a consensus to prevent Sander from editing as he had in the past? So you do not think there was a consensus that the articles already created could not stay in main space (albeit less clarity on what should be done with them)? Or is your only issue that proposal 3 did not get implemented as is? How would you characterize one editor's support for indef blocking which reads "Silly "Proposal 4" below has convinced me that this user is not interested or able to curb his disruptive behaviour." Is that not a reaction, albeit justified? Also, please recall proposal 3 was not in a vacuum. The close had to encompass all the proposals and all the inter-proposal discussions. Three of the proposals were clear that there were remedies that did not encompass indef blocking which would serve to protect the project. Perhaps a better way to have phrased it in the call would be "proposal 3 does not live in a vacuum, and the apparent consensus which appears in it is balanced enough by proposals 1, 2, and 5 to indicate while there is a clear consensus for the need for protecting the project, there is no overall discussion consensus that indef blocking is the proper response". Regardless, I knew a priori that closing a discussion of this length, magnitude, and complexity was bound to upset a sizeable number of people, but it had to get done and I hadn't tested my asbestos suit recently .

At this point, I feel as if I'm repeating myself a bit. While I understand the disappointment of a number of editors, I believe that my close encompassed the directives espoused by the consensus of all respondents in all proposals and discussions whilst keeping the overarching goal of protecting the project as opposed to unduly punishing editors in mind. I remain a bit surprised with people feeling a massive restriction on BLP editing, a loss of personal "sovereignty" in BLP space, and a one-strike-and-you're-out sword of Damocles is insufficient.

That being said I believe y'all have three options at this point:

1. Accept the close and keep a sharp eye on Sander
2. Argue that the close was not in accordance with policy and open a new ANI discussion
3. Argue that the close exhibited improper behavior or use of administrative tools and open an RfArb

Personally, I am indifferent, as I believe I acted in accordance with policy and guideline, but I recognize some disagree, and we have dispute resolution policies for that purpose. I'm going to try and disengage (although I'll probably fail). If you want to yell at me, but are not going to escalate the close, the best place to do so is my talk page. I'll certainly see it there, although I do not promise to respond (I need to go bandage my overweening ego and let it heal ). -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oyi, I can see why no one stepped up to deal with this. Consensus was, simply, really very wrong. We don't delete all articles started by someone, even from a banned user, without looking at them. The error rate appears to be darn low and the problems mostly minor. It was one of the worst ANI discussions I've ever seen. I just don't get the pile on. All that said, it's clear that the close doesn't match consensus. Sometimes that's a good thing, but generally not. If folks can't get Avi to reclose or reopen the discussion the only next step is to start a new discussion (here, at AN) requesting the overturn of the close. I get the strong sense that Avi isn't moving, so further discussion with him isn't going to be productive. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Reopening the original discussion would just serve confuse matters even more than existed, and my second suggestion above is to open a new discussion here. Having closed this one, I certainly cannot close a discussion discussing my closure, can I? . Consider though that doing so will delay implementation of the protective measures, leaving potentially thousands of violations in main space and Sander having the opportunity to create thousands more during this new discussion. -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a nice bit of blackmail there, impressive behaviour. That your non-consensus supervote close also "delays implementation of the protective measures, leaving potentially thousands of violations in main space" is apparently less problematic? Anyway, since you won't do the decent thing yourself, here we go... Fram (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I think it's disappointing that you've decided to go for the mocking route, with a million condescending winky smilies. Reyk _YO! 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Reyk: It is clear that you do not know me well, or at all, Reyk. I've been less involved in dispute resolution over the past half-decade, dealing more with maintenance work, but over the near-dozen years I've been on Wikipedia, I've always tried to augment text-based discussion with smileys to provide the body-language cues inherent in face-to-face discussions which text-on-screen does not. If I would say something to someone with a smile or grin in person, I'll try to smiley it (ASCII or otherwise) in text. I've always felt that providing more cues in these kinds of conversations tends to reduce, rather than inflame, tensions, but I could be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Look, if you don't see how it looks patronising to give someone a wink or a smug grin smiley while telling them why you've chosen to disregard their opinions, then I don't know what to say to you. At the very least please keep them out of your replies to me in the future; they are obnoxious and irritating. I myself only use the damn things sparingly, and avoid them in a dispute situation. Anyway, I think it's unlikely that your "one-strike-and-you're-out" situation really applies. When Sander plays up again-- and it's a when, not an if-- the result's not going to be anything else than another pointlessly long ANI thread ending in another non-commital wishy-washy close. I'm not going to keep an eye on Sander. As important as I think keeping inaccuracies out of BLPs is, I no longer believe anything will come of it if he gets caught at it again. I feel I have done all I can to deal with the disruption and I'm not going to trouble myself with this topic again. He's your responsibility now, and you're welcome to him. Reyk _YO! 18:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
      • It wasn't meant to be patronizing and I apologize if that is how it was perceived. I will do my best to remember not to use them with you going forward. If the if is truly a when, I have no doubt that someone will report Sander to ANI or even block directly. If you find evidence of willful violation by Sander and you do not want to block yourself, you are welcome to let me know directly (although I think you'll get a faster result on ANI). I believe you are incorrect about assuming the next violation will result in another 100K of textual debate, but neither of us will know for sure unless it happens. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that Sander.v.Ginkel, apparently not having learned anything from the boomerang of his ANI discussion or the failed proposal 4 he posted there, spent yesterday evening with revenge editing. This includes things like tagging a short article with one general source and 6 inline sources with "insufficient inline citations", or tagging a number of articles which point to a specific article in an (old) encyclopedia with "needs page numbers", because of course people are unable to find a named article in an alphabetic encyclopedia.[20][21]... Some of his edits have been reverted by others as "revenge editing" (wording used by both editors!) [22][23]. Not satisfied with tagging articles individually, he then went for the template itself, again insisting that page numbers are necessary even when the actual article / lemma is indicated (which is the case in probably 99% of the cases). This use of the template is similar to the one used by Template:EB1911, which also references lemmas by the article name, and not by page number. The changes to the template were also reversed by another editor. Fram (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I have given them a week's holiday, this editor is just generating far too much disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, [[User:Ritchie333. I left a note/warning on his talk page. I don't know how much clearer to make it, but he is on extremely thin ice and it's cracking in front of our eyes. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Request overturn of close

Clear consensus against an overturn. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

As explained above, the closure by Avraham of the Sander.v.Ginkel discussion boiled down to a supervote close, rejecting parts of the proposals which had consensus behind them (2 and 3) and instead implementing something close to the firmly rejected proposal 5, all with some very flimsy reasoning. What Avraham presents are valid opinions, which would have been welcome as !votes in the proposals (or as a new proposal, although that might have been greeted with some exasperation by some); but no good reasons have been presented why the clear consensus has been ignored in favour of his close, as nothing in the proposals was against policy. Fram (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Avraham closed as an uninvolved closer. His close was very well explained in the closing notes and does not appear to be a supervote. In fact, he's to be commended for wading through this huge discussion, with multiple proposals, and selecting the best choice for both sides. I will note , that Fram was involved with this user prior to this first post on ANI (though not WP:INVOLVED, just so we're clear ) and thus is not neutral towards this user, nor the issue being discussed, as such I would move this section be closed unless there is consensus to the contrary.KoshVorlon 16:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support overturning the close, obviously. I think this was a clear supervote. Obviously I also oppose closing this discussion early. Reyk _YO! 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I didn't like Ritchie's close of another similar discussion but so it goes. The "consensus" process, in which closers interpret the result of a complex discussion in the manner of a haruspex reading entrails, is obviously quite flawed but it's the process we have. Repeating the process until you get the result you like would tend to make matters worse. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose simply put I agree it was a supervote. And that's a problem. But I also think the consensus was way out of wack with policy and felt more like a large personal attack than a policy-based discussion. Avi's final outcome is close to what I think policy can justify. I oppose with a great deal of discomfort, because I really do hate supervotes. That said, we have closers for a reason and I think in this case the closing admin got it right. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of comments: to me supervote means closing a discussion in contradiction to the consensus of the discussion. Sometimes that's the right thing to do (and I think this is such a case) but it's something to be very very careful with. Secondly, I too oppose closing this discussion early unless the SNOW case is really strong. It is a reasonable thing to ask for a close review. And given this was closed against numeric consensus of experienced editors, it's something worth reviewing. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's looking pretty WP:SNOWy to me at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree, but waiting 24 hours from the initial timestamp before asking someone uninvolved to close would not go amiss. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Nobody has any cause to cast aspersions on the good faith close of an uninvolved administrator. I remained silent and uninvolved through that whole discussion. My sober, emotionally detached perspective is that that topic needed to be closed and that Avraham's close was the best summation of the discussion. Because you didn't get the outcome you desired doesn't make the close unreasonable or contrary to rough consensus. Avi's interpretation of the arguments with due consideration of procedural concerns and policy was reasonable and more than fair. From WP:CLOSE, 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 the closure 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.. I strongly encourage you to drop the stick and let this issue rest in the annals of the ANI archive where it belongs. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Avi got it right. This was a mess, and nobody was going to be happy no matter what. I would have closed it much the same way. It was done in good faith and it was necessary. Simple as. Katie^talk 18:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe Avi deserves thanks for attempting a close that was, as he said, bound to please almost none of the participants. At this point, we have a close to work with, and the issue can be re-opened if S.v.G doesn't follow it, so I see no damage in moving forward on the basis he has set up. I'm agnostic on whether the close was a "supervote", which is a charge which is thrown around much too often, in my opinion. Further, if we, as a community, react in this fashion to a difficult close of a convoluted discussion, all it does is discourage admins from closing those discussions, which is probably why I had to come here seeking a closer in the first place. Re-opening is futile, as the original discussion itself shows, as well as the differing opinions in this meta-discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think, on the whole, that this was a great close (the votes for blocking were 23 to 8 in favour, for example) but on the other hand closing stuff like this is a complete pain in the arse (I know, I've done similar before) and as long as we have something to work with that will stop the flow of terrible BLP articles then the main issue has been addressed. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As Andrew D says, if you close a contentious debate it's a near given you're going to brass somebody off, as consensus frequently means people don't get what they asked for. Shit happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose That discussion was one of the messier ones I've seen, and I'm not sure there was a good way to close it at all. The close is well-reasoned and provides as good of a path forward as we're going to get out of this; it goes against the majority vote on some points, but these discussions aren't supposed to be votes in the first place. Litigating the matter further isn't going to help matters. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no good reason to go back into that discussion again. That thread was a mess, wading through it and delivering such a broad analyzing close as Avi did should be commended. No matter what the close ended up being, many were going to be unhappy. Personally, my immediate reaction to the close was to thank the editor and be glad it was closed. It's taken 2/3 of AN/I space and more than 150k bytes to resolve this issue. Let's not create another 150k bytes worth of exposition for another admin to read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Do I agree with every aspect of Avi's close? No. Do I think it was defensible? Yes, I do. Is there anything to be gained by continually re-litigating this until we get the "right" result? Not really. Thanks to Avi for taking on such a messy case that someone was clearly going to complain about no matter what happened. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose. There was no good way to close that discussion. The closer picked one of the least bad ones. I don't agree with every aspect of the close, but it was certainly a very defensible closure based on policy. It did seem supervotey, but it was supervotey in an appropriate way. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

L'honorable - Standard offer request

L'honorable is requesting the Standard Offer.

