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 Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 56 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 55 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

(Initiated 31 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#RfC On the Better of Two Revisions

(Initiated 15 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 22 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?

(Initiated 17 days ago on 15 November 2024) There's no need for this to go on for a month. Consensus is overwhelming. Can we get an independent close please, as this is a highly contentious topic. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was about to ask just this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Second @TarnishedPath here - consensus is in WP:SNOW territory. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

talk:Rajiv Dixit#RFC can we say he peddaled false hoods in the lede

(Initiated 74 days ago on 19 September 2024) This seems to have rujn its course, but the vote is evenly split, so it's hard to judge consensus as an involved party. Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	6	0	6
TfD	0	0	6	0	6
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	10	0	10
RfD	0	0	60	0	60
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Category:National artists of Thailand

(Initiated 43 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted on 2 December by Bibliomaniac15. SilverLocust 💬 10:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, as above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 321 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous: do you still plan to close this? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about this, I forgot I had this outstanding :). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 47 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla_Cybercab#Proposed_merge_of_Tesla_Network_into_Tesla_Cybercab

(Initiated 45 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

University of Law

The article University of Law seems to contain suspiciously WP:Advert-like material, including a few dubious claims. I attempted to place an advert tag, however this was removed. I may be wrong about this article but if anyone has the time to investigate it that would be much appreciated. Reaganomics88 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88: I have replaced it as "well sourced" is not a valid reason for removing that tag. I encourage you to post on the talk page of the article and explain why the article reads like an advert (I agree it does lean that way). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I and another admin have been working on it--see edit history and talk p. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by sfarney

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

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 08:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

You are prohibited from (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year.[1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by sfarney

Prioryman (talk · contribs) filed the May 31 AE request that resulted in the ban. Immediately after filing the AE request, Prioryman selected and canvassed The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) to participate.[2][3]

The Wordsmith is not uninvolved as is required by WP, but has more or less admitted s/he is an ex-member of the cult and boasted about her/his wealth of primary source materials s/he owns. ("I have seen many "confidential" internal Scientology documents, own the Red Volumes, Green Volumes and (Incomplete) Blue Volumes, and have listened to many tapes, including some extremely rare and confidential ones. I also have much of the content of the unpublished OT IX and X levels (fascinating stuff). It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists. I have listened to the Exteriorization and Rudements tapes, and can confirm that Prioryman's edits accurately reflect their content. I don't have any copies of The Auditor, but I probably know someone who does and could look into it. I recommend no sanction against Prioryman, and at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor. "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prioryman) The text of that statement makes clear that The Wordsmith was not judging the situation on WP policies and agendas, but on a scale of Scientology/anti-Scientology.

The Wordsmith accused me of being a Single Purpose Account, but any dispassionate review of my edit history shows that I cover a wide variety of topics with strong edit histories on each, from technology to culture, science to the Bible, and much in between. I have been an editor here since 2012, and I did not touch a Scientology article until 2015.

The May 31 AE request was quite obviously a retaliation for my ArbComm request on May 25 against Prioryman. The Wordsmith participated in that action too, and immediately requested a Boomerang, without citing to any violations of WP policy. Notably, The Wordsmith had no comment on the violations of WP editorial conduct and policy that I was seeking to correct in that request.

Prioryman also canvassed another administrator, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), to his ArbComm request with the same text.[4] That administrator also presided over my May 25 AE request against Prioryman, watched Prioryman WP:PA attack me, acknowledge that I had been attacked, then closed the hearing by telling me to be nicer in discussions and ask questions instead of insisting on WP policy. Eh?? Dennis Brown also showed for the May 30 AE request and spoke against me.

This smacks of improper canvassing of administrators. Nobody can be uninvolved (as required by WP policy) if they are selected by one party and summoned to the bench. And any administrator who comes when summoned to a particular subject is not uninvolved.

The article R2-45 is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Nothing permits an editor to make highly controversial claims with weak and primary sources. As I have argued extensively in the talk page, one highly controversial claim in the article is WP:OR and WP:CHERRYPICKING of (alleged) primary sources with no secondary source support. A second highly controversial claim is supported only by a blog. A third is based on a single book, a Wikileaks page, and a professor's essay that has not been peer-reviewed (I have asked for evidence of peer review, and Prioryman provided none). The source of the fourth highly controversial claim is the same unreviewed essay. Some of that text and fringe theory is now being copied to other articles.

I argued extensively on the talk page against those edits, but I broke no WP rules or policies. Unable to convince the editors to follow policy, I took the matter to DRN. Robert McClenon immediately closed the issue, and suggested the matter was not DRN appropriate and should go to ArbComm.[5]

I believe these facts demonstrate that this issue did not receive a fair and impartial hearing -- and that the admins were strongly predisposed to the decision.

Note that the AE discussion was closed at 15:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC). Damotclese (talk · contribs) added further comment two hours later at 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

My request: This ban should be lifted and the appropriate policies should applied to the topic. The editors and administrators who are abusing the policies should be addressed by properly uninvolved administrators who will do what they find appropriate in accordance with the findings of the 2009 Scientology Arbitration.

(I will undertake to update the links in this text when the AE discussions are archived.)

• Though several admins comment that the ban is "appropriate", no one has yet shown that I have done anything on this subject in violation of any WP policies. Surely, WP requires more than "we don't like you", and "you are in the way" to ban someone's editorial opinions. In addition to those problems, no one quibbles with my criticisms of that page. All the comments implicitly agree with me. Where is the rule book, folks? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I call The Wordsmith involved because with the large collection of which s/he boasts, obviously the subject is a big part of his/her life. I have not objected to him/her editing, but I do object to him/her applying WP administrative functions as though s/he were ruling on the conflicts between pro- and anti- instead of WP policies. I believe that is improper. So would I believe if the Pope were sanctioning apostates. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some editors seem to be arguing that regardless of what laws I broke or whether I broke ANY, I should still be punished. This is a very odd argument. Do we punish people for being inconvenient? In the real world, if SPA is not appropriate, the sanction should be canceled. No harm, no foul. If the antagonists want to bring another matter, they should start a new AE action. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• @The Wordsmith: Thanks for the advice on my signature. You could have mentioned that on my user page without going through AE. It is quite recent and I have no problem altering it.
• As for the sanction, the usual process is to consider whether the accused has broken any laws or rules. As Alice told the Red Queen, the verdict should come first.[6] But as yet, no one has shown that I broke any of the rules. My biggest crime seems to be that I insist that Wikipedia should treat an unpopular subject in accordance with standard editing policies. Insisting that the topic reveals the WP:TRUTH is not the way we do things -- policy is also clear on that. It doesn't matter how many books the admin has on his/er desk, there must be WP:VERIFIABILITY. So let's have a little discussion, if you please, about whether I have committed any wrongs and what those wrongs might be. There will be time enough for the sentence after considering the verdict. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think the question deserves a direct answer here, folks. What exactly am I being sanctioned for? Which policy have I violated? What conduct must others avoid so that they do not share my fate? And what will you do for that article that is so blatantly in violation of WP:FRINGE? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 19:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• (Responding to off-line remarks on my user talk page:) Let us recall that The wordsmith was first to bring up his/er private life background, boasting that s/he knew more about the subject than any of the believers and had a handsome library of primary source books and recordings. The wordsmith's statement was an argument from WP:TRUTH rather than the policies and values of Wikipedia, and I believe it was both prejudicial and improper to the subject at hand, which was the WP:VERIFIABILITY of the article. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith has written below the following statement: "There is also private evidence in play, which I have submitted to the Arbitration Committee." If The Wordsmith did not consider it substantive, those words would not have been written. But if The Wordsmith (and others) considered it substantive and based his/er decision on it, I should be allowed to address it. Instead, it is hidden from me and from this forum. Does anyone care that this matter is off the road and into the weeds, far from the principles that Wikipedians believe they are following? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• This just gets odder and odder. An admin uninvolved editor states that those who agree with me have a "clearly deep partisanship" and are not "capable of rendering an unbiased opinion in this matter." Even the witnesses and commenting editors are attacked if they speak the wrong words! And not a word here about the "deep partisanship" demonstrated by Prioryman and his/er earlier cognomen, "ChrisO", when s/he was sanctioned by Arbitration and then pardoned? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• More news in the odder and odder department: Admin Dennis Brown declares (below) that his opinions about the issue have nothing to do with content (which is the only real product of Wikipedia and is being tragically ignored in this proceeding), but only about my conduct in "dealing with others". Admin Dennis Brown was witness to Prioryman's personal attacks against me in the May 25 proceeding (linked above), and acknowledged them at the time. But Dennis Brown says nothing about Prioryman's conduct now. Instead, Dennis Brown makes vague, unsupported statements about my conduct. This allegation by Dennis Brown about me without evidence is itself a personal attack WP:PA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• A Note to BMK: Please do not attempt to give other editors legal advice about what they can consider and not consider in commenting on these proceedings. Your statements are not backed by WP policy. This is not "litigation" (as you call it) and the rules of Appeals Courts do not apply. Other editors may examine as many facts as they hold to be relevant, they may investigate wherever they wish, and they may offer their opinions freely, without the crab-jointed constraints of The Rules of Federal Procedure and American courts. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• It is singularly improper for JBH (moving party below) or anyone else to misrepresent the bases of this appeal, of which the multiple major points are: (1) The ruling admin (The Wordsmith) was canvassed and summoned to the hearing by the filing party. (2) The admin sanctioned me on the accusation that I was WP:SPA. On re-examination, all editors agree that is simply not true. (3) The sanction is not based on applicable policy, rules, or prior arbitration and none has been cited; it stands only on "he's in the way" and "we don't like him". (4) Everything I said about the article in question is proved true and no one can deny the bald fact that the article matches WP:FRINGE to a T (wild accusations supported only by flimsy sources) and violates WP editing policies. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Truly, the article R2-45 sites a number of secondary sources. But as I have reiterated, the most outrageous statements have feeble support: One statement is supported only by a blog. Another is supported by Wikileaks, a single book, and primary sources. A third is supported only by cherrypicking from primary sources. A fourth has only a professor's essay (not peer reviewed) in a field where he is not an expert. This is not in keeping with the requirements of WP:FRINGE, gentlemen, which states that A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. The strongest critics of Scientology do not even mention the subject of this page. WP:VERIFIABILITY states that This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Accusations that an organization is committing or has committed criminal acts is most certainly likely to be challenged. WP:PSTS states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. When an editor repeatedly violates editorial policy, that editor should be disciplined. When an admin supports the editor by sanctioning the reporter of those violations, that admin is clearly out of line. To pretend this is NOT a content issue is disingenuous. To pretend this is ONLY a content issue misses the boat entirely. If this sanction is upheld, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia because that will mark a day when Wikipedia's goals are officially sacrificed to another agenda. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Then, Lankiveil (talk · contribs), as one more editor who is certain the correct decision has been reached, you can tell me what rules I have broken and which policy you would be pleased to see applied. That would edify both me and any outside editors who might be puzzled by this process. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs): You have "offered" me nothing. Your imposition of WP:SPA is simply bizarre and wrong. Having done wrong, you now rectify your mistake -- or you do not. There is no "offer" and acceptance of "offer". If you want to do something nice, you should tell this forum why you are punishing me and exactly when I supposedly transgressed. No wait -- justice requires that also of you, and you will not have my agreement to do anything less. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Dennis Brown asserts that "There is no justice at Wikipedia." If s/he truly believes that Wikipedia has none of the qualities among the editors that we call JUSTICE, I suggest it is long past time for Dennis Brown to work in the direction of implementing it -- or resign from his admin position until he is willing to do so. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

I understand the concerns here. Firstly personal experience is not relevant to WP:INVOLVED, but I will state for the record that I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist, and none of my family or close friends are Scientologists. I merely take an active interest in their history, policies and doctrine to consider myself a subject-matter expert, which is why I made that comment on the first AE. There was a question of whether the primary sources (inaccessible to the general public) were being used correctly; I opined that I owned some of the ones questioned and confirmed their accuracy. I also consider myself an expert on the history and theology of Roman Catholicism (though far less so, since there is so much more to study than I could in a lifetime), and have access to many documents there as well. If one of those sources were questioned, I would speak to their authenticity just as I did.

WP:INVOLVED refers to participation in the content area that would cause bias. Aside from contributing some well-sourced content and a photograph to Project Chanology in 2008, and probably some routine vandalism patrolling, I haven't participated in it. My interaction with Prioryman and Sfarney have been in a purely administrative role, as required by policy. There is also private evidence in play, which I have submitted to the Arbitration Committee.

However, I'm not unreasonable. I recognize that Sfarney has contributed positively in other areas, and that invoking Remedy 5.1 might have been a bit harsh (though it was, in fact, suggested by an Arbitrator I consulted for advice). I would be willing to convert it to strictly a Discretionary Sanctions ban, and strikethrough my SPA note on the Arbitration case page log. I still think the 1 year ban is proper, but the 5.1 issue seems to be the sticking point here. so I'll budge on that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, neither Dennis nor myself needed to be canvassed. We are the two most active admins on AE, and the ping probably just cut a few hours off of when we would have noticed it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I believe you are mistaken about prior encounters. I was surprised by that assertion so I went to his talkpage myself and did a Ctrl + F for "Wordsmith", the only one that popped up was me used the required template to notify him of this very sanction that is being appealed, as is required by policy. To my knowledge outside of Arbitration Enforcement we have had zero prior interaction. I also have not contributed content, much less been in a content dispute, in the Scientology topic area in the last 8 years. Regarding repealing 5.1, yes I can do that and just leave the regular AE ban unilaterally, but before I do I would like input from other involved editors. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: It should be noted that I logged the sanctions at both Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions and at WP:ARBSCI. In effect, for record-keeping purposes, they are two separate sanctions that are identical in length and scope. The offer I've put on the table, in recognition of your positive contributions elsewhere (and that I can sometimes be a bit heavy-handed), is for me to repeal the Remedy 5.1 sanction but leave the AE one intact. In essence, you would still be prohibited from editing around Scientology for a year, but mention of you being an SPA would be struck from the log. Considering how many editors here feel that the sanction itself was appropriate, I think that's a fair offer. On a related note, would you consider altering your signature? The text style in my browser blurs it and hurts the eyes, and I imagine that goes for others as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: There was evidence that I submitted to the Arbitration Committee regarding somebody with a very similar name to yours who verifiably works for the Office of Special Affairs attacking content on the internet that doesn't conform to their doctrine ("entheta" as they call it). After doing further research yesterday it seems unlikely that you are the same person, and I emailed the Committee last night to inform them of that. Please consider the private evidence out of play now. However, I believe the actions observed still warrant the sanction. You have also not responded to my offer to repeal the 5.1 sanction. Given the comments other uninvolved admins editors have made, I think that is probably the best outcome that will result from this appeal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You are correct. The bulk of my work in Dispute Resolution takes place at AE, so my brain associates "uninvolved" with "administrator". Struckthrough and corrected. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

• That Prioryman contacted me isn't canvassing because I had acted administratively in the previous case; I was not an involved editor. It was also pointless as I patrol AE and would have seen it anyway, so that point is moot. To clear up one thing above, I didn't "speak against you", I acted in an administrative fashion, as I do other cases at AN, ANI, AE and elsewhere. I was not involved in the content. I did give you a firm warning in the first case rather than sanction you formally. In the second case, I was inclined to just continue and see what happens next, but The Wordsmith decided to act, which is within his authority as administrator. At first I thought you needed to have the warning template, but I was mistaken, and had this conversation on his talk page. Once informed of this and from my perspective, he acted reasonably and within the authority granted to him by Arb and the community, even if his actions weren't my first choice of action. WP:AE doesn't require a consensus of admin to agree, it just requires that whomever acts does so within the boundaries of policy. As to his being involved, I don't see how familiarity automatically disqualifies someone with acting in an administrative fashion, and don't see any diff/link to anything that would serve to demonstrate bias regarding the content here. Commenting on the content doesn't disqualify, as admin must have the basic understanding of the content in order to act. Having an opinion doesn't disqualify an admin either. It is only when an admin's opinion is such that it interfere's with their ability to be unbiased that WP:involved comes into play. As I'm involved now only in this particular decision, I can't opine in an administrative capacity, but would still recommend the appeal be declined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  I understand the hesitation, but WP:INVOLVED starts out and focuses on "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." and I haven't seen evidence of any dispute with The Wordsmith with Scientology at Wikipedia. I'm not saying real life experience is meaningless, but the policy doesn't even mention real world experience in any way. Policies like WP:COI mention real world experiences, but I don't see how that applies here. If we consider someone "involved" based on their real world experience, we would be doing so outside of that policy. I understand and accept the concern, but short of some other policy rationale, I'm hesitant to do use the WP:involved tag here. I'm not saying it is optimal, but policy doesn't seem to forbid it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Laval : Don't mistake the support of an admin action as being anything related to content. I can only speak for myself, but the content doesn't interest me at all. The behavior of editors does, and what was looked at was the recent behavior. It isn't about right or wrong on the content, it is about how an editor goes about dealing with others. I saw your name on that talk page, for example, but I didn't see a problem with how you related with those you disagreed with. The same can't be said for sfarney. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sfarney, as for "personal attacks", you are overstating your case. Prioryman was pushing civility a bit at AE, but I asked him to stop and he did. This is common during disputes and isn't going to draw a sanction. It happened, I asked him to pull back, he did, end of problem. Surely your skin is not really so thin. Regardless, it has exactly zero to do with this appeal and didn't even take place during the case you are appealing. Laboring prior problems that have already been dealt with isn't going to change the outcome in this appeal. As for my culpability, I never once suggested a topic ban or other sanction for anyone in either of those cases, so you need to look elsewhere to point your finger and lay blame. I suggest a mirror. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • sfarney - There is no justice at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

There are two questions here: was the sanction valid, and should Wordsmith have been the one to impose it.