• L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've transcluded a section from their talkpage below to use for discussion so that they may participate in the conversation. SQL^{Query me!} 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

@PhilKnight: much obliged you unblocked me on English Wikipedia, for which I am most grateful indeed. Despite protestations by some to the contrary, it seems to me that the stigma of being blocked on one Wiki can cause reputational damage on other Wikis? I can well understand that for really bad eggs, such protective measures provide swift mechanisms to ensure careful safe-guarding throughout Wiki's pages. But, unless I am thoroughly mistaken, this could also provide a mechanism for grudge-blocking, thereby possibly creating vicious circles (or downward spirals), ie. a domino effect?

I hope these general comments avoid immediate recrimination(s), and I can elaborate once I know with whom to liaise in more detail. Perhaps you or someone else in authority on the relevant Wiki could guide me as how to treat Steinsplitter's summary block of me? which provides absolutely no right of reply, incl. Talk Page etc on Wikimedia Commons (I have emailed, but to no avail). Many thanks in advance for your co-operation. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OStJ

See also : Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable.

PS. perhaps the carry-on of the Commons Admins above (qv. Commons link) could be reviewed, because for me it lacks impartiality and objectivity, otherwise known as nous (given that Steinsplitter is imposing my total block)? I am still dismayed how the uploading of my own OStJ on Wiki Commons, and subsequent contre-temps, could have led to being so summarily banished. All I wish for is a right of reply, and can provide a précis of Commons discussions, should that be necessary.

I would recommend leaving commons matters on commons instead of bringing them here. SQL^{Query me!} 01:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@SQL: I wholeheartedly agree with you - but not entirely in that I have been totally blocked from Commons & cannot reply anywhere (which attitude seemingly spreads contagion, qv. Wiki13: U heeft geen bewerkingsrechten: De opgegeven reden van uw blokkering luidt: Sokpopmisbruik). Both of which seem to me highly unreasonable (although more so the Commons block), hence my approach here. I don't want to discuss it here either, but I can't on Wiki Commons for reasons as stated, ie. "account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page". Any help and guidance will be much appreciated. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For fear of being reprimanded, may I make just the small point that there is no way the article about Prince Albert should be a featured article at the moment. It needs further rectification. Sorry, but I don't know what else to say? Best, L'honorable (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Without wishing to make a drama out of a crisis, should it not already have been noted, let me state that I am also blocked (as a result of alleged sockpuppetry) on German Wikipedia, whence Steinsplitter hails. I do hope that Wiki has facilities for preventing pursuit of global grudges? Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki as a safe environment

May I also say, further to recently completing a Community Engagement Insights/About CE Insights survey, Wikipedia to me does not now feel as if it is providing security when editing, which surely one might expect (from such a reputable global entity)? However tangental may be a reason, I remain in fear of being blocked again - this cannot be good and clearly negates any notion of "community spirit"; furthermore it certainly is a distraction to anyone attempting to provide Wiki with substantive info (attacked ↔ blocked, etc). Please advise further (& if the contrary can be explained, I should be delighted). Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

First step would be to treat others with proper respect and not introducing conflicts of other Wikis (incl. Commons) to ENWP. Act polite and friendly. Treat others with proper respect. Make your edits to the point. Treat others with proper respect. Make sure your edits are relevant to the subject of the talk page you are editing on. Treat others with proper respect. Do not use sockpuppets. Treat others with proper respect. The Banner talk 13:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you feel that you are being harassed, seek help from an administrator and do not respond in kind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: your advice is helpful - thank you. Can I liaise with an Admin on Wiki Commons via the link you kindly provide above?

The reason being is that my Talk Page on Commons reads as follows (which presently provides me with no right of reply on Commons whatsoever) :

qte

User talk:L'honorable

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Blocked Indefinitely This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Kurdî | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/−

Kindly explain how this was determined as "indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)"? Many thanks. SingSling, 119.73.229.36 19:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Details of the history of this block can be found in the history of this page and in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 62. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

unqte

My initial query simply concerns whether "the stigma of being blocked on one Wiki can cause reputational damage on other Wikis?". Here The Banner, or anyone else for that matter, could be helpful should they so wish. Despite being slightly repetitive, I would not wish to categorise The Banner's intervention above as harassment, but rather to engage his and/or others' support, with a view to my continuing to help improve Wiki's pages (qv. Armorial britannique - clearly more difficult when blocked from Commons).

I can provide much further explanation, as necessary (but suffice to say both blocks arose after uploading of my own OStJ decoration); thus with whom can I liaise ref Wiki Commons whilst being subject to a total block from communicating on that Wiki?

Thanking you in advance for any advice and assistance - looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. in the circumstances, how to petition to be unblocked on Wiki Commons svp?

Prince Albert

Qv. User talk:DrKay : Prince Albert (featured article).

Hi Celia Homeford : I note that you have reverted my edits to the article about Prince Albert, which you reversed & then someone else recorrected you but you persist in reverting to your version of events.

I am afraid to say that your edits are incorrect on all sorts of levels, but let us just take two grammatical ones first, since these surely are beyond dispute!

In the blazon you state : "plume of peacock's feathers" this could be "plume of peacock's feathers", "plume of peacock feathers" or "plume of a peacock's feathers", but NOT what you say.

Under Legacy you state : "All manner of objects are named after Prince Albert, from Lake Albert in Africa to the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan..." ; lakes and cities are never normally described as objects! Reverting back & do let's please work together to perfect this article. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking ahead with hindsight

RSVP re my comments - others are quick to launch volleys of abuse, but not so quick when easily countermanded. If there is an easy answer as to why everyone has gone silent please do share it with me. Many thanks, L'honorable (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: do you realise how this looks from the outside? Please let us both draw a line under this episode. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Return to the source

Please advise a telephone number/email with whom I can liaise directly so as to absolve myself of these present difficulties. Otherwise the arguments keep going round and round in circles. SVP, L'honorable (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Who is this Utilisateur:195.220.105.13 svp?

Under l'Armorial britannique, a mauvais blason has been introduced in the merry-go-round - please advise. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(& sous User talk:Huon:

@L'honorable: I don't have an opinion on what happened over at the Commons. The discussion seems to be old and archived. I would strongly advise you not to raise Commons-related issues on the English Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

Strong advice

Does that equal back down? L'honorable (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• All I wish for is to have a voice as to why I was blocked indefinitely on Wiki Commons. Noone so far seems able/inclined to help provide one. Please advise. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there really such an interminable lack of coherence between Commons / English Wiki / French Wiki / etc? I don't believe so. But, I am at pains being on the outside as to how to bridge the gap? Veuillez nous aviser! L'honorable (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We cannot tell who is editing from a certain IP address, and even if we could we would respect that IP editor's privacy. If you have issues on the French Wikipedia, you will need to discuss them over there, for example at the relevant French article's talk page. The English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Commons and whatever other projects the Wikimedia Foundation hosts are separate sister projects, and they should be kept separate. Bringing issues from one project over to another is strongly frowned upon and in fact saw you blocked once already. Huon (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: I agree but am well aware of how to be pushed from one bureau to the other. Simply put, how can I satisfactorily liaise with a Wiki Commons Admin - perhaps you know how? Merci, L'honorable (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I cannot give you any advice on that. Huon (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

De rien : je recherche toujours! Merci, L'honorable (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. qui est l'inconnu : User:195.220.105.13 svp? Huon le connais?

I already answered that question above. Again, this is an issue on the French Wikipedia and should be discussed over there (and since I don't speak French beyond the very basics, asking me questions in French is rather unhelpful). Huon (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem on French Wiki, but there is one on Wiki Commons, which everybody seems to want to swerve... You have a Wiki Commons ID. So, much obliged if you could raise the issue yourself? "Why is it that L'honorable was so summarily blocked without any right of reply?"... AND let's see what they say. Be fab if you could help - looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to get involved with that. There was a community discussion about your conduct on the Commons that led to the block; I will not engage in proxy edits on behalf of a blocked user. Huon (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully aware of that community discussion. But, the whole point it wasn't much of a "community" discussing it. I do not know those concerned (do you?), but they seemed to quickly agree among themselves that I was persona non grata. Why? Who knows, but possibly... they didn't want to know...

Question is: in such circumstances what right of reply is there? Please advise. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Armorial britannique

Huon : I now see why you were trying draw attention to French Wikipedia. Please see my latest corrections to l'Armorial britannique. It seems to me a sad state of affairs when, having spent a great deal of time and effort to set up an article worthy of reading, one is subject to constant contradiction. How is it that inaccuracies can be introduced (by different IPs) & nobody seems to care who is doing this?

Nonetheless, you may well have done us all a favour? How is it just when such an article as l'Armorial britannique is nearing completion (sic) one who knows about the subject is suddenly blocked from Wiki Commons?

Apart from anything else, I trust that the introduction of Oxford University's arms is welcome sous Universités et sociétés savantes before we treat any other discrepancies? L'honorable (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord Snowdon (formerly Viscount Linley) now bears his father's arms (without GCVO circlet) & Lady Sarah Chatto's are likewise but borne on a lozenge ; Lord Ulster, being first non-royal generation bears his patrilineal arms as commoner, until such time as he may succeed to his father's titles, marshalling appropriately those of his wife's family. L'honorable (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The most important issue at hand is that by having updated this article, it would seem I have now been excluded (from Commons) just at its most critical point. Without the background there would be no article. How can this be (if Wiki wishes to remain properly encyclopædic that is)?

PS. how is it that edits happen without any record (am I missing something)? L'honorable (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

PPS. Please remove the caption Princes consorts britanniques and replace with Prince consort britannique in the article Albert de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha. There has been only one Prince Consort. Merci à vous. L'honorable (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@L'honorable: you are blocked on commons and frwiki, which means that you may not edit, and it is against policy to edit on behalf of a duly blocked user at least on this Wikipedia, and I presume all of the others. I am not an administrator on any of the other wikis and I have only very limited experience on commons, et je ne comprend pas vraiment bien en francais. It's up to you to address your block on those wikis, administrators on this wiki can't help you. Please stop asking editors here to deal with your block or violate it on your behalf; if you continue you will be re-blocked.

To address your commons block, please start with commons:Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block.