The first question is easy to answer: the sanction is amply supported by the evidence.

The second is also easy to answer: probably not.

So, we should not lift the sanction, but another admin should enforce it instead. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by OID

I raised this at the Wordsmith's talkpage due to my concerns with the lack of discussion and the obvious implication the Wordsmith had already made their mind up. I (broadly) agree with JzG above except I dont think there was near enough evidence to ban someone under that remedy as an SPA. The ARBSCI case was clear that SPA's were accounts solely dedicated to editing in the scientology area and had little interest in anything else. While sfarney has recently been editing a lot in that area (such is the nature of editing) it is by no means their sole interest as can be seen by their contribution history. If we are using that standard to label people an SPA, well Prioryman would qualify, Mathsci further up the page would for their dedication to choral articles and so on. A Single Purpose Account is here to edit in a clearly defined area and that area only - there is no evidence sfarney qualifies as that. RE Dennis and familiarity: I have a few books on cars. That wouldnt disqualify me from closing contentious discussions on cars. If I owned a series of extremely hard to get and in-depth documents (primary and secondary) on morris minors, declared I was the most knowledgeable wikipedian about morris minors AND had previously declared another editor was correct in their morris minor edits - I should not be closing any dispute related to said morris minors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Prioryman

For the record, it's not remotely "canvassing" to neutrally notify the two editors who had acted administratively in the previous case to inform them that there was a new related arbitration enforcement request. As WP:APPNOTE says, it's appropriate to notify "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Prioryman (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: I looked at the notability question before I got involved in editing the article - no point putting in the effort if it's potentially going to be deleted - and was satisfied that it was notable after looking at the references listed here, viz. 7 newspaper articles (including Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post), one TV documentary and two mainstream books. My subsequent research found more sources in addition to those listed on that website. Prioryman (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

First, I guess I could agree that from what I can see the article in question might have serious notability problems. I see from the references it is the main subject of one article in the Clearwater Sun, and also the subject of a Hubbard lecture (hardly independent) and one wikileaks audio recording. I have serious trouble believing that those sources are necessarily sufficient to establish notability, so I guess I have some sympathy for Sfarney here. Having said that, however, I have to say that his methods as displayed in the recent AE discussion are probably sufficient for sanctions of some sort. I also find his most recent comment implying The Wordsmith has to be considered biased because of having lots of books on the subject incompetent and itself problematic. I regularly consult Lutheran and Catholic seminary and university libraries for materials on various religion-related topics, but the mere fact of a library being affiliated with one group does not mean that the works found there all support the view of that body. They collect a lot of material critical of their traditions as well. The fact that Sfarney seems to be jumping to at best poorly supported conclusions about the nature of the material available to The Wordsmith, as well as to his motivations in getting those books, can't be seen by me as being anything but a continuing indicator of problematic behavior. I have to say that based on the way Sfarney handled this dispute, as revealed by the content of the AE page, the sanction seems appropriate, and that there is no obvious reason to impugn The Wordsmith, and the rather poor attempts at misdirection impugning otherwise lends even more support to the belief in Sfarney's ongoing problematic behavior in this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laval

Due to medical issues, my activity on Wikipedia recently has been sporadic and infrequent, so this sudden topic ban on User:Sfarney comes as a total surprise and I've only discovered it by chance after the Memorial Day weekend, during and after which I have been hospitalized. At this exact moment I will not be able to go into any level of detail due to my health issues, but let me state for the time being that I totally and emphatically disagree and oppose this topic ban against Sfarney, who I have found to be, like myself, a very neutral editor. Our goal here at Wikipedia is total and absolute neutrality. If this is true, if Wikipedia is about absolute neutrality, then a topic ban against Sfarney for attempting such regarding Scientology literally makes no sense. The articles regarding Scientology are, in general, so extremely biased against the subject that if we were dealing with Judaism or Islam, Wikipedia would be accused of antisemitism and Islamophobia, respectively. We need more neutrality and emotionless distance, not bias. Based on my experience and interactions, Sfarney is a valued and productive editor, and I strongly recommend against this action. Forgive me any errors or omissions, or any other such mistakes. If more details or information will be needed from me, please allow me a few days to recover from my most recent hospital stay. Many thanks and appreciation, Laval (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is User:Prioryman removing a threat [7] made after threatening me with a similar ban as Sfarney [8], but only after I made clear I gave into his and his gangs bullying [9] and his false claims of "consensus" -- if "consensus" on Wikipedia means a gang of anti-Scientology editors can do whatever the hell they want, then fine. As I wrote there, my health and sanity are more important than putting up with this crap. Topic ban me and whoever else tries to do some good according to policy here. Wikipedia keeps losing good editors and it's clear to me that the situation is hopeless, and like others before me, I give up. Prioryman and his anti-Scientology want to bully me off of Wikipedia, and they've succeeded. Laval (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that blatantly anti-Scientology editors like Prioryman, User:Feoffer, User:Slashme, User:Damotclese, User:Thimbleweed, are not topic banned and yet one editor who goes against them does, shows the arrogance of this kind of move. As I've written, I expect I'll be next to be topic banned next since Prioryman has become arrogant enough to go ahead and revert whatever edits I make, particularly in regards to legitimate maintenance tags. This is disgusting enough that I can't believe this is even happening. Laval (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And another thing, if Sfarney is to remain topic banned, then I should be topic banned as well. The only thing the two of us are guilty of is trying to uphold Wikipedia policy and guidelines against anti-Scientology bullies like Prioryman, Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer, etc. You guys can even go ahead and ban me from Wikipedia overall, I wouldn't be surprised at this point. I simply regret investing so much time and effort into this project that I thought could be improved, but in turn has just shown that the nepotism of old still remains. I am just appalled by Prioryman and the level of support in his favor here, while his behavior is ignored in spite of the fact that he and his buddies have gone out of their way to bully the hell out of anyone who doesn't see things the way they do, just look at their constant removal of legitimate maintenance tags. It's absurd. So, topic ban me or accuse me of being a covert Scientologist working for the Office of Special Affairs. That's how it is, right? Laval (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Slashme

I would like to respond to User:Laval's statement that I am "blatantly anti-Scientology". I feel that this is a mischaracterisation. I try to be neutral and balanced, and where I find content that is uncritically negative towards Scientology, I remove it. See this edit and this one for example.

Laval also asserts that I am part of a "gang" of editors that are "bullying" him. I am saddened by this claim: I would hate to be guilty of on-wiki or off-wiki harassment. I cannot find anything in my editing history that supports this statement, but if anyone else feels that this accusation is true, please highlight where I have done so, so that I can modify my behaviour in future.

I would also like to respond to User:Sfarney's statement that certain claims in the article are based on "a professor's essay that has not been peer-reviewed (I have asked for evidence of peer review, and Prioryman provided none)." This is surprising, considering that this issue has already been addressed. The "essay" in question is an English translation of a peer-reviewed article, and both the translation and the original are cited in the article:

• Lane, Jodi M. (January 30, 2008). "Malignant Narcissism, L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology's Policies of Narcisstic Rage" (PDF). University of Alberta.
• Lane, Jodi M.; Kent, Stephen A. (2008). "Politiques de rage et narcissisme malin". Criminologie (in French). 41 (2): 117–155. Retrieved 20 May 2016.

This has been pointed out on the talk page, whereupon Sfarney questioned the qualifications of the reviewers. Here, however, he persists in claiming that the article is a non-peer-reviewed "essay".

The facts mentioned in the article are supported by newspaper articles, magazine articles, peer-reviewed research and books. The lower quality sources (blogs and links to original material) that keep being mentioned, simply serve to give extra context and detail, and certainly aid the reader who has an interest in the topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by sfarney

• WP:INVOLVED says

  In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

  Thus the essential nature of "involvement" by Wikipedia's standards is not about an editor's past personal off-Wikipedia history, but primarily about their on-Wikipedia relationship with the editor being sanctioned. Were sfarney's extremely broad definition of "involvement" to be accepted, admins with expert knowledge of, for instance, physics, would not be able to take any action against an editor whose transgressions were in the subject area of physics. That clearly goes against common sense, to remove from administrative action the very administrators who are best able to judge problematic behavior in a particular subject area. This being the case, sfarney's claim that The Wordsmith is "involved" is not valid, and the sanction should be upheld. BMK (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW I concur with The Wordsmith concerning Sfarney's sig, which I have found problematic for a while now, but which I didn't think was worth the effort ro complain about, since I come across it so inoften. Still, it is hard to read. BMK (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• The user has clearly been well cognizant of the nature of Scientology article sanctions for some time, and was given ample notice in the past. [10] shows an interest in the topic in May 2015. (" The History of man page states there are recorded Hubbard lectures on space opera, too. I think the lead should be rewritten to remove this innuendo completely. It sounds like the Wiki has an axe to grind about scientology, instead of just telling the facts." Slade Farney).

And a host of warnings from Bishonen as well, culminating in an indefinite topic ban on Rick Alan Ross and "all related pages and content" (note that article is directly related to Scientology in itself). Not to mention [11].

Where a user has been long aware of the nature of the Scientology articles, and has substantially specialized in that general area, and been previously topic banned in a specific related area, they ought not be surprised that sanctions might apply.(Out of 1300 article edits, more than 300 relate to Scientology to a greater or lesser degree, Of 900 article talk page edits, more than 600 are related). The edit histories show no particular interaction with the administrator, The Wordsmith, at issue, so on both hands the appeal is problematic. Collect (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think Wordsmith would classify as involved. If you look at Sfarney's talk page you will see discussions between the two. It's clear that Wordsmith was involved in a content dispute and as such should not have been the one to ban. I think we should listen to Wordsmith though where the offer is to rescind the 5.1 sanction, I believe as the imposing admin Wordsmith can do it without any other input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:The_Wordsmith, I made a mistake and I struck out my comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• The sanction was within administrator discression and not unreasonable. The Wordsmith has agreed to strike the Arbcom 5.1 sanction and keep the DS in place. No practical difference as far as the imposed editing restriction goes. Just because Rhe Wordsmith has experise in the area does not make him WP:INVOLVED and he has declined any COI which could make him so.

  Those are really the only issues to address. This is an appeal not a do-over of the AE discussion. Jbh^Talk 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Sfarney's last couple of comments above seem to be attempting to re-litigate the matter, which is not what an AE appeal is intended for. It is not another bite of the apple. BMK (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I regretfully agree. The AE page demonstrated the specific actions Sfarney took which resulted in the sanction being placed, and there is no reason to repeat them, or to attempt to ignore them. Regarding the comments he made about boasts, well, hell, I've done kinda the same thing myself above. with my comments about the quality of some of the libraries I haunt. In some cases, such statements can be seen as useful. I really don't see any basis for saying that The Wordsmith has to be counted as involved simply because he has read up on a subject IRL. If we took that position, a lot of our articles here would never be edited. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the comment above by Laval. Is Laval an involved editor in this? Should Laval have been notified for some reason? Is there any reason that Laval's medical condition should hold up a decision about whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted or not? The tone of the comment seems to imply that the answer to all these questions is "yes", but I'm not seeing where Laval is involved in this specific issue in any way, except perhaps as a general supporter of Sfarney. [12] BMK (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Given Laval's last few comments, I understand better now the editor's position, and suggest that because of their clearly deep partisanship, their comments should pay no part in the determination of whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted - I do not believe that Laval is capable of rendering an unbiased opinion in this matter. I assume that Laval has been notified of the Discretionary Sanctions in play for the Scientology subject area? BMK (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Sfarney: You are under the mistaken impression that I am an admin - I am not; never have been, never will be. I am a mere rank-and-file editor. By filing this appeal here, instead of at AE, any uninvolved editor can discuss the question of your appeal - on AE it would have been any univolved admin. I assume you made the choice to come here for a reason - perhaps you thought that admins would be predisposed not to lift another admin's sanction, and that regular editors would be more sympathetic to your plight. That doesn't seem to have happened.
  Further, my assessment of Laval had nothing whatsoever to do with his "agreeing with you" and was based entirely on the words he wrote in his comment.
  I will also say this: you are doing yourself no good at all with your continued comments. In fact, to my eye, you're simply digging yourself into a deeper hole, at the bottom of which won't be a simple topic ban, but likely a block of some sort for disruptive editing. Just my opinion, of course, but that's the way I see it. Were I you, I'd lay off the "odder and odder" bit: you are a supplicant here, requesting relief from a sanction that appears to be approved of by the vast majority of commenters. Snideness isn't going to help you. BMK (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Again, the AE matter is not going to be re-litigated, and you are not going to be able to "turn the tables" and make this about whether Prioryman is partisan or not. That's not the issue in this appeal, it simply does not enter into it. The issue has been plainly laid out and answered: Was the sanction valid? Yes. Was The Wordsmith "involved" by Wikipedia's definition? No. Therefore the appeal should be declined. BMK (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Legal advice"? What the heck are you talking about? BMK (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to @The Wordsmith: that because this appeal was filed at AN and not at AE, discussion about the appeal is among uninvolved editors not among uninvolved admins. Of course, an uninvolved admin will need to close the appeal, as usual. BMK (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

• I would like to suggest that consensus among the uninvolved editors is that this appeal should be declined. The only basis for the appeal were claims that The Wordsmith was INVOLVED in some way or that he exceeded his administrative discretion. Consensus is the negative in both cased. I suggest the sanction be removed from where it is recorded in ARBSCI 5.1, as The Wordsmith suggested, since Sfarney is not an SPA and the ARBSCI/DS sanction remain in place. This can then be closed. We have passed into the realm of more heat than light and it is highly unlikely anything further productive will be accomplished here. Jbh^Talk 12:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Since SfFarney seems to want more information on why this closing was seconded. In my estimation, the OP incorrectly overstates their case, as there are secondary sources, etc., and the OP may have developed into systematically overstating the case in general, including against Wordsmith, and it could reasonably be seen to go beyond useful contribution to behaviorally problematic behavior. As for the extensive editing of related topics (which is often shorthanded as SpA) well just move on, as the modification addresses that, and finally, as others have explained in depth, having read books on a topic, does not make one involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. BMK (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• I can see that there might be some reasonable questions regarding whether the article has sufficient discussion as a primary topic in independent literature to raise possible notability questions as per WP:GNG, although the newspaper article probably addresses those concerns, with the other sources provided. Whether it merits being a stand-alone article is still a matter of question. That, however, is a separate matter from this request, which was about whether the AE sanction was appropriate. Given the behavior of Sfarney indicated on that page, and in this one, I have to say that there is sufficient reason to say that such a sanction, based on his behavior, is appropriate. There is a separate matter of whether the behavior of other editors in the same material is also appropriate, and whether the article might reasonably be considered for deletion or merging, but those are separate matters beyond the scope of this appeal discussion. They could have been, and could still be, raised in accord with policies and guidelines on the relevant pages, and that would have been the preferable way to conduct this discussion, but they seemingly were not, in favor of the behavior which led to the AE sanction. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with closing this with no further action. This isn't the place to re-litigate the case, which is what this largely appears to be. The one element which I think does merit further inspection is whether User:The Wordsmith was sufficiently involved as to be ineligible to impose a sanction. On balance, while this editor does participate in articles on Scientology, I don't see that they were in any way compromised in their judgement. Further, given User:Sfarney's conduct in this appeal (as summarised by User:Slashme), as well as a quick look at their editing history, I think the sanction was reasonable under the circumstances. Lets not waste any further time with this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC).

• It is also my opinion that this appeal has continued long enough for an uninvolved admin to simply close, and would ask that one does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• For the love of sanity someone please close this. The OP is failing to observe the first law of holes and I fear that this could turn into a discussion about a community indef topic ban since, based in their comments here, I seriously doubt that their editing behavior will change in a year. Jbh^Talk 16:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• On my knees here, supporting the closing ASAP. The conduct of individuals in this discussion does seem to me to be spiraling out of control, and if it continues open much longer some sort of indef topic ban or i-ban or similar may well be required. Please close this before the self-inflicted damage being caused by one or more individuals here requires further, possibly more drastic, action. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by sfarney

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

• Note I'm obviously not uninvolved, but since this is related to the Result I would like to note that I have vacated the 5.1 sanction as promised. Feel free to move this if anyone thinks it should be elsewhere. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm closing this - the discussion has been open for a week, the result is pretty clear and continued discussion isn't being productive. Consensus of uninvolved editors is that the sanction is valid and should stand. Hut 8.5 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Jadcherla

(Moved to ANI. BMK (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

Backlog at WP:FFD

There's a little over 800 items in need of closure/review at Files for discussion, most of which are very, very easy closures. It'd be great if several admins could spare a few minutes to close some old discussions. Thanks, FASTILY 22:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFD is backlogged as well, if anyone is feeling in a closing mood. shoy (reactions) 12:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to BDD for clearing the backlog at RFD! shoy (reactions) 14:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Very kind of you, shoy, but I was hardly alone. Deryck Chan and Patar knight deserve credit, as does the project's newest admin, Tavix, who has really hit the ground running at RFD. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try! Deryck C. 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Potential six-month-old hoax has been widely shared online

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

---

(Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this, but I thought someone should take a look at it.)

Last December, someone anonymously added this sentence to the Radar detector detector article:

"In 1982 the US military funded a project, codenamed R4D (radar detector-detector-detector-detector), in order to develop a device capable of detecting radar detector-detector-detectors." (diff)

This has been widely shared online, including by the popular blog Slate Star Codex (link) and the /r/wikipedia and /r/TIL subreddits (link, link). However, the original Wikipedia article doesn't have a source for "R4D". I looked for one, but all the sources online seemed to trace back to Wikipedia, or were obviously people joking around on forums and stuff. Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News don't appear to have anything on this project - the only reference to "R4D" in a military context is to a particular model of airplane.