You actually don't appear to be blocked on the French Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, so you should be as free to edit there as you are here, subject to policies and community norms which differ between different Wikipedias, so I really can't help you there either.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: sort of proves my point - people are quick to assume I'm blocked on something when I'm not & they're queueing up to block me again (or is that not what your message was meant to suggest). In other words, once you've been sent down rehabilitation ain't easy, no matter what the initial cause. Anyway I have just deleted your incorrect assertion that I am blocked on French Wiki - I hope that does not lead to a sanction? (In any event, had you taken the time to read carefully : There is no problem on French Wiki, but there is one on Wiki Commons, which everybody seems to want to swerve... you presumably would not have issued such inappropriate warnings)?

You keep reading me my rights : you are blocked on commons, which means that you may not edit, and it is against policy to edit on behalf of a duly blocked user at least on this Wikipedia, and I presume all of the others. I am not an administrator on any of the other wikis and I have only very limited experience on commons, et je ne comprend pas vraiment bien en francais. It's up to you to address your block on those wikis, administrators on this wiki can't help you. Please stop asking editors here to deal with your block or violate it on your behalf; if you continue you will be re-blocked. (Why do you put this in bold, unless to try to look clever and attract others' attention when I already know it?)

I am only too aware of my rights now & I am scared stiff of doing anything just in case somebody takes exception... BUT, this is not the way. I invite people (like Alphabeta & Clindberg who are helpful), to take a look at my contributions in aid of enhancing Wiki (& I so wish that much less time could be spent arguing one way or the other)... My question was & remains that when one is blocked in totality from one Wiki (in this instance of course Wiki Commons - it has been described by another as a grudge block), how on earth is it possible to remedy matters?

You referred me to : Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block. But this is absolutely useless in my case because I am not allowed to edit that site. On top of that, you intimate that by bringing this up on this Wiki I will get blocked... Comment?? Please be more helpful (unless that is you are angling to exclude me). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a sorry state of affairs when one cannot even seek guidance from fellow Wikipedians without being reprimanded or scalded with the suggestion that sanctions may follow, if I continue to ask such questions...

Please could someone read carefully my question & answer accordingly? Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've offered a link to the information you need to read, in which are detailed your options for appealing a block when you can't edit the site (to quote: "Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator.") By "another administrator", they mean a Wikimedia Commons administrator, not an administrator on a separate wiki such as this one. Each Wikimedia project is separate and independent, with its own policies and administrators. Nobody on English Wikipedia can appeal the block on your behalf, nor can we email anybody on your behalf. This is the best answer anyone here can give you, and this is not the first time this answer has been given to you.

I'm not trying to warn you off from addressing your commons block, I and others are only trying to point you in the right direction. If you won't accept this response then that's only on you. However, I am warning you for the final time that if you continue to inquire on English Wikipedia about your Commons block without taking any of the advised action to address it yourself, after now having been given a link to address it and being advised by multiple editors that there's nothing more we can do for you here, you are being disruptive and will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: many thanks indeed for your helpful advice above which is crystal clear. Rest assured I have no intention to enquire again here about a commons matter; however, I should just point out, solely so you can get an understanding as to how things look from here, that I have now sent 4 e-mails over the past four weeks and the only reply I have received is one saying that he can't deal with it... Looks like I'm a bit stuffed! Anyway, really do appreciate your help - much better liaising with those who are trying to help (than people who delight in stitching one up). Many thanks again. Best, L'honorable (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Other people's talk page posts should not be changed, added to, or have words amended or removed. It is disruptive to the discussion, regardless of reason. (Re this and this.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I knew this which is precisely why I clarified it - you noticed, thanks - whilst editing... Still doesn't alter the fact that no-one has so far addressed my concerns as raised above. What to do? L'honorable (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot disagree with those who have pointed out that these are different wikis, different communities, and you need to adress the issue yourself within the other wikis. You can request an unblock at Commons via the link provided above, even if your talk page access has been removed (which I don't know if it has, but you said you cannot edit the website), since their unblocking procedure has an email option, but in any case it looks like you have been explicitly asked not to bring up your issues at Commons here. It is also not very strange if people thought you were blocked at fr.wiki when you asked editors to make specific edits there. It would seem much more constructive to use your volunteer time at en.wiki to deal with en.wiki articles. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, L'honorable, but under no circumstances is it allowed to alter edits from somebody else. Even the correction of grave mistakes is not allowed.

By the way, you state that the Commons page about appealing your block is useless as you are not allowed to edits there (Did you manage to get your talk page blocked too?). But is still gives you an option: Alternatively, they may request unblocking with an appropriate reason via e-mail to the blocking administrator or another administrator.

But please, stop bringing your Commons-conflict to ENWP. The Banner talk 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there - I seem to be like a punch bag. I have no intention of bringing any Commons issues here at all. The only thing I want to know is how to approach Wiki Commons when I have been issued with a total block. Had this been answered in the first instance there would have been no need to have mentioned it further. Anyway looks like e-mail is the only possible option, although I have already tried this & have received no reply for several weeks now. So, in the spirit of co-operation, if anyone could advise a recommended e-mail (re Commmons) that would be much much appreciated. Many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization and overlinking

Please don't capitalize words mid-sentence or overlink common terms. You were told not to do this at least twice before in January 2016 and October 2015, but you are persisting in doing it again. This wrongheaded stubbornness is rapidly taking you towards another indefinite block. DrKay (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please give over, Dr Kay. I have made some valuable edits to Wiki, and I can appreciate no-one likes to be contradicted (nor do I!), but it just seems to me that I should bury my head in the sand because clearly I am on everyone's watchlist & the moment I overturn someone's else's edit I get it in the neck. I am going to sign off now because I have had enough, but please reflect on why you insist on calling David Cameron's elder (not older) brother as Allan when he is in fact called Alex??? I am quite dumbfounded & certainly seem to be the target of a heck of a lot of abuse for simply wanting matters to be correct. I suppose by your now stating in writing "This wrongheaded stubbornness is rapidly taking you towards another indefinite block" is a way of your starting to orchestrate this process? If enough people follow your lead & momentum builds...

I have stated more than once that we should work together. Why not? L'honorable (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. you even now lecture me about The Prince Consort and revert the edits which were supported by another. This is clear bias against me. Review that article yourself & you should easily be able to see that it is not worthy of being a so-called "Featured Article" in its present state. Morever, why do you inject such a tone of hostility in your dealings with me, when I am sure if we both take a deep breath we'd get along just fine.

If you bothered to investigate the matter you would easily discover that his name is Allan as well as Alex and he is an older and an elder brother. But that is beside the point. It is my comment. You must not edit other people's comments. You have been told this multiple times, even in the section above this one twice. If I choose to say Allan or choose to say older instead of elder it is not for you to alter my comment. You even went beyond altering the name and adjective by introducing links, words, and tense changes. You even altered the meaning of my comment by changing "may" to "will", which changes the meaning from implying that it is not certain but only one possibility to indicating definite certainty, something I did not do. You must not edit other people's comments. You must not change their meaning. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: why adopt such a grumpy tone with me? You of course may choose what you wish to state on Wiki, but please defer to those who have facts and knowledge at their fingertips and also desist from insulting me further as you have done in your opening gambit above.

Moreover you have swerved my offer of working together. Why? L'honorable (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. to me it looks like you are simply spoiling for a fight - which by the way I shall swerve. Thank you.

Blatant hostility from a fellow Wikipedian (much to my disappointment)

To say that I am cheesed off by all of this is an understatement, since could have been foretold by under the section Prince Albert (above) but you can read beneath all the flagrant name-calling, abuse, accusatory behaviour, a full explanation (following which I implore whoever has the power for this bullying to stop svp). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Albert, Prince Consort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a strange feeling this is what you are angling for - why, oh why DrKay? Do you really want to see the back of me? Anyway doesn't alter the fact that the article needs correcting. L'honorable (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no Talk Page about The Prince Consort so are you trying something funny?

JUST SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IN ADVANCE, DR KAY IS DOING HIS BEST TO LEAD ME TOWARDS BEING BLOCKED. (You will all be delighted to note, that I shall take no part in such a miserable exercise, even if it does leave the article about Prince Albert worse off - sorry. And it dismays me to see that fellow Wikipedians - far grander than me - wish to spend more time knocking spots off each other than actually getting on with improving Wiki's content. Oh well, c'est la vie, I suppose).

Could someone other than me review what Kay is playing at re Prince Albert : Reverted edits by L'honorable (talk) to last version by DrKay - I'm not prepared to risk getting blocked because all the danger signs are writ loud (despite however correct my edits may be). Not good behaviour by Kay, but hey-ho. L'honorable (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have made this point at the top, but is it really the case that people like me, having been blocked previously, are considered soft targets among the community? If so, this effectively renders me a second-class member, since such as in this instance, I shall give way to a more aggressive editor (despite their contributions being clearly inaccurate). Furthermore, it also seems to me that the more the likes of Kay sling mud at me then others will buy into it (which presumably is his strategy). Not good. Let me just remind you that Kay still reckons David Cameron's elder brother goes by the name of Allan! Enough said. Over & out, let him get on with it. L'honorable (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not Dr Kay leading you towards a permanent block. It is the stubborn, not listening, dead horse pulling L'honorable who is leading L'honorable towards a permanent block. You got help and advise enough about how to behave, but you keep whining and bashing. It is just that behaviour that is leading you to the exit. And it is all of your own making.

So again: stop bringing your Commons-conflict to ENWP, stop whining, read the advice regarding a block appeal on Commons and act upon it and treat other editors with respect. The Banner talk 08:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: I think you want rid of me - is that correct? I hear no compliments for anything I have done on Wiki's behalf (please note that it is in no way benefiting me - in fact it is reducing my street-cred, self esteem, etc. that is if one buys in to what my detractors - which seem to grow in number by the day - say about me on Wiki). So let's please get this straight : I only wish to impart info about which I know a great deal, ie. heraldry & genealogy (to make a broad brushstroke of a grouping) but I am subject to incessant hostility. I must be absolutely bonkers to want to put up with this sort of treatment, but the same applies elsewhere as to why people would want to subject others to this type of treatment, rather than endeavouring to work together. It is a great pity that I seem to be Public Enemy No.1. But what can I do about that, apart from become a mute. There remains a great deal of inaccuracy on Wiki's pages about heraldry & related matters (some of which had previously been corrected)... Anyway, we surely should all try to enjoy the experience of imparting good knowledge, rather than persecuting each other (for a slight difference in how things should be phrased or whatever the latest complaint is). My sole intention is to improve Wiki's quality and hopefully you can attest to this, once you look at my substantive edits (rather than all the argy-bargy). Ciao, L'honorable (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am no longer bringing any commons matters to this Wiki - already dealt with above. So please don't keep perpetuating it (& read the latest first).

Such is my lack of confidence in Wiki procedures, I trust you won't mind my having launched a RfC, qv. "Personally I cannot see how direct threats to have me blocked can be viewed as like a "toddler whose ice cream fell on the floor" etc...". Such action has never been my style, but despite having absolute confidence in my own knowledge of the subjects I provide edits on Wiki, I now realise that I won't last long unless I too become more assertive. L'honorable (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we all try to work together? All I want to do is make Wiki a superlative reference source, and just so you can appreciate something about the accuracy of my contributions, it wasn't till recently that Wiki stated that Prince Albert was Great Master of the Order of the Bath (rather than Grand Master)... I do not like being vilified for being accurate. All best wishes & let our next liaison be a pleasant one svp. L'honorable (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not want to get rid of you. I just want you to behave like an adult and not like a toddler whose ice cream fell on the floor.

It is your own behaviour that is hurting you. The Banner talk 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, I am glad you confirm that you do not want rid of me, just a shame that couldn't be said without making yet another sly remark, nor your answering my question : Why don't we all try to work together? L'honorable (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I and several others asked you explicitly not to link common terms. What did you do? Linked the word "city". I and several others asked you not to capitalize words that are not proper names mid-sentence. I explained (in an edit summary) that direct quotations should not be altered.[24]. What did you do? Altered the quote from Pinches and capitalized nouns mid-sentence. And, no, there is absolutely no need to capitalize nouns in blazons. I even linked[25] to a page in Boutell where you can read blazons: https://archive.org/stream/heraldryancient00avelgoog#page/n311/mode/2up. Are any words in the blazons capitalized? No. Any person with a true knowledge of heraldry would know that it is not necessary to capitalize any words in the blazon. I personally choose to capitalize the colors to distinguish the heraldic color Or from the grammatical conjunction, but it is not a requirement and many heralds choose not to. What did you do? Ignored the evidence and broke the reference so that the article became defaced by two error messages: "Harv error: link from #CITEREFBoutellAveling2010 doesn't point to any citation." and "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAvelingBoutell1890."[26] Anyone who incorrectly claims that the Titles Deprivation Act regulates heraldry, as you did[27], is clearly not an expert on heraldry.

What other edits did you make? Bolding the name of the article in an image caption. We don't do that per MOS:BOLD. Linked the words "The Prince Consort", which redirect back to the article. We don't do that per WP:OVERLINKING.

You know all about capitalization on wiki and overlinking already because you are aware of the guidelines.[28][29][30] However, you deliberately choose to continue with these edits anyway. I see no point in trying to engage you further in discussion: you are incorrigible and regardless of how many times an editor will try to educate you or point you at sources or point out guidelines or ask you to stop, you will carry on and carry on and carry on in the same way that you've always done until you are eventually banned. DrKay (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Others have mentioned to me that English Wiki is unnecessarily argumentative & aggressive, and on current form I can't say that I disagree. Kay has just spent quite some time presenting a case basically accusing me of not adhering to Wiki's guidelines. Let me succinctly set down the reasons why (in the hope that much more time does not have to be wasted on such diversions) :

1. Linked the word "city". I linked the word city because I had just rephrased "All manner of objects are named after Prince Albert,..." to "Prince Albert's name is associated with ...", and it follows that a city is an example of the types of place so associated with him... I don't know what anyone else thinks, but to describe a city as an object (which is what the present article does) seems mighty odd to me?
2. with regards to your attempt at rubbishing me on the matter of heraldry, if you could pause your indignant slights just for a moment, you should of course state tincture in reference to Or, not color : Silver & Gold (alias Argent & Or) are not colors/colours in heraldry, being metals. You probably know this, and it was just a lax mode of terming when writing in a vexed state. No worries, let's both get on side, and the bottom line is this : I was capitalising the charges (which you call nouns!) in the blazon following your lead by capitalising the tinctures - you have kindly explained your thinking and now you know mine too, so surely better already, to understand each other, rather than being at loggerheads, n'est-ce pas? When you say "it is not a requirement and many heralds choose not to" (with regards to how blazons are written), this is purely your opinion; in actual fact, heralds (ie. the ones who have legal authority, namely those appointed by the Crown) do not choose, as you say : heralds must follow the prevailing strictures of the day which are set by the senior King of Arms, be it Garter or Lord Lyon. Having worked at the College of Arms (clearly rendering me a nincompoop on heraldic matters!), I can clearly recall when Colin Cole was Garter, Conrad Swan was Clarenceux and John Brooke-Little was Norroy, and all three Kings of Arms had differing opinions on how best to write blazons! BUT, they all followed Sir Colin Cole's lead, no arguments and that was that all Tinctures, Ordinaries and Charges are capitalised. By way of evidence I have just randomly Googled Grant of Arms image and find the following : https://thurman.org.uk/arms/5.jpg but feel free to try this for any other recent Grant of Arms and you will see that it proves my point, that all Tinctures, Ordinaries and Charges are capitalised. So here is the nub of it, it is all well and good to provide references such as Boutell, but he was never a herald thus what he says (although brilliant as a writer about heraldry - I am a big fan of his) is not authoritative (in a legal sense) and therefore Boutell's blazonry is not cast in stone and should be regarded as an indication (& very helpful ones too I might as well add). And, in any event, Wiki's whole raison d'être is to write fluently and accurately in as modern a style as possible; and, surely this should extend to heraldic blazoning custom? The blazon I wrote conforms to present heraldic custom as decreed by Thomas Woodcock, the present Garter. I hope this disabuses anyone who could possibly believe that I am not worth listening to when it comes to matters of heraldry (note: I did not say adhere to, but listen to!) thus in direct contradiction of Kay's inferences that I am a buffoon on heraldry which brings me on to the next slur...
3. "Anyone who incorrectly claims that the Titles Deprivation Act regulates heraldry, as you did[4], is clearly not an expert on heraldry." Look at the link and I did say not that ... totally putting words in my mouth. Anyway, I have no wish to see Kay sanctioned for bandying around such slander, so allow me to continue. This whole bit could, in my view, be dropped from the article about Prince Albert, because it is really referring to how the British Royal Family de-Germanized itself during the First World War, culminating in the Titles Deprivation Act. Please advise so that this can be tidied up... It is really is desperate when one has to defend oneself against things that one did not even say in the first place, don't you think?
4. the next one : I bolded the caption image because what it currently says is incorrect and I wanted to make clear what is correct and that is that Prince Albert's coat of arms was not granted by the College of Arms. One should properly say it was granted by Garter King of Arms, or one could say that it was granted at the College of Arms.... but not by the College.... Not fussed which version chosen, but needs correcting...

The bottom line is this : I made various improvements (ie. corrections) to the Prince Albert article which seems to have caused DrKay to blow his top. Rather than working together, he simply reverts my edits in their entirety, makes all manner of accusations about me (which I really don't appreciate), tries to lead others into ganging up on me, all of which could have been avoided had he paused for thought, taken on board the veracity of my corrections and then worked together to tidy up the end result. However, what there has been is a lot of mud slinging and the article is still not correct. He has not even addressed the other corrections which I made (and which he has intentionally or inadvertently wiped out). Totally baffled as to how this can possibly be the most efficient way of improving Wiki and merely reinforces my initial point that once blocked (seemingly) always a second-class citizen (there to be bullied). This cannot be right. Anyway enough & I sincerely hope my points above can be taken on board thereby refuting the unfounded comments unhelpfully expounded by DrKay, as well as countering the smears of being so-called stubborn or whining as others have alleged. This really is a fine how-do-you-do and it would please me no end if we could get back to a level playing field. Any ideas as to how this could be achieved (what if DrKay were to reverse his reversion of my edits to Prince Albert and whilst doing so make whatever amendments he so wishes? Surely better than completely wiping out the corrections)?

Also let me repeat yet again that I always seek to work together to improve Wiki's pages - hopefully this sort of detailed analysis of reasoning is of help? L'honorable (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. the current text of the Prince Albert article reads : "The arms are unusual, being described by S. T. Aveling as a "singular example of quartering differenced arms, [which] is not in accordance with the rules of Heraldry, and is in itself an heraldic contradiction."[137] Prior to his marriage Albert used the arms of his father undifferenced, in accordance with German custom." I introduced the last sentence, but was cut short before being able to provide a more balanced assessment of Prince Albert's COA than I believe the current text provides. Where the quotation states : "is not in accordance with the rules of Heraldry, and is in itself an heraldic contradiction", this could easily be solved by amending it to read : "is not in accordance with the [British] rules of Heraldry, and is in itself an heraldic contradiction". Can explain further, if really necessary! Thanks.

PPS. this clearly shows that I have no wish to edit war (as DrKay was quick to put forward) and rather makes it appear that it is he who is rather more inclined to do so. Nonetheless further strife can be avoided if he can reply in a considered manner. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking ahead

So as to be mindful of all potential pitfalls (or indeed traps), please note that DrKay made an edit to Mary Foley-Berkeley, 17th Baroness Berkeley subsequent to my reviewing the article about Anthony Gueterbock, 18th Baron Berkeley. It should be more than evident that his contribution was minimal, and that the article about her is in need of much improvement. However I am just flagging this up in advance, since I am wondering why Kay did not actually improve the article himself, but might simply be trying to set down a marker so as to launch another volley of abuse at me at a later date. Unfortunately I don't think it is worth the risk of my trying to improve the Lady Berkeley article. Hope you can understand why!

To be honest, how Wiki can let itself get into this impasse, where contributors, like me (who know the subject inside out) become so scared stiff of putting the slightest foot wrong that Wiki fails to get the decent enhanced info that it so richly deserves? This is an anathema to me. All I ever receive is abuse and complaints. The odd compliment or two wouldn't go amiss. Haha...

Should I be brave (or foolhardy) enough to continue editing the Berkeleys (after finishing the necessary improvements to Tony Berkeley)?! L'honorable (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As a point of order, were I to revert DrKay's reversion of my corrections qv. Albert, Prince Consort: Revision history would that constitute violating 3rr? Whilst that would be interesting to know from a technical viewpoint, why doesn't an Admin step in at this point just to give a once-over. I say this only because I am so terrorised by whatever technical flaw(s) in my editing DrKay may yet uncover that all I wish to know is whether there is any possible way my edits could be construed not to be made in good faith and/or not to the benefit of Wiki. I know that I make all edits in the best of faith and solely for Wiki's benefit (but that seems to count for nothing), so what do you think? Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord Berkeley

Please advise what all this means with regard to Anthony Gueterbock, 18th Baron Berkeley :

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "1 = 100px?" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "honours" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "motto" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox officeholder with unknown parameter "arms" (this message is shown only in preview).

Your help would be very much appreciated - how anyone is supposed to have expert knowledge about history, heraldry & all that, as well as being totally up to speed with the computer jargon above beats me. They are two completely different skill sets.