Can someone confirm whether or not this is a hoax? Thanks. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:F45A:7D7F:B73F:6717 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. If there is no reliable source for the information, it can be removed. Doc talk 09:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

R3D seems to actually be a thing ([13], see "VG-2 alert" and "Spectre alert" in the feature list). R4D sounds farfetched to me but who knows. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoax or no, it's unsourced and this humble non-admin has removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Admins requested for moderated RfC

There is two months of background information here, so I'll keep it brief: At the encouragement of Arbcom, and to avoid a second Case, we are holding a moderated RfC regarding how to phrase the issue of GMO safety across all of the relevant articles where it needs to be mentioned (with a Discretionary Sanction saying it can't be overturned without another RfC), like was done successfully with Jerusalem. There have been multiple local RfCs on individual talkpages, edit wars, and an Arbitration case. Myself and Laser brain volunteered to moderate it, enforcing Discretionary Sanctions as necessary to minimize disruption and keep it on topic. However, two months, later, I'm pushing to move it forward/initiate the RfC and, to put it mildly, all hell breaks loose. Four hours before I planned to protect the page pending its opening, Laser brain is forced to withdraw due to harassment and threats of doxxing. I probably would have bowed out too if I wasn't known for handling these sort of intractable disputes.

So, since I refuse to bow to harassment and threats, I'm seeking a second admin to help enforce civility and do what is necessary. I know I'm doing the equivalent of asking you to give a hornet's nest a good smack every day for at least 30 days, but surely there must be at least one uninvolved masochist willing to join me and patrol the RfC. Its current home is at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC, but it will obviously be moved to Project space when initiated.

Oh, and I'll also need three uninvolved admins willing to determine consensus and close when things are over. Please let me know here if you're willing to do either job. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: The hornet-smacking position has been graciously filled by Coffee (talk · contribs). Now all I need are 3 uninvolved admins to indicate that they would be willing to determine consensus after at least 30 days. Much less masochistic. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Coffee for stepping in. I raise a cup to you! And to The Wordsmith for sticking with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I seem to be a glutton for RFC punishment, so I can help close it in July. Any sooner or very much later, though, and I'm going to be too busy. Katie^talk 01:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't know you very well, but I've heard good things. I assume you have no trouble meeting WP:INVOLVED for this topic area? If so, I'll add your name to the RfC and then just 2 more are needed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not only uninvolved, I don't think I've ever edited anything in that area, ever. Maybe I locked a page from a RFPP way back when, but I honestly don't remember. Katie^talk 02:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! I'll take care of the red tape and drop you a note Monday when it goes live. Now, any other takers? I promise, I won't ask you to do anything except judge consensus when it ends. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that no one has noted here that Nakon has joined Katie as a second closer. Now one more closer is needed. Thanks Katie and Nakon! --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that I don't have a conflict in this area and am glad to assist with the closure of this RFC. Thanks, Nakon 02:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, I think that The Wordsmith and Coffee are looking for just one more uninvolved closer, to join as the third closer with Katie and Nakon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Questions about process

• @The Wordsmith, Coffee, and KrakatoaKatie:, I've just read through the ArbCom amendment request for the first time, and I'm confused. The ArbCom said no to the suggestion that they mandate an RfC. So where did the idea come from that they had encouraged it, or that anyone was authorized to lock content down after it? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

When they said that the community should deal with it under the DS that they issued. The Wordsmith and Laser brain went forward with that under DS authority. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin: If you don't see multiple arbs endorsing the idea of a moderated RfC/using Discretionary Sanctions, then I don't know what to tell you. The RfC is being moderated using DS, and a Discretionary Sanction at the end will prevent the content from being changed without sufficient consensus. This is the only alternative to a second Case, which nobody wants, and although very creative it is within the purview of Discretionary Sanctions. And as the draft RFC is within my userspace, I have full authority to protect it at my discretion as per WP:UPROT. Once it is moved out of my user subpage I will not have that ability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think she was asking you about the requirement not to change the consensus language after the RfC without adequate consensus, as opposed the the page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If this is really an issue, perhaps SlimVirgin or someone else should go to WP:ARCA (as a clarification) and ask directly whether the Arbs consider the RfC to be authorized by DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin: Thanks for reading the ARCA comments from ArbCom members: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

A number of editors have misrepresented ArbCom, claiming the RfC is "mandated" by ArbCom:

• Laserbrain: "this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case" [20] (also [21]).

In fact, it was Trytpofish who threatened another full ArbCom case if he didn't get this RfC on his terms: "Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2" [22].

• King: "Not to sound like a broken record... but part of the reason we have this ArbCom mandated RfC (it’s too late for people to say we shouldn’t have one)..." [23].
• Tryptofish: "the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom." [24]

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

David, I already explained to you at #Attempting to thwart Discretionary Sanctions, just below, that the mandate from ArbCom is for DS, whereas the decisions to employ DS in the form of an RfC is a matter of the discretion of uninvolved administrators as authorized by the DS; that's not the same thing as ArbCom directing the RfC themselves. I'm sorry that you think that a GMO-2 case would be a threat. If you have done nothing contrary to policy, you have nothing to worry about. And it would be far better for everyone if we avoided such a case entirely. Now, how could we avoid it? Hey, how about an RfC, in which we involve the community! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Wordsmith, I am reading it now, and I can't see anyone support the fixed time span. I can see GorillaWarfare say she felt a moderated RfC was okay. The rest said no, so far as I can see. Where did this idea come from that, after this RfC, nothing could be changed without another RfC? I can't see any authority from ArbCom for what has been happening here. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Arbcom authorized Discretionary Sanctions for that entire topic area, and page restrictions are well within the jurisdiction of ACDS (and do have precedent, I believe it was also done on Muhammed). A sanction saying "X was decided by strong consensus, don't change that without an overriding consensus" is not all that controversial. A creative use of DS, sure, but not out of bounds. It was proposed as an alternative to the editors requesting it be fixed for X years like in Jerusalem, because it takes care of the possibility of changing science. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Add: It should also be noted that I proposed that MedCom be given a crack at overseeing the RfC. While this was supported by multiple Arbs it was not enacted, however I am a sitting member of MedCom. I'm here to mediate in addition to just handing out bans. I agree that this situation is incredibly odd, but I don't see any better alternatives. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Wordsmith, when you say the fixed time span (that the content could not be changed until after another 30-day RfC) "was proposed as an alternative to the editors requesting it be fixed for X years," who proposed it? The ArbCom said no to any fixed time span. It can't be done in science articles for obvious reasons. Even articles under long-term full protection allow requested edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Doxxing?

The Wordsmith, that it very serious, can you elaborate? petrarchan47คุก 07:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, harassment is pretty serious too. What exactly happened to Laser Brain? The vagueness of these charges leaves me feeling uneasy; without definition, they spread to anyone who (very rightly) questioned this RfC idea. It could have the effect of biasing the process before it begins. petrarchan47คุก 07:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Finally, Wordsmith, I am uncomfortable with your characterization of events. There may be things behind the scenes that I'm not aware of, and I hope you will explain what happened to Laser Brain. Threats of doxxing, and harassment, should be acted upon. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to sprinkle accusations here rather than to take proper action.

I was not aware that you were about to close the RfC discussion; there is no particular reason that I made my comments when I did. Tsavage made fantastic suggestions soon after my arrival to your page (I don't know what was behind his timing), and Sarah SV says she stopped by with her own comments due to Tsavage's contribution.

In her remarks here, I think she gets to a very important problem with the RfC idea that should be considered:

The GMO issue could change at any time, even if only in nuanced ways, as more research or position papers become available. If new sources appear, this situation means that editors won't be able to add them until they've organized a 30-day RfC

To me, it seems unfair to characterize our participation on your talk page in the way you have, and equally unfair not to allow discussion to continue regarding some serious issues. It may have felt like all hell breaking loose, but I for one was unaware of your plans to close down the discussion in 4 hours.

I think the community should be allowed more control over this process via open discussion, as it is entirely possible that the whole RfC idea is inherently flawed. petrarchan47คุก 09:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to answer all of your questions at least briefly. I commented several times, including when SlimVirgin asked, that I was going to fullprotect the page at noon yesterday while we made the necessary changes to move it to Project-space and open it. This was delayed a few hours by Laser brain withdrawing. He said he had received several harassing emails, including one credible threat to dox him if he continued to participate. I don't know who sent them, but it is clearly unacceptable in any context so I urged him to forward the emails to the Arbitration Committee.

Thankfully, Coffee has agreed to step in to fill his shoes after I put out a request. He has an excellent track record of dispute resolution going back several years, and I could not have asked for a better partner had I sought one out specifically.

The RfC might not be a good idea. However, it is the only idea on the table. Arbcom specifically recommended this as the only alternative to a full case. Also, while rare it is not unprecedented. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem is the model this was based on, and worked exceptionally well. I understand that science can change, which is why we moved away from the original Jerusalem model (binding for 3 years) to this more flexible one (binding until an equally strong consensus). Science changes, but not quickly. No single study is going to come out and completely shock the scientific community and reverse the scientific consensus. If it is to change, more likely it will be a pattern of studies over months or years, with plenty of time to hold an RFC. Those requesting the RfC initially wanted the 3 years, but it was I who suggested this as a concession to your point of view. Please meet us half way.

Finally, the fullprotection. I warned 24 hours in advance that I would do that, and I still think it was for the best. The situation there was spiraling out of control, with most comments not even about the proposals. It also gives Coffee a chance to catch up on the two months of discussion. However, if the participants are willing to keep their comments strictly about how exactly to improve the RfC itself, I would be willing to archive all existing threads, create one new thread for final improvements, and unprotect it. However, if things start devolving again, I'll go back to the original plan. Is this compromise acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs)

Very brief reply concerning The RfC might not be a good idea. However, it is the only idea on the table. Please reread and consider replying to Tsavage's relevant and well thought out questions, here, preferably. (His input is priceless, as he has been around the GMO suite for years and has remained science/guideline-based and drama-free.) Thank you, petrarchan47คุก 01:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

ping petrarchan47คุก 01:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Wordsmith, several points:

1. The doxxing threat needs to be further investigated. Laser brain may know who did it, but if it was an anonymous emailer, it could be someone trying to make the other "side" look bad, a false flag. But as he described it, he made it sound as though it had come from those opposed to the RfC. That is very prejudicial, so it needs to be clarified, so that those opposed to the RfC are not unfairly tarnished.
2. It has appeared to me, from my very brief look at this, that you and Laser brain have not been even-handed. You were big on "no aspersions," but when I was personally attacked, including by Kingofaces who posted blatant falsehoods, you did nothing. But Laser brain warned Petrarchan over a very mild comment. I have nothing but respect for both of you, but I believe you have been misled as to what is happening here.
3. I don't know who wrote the proposals, but they include, yet again, a misrepresentation of the position of the World Health Organization. Are misrepresentations going to be presented to the community, which won't be in a position to unpick everything? (Pinging Casliber because he has mentioned sourcing issues.)
4. Just as people were pointing these problems out to you, you locked the page.
5. If a misleading version that favours American industry gets locked in place in the articles, the media will take notice. That will lead to negative press attention for Wikipedia, for the individuals involved, and for Monsanto, who will be blamed even though they had nothing to do with it.
6. That someone would have requested an issue in science be locked down for three years should have been a red flag (even if the suggestion was later modified by others). This is different in kind, not only in degree, from the Jerusalem issue.
7. Most importantly, there is no trouble at any of the articles. There is no need to lock anything in place. If there's a problem with the sentences in question, it can be sorted out by the normal editing process. If there are people causing a problem with that, topic ban them.

SarahSV ^(talk) 15:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I'll try to respond to each of your points. The threat made were credible in LB's mind, but that is between him, Arbcom, and local law enforcement if he chooses to go that route. I have not seen them, and I recognize the possibility that any threats could be a false flag (I patrol several other contentious areas, so I'm always considering that), and so I have been very careful to not describe the emails as coming from any particular "side" either in my thoughts or my words so as not to "tarnish" anyone. I just acknowledge that threats were made, and further threats from anyone will not be effective. It is possible that I have missed some aspersions; this issue has produced copious volumes of text in addition to similar from other areas I enforce, so I do occasionally miss things. If somebody makes a comment that you think is against our policies, the best thing to do is ping me or drop a note on my talkpage asking for input as others have done. I do my best to be even handed and do not take "sides". In fact, I have no interest in GMO whatsoever and find the topic rather boring. I just volunteered because it is better than Arbcom making content decisions. The protection was not unexpected; I gave over 24 hours notice that I would be doing that. Like I offered above, I would be willing to unprotect it if editors want to make proposals in one section of the talkpage and stay on topic. Regarding the negative press: I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, not run PR for the Foundation or Monsanto. I enforce our policies and guidelines; if you think that leads to bad press, then propose changes to those policies. I will not be beholden to what outside interests think. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Wordsmith, thank you for the reply. I also have no interest in GMOs, and like you I find the whole thing dull. So when I commented yesterday, or whenever it was, I did it only because I saw Tsavage express concern. I have written and closed many RfCs, so the problems jumped out at me. The RfC needs to offer accurate proposals in such a way that the closers will not find consensus difficult to determine because of the structure or because of the poor use of sources in the proposals.
  But I was immediately attacked on that page, and neither you nor Laser brain said anything. Then you said you intended to delay the RfC to find other admins, then suddenly changed your mind. If people are emailing you about it, I urge you to ask them to stop. I also urge you to allow time for accurate proposals to be offered, rather than proposals that contain misrepresentations. Why is there such a rush? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sarah SV and I both mentioned "false flag" (I hadn't read her post yet, my comments were independent) for good reason. During the ArbCom there were 3 people outed! All 3 of them on the side that was challenging the Jytdog et al. It is logical to suspect foul play. petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: If I missed a personal attack, that's my mistake. I'm sure you know a personal attack when you see one, so next time please ping me and ask me to look at it. I promise I'll give it my full attention. And yes, after LB withdrew I announced I was delaying the opening until I could find a replacement. Then I found one. Seems fairly straightforward to me, unless I'm missing something. And this is hardly what I call a rush; things have been in progress for two months now. I would call that healthy time to develop. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: okay, thank you re: personal attacks. I will do that. Regarding the rush, you're right that if this has been in the pipeline for two months, it isn't a rush. I suppose I'm wondering why the sourcing issues in the proposals weren't fixed, or why a different proposal wasn't written up. But it could be that those who opposed the RfC felt it was inherently flawed and therefore didn't want to take part. That's a problem with this kind of thing, but I don't have a suggestion as to how to fix it, except perhaps to go the extra mile to extend a welcome to the people opposing. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• SV, I'm going to only respond to a few things because most of your comments belong in content discussion and not behavior issues relevant to AN as it's clear you hold some personal views on this subject now. One is that I made no aspersions about you. I linked directly to conversations that showed you were WP:INVOLVED with me due to behavior issues I've tried to get you to stop in the past. I could have gone into more detail, but I was only establishing that you couldn't serve as an admin in this RfC because of past history. I don't like commenting on editors in a venue focused on content because it is usually a distraction, but I did it as little as possible because admin involvement was relevant to the RfC itself. I for one don't think it needs to be discussed further at the RfC prep page, and The Wordsmith or Coffee can ask me if they think more clarification is really needed to dispel further claims of misrepresentation on my part.

Secondly, you've already been told in the RfC discussion how the WHO position has been described by secondary sources (even though this is on content) as in line with the scientific consensus and not a misrepresentation of it by us editors. One could also claim that other editors claiming there isn't a consensus are also misrepresenting sources. That's why we are having this RfC in the first place for the community to weigh what's actually correct according to sources. If you believe something is incorrect about the proposed content, then participate in the RfC when it launches.

General aspersions to industry as a manner of unduly influencing content were meant to be avoided with the acceptance of Principle 5 from the ArbCom case. If you really want to bring "industry" into this, then one could also claim Wikipedia looks bad because saying there isn't a scientific consensus favors the organic, "natural food", etc. industries marketing efforts, which are the other equivalent corporate interests myself and others keep a look out for in addition to the many seed companies like Monsanto, Dupont, etc. That's why we stick to independent scientific sources to cut through all that even when the findings may inadvertently benefit a particular industry (it's tough to name a scientific finding that doesn't benefit someone). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant to thank The Wordsmith for bringing this to AN, because it needs more eyes. I'm pinging several people, including those who expressed concern about the way Petrarchan was treated: @Coretheapple, Smallbones, Gandydancer, Buster7, and Jusdafax:.

The Wordsmith, you may not be familiar with Petrarchan47. Regardless of the content issues, which I'm not involved in and know very little about, she is an excellent whistleblower with a good instinct for when processes are being subverted. It would be to Wikipedia's detriment to let her be "othered" in the way I've seen happen lately. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As a casual observer at best, the comment "...and I could not have asked for a better partner had I sought one out specifically."bothers me. Referring to Coffee as a partner does him no service in his effort to appear and remain neutral. Not to fan any flames of polarized pot stirring, but maybe Petra needs an administrative "partner" too. Buster Seven Talk 16:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be misinterpreting me. The RFC specified two admins working together to enforce DS on the RfC. Two people working together for the same goal seems a lot like partnership to me. I didn't mean to imply any personal relationship or agenda other than the one I was given by Arbcom. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I have no involvement in the underlying dispute but watch Petrarchan's talk page, and was surprised to note that she had received a warning from this "Laser Brain," who I was surprised to see was an administrator, claiming that Petrarchan had "cast aspersions" on somebody when in fact she had not. The linked text showed ordinary input. I think it is a good idea for him not to be involved in whatever it is you are doing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have my concerns about opening things back up again because some editors, with Petrarchan as an example, have shown a repeated inability to focus on the RfC regardless of warnings. Having Laserbrain warning them for aspersions saying DS will be enforced if it happens again,[25] only for Petrarchan to double down[26][27][28] on those same comments when Laserbrain stepped out due to harassment over those warnings[29] seems to have been more than enough rope. We've already been given ample time to sort out the RfC details already, so if we do open this up again, we'd need something extremely pressing to justify that before it launches on Monday.