I don't know what goes through your mind when updating a character such as the present Lord Berkeley? But, for me, who is he? what does he do? what was his OBE awarded for? how does he connect with the ancient Lords Berkeley (if true) etc? The last comment is made, simply because there ar fake titles around, although Lord Berkeley's is genuine although technically he does sit in the HoL as Lord Gueterbock, which is perhaps something Wiki readers might like to be appraised of? Anyway, I do hope I can garner some support rather than constant argy-bargy (which quite obviously reduces the amount of time one has to introduce good info to Wiki's pages).

Await yours & many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No reply (when you need it) - anyway I discover that the Infobox was corrupted by someone else [31]! & I just hope and pray that having gone to these lengths to improve the article, I now do not receive my usual bashing from the usual suspects. The article is a great deal better than it was, but is by no means perfect, and I would much appreciate some input from those who know better than me before tidying it up. Much appreciated. Best, L'honorable (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. the Infobox layouts are a bit of a nightmare, don't you think? All connected up to various other internet media - very clever - yet almost impossible to convey accurately the correct data within them (huh?)...

All I wish for is to feel secure in editing (so long as I am providing useful & factual info ofc!) without fear of attack from those who dislike me for whatever reason(s), which seem to change day-by-day, so let's call them my detractors.

Simply put, a feeling of security, not threatened by ambush, nor by vulgarity or by downright aggression etc would be much appreciated. L'honorable (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello too, and thank you for advising me. However, I think you will find that there has been no violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. My edits about the Prince Albert article have been explained more than amply on my Talk page and in such detail that no-one could be left in any doubt behind my thinking or rationale. DrKay has been invited to co-operate but so far has made no effort to work together and is clearly attempting to have me removed from Wikipedia (for reasons best known to himself). Best, L'honorable (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that you are trying to game the system but it's still edit-warring even if there aren't three reverts in 24 hours. You can avoid being blocked by undoing your last revert and raising individual issues on the talk page. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback : I tried to do as DrKay suggests but "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits". Please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. I am well behind the curve as Wiki procedures, but can simply reiterate what I stated on my Talk Page, namely that my sole aim is to help improve Wiki's content. L'honorable (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

When you see the message "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits" there is a link shown (highlighted in blue: "done manually"). That link will take you to a page explaining how to do it. DrKay (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming more obtuse by the minute. L'honorable (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. since you clearly know Wiki procedures far better than I do, could we please pick this discussion up again when you have done that (original statement deleted : ie. manually revert) & then we can just work together on the factual substance of the article. This would surely be a much better way forward? Thank you. L'honorable (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am now logging off giving time for everyone to pause for thought. This is no way for Wiki to reach amicable and considered decisions, for the project's future progression. Let's liaise again tomorrow. Best L'honorable (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

qte

@DrKay: you are right about that - the discussion has spread like wild fire and as you attest boils down to whether or not I am Mabelina. I am not, but I am glad that we have at last got to the bottom of why you are so keen to see me blocked (nonetheless I am not so naïve as to think this is the last I will hear about this). When will my divorce ever end? L'honorable (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

unqte

Robin's Heraldry mock-ups

This is the heraldic achievement of Philip May and de jure matrimonii of PM Theresa May too.
I've also added it to the list @ Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This Armstrong-Jones heraldic lozenge applies to daughters of the Earls of Snowdon. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robin, are these heraldic images available yet on Commons?

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, DrKay, but why are you repeating a SPI that is already done? See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mabelina/Archive. The Banner talk 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Slow-burn heraldry edit war. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded slow-burn heraldry dispute

I do not dispute that a slow-burn heraldry dispute has been caused by DrKay - he has seemingly been doing his utmost to entwine me in any Admin noticeboard so as to achieve my riddance from Wiki. He has attempted to conjoin edit-war & socketpuppetry to make me look in the wrong. Please adjudicate in good faith - many thanks. Best, L'honorable (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for resuming the same pattern of disruptive editing that got you blocked previously. Your WP:OFFER is therefore revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You're fired!

Naturally I am dismayed to receive such an avalanche of criticism. This, in my view, has been cooked up without a clear vision of what to pin on me, hence edit-war / socketpuppetry / etc : hoping that some mud sticks. I can't say that I wasn't forewarned either, because it was predicted that I'd "blocked again soon" immediately upon my unblock : this to me sounded like a threat.

I made the point at the top that once blocked, always more likely to be reblocked seems to apply on Wiki, as indeed now proves to be the case. Would you mind if I were to remind you that I am not Mabelina - never have been, never will be - the fact that I even deigned to make such enquiry as to whether I was falling victim of bullying &/or intimidatory tactics for being associated with my previous socketpuppetry block (qv. Mabelina), would surely have been particularly foolhardy if indeed I were Mabelina ???

All I can glean is that : you don't like me, my face doesn't fit and therefore, you're fired!

I put it like this because it is clearly too late to blather on about technicalities (and obviously my contributions aren't good enough!), simple? L'honorable (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. my edits made always in good faith & for Wiki's encyclopædic advancement... (no way to run an encyclopædia, just in my view)....

Qv: Arms de jure matrimonii of Theresa May, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, 2016– (before my contribution & after - worthwhile?)

I am now excluded from participating in English Wiki but let me just give an example as to why one person might wish that to be so : I don't have access to Pinches at the moment, but I've decided to make this edit anyway: it's three feathers not three peacocks and "peacock" here is an adjective (qv. Prince Albert) - answer GUESS WHAT (I can no longer take part because DrKay does not like me anymore - oh sorry, he never did & was waiting for a technical chance to pounce, namely reigniting socketpuppetry, edit-war, etc)..... I'm definitely persona non grata (according to the whole Wiki community?)....... since this is not edit-warring per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=768735844&oldid=768721217 I shall repair all the damage - so why am I now blocked?

So, even though the protagonist has withdrawn his damaging statements as to my credibility, AND that the article which I edited in good faith remains for the most part in tact, L'honorable is STILL SUBJECT TO WHAT I SAW COMING, NAMELY the aggressive pursuit of hounding me out of Wiki. PLEASE ADVISE. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent

Je m'excuse! I did not mean to say five times (but clearly unless someone can help, I am on my way out!) :

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Requests for comment The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

User talk:L'honorable

My future on Wiki has so gravely recently been cast in doubt by such unwarranted blocks as to my alleged previous socketpuppetry and by so many Admins on different wikis, I should imagine that it is now impossible for me to prove my innocence (partially to blame), worthiness, usefulness, eagerness etc? Either way I have been compromised by being associated with my ex-wife's User name & after the WP STANDARD OFFER not much seems to have changed : we still seem to be associated. Could this now cease once & for all, please? (Perhaps, by way of brevity, could you see that some in the Wiki word detection unit might describe such phrases as being standardised English? Jaja!!) I have noticed that one Wiki cites to another about "such" a transgression (ie. socketpuppetry or non-socketpuppetry as the case may be), can treat one (ie. me : L'honorable) without prejudice, thus when requested (or in modern parlance, challenged!), the other Wiki states they have "nothing to do with one another"! Admin guidance please - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

re Thomas Scott-Ellis, 8th Baron Howard de Walden, Paul Gore-Booth, Baron Gore-Booth, Baron Berners, David Brewer (broker), heraldry etc...

My future on Wiki has so gravely recently been cast in doubt by such unwarranted blocks as to my alleged previous socketpuppetry and by so many Admins on different wikis, I should imagine that it is now impossible for me to prove my innocence (partially to blame), worthiness, usefulness, eagerness etc? Either way I have been compromised by being associated with my ex-wife's User name & after the WP STANDARD OFFER not much seems to have changed : we still seem to be associated. Could this now cease once & for all, please? (Perhaps, by way of brevity, could you see that some in the Wiki word detection unit might describe such phrases as being standardised English? Jaja!!) I have noticed that one Wiki cites to another about "such" a transgression (ie. socketpuppetry or non-socketpuppetry as the case may be), can treat one (ie. me : L'honorable) without prejudice, thus when requested (or in modern parlance, challenged!), the other Wiki states they have "nothing to do with one another"!

Admin guidance please - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Naughpo: qv. Sir Mark Warby, svp. L'honorable (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, being disruptive until somebody got sick of it.

You have been warned that it is only your own behaviour that brings you into trouble. But still you go on with the grace of a heavy tank. Change your ways, my friend, and do it quick!

Ow, and side note: during a block you can use your talk page only and only to discuss your block. Nothing else. And that means nothing else. Not even a chat about the dodgy behaviour of Dr.Kays, Commons, Heraldry or "Albert, Prince Consort". Not allowed. The Banner talk 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(You noted that I made an accidental removal: yes (if it was me it was def accidental) what did I remove in that instance?) I am so fully aware that folk on Wiki do not like me that I do not know where to begin. BUT, Wiki's aim is to be an info service, surely (& all this ping-pong does not suit me, unfortunately for me that is!)? L'honorable (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. what does "Ow, and side note" mean? Thanks. L'honorable (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PPS. as a result of asking for Admin guidance or something else svp? There's always another bash : You have been warned that it is only your own behaviour that brings you into trouble. But still you go on with the grace of a heavy tank. Change your ways, my friend, and do it quick!
PPPS. @The Banner: if anyone of my detractors had previously said anything so kind I am sure that it would not have come to this! so when you say "my friend" is that for real? For me, grace & heavy tanks don't fit together, so I can only assume that I'm being merrily led up the garden path again! Haha.

Nope, being disruptive until somebody got sick of it. Que? - to all other people out there, seemingly I have been advised not to do anything other than discuss what is on this page - so please interject quickly, because a) I need some support here, b) my self-proclaimed "friend" is yet to do me any real favour & b) is this really how Wiki conducts itself (ie. to be threatened that if one strays off this page one will be doubly punished?)...

I feel utterly lost with this type of carry-on - no friends or support - but I still can't help thinking this is not the right way to run things. Please advise - many thanks indeed. Best, L'honorable (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Redemption (following SPI)

Proposal of peace accord : you all know that I have been "tarred with the brush" of socketpuppetry on :

WikiCommons
Nlwiki
Enwiki
Dewiki

It seems to me pointless to keep rehearsing the same old points : I have explained about my ex-wife and whilst not wishing to go over the same ground repeatedly, if there are those who seek to have further explanation please declare yourselves now :

• . JcB
• . Wiki13
• . Future Perfect at Sunrise
• . Kurator71

I trust that my contributions to Wiki are helpful (enquire as necessary) but should there be no possibility of redemption (despite the SPI), please categorically advise accordingly so that we all do not waste more of anyone's time. Many thanks.