A lot of these editors should also realize that the lock-down is largely a benefit to them. The ignoring of warnings from admins and continuing the off-topic pursuit of editors (and admins) would have likely resulted in sanctions otherwise. The lockdown seems like the reasonable first choice because sanctioning editors, even if fully warranted, is obviously going to kick up more drama now and distract from the RfC. Those are the choices when editors choose to go off-track by not focusing on the RfC. I'm not entirely opposed to opening things back up again if warranted, but editors will have to realize they've put themselves in a position where it would be a rather huge favor to them at this point given recent events. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not involved, but the warning that Petrachan should have gotten was to stop and take it to AE and ask for a topic ban (if they wanted to pursue it). It's either willfully or mistakenly designed to be disruptive to raise such an obvious conduct issue and conduct remedy on the RfC content page, as Petrachan did. My advice, now go back to the RfC talk page and figure out the the WHO issue. That is not worth discussing here and the rest about Laser Brain being gone is an off-site and thus Arbcom matter. The community will also have a chance to weigh the value of the questions and what they signify in the RfC (and who could possibly be against getting outside input [30] ). And most won't even want to know about the issues between individuals. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to make a couple clarifying remarks: My wording to Petrarchan47 was indeed over the top and I apologize for that. @SlimVirgin: I was in the middle typing up a response to some of the comments directed at you when all this blew up, so I apologize for not having time to address it (regarding your comment about even-handedness). I did not mean to imply anything about the identities of people contacting me off-site. The only thing evident is that they are people who are monitoring the situation and/or Petrarchan47's talk page. I will handle it off-wiki. I will say that I appreciate the editors who were mature enough to question or criticize my actions in public, even though your remarks may have stung. Sometimes we may forget that we're dealing with fellow human beings. Anyway, that's the last comment from me anywhere near this domain. Anyone wanting further clarification is welcome to email me. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Laser brain, it's very gracious of you to apologize for the comment to Petrarchan, and I'm relieved to hear you were about to say something regarding the comments directed at me. I'm very sorry to hear you received those emails, and I hope there's no repeat of that to anyone else. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Laser Brain, I am sorry you felt pounced on. I think you may have reacted with emotion and that was my whole point - this GMO issue is so hairy that if the admins are feeling stressed, they should consider bowing out. The GMO issue doesn't need frazzled or emotional admins taking charge of the situation. This isn't meant as a put down or attack. I believe the reaction from you may have been over the top only because of the "frazzled" effect this topic, and the folks involved, has on people. It's very important to point out here: I and others have noted that wearing people down may be the goal of some of the more fervent participators in this topic area. I have years of expereince watching the GMO suite and main editors, and am not saying superfluous things, I am sharing the distillation of a lot of research. I do hear those saying "take your complaints to the proper noticeboard". At a certain point though, you're going to have to address the misuse of sources by the main editors at the GMO suite. It's egregious. Anyone who is aware of it is as responsible as I to do something about it. Instead there is the usual shuffling about and pushing it under the rug. It is simple: if I had misused sources in this topic, or even suggest it, like the way I have been pointing out recently, I would be banned. There is a serious breakdown here when the reaction is so different depending on some unwritten rules.

My concern about mentioning doxxing, anonymous emails, and "harassment" is that it could function as a false flag if left unchallenged. Here is the truth. The GMO suite has been the subject of relentless drama since 2013 or so because sources, editors, and WP are being misused and when everyday editors have tried to remedy this, they end up being treated like public enemy number one. petrarchan47คุก 00:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Although you say you hear the advice to present concerns formally at the appropriate dispute resolution board, you instead keep on making vague accusations about unnamed editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You and King have been the ones pushing for this RfC and have misrepresented the facts by claiming that it is mandated by ArbCom. Because the GMO suite is so deeply problematic I am going to be blunt. There is in fact no justification for this RfC besides:

• the voices of two editors, you and King
• the argument that it has been planned for so long, considering a change of course due to new information is out of the question

I have shown the community that both of you have misused sources in a way that shows a pro GMO bias, and that is directly relevant to the issue at hand. The way that WP responds is, as Sarah SV states above, potential fodder for media. The GMO suite is under DS, so it is really up to adminstrators to act accordingly if sources are being misused. Shooting the messenger is not a good look. petrarchan47คุก 05:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

* petrarchan47คุก 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's just a diff of your own comments. All that diff demonstrates is that you are tossing around the same accusations on other pages, that you are here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be more respectful of people's time. This is a ridiculous comment. The diff points to my entry that includes many diffs. Two of those diffs show that you have suppressed the very best review articles we have on GMO safety to a "but see also" in the sources for your "GMOs are safe" proposal. Those articles say that there is lively debate in the scientific community about GMO safety, but this isn't mentioned in your proposal. So you are showing an inability to properly weigh and summarize GMO science. Further, there is a diff showing where you re-entered the term "scientific consensus" months after the RfC mandated a wording change, since this phrase does not have support in current literature. You were aware of that RfC, I have seen you refer to it many times, and you were well aware this suite is under DS. I am still waiting for Admins to treat you as they did all the editors we have lost, those who tried to blow a whistle or fix the GMO articles. I am not holding my breath. petrarchan47คุก 22:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I want it clear to everyone that commenting on fellow editors (ad hominem) will not be allowed at any time or by anyone once the RFC opens. Any issues with specific editors can, and should be, brought up here or at WP:ANI - which will prevent our closing admins from getting distracted. If anyone feels that anyone else shouldn't be editing a topic area, they either need to propose a topic/interaction ban and get that formally approved or keep it to themselves. I'm not going to bother with "getting myself dirty" by commenting on what's already transpired, but I am keeping note of it for when the RFC starts up on Monday. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to thwart Discretionary Sanctions

I think that doxing threats are awful, and very serious. But I started a separate subthread because I want to make it very clear that I am raising a separate subtopic. I'm concerned here with on-Wiki conduct, not emails, and not content. I want to make it very, very clear that I do not think that the editors who have been commenting here and elsewhere are the same persons who sent Laser brain those emails. I don't know who did, of course, but we should be very, very clear that editors here are not being accused and are not subject to aspersions or innuendo about those emails. And it is indeed important to consider what Laser brain just said before I posted this.

But something else is going on, right here on site. In the GMO case, ArbCom enacted Discretionary Sanctions. That's how the community deals with difficult disputes, and it is a process that the community needs to cooperate with. ArbCom also issued a finding that there has been a significant problem with some users casting the aspersion that some content in the GMO topic area is edited to be "pro-industry", as a way of dishonestly getting the upper hand in a POV dispute. What we are really seeing here, as the RfC is about to open, is a thinly disguised attempt to undermine what ArbCom decided.

You can see in diffs above that Laser brain issued a DS warning to Petrarchan. Uninvolved admins can, if they want, see the diffs and decide for themselves whether or not the warning was correct. Personally, I think it was entirely correct on the substance (setting aside whether Laser brain now feels that the tone should have been more balanced). You can look at the diffs and decide for yourself whether or not Petrarchan has continued the conduct that she was warned about, after the warning. Personally, I think she did, and it's a potential AE concern. But Petrarchan was actually welcomed to offer her own proposal for the RfC: [31]. Nonetheless, she later said that her proposal was not "serious", in effect a pointy prank: [32] (first line).

Jusdafax has been posting on the talk pages of every member of ArbCom about a phrase in a post by The Wordsmith, portraying The Wordsmith as disrespectful of ArbCom. But is this really about respecting the institution of ArbCom? During the GMO case, an editor (later topic banned as an AE action) posted a disruptive edit on one of the case talk pages. An Arb rev-deled it and blocked that editor. But look here: [33]. Jusdafax copied the rev-deled comment to his own user talk, and hosted a gloat-party about it. And look who took part: some of the same users who are coming here and objecting to going forward with the RfC, some of the same users who berated Laser brain for warning Petrarchan. The agenda isn't to protect ArbCom from The Wordsmith. It's to undermine The Wordsmith as he tries to enact the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom.

The involved editors have known about the pending RfC for months. They participated in the discussions at Talk:Genetically modified crops that generated the RfC proposals (including the not-"serious" one), and they took part in the ARCA discussion that led to the RfC. And The Wordsmith has been hosting open discussions about how best to set up the RfC, for a few months now. And yet, somehow, only at the day before those discussions were to have been completed, what happens? A sudden outburst of "no don't go ahead with the RfC, we need more time, the whole idea of an RfC is bad, just let the community decide". This is about one thing, and one thing only: derailing the RfC. Because the POV-pushers know that the community won't let them force their POV. So they are throwing everything they can think of at the wall, and seeing if anything sticks.

We have dispute resolution for a purpose. We have ArbCom and DS and AE for a purpose. Don't let that get derailed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is no "mandate" from ArbCom for the RfC. You asked them to oversee and lock down content for 3 years, and they said no to both. But a handful thought a moderated RfC might be a good idea. Discussion here.

• ArbCom did not say it was unacceptable to point out pro-industry content or editing. They ruled that it is unacceptable to claim an editor is "paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill)" without evidence. Not the same at all. An editor can put in pro-industry content without being paid and without having a financial COI. The ruling is here: [34].

Please stop misrepresenting ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything. The mandate from ArbCom is for Discretionary Sanctions. I initially asked ArbCom to oversee the RfC, and they responded by saying that DS should handle it instead. And they didn't say that it is unacceptable only "to claim an editor is" doing that; it is equally unacceptable to imply it. Let the admins go forward with the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARCA is that-a-way

I said this briefly above, but it is worth highlighting separately here. If anybody is concerned that the RfC process is not authorized by Discretionary Sanctions, they can go to WP:ARCA, file a request for clarification, and ask the Arbs directly. That would be far better than speculating endlessly. In the mean time, the actions taken under DS should continue to go forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

So, none of the editors who are concerned about the RfC have made any formal attempts at dispute resolution, but they are continuing to post vague accusations in this talk. And none of them have followed my suggestion to ask ArbCom, but they are continuing to argue that ArbCom did not issue the authority to conduct the RfC under DS. We need to settle this, and move on, so I just filed the ARCA request, myself.

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Basketballfan12

Background

Basketballfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning May 19, 2016, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#User:Basketballfan12_-_creating_non-notable_NBA_bio_stubs, Basketballfan12 has been flagged for their track record of creating biographies of non-notable sportspeople, which has placed an undue burden on the community to patrol, nominate, and discuss pages for deletion.

The following AfDs on Basketballfan12 created bios have been closed as "Delete":

Basketball-related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Pauga
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Presson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Swetoha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Mazzella
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubba Barrage
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wilson (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Seymour (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Brady (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Swetoha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxie Esho
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Capers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Murphy (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Daigneault
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Walsh (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris

Baseball related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Marder
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Perlman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Gal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orr Gottleib
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Gould

The following have been speedy deleted:

• Template:Northern Arizona Suns
• Jarrell Christian
• Matt Woodley

Multiple editors have reached out to User:Basketballfan12, but the editor generally not respond, with few edits to talk namespace, and user talk namespace edits generally limited to blanking their own talk page.

Since the discussion on May 19 was started, they have since created more new sports bios at Steve Brown (outfielder), Nate Fish, both of which are dubious of meeting WP:GNG with insufficient independent sources.

Proposal

Unless Basketballfan12 finally engages the community and addresses these concerns, I am proposing a topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc) by Basketballfan12. They are free to create pages in the Draft namespace, where other editors can move the proposed page to the main namespace. Basketballfan12 can request a lift of the ban once they have sufficiently demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that there are at least 18 other pages created by this user that are currently undergoing active AfD discussions (I will not link them here due to WP:CANVASSING considerations, but I thought this might be relevant information). Full disclosure, I nominated these articles (and many of those listed above) for deletion after finding that this user had created many articles that did not meet notability guidelines. This user has not shown up at any of the AfD discussions, nor interacted with me on talk pages and appears to have no interest in doing so, yet continues to create new articles. Unless Basketballfan12 interacts with the community and displays an understanding and a willingness to fully consider the notability guidelines before creating new articles in the future, I would support the above sanctions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I missed that less than half an hour before my above reply this user did respond on one of the active AfD pages so I've struck the above comment about it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it was Basketballfan12's first ever comment at an AfD, and it was an hour after they were notified of this AN discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern's a ban is too harsh, We will respond to all future questions regarding sources Basketballfan12 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Wait a second - who exactly is 'we'? Are you a paid editor or is this a shared account? Katie^talk 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Unfortunately, your recent response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris was essentially to keep the article, but the AfD was closed as delete. There is still no indication that your view on notability is now in line with the rest of the community.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if @Basketballfan12: is a non-native speaker of English, which would explain the use of the harmless Royal we. Not having seen any of the articles (as they've been deleted), I have nothing to base their grammar on. What about the articles makes them non-notable? Are they regional of local athletes? I remember when I was starting out that I practiced by making articles of people who I thought were notable (they weren't). Fortunately, I had a mentor (my Dad - that's right, I'm a generational Wikipedian) who pointed out how they weren't useful to articles. The point is, the user might not be up to speed on how the collaborative environment works, and is focusing solely on output, ie. article creation. Would it be dumb to offer a bit of AGF here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Judging by their edits, I don't think English is a problem, but @Basketballfan12 could clear up any misunderstandings by participating in this discussion. From what I can tell, the editor assumes that any athlete, even those from minor leagues, is inherently notable. Based off the volume of their article creations that have been deleted, allowing them to continue editing but limiting their creations to the draft namespace was my good-faith proposal. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

75.162.244.4 disruptive editing

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

---

Most, if not all of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.162.244.4 are disruptive. He even gave bogus 3RR warnings. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

YOUR warning was bogus, 108, a.k.a. user:HighInBC. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a little premature to start a thread on this one in my opinion. SQL^{Query me!} 00:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has been willing to answer my questions here yet: [[35]]. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I am not 108 as 75 suggests. It sure is hard to keep track of all these numbers. HighInBC 00:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh? Well who is it, supposedly, then? 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because "Well it didn't happen before" isn't a valid argument. I already explained to you that messages left on IP's you no longer occupy may be removed - as they were intended for YOU, not whomever has the IP now. If you like - put the messages on your new talk - or better yet, register an account and enjoy a permanent talkpage, among other benefits. Again - I'd drop the stick. SQL^{Query me!} 00:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Then why is it being enforced now even though it was not before?

And why can other people keep talking on that talk page even though that page didn't belong to me anymore? Why the double-standard?

And then why are you, High, going against your own earlier advice, where you said exactly this: ":We don't delete talk pages. They serve as a record of the history of the IP"? 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

His advice was to somebody wanting to delete his own page. Now you are asking about a page that is not yours. Different context. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I responded to this question on my talk page, this seems to be a copy/paste of the same question. You can read the answer there: [36]. HighInBC 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And now I've replied to your reply there. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

He is still continuing with his disruptive behaviour and he is even harassing HighInBC. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am far more concerned about their harassment of this IP: [37] than the harassment of myself. I am too involved to block but I have given them a final warning about harassing the newbies. Also, I am happy to consent to a checkuser if anyone is really concerned I am this IP as 75 suggests. HighInBC 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You do not need to consent to anything. The IP's failed attempt at OUTING is a blockable offense as it is. Nobody would fault you for blocking the IP to stop the harassment. Involved or not, it is an uncontroversial block in my mind. --Majora (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, although it should be considered an indef. All this puffing up and trying to pick a fight is a clear case of someone not being here to to build an encyclopedia. I could quote a lot of other policies, harassment and the like, but the record is pretty clear and the net result is pretty obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

This is just a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is now open for public comment. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it may have been buried in tl;dr in #Admins requested for moderated RfC, above, I want to add that a third uninvolved closer is also still requested. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is a good idea, but keeping it on the rails will require cat-herding abilities of truly awe-inspiring magnitude. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but at least we have two seasoned DR admins on it. I don't know if we'll be successful, but the alternative is WP:ARBGMO2 turning blue and nobody wants that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

IPBE

I'd previously requested IPBE as I needed it. I don't anymore so can someone flip the switch and kill that one off. Thanks in advance. Amortias (T)(C) 19:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done BethNaught (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

For the love of Pete.

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

---

Some please close this. [38]. I don't care how, but close it. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone, anyone, I don't care, please, close it. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and John Carter: I'll close it soon, unless someone beats me to it. It will take a bit of time, as I haven't been following the discussion. Mike V • Talk 20:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've closed it - sorry, I didn't see that comment until I started going through it. I suppose a second opinion wouldn't hurt though. Hut 8.5 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries! FWIW, I was prepared to close it with a similar rationale. Mike V • Talk 21:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Suggesting ban for User:Mr. Eisenhower

This is a new account, and in my view this may be a troll. He was warned, and yet he keeps disrupting and corrupting entries -- making unnecessary edits and replacing portraits w/ campaign's photos or older ones -- like, for instance, putting old Jimmy Carter instead of his official portrait while president. Archway (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Userpage was a copy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CT_Cooper with only a couple of minor differences, but no attribution: this is a copyright infringement, so I've deleted it under G12. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)