Best, L'honorable (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there an RFC on your talk page? I'm removing the RFC header. Do not add it back. RFCs are to resolve content disputes on article talk pages. If you want to be unblocked, post an unblock request. If you want to appeal to the community, ask me to post a request to WP:AN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes please post a request to WP:AN. Many thanks, NinjaRobotPirate, much appreciated. L'honorable (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. if I am not wrong, no point to be unblocked on one Wiki only for others to say "ah he's blocked there so he must be bad, so let's block him" & so it goes mindlessly on...

Are you sure? Because it looks like you haven't tried to post an unblock request here yet. But I can post something there if you want. Is there anything in particular you want me to post? If I just say, "L'honorable wants to be unblocked", people will probably ignore it. You should probably look at WP:GAB, think about it, and craft a message that you think will convince people you should be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the first person who seems to take an interest for me to be unblocked (& what I mean by that is, just) on English Wiki (but would still leave me subject to being blocked again "because I am blocked on other Wikis"). This I don't understand : either Wiki is joined up, or it isn't. To put it simply & I can provide quotes from all the other Wikis concerned, they see that I am blocked on one so feel fearful (I suppose) of unblocking me on the other. Noone seems to have stopped for one moment to suppose "socketpuppetry" (being a joint account) applies across the board (of Wikis). So as it stands one Wiki references another by way of justifying itself (seemingly). Yes, I should much like to be unblocked, but I should also like it to be explained across all Wikis (right now Wiki Commons, Dutch Wiki, German Wiki & English Wiki) that I am L'honorable & there will be no interference from Mabelina ever more. AND, therefore, assuming a clean slate is applied, there can be no further blaming one upon the other & vice versa etc... However, without such a clean break it seems to me this constant merry go-round will be set to continue (although not so merry for me!). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about your case, though I saw your name come up at some administrative boards. One thing I can say is that what happens on other wikis generally doesn't affect what happens here. There are exceptions, of course. Sock puppetry is one of the cases where people do get a bit suspicious. I can't really help you on any other wikis, as I'm only an administrator here, and I'm not very involved in projects outside of English Wikipedia. From what I can tell, you got into trouble because you were edit warring. That seems like a good place to start if you want to make an unblock request. The problem is that you were apparently operating on a "last chance" unblock before, and the blocking admin seemed to think you blew your last chance. So, my advice would be to say something about that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey hey hey - this is where I am really confused. Take a look at Albert, Prince Consort & you will note that the guy who launched the edit warring has had to retract it - because it was not edit warring. It seems more than clear to me (maybe not to others) that those who do not feel confident in their own abilities rely on others to back them up, and resort to such tactics .... Qv : since this is not edit-warring per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=768735844&oldid=768721217 I shall repair all the damage [DrKay]. However the damage is done! Kay doesn't like me; he has got me blocked - WHY? God knows (well I do actually - I contradicted him once & that annoyed him). But what can I now do about it.. I am a leper in the Wiki colony - nobody believes me (or at least not many of the active Admins do) so .... que pasa? I am blocked. L'honorable (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should be as bold and downright rude as others on Wiki, but this has never been my style (& I don't see why it should be)? However, being correct doesn't always seem to get one everywhere! Please advise. Best, L'honorable (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. Wiki should not be held up in its progression by such contre-temps (in a perfect world)!

Well, it's true. Being correct doesn't always win arguments on Wikipedia. Sometimes you're right, but you still end up blocked. Or the content you proposed doesn't get added to the Wikipedia article. Or maybe your content gets removed. Part of being on a collaborative project means that you have to compromise and settle for something that's not quite what you wanted. If you can stay calm and respectful, that does count for something, I think. Compromising is just as important as being polite, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem with that: ie. being correct (factually) simply because I enjoy seeing Wiki develop (most often by ways of putting things which I would not have thought of - that's because I'm stick in the mud!!!), does not necessarily see my wordings put in place - but I'm not bothered about that. How can Wiki progress when inaccurate info remains in place, please?

@NinjaRobotPirate: you may well have put your finger on it? namely that I was operating "last chance" unblock, thereby pretty much inviting bullies (& I don't mind saying so, because that is effectively what the likes of DrKay are) to block me the instant I make an edit contrary to their dream. Now, just look at their dream.... Nonetheless, where does all this leave me? In tatters - blocked on 4 Wikis...

you mention about being polite - and I am much obliged to you for having taken such time with me - but I fear that the way I phrase myself is in fact too soft : for instance...

.

Redemption (following SPI)

Proposal of peace accord : you all know that I have been "tarred with the brush" of socketpuppetry on :

WikiCommons
Nlwiki
Enwiki
Dewiki

It seems to me pointless to keep rehearsing the same old points : I have explained about my ex-wife and whilst not wishing to go over the same ground repeatedly, if there are those who seek to have further explanation please declare yourselves now :

• . JcB
• . Wiki13
• . Future Perfect at Sunrise
• . Kurator71

I trust that my contributions to Wiki are helpful (enquire as necessary) but should there be no possibility of redemption (despite the SPI), please categorically advise accordingly so that we all do not waste more of anyone's time. Many thanks.

Best, L'honorable (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, after this latest experience I cannot see how any more shilly-shallying can do anyone any good, unless you can tell me to the contrary? I should much like to help improve Wiki's pages & I have the ability to do so. Obstacles preventing the improvement of Wiki [seem to L'honorable] to be are interminable procedures (willingly enacted by various) but not always in Wiki's best interests.

(It's tough to reply when you're constantly posting to the talk page and causing edit conflicts.) Being blocked isn't necessarily the end. You can still get unblocked, though it may take a while. The standard offer requires six months of not editing Wikipedia. Since you already got that, you might have trouble getting it again. Still, it never hurts to try, especially if you can address the issues that got you blocked in the first place. Or I could copy something to WP:AN, like I said. I'm not sure what to copy, though, and I think that what you've written so far probably wouldn't work out very well for you. Maybe think about it for a little while, try to come up with something concise (around 100–200 words) that addresses the reasons you've been blocked, and what you'd do differently if you were unblocked. Remember, I don't think you should say anything about bullies or bullying. It's just a bad idea, and it goes against WP:NOTTHEM. I'm going to sleep now, but I can check back later to see if you want something copied. I don't know if I can really answer an unblock request myself; I've given you some advice here about doing them, and I don't really know much about your situation, either. So, I would probably leave that to someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks for the offer of support - much appreciated. Best, L'honorable (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. bottom line is that should the stigma of alleged socketpuppetry remain, this is MOST DEBILITATING. If Wiki really is joined up, surely there must be someone in authority who can give satisfactory answer(s) to this point (multi-Wiki)? Looking forward to hearing SOONEST, best L'honorable (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Armorial britannique, perhaps you could also explain how edits are made to the text without any reference showing up on its revision history? L'honorable (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Wiki" is not "joined up", as you put it. Each Wikipedia is fully and completely independent. Several editors have explained this to you before. As for sockpuppetry, you explained the circumstances of your use of the Mabelina account before, that you shared it with your former partner, and we accepted your explanation. But then you kept doing the things that led to Mabelina being blocked, so we blocked you again. None of this has anything to do with what you or Mabelina did on any other Wikipedia project, nor with any "stigma of sockpuppetry" following you around. The behaviours that led to you being blocked (as Mabelina, then again as L'honorable) are given a pretty good summary in this discussion. But I'll summarize even further: you insist that your way is the only way, you will not accept the outcome of any discussion you don't agree with, and you disrespect the community by ignoring everyone who tries to give you advice. You cannot participate in a collaborative project if you will not collaborate; that's your problem, not anybody else's. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: thank you & I state below that nothing would please me more than collaborating with other editors - very much so. Too few such collaborations have been allowed to take place, before I get threatened. But, I am totally committed to improving Wiki and should much like to develop good relations within the Wiki Community. Since it is so easy to paint me as a bad boy, I should be most grateful for any help I can get in this regard, were I to be unblocked after pause for reflection. Many thanks for your understanding. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Only for discussing your current block

What do you not understand from the statement "Only for discussing your current block"? Discussing other things will certainly lead to your talk page access being revoked (it is a courtesy, not a right). Please, only discuss your current block. The Banner talk 11:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable, if I may interject, your current block did NOT occur because of any sockpuppetry. It was your behavior after your last unblock that precipitated the reblock. If you want to be unblocked, you're going to have to address the issue of your disruptive editing practices. Ironically, one of those practices is your constant bringing up of past issues or issues on other wikipedias, even AFTER being told they need to be dropped. You are continuing that behavior here on this talk page. If you ever want to be unblocked, you need to take on board the advice you've been receiving. You need to stop changing the wording of direct quotations such as here where you change a direct quote in several ways. If your edits are reverted, instead of re-adding them, you need to go to the ARTICLE talk page and discuss the merits of the edits WITHOUT discussing or mentioning other editors or other wikipedias. You need to stop mentioning other editors in edit summaries (such as As usual, you are completely blind to reason (unmarked reference to L'honorable)) You need to stop linking common terms such as "city". You need to stop editing other editors talk page comments (or "accidentally" losing them). You need to accept that you must supply reliable sources that support the edits you make when the information you add is challenged. You must stop doing things like removing the FA star out of process. You need to stop capitalizing words that should not be capitalized such as where you change "royal assent" to "Royal Assent". You need to stop engaging in WP:OR. And you need to acknowledge ALL of these issues and pledge to stop doing them before any admin should consider unblocking you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: thank you for interjecting & I do much appreciate your advice. I have felt very insecure ever since the socketpuppetry allegations - but you are right, let's move on - because others seem to bandy around various reasons for blocking me (to all manner of things). I agree with absolutely everything you say above (except and I sincerely trust that you may forgive me if I am wrong, but City (with a capital C) as referenced above, at least in my view, is a proper noun). I would dearly love to forge a good relationship with other editors on Wiki, but somehow this seems to be gargantuan task (and it is others, not me, who have initiated mention of my status on other Wikis - eg. "Note: Your account is currently blocked on 4 wikis" - the dropping of which statements into Wiki correspondence is therefore, I presume, frowned upon?). Nonetheless, Ealdgyth, I much appreciate your understanding & shall unhesitatingly abide by your advice if and when I may be unblocked; but, let's perhaps first allow time for the dust to settle? Many thanks again & till soon. Best, L'honorable (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsuitable material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes it is true - I am thoroughly depressed that I have been taken to be some sort of recalcitrant by Wiki folk & it is beyond me what to do about it. If anyone could think of anything positive to say about me then please say so. Many thanks, L'honorable (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC) eg. You need to stop linking common terms such as "city". I have made best endeavours to contact JcB on Wiki Commons. You can't tell how this makes me feel. I have rung his given tel no. at Groningen etc but this is making matters worse because he is rejecting me. Best is to get rid of me - what to do? Please advise without delay (& if it is a total block no worries!) but this half and half is no good at all. All I want is for somebody to care FULL STOP L'honorable (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PS. ways to unravel this mess : delete all mention of "Note: Your account is currently blocked on 4 wikis" ... tks L'honorable, if I may interject, your current block did NOT occur because of any sockpuppetry (GOOD are you sure?). It was your behavior after your last unblock that precipitated the reblock (YES my behaviour after being accused of edit-war was not satisfactory). If you want to be unblocked (YES but only if there is a way of preventing those such as DrKay ((Redacted)) who belatedly picked up on the fact I am blocked elsewhere to use this as an excuse to try block me - only because I was correcting him), you're going to have to address the issue of your disruptive editing practices (YES I have too many enemies). Ironically, one of those practices is your constant bringing up of past issues or issues on other wikipedias, even AFTER being told they need to be dropped. You are continuing that behavior here on this talk page. If you ever want to be unblocked (YES I do - more so as a matter of honour than anything else), you need to take on board the advice you've been receiving (I am not always good at building relationships). You need to stop changing the wording of direct quotations such as here where you change a direct quote in several ways (only did so in the case of an heraldic blason - and would be happy to provide double blazonry, ie. Boutell + College of Arms where necessary - although this seems cause for a right royal argument which is where we are at right now!). If your edits are reverted, instead of re-adding them, you need to go to the ARTICLE talk page (there was no Talk Page) and discuss the merits of the edits WITHOUT discussing or mentioning other editors or other wikipedias. You need to stop mentioning other editors in edit summaries (such as usual, you are completely blind to reason (unmarked reference to L'honorable)) You need to stop linking common terms such as "city" (I am so careful about that mantra of non-c & c : but in the instance picked upon it was to do with the City of London). You need to stop editing other editors talk page comments (or "accidentally" losing them AGREED : I hate any conflict & would prefer my edits be taken in good faith - I have/had/never will have any intention to wilfully delete others' edits). You need to accept that you must supply reliable sources that support the edits you make when the information you add is challenged (AGREED - the only reason I don't get to doing so is because a war starts & it becomes imposs). You must stop doing things like removing the FA star out of process (MY FAULT - no expert on procedure but Prince Albert article was not good enough at that time to be featured - just in my view, that is - I think I need a mentor because I am not clued up as to Wiki procedures). You need to stop capitalizing words that should not be capitalized such as where you change "royal assent" to "Royal Assent" (NO PROBS - that is similar to City of London etc - so only where it is a proper noun). You need to stop engaging in WP:OR (again similar to not being distracted by alleged edit-war & spend far too much time arguing than inserted relevant refs). And you need to acknowledge ALL of these issues and pledge to stop doing them before any admin should consider unblocking you. You should be able to see above enough reason to keep me away from Wiki editing! although if Wiki is insightful enough it will see that my edits are/have always been in good faith, and decide to « block me globally » in perpetuity (as one did suggest - hence I raise it) or « unblock me globally » (so that such a stain does not remain on my character). Either way I'm Wikis' servant & please advise what is best for both Wiki and me. Many thanks and looking forward to concise advice without much further delay. Without ambiguity, I should also like to be able to contribute accurate info to Wiki. Yours, L'honorable (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PS. how to resolve? Wiki needs to see this treatment of me (& not for it to be suppressed) whatever the consequences may be (for me) User:L'honorable In spite of having been warned many times, L'honorable keeps on removing deletion request templates from some of his uploads (lately File:OStJ.jpg), even if he's perfectly aware of where the discussion takes place: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable. Could an admin ask him to refrain from doint it again? Best regards --Discasto talk 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done I have given the user a last warning, since the previous warnings came from you, and the user was clearly upset about you. Please let us know if there are any more DR removals. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @Yann, Jcb, Clindberg, Jameslwoodward: I thought this might be your game Discasto. It begs the question, though, why on each and every occasion when you have unilaterally reverted my upload of OStJ you have failed to respond to my messages to you. I even ventured to suggest that you were angling to get me in trouble. This is an utterly poor show. This image has every right to be uploaded by me & I shall have no difficulty in proving so if it comes to that. BUT more to the point, why do you want to drag me into an Admin situation - I already made clear that I have just been released from a block on English Wiki, so it would appear to me that you, for reasons totally unknown, wish to cause trouble for me. The problem here though is that the image you persistently delete is my Decoration, my Photo & my Upload. So, if you have your way, you can bully me out of town just because you have taken exception to me. But why, you haven't even corresponded with me - until just now wherein you stated : "You actually asked for it --Discasto talk 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)" - NO, I didn't ask for IT (whatever that may mean) - but this for sure looks like victimisation. OStJ.jpg I shall co-operate fully with the Admins & trust that sense can prevail. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @L'honorable: Please be careful in the case of edit conflicts. You removed my resolution above, which should not have happened. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Honestly I am getting it from all angles here & I sincerely did not mean to do that - didn't even know that I had done so - this is a cooked up attempt to get me blocked & it is working well. But why? L'honorable (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC) What I did was upload an image of a decoration which was bestowed upon me by HRH. L'honorable (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Blocked 3 days for blanking the entire DR. [15] I didn't want to throw the book at him, hoping a few chapters will do. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I think there is a real question of whether or not L'honorable's modest contributions are worth the vast amounts of Admin time he has consumed with his long rants on several talk pages at once (see my archives, as well as those of Discasto and Jcb) and at the DRs. Perhaps the block should be indefinite? However, in fairness I point out that for File:OStJ.jpg he claims "own work". As Yann has pointed out at the DR, the image is very small and has no EXIF, but it doesn't show up in a Google search, so maybe it is in fact "own work". As Yann suggests, he could answer the question by uploading a larger version of the file with the EXIF. However, the question is moot because we have a variety of much better images of the medal at Category:Insignia of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, so File:OStJ.jpg should be deleted as "not useful".. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC) James is correct in any case but let's give the user a benefit of doubt. I hope they won't return to the same behavior next week. Happy editing. Wikicology (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with Wikicology. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but my next block would be indefinite. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Continues his disruptive editing, indef worthy insult @ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=230435711&oldid=230434151 - I'd like this version to be supressed, better the whole talk page. I ask for an indef block with removal of email and talk page access. Copying his Commons-talk to enwiki. Asking for block there as well. Nothing good will ever come out of this, he's just a giant time waster. Is emailing Wiki UK to teach them about copyright. m( Probably a global lock would be better. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC) @Jcb: Thanks for your fast reply. Could you clean the talk page from his insulting rant (starting at rev230434151)? Thx, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @JuTa, Jianhui67: Removal still needed, starting at rev230434151. Shall I do that myself? Any Objections? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hedwig, why you wanna hide those versions? I dont see a hard PA nor other reasons for it. Might be cause I'm coming from de: where there are realy strict rules about hiding versions or I, as a non-natve speaker, do not understand enough of it? --JuTa 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Implying a medical condition is a hard PA in my book. Got him blocked in the first place. Schmeiss den Satz mal in den Google Translator. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC) are u of sound mind = impliziert Geisteskrankheiten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ... kommt aber in Text nicht vor. --JuTa 06:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Ehrlich, ich denk das sollte ein native speaker beurteilen. Bin also hier raus. --JuTa 06:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Give me a call as soon as troll shit can be reverted. Until then Commons is not my project anymore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I blanked the userpage - no need to have this kind of attacks on the talkpage. Good block Jcb! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I blocked Mabelina because it is his old account/sock (blocked on multiple wiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I know that this was entitled Only for discussing your current block so therefore I am risking my whole credibility by posting this..... IF YOU DISSECT THE ABOVE LANGUAGE PLEASE ADVISE ME HOW THIS CANNOT BE IN ANYWAY CONSTRUED AS OFFENSIVE? RSVP. L'honorable (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC) It is downright rude, offensive, etc... Even the most passive native English speaker can understand : "ich denk das sollte ein native speaker beurteilen". Que faire? L'honorable (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PS. obviously to those Germans who require an obtuse retort : I TOTALLY AGREE, Monsieur! L'honorable (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC) For discussing my future block(s) Please list here: OStJ Further requests by me (or anybody perceived to be associated with me) for unblocking on German Wiki (ie. unwarranted) I could be blocked forever, before I've even been unblocked! should the above rant in Deutsche not be justified. My credibility on Wiki Commons must be restored? L'honorable (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC) This is what I got "done for" on Commons Thanks for your fast reply. Could you clean the talk page from his insulting rant (starting at rev230434151)? Thx, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @JuTa, Jianhui67: Removal still needed, starting at rev230434151. Shall I do that myself? Any Objections? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hedwig, why you wanna hide those versions? I dont see a hard PA nor other reasons for it. Might be cause I'm coming from de: where there are realy strict rules about hiding versions or I, as a non-natve speaker, do not understand enough of it? --JuTa 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Implying a medical condition is a hard PA in my book. Got him blocked in the first place. Schmeiss den Satz mal in den Google Translator. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC) are u of sound mind = are u of sound mind was my last comment to the above rants : however, I can provide much more detail should you so wish? L'honorable (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Good block JcB! Sounds good, the way that this was handled? L'honorable (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Hmm, auch in der google Übersetzung seh ich nich wirklich was. Er nennt Dich Internet-Troll. Aber das rechfertigt IMHO keine Versionslöschung. (Which medical condition?) --JuTa L'honorable and others In the absence of any instruction at Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block - how do you want to deal with unblock requests from L'honorable and other users (such as Reguyla, if/when it happens) where e-mail and talk page access has been disabled ? We don't have a UTRS type system or mailing list which can be used, so these blocks are now essentially permanent as they have no appeal mechanism. I'm not advocating unblocking either named party, but I do think we should have a process in place to allow an appeal to take place. Any thoughts ? I'm only asking in the event you've already thought about this and have an idea already. Nick (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC) I think we should have some process in place for such cases, but on the other hand I would not give it much priority. At this moment such users can contact an admin via a different project and if the admin thinks that an unblock should be considered, he/she can post it to the AN. In case of L'honorable, before he got blocked here, he was already blocked at other projects, including NL-wiki. Although I was not involved in his block at NL-wiki, he contacted me to request being unblocked there. I reached out to an admin at NL-wiki, who explained to me why L'honorable would not be unblocked at NL-wiki. Later he got blocked at Commons and later got his talk page access removed because of abuse. After that he has pinged me several times from a range of sister projects. It's still possible for him to ping one of us from a sister project. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Only for discussing your current block THE ABOVE inter alia indicates that Wiki regards its projects as being connected (despite what has been represented above). I blanked the userpage - no need to have this kind of attacks on the talkpage. Good block Jcb! --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I blocked Mabelina because it is his old account/sock (blocked on multiple wiki). --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC) So we have to go back to square one I am not Mabelina Round & round in circles it goes, so let's rid of such Wiki prejudice as socketpuppetry : WikiCommons : Jcb Nlwiki : Wiki13 Enwiki : The Banner Dewiki : Kurator71 Poly efharisto Future Perfect at Sunrise, L'honorable (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Response to The Banner What do you not understand from the statement "Only for discussing your current block"? Discussing other things will certainly lead to your talk page access being revoked (it is a courtesy, not a right). Please, only discuss your current block. The Banner talk 11:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC) I have never felt more under the cosh than after you mentioned the above ; in other words I have felt insecure : lacking in credibility : constantly harassed & if I'm not wrong YOU WILL BE THE END OF ME. L'honorable (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Please review your inaccurate comments but sustained hostility ever since I made an edit to Viscount Hereford. How bonkers are you to hound me out for making edits (which wre slightly out of flunter with your perceived way of doing things)? 07:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC) PUT ME DOWN OR RESURRECT ME - but clarity would be much appreciated. Many thanks, L'honorable (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If have told you this many times before: it is your own behaviour that gives you trouble. Chance your attitude (and do it in a credible way) and there will be a chance on an unblock (not my decision). But when you persist in this behaviour, this page can be closed and you are out. For ever and ever.

The clarity you can find in the advice fro many visitors to this page. Adhere to that advice. The Banner talk 08:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have hatted the endless ramblings above. You were warned that talkpage access would be revoked if you didn't concentrate on a legitimate unblock request. You now have one more chance of submitting one – brief, to the point, accurate, preferable in no more than one paragraph. If you continue ranting as before, this page will be closed down for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: the rant above contains what appears to be an attempt to personally identify an editor, which I have redacted, and as such I have revoked talk page access. Or, if you prefer, talk page access is revoked because I twice warned the user not to bring his Commons dispute to this wiki, as have several other users, yet the rant above contains a copy-paste of the administrative thread from Commons.

@L'honorable: you may no longer edit this page. If you wish to make a constructive unblock request, please visit WP:UTRS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Administrators' noticeboard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17803 was submitted on Mar 17, 2017 00:30:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Email contact

Just to log that L'honorable has contacted me via email to try and get his block overturned. I have replied saying that the Wikipedia:Standard offer is his best option, at this stage.--Salix alba (talk): 05:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no confidence that he will adhere to the conditions of the standard offer. The Banner talk 13:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the SO will not be an issue for another few months, I suggest it is unnecessary- indeed, unprofitable- to try and pre-empt what the community will decide. Cheers — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to get rid of the hostility?

An enquiry as to whether L'honorable might now be allowed back into the Wiki fold? And, if so, how to wipe the slate clean in all languages (given that this is seemingly a cause of future/continued difficulties)? 217.169.51.41 (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You will most certainly not be unblocked as long as you keep evading your block, as you did with the above IP. Sockpuppetry is the most secure way of making your block permanent. For a WP:Standard offer, at least a year completely free of block evasion is among the minimum requirements. Do not post here again; your only legitimate way of requesting an unblock is going to be via WP:UTRS. But don't try that earlier than in one year's time from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No probs Fut.Perf. – perhaps this is a forlorn task, as I suspected? However, just so as to explain myself, you will no doubt be pleased to note that I refrained from editing Wikipedia well beyond the recommended time period, and since starting to edit again, albeit recently, I have not been bombarded with complaints or hostility which I was familiar to receiving; rather the opposite, it would seem that my edits have been quite well received, thereby surely indicating that I can be a responsible, informative, helpful & civil editor? I should sincerely hope that Wikipedia is not ruled by the mob, despite that being what it came to feel like for me (when editing under the banned names, ie. on watchlists). And, as to the charge of sockpuppetry – a seemingly overwhelming consideration by many Wiki Admins, I repeat that the original account of Mabelina was most definitely that of my ex-wife and that I did not hide from that association when setting up under a new account name of my own, viz. L’honorable.

Am I wrong to be sceptical about the Wiki community’s ability to offer redemption – in view of the treatment meted out to me so far? I should hope I am wrong, but you are better placed to advise. Many thanks. Best, 86.142.255.25 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC) aka L’honorable.
PS. I note you blocked me from yesterday, why? (Please allow me the right of reply)...

Block evasion

As noted above, the user has been evading their block using IPs; since January they have been using 217.169.51.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to edit. This is disruption of the same kind that got the user blocked in the first place (addition of unsourced information, including changing the spelling of the subject's name contradicting both sources). This means there is a lot of extra work to be done for the rest of us, checking their other edits. Some seem to be ok, some include the kind of overlinking that has been discussed a lot above, and unfortunately none of the "spelling corrections" here I've spot checked agrees with the sources given. (The names in question are from well before English spelling was standardised, and it was common at the time to have variant spellings of the same name. That is not a reason to go against the spelling that's used in both sources.) Just to correct any misunderstanding about the block evading edits being constructive and welcome. --bonadea contributions talk 06:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Help: Speakers of the House of Commons

Dear L'honorable

Recently I have attempted to create an article listing the heraldic achievements of speakers of the British House of Commons, based on similar articles about the armorials of various heads of state and government. The draft has twice been turned down by administrators. As a significant contributor to articles relating to heraldry, your assistance would be most valuable.

Yours,

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Capt Loxley's Little Dog.jpg

The file File:Capt Loxley's Little Dog.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No context: this book is not discussed anywhere on the Gerald Loxley article. And the file is a 2014 machine-generated cover, giving it no independent historic/artistic value.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wikiacc (¶) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Meta Discussion

@SQL: the transclusion doesn't seem to have worked. Err, just noticed that it was empty. Sorry! ansh666 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging SQL to note that this transclusion will need to be substituted after the discussion is closed to prevent losing the archive of it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The page Rahul Khismatrao is locked by administrators

Rahul Khismatrao is author of book, The Theory of Creator. This book is available on Google Books too. Here's the link: https://books.google.com/books/about/Theory_of_Creator.html?id=DEiLjwEACAAJ . This book is available worldwide. Due to some anoymous editing this page is banned. I request administrators to recreate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.234.73.119 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The page (Rahul Khismatrao) was deleted following this discussion, the major problem being that the subject doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. It was subsequently protected because of recreations which didn't address this issue. If you do want the page to be recreated I suggest you create a userspace draft of the content you would like to put there and then take it to deletion review to see if it justifies making it an article. You will need to show in your draft how the subject meets the notability guidelines. (Merely writing a book does not make someone notable.) Hut 8.5 07:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

CSD backlog

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

---

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is currently backlogged with over 200 candidates. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking this over, and there are a bunch of video game articles that are appearing on the category list but that are not tagged for deletion. Can't tell what's going on - could someone look at these and see if there's a template that is causing the cascading tagging? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Something to do with Template:Video game release perhaps? Sam Walton (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not, but fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Bugged expired BLP PRODs

I noticed that there are several expired BLP-PRODs that for some reason do not show up in Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs. I tried the recommendations mentioned in the blue banner for when nothing shows up in the category, but to no avail. The dating seems to be stuck, because when I look at Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left, many of the expired PRODs do not move to the 0-day entry. Uendi ndini and Konstantin Zadvornov for example, expired on 17 December (5 days ago!). Could an admin please take a look and delete the expired ones? Thanks. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• More of an issue, none of these are showing at WP:PRODSUM, which is where most admins delete expired PRODs from. Something has obviously gone awry. I will raise it at VPT. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

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

---

I seem to be the only active admin there in the last 10 hours or so. Could use some help. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks lot to everybody who helped.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Manual extendedconfirmation?

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

---

Is there any precedent or consensus for manually setting the "extended confirmed" bit for a user with long tenure but few edits? (for background, see [32]) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the user name and the page in question:

• Demmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Population statistics for Israeli settlements in the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You're asking about a page covered by WP:ARBPIA3. It is up to Arbcom whether someone with fewer than 500 edits should be permitted to edit. Extendedconfirmed is just a means of enforcing what Arbcom wrote. An admin who tried to grant Extendedconfirmed to the user would not be able to release them from the general prohibition since Arbcom literally wrote down '500 edits' in their decision. (All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits... etc.) Even so, the person is allowed to use the talk page, and their proposals could be made there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector no, in fact the opposite - that it will not be set early unless it is a LEGITSOCK (see WP:PERM/EC). And agree with EdJohnston, gaining group access does not bypass the Arbcom remedy from a editing restriction point of view. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know! Thanks both, that all makes perfect sense to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Dealing with socks of globally locked accounts

What's the procedure for dealing globally with socks of masters that are globally locked. Apart from the normal SPI here do we need to notify WMF so that the socks can also be globally locked? Nthep (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

My sense would be to head over to meta:Steward requests/Global to have 'em locked as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass PRODing

All of the nearly 355 articles prodded by user Sportsfan 1234 should be deprodded as mass deletion can never be uncontroversial. It always requires discussion. In the absence of easier/quicker alternatives at removing the PRODs, I would suggest a WP:MASSROLLBACK of the user's edits.

A bigger number of prods were originally added but many were reverted and some expired prods have already been deleted. A list of pages currently carrying the prod tag is at draft:mass sports afd. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

During what period of time did SF1234 prod these articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

About an hour, starting around 00:00 December 24, looking at their edit log. Dragons flight (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct. Sportsfan 1234, was there some sort of discussion before you did this, because on the face of it, this seems disruptive. I note that most if not all have now been reverted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

That's not correct. It had been going on since 20 December. They haven't all been reverted, Lankiveil. See draft:mass sports afd which lists 355 pages still carrying the PROD tag. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've provided the AN notice that you should have but did not. We need a response here, as this is quite serious. This is borderline bot-like behavior and a complete bludgeoning of the deletion processes. As the IP stated, mass deletions are not uncontroversial. Looking through deleted contributions, there are a good dozen or so articles that I plan to WP:REFUND after this thread concludes which seem along the similar vein. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute. Hobit (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess he'd get sick of telling me 100+ times about the prods, as I created many of the xxxx at the 1996 Summer Paralympics articles. I removed the prod from Zimbabwe at the 1996 Summer Paralympics per WP:NOLY (full reason is in the edit summary). I think there's two issues here: 1) Mis-use of the Prod facility ("Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion") and 2) a wider consensus that's needed at WP:SPORT/WP:OLY, etc, to agree the notability of individual countries at multi-sporting events. I've breifly raised this before, but it needs wider input. I think everyone agrees that countries at the Olympics/Paralympics are notable, but then to extend this to the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Pan-American Games, etc, etc. I could start a RfC in the New Year when most people will be able to add their views. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I see a consensus above on the abusive use of PROD. Can a an admin or rollbacker please bring down the mass rollback tool on Sportsfan, to remove the PRODs? Is it technically possible? 103.6.159.68 (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pechkurov Aleksey Suggestion

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

---

Created by a sock puppet of Alex9777777. I am reporting it here because he reverts nominations for (speedy) deletion. --jdx ^Re: 13:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3