Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 17 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 97 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 56 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 47 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout#RfC: Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions?

(Initiated 0 days ago on 14 November 2024) Anyone up for a barnstar? This one's long, difficult, and new. If no-one wants to close it, that's fine. However, it's clearly not reaching the super-consensus required. It should probably be closed so that we can stop wasting editor time and/or apply ourselves to proposals that have a better chance of passing. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	2	3
RfD	0	0	13	48	61
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Category:Online-only games

(Initiated 27 days ago on 19 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 303 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)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 14 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Interaction ban request

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

---

Per this thread, I formally request an indefinite interaction ban with Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs). He is a serial violator of WP:CIV and WP:NPA with a nasty habit of dragging his "enemies'" names into disputes that have nothing to do with them. We seem to already have an informal understanding that we will not interact; I want this understanding to be formalised so that if this editor continues to snipe at me he will face sanctions. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"One-way" interaction bans do not happen. You do understand that you would never be able to mention him as well, and that you would face the same sanctions as he would were an IBAN enacted? Doc talk 11:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One-way interaction bans do happen actually, but that's not what I'm requesting. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

They don't happen legitimately. Editor X is interchangeable with editor Y. The current example at WP:IBAN is confusing and needs to be clarified. If two editors need to be separated with an IBAN, neither should interact with the other. No one is at more fault than the other. If it's a simple harassment issue, one would simply be blocked for harassment of the other. IBANS are mutual. Doc talk 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So what's this note about then? No matter, two way is fine with me, as long as it gets him out of my wiki life forever. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes: I see the change here. It never used to say that. The level of consensus at the talk page for this policy change based on the discussion is pathetic. It fell through the cracks and no one saw it. BRD. Doc talk 13:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, one-way IBAN's are possible. However, it would need to be shown clearly through diff's that this is preventing current problems. To say "X has a habit of doing something" is not helpful. We need to see recent, serious, and significant evidence to implement any type of IBAN. Note, this could also expand into a discussion of a 2-way IBAN if evidence leads that way ES&L 13:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You want evidence that there is a problem? How about this diff from earlier today where Ihardlythinkso attacks The Bushranger and also throws in a back-handed insult of Dennis Brown. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What does that diff have to with IBANs between Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne???? ES&L 14:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Rather, it demonstrates that this is more of a widespread issue and that IHTS still does not understand that this type of behavior is not acceptable. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree it's not acceptable behaviour, and that's RFC/U material. This discussion is specifically related to an interaction ban between two people. Evidence needs to be shown that the one person is requiring immediate protection from the other party. Overall behaviour, while fine as a level-set and RFC/U, do not establish immediate need ES&L 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Northern Antarctica ₵ 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK it was tedious to collect all these diffs but this is more than enough to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Every single one of these was unprovoked. These were arguments/discussions with other editors, some relatively civil, most not, but the common factor is that I had nothing to do with any of them. Nor did the other editors he mentioned. Also, past experience has shown that Ihardlythinkso will not respect an informal request from another editor to cease interaction. For this reason, an admin directive to cease interaction with me is necessary. I'm not asking anything of him that I am not prepared to do myself, i.e. refrain from interacting, linking to his diffs or mentioning him directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN there is enough evidence to support this approach. I would also endorse a 24-hour block of IHTS for his attack on the Bushranger (diff above). This would hopefully discourage IHTS from making further disruptive attacks in the future and therefore would be preventative. Northern Antarctica ₵ 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Panda, the OP issued a pretty serious PA directed at me in the ANI, and when questioned about it, repeated it twice and even boasted why he was qualified to make such personal insult. An admin apparently blocked me for responding to the unprovoked PA, and when questioned at my Talk why he would overlook the unprovoked PA that baited my response, he in effect repeated the PA himself by calling it not a PA but "calling a spade a spade". It is not your responsibility, Panda, that these things occurred. But please tell me how am supposed to have any respect whatever for the goings on here, where a user feels complete freedom to throw vicious PAs around, and is protected in doing so by an admin (an admin!) who supports and repeats the PA???? p.s. The thing about Dennis Brown was a little joke (i.e. humor). Dennis has been nice to me recent. Northern apparently has no sense of humor, and is motivated to scrape up anything, anything whatever that does not even concern him, in bad faith, to attack with. This is obvious persistent hostility in action, not to mention misuse of process and people's time/attention. He even opened a bogus RFAR to attack with. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If the Dennis Brown remark was just a joke, great. I was more concerned by your unprovoked and unwarranted attack on the Bushranger, which you did not address above and which was certainly not a joke. Ironically, you were the one who was objecting to being the target of "mud-slinging". If your comments on The Bushranger aren't mud-slinging, I don't know what is. Please explain why anyone should have any respect whatever for the goings on here when you are permitted to insult editors during discussions that do not involve them. Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, instead of getting personal, perhaps you should looking in the mirror and ponder whether or not you're doing yourself any favors. One day, you're going to go one step too far and wind up indeffed. Your departure would a loss for Wikipedia, especially as far as our chess articles are concerned. Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've already explained myself, Northern. And I can't make any sense out of your other comments, to even respond. (And this isn't the venue for it anyway, I don't think. And why are you involved putting your nose in other editors' difficult or broken relationships, anyway? Why don't you mind your own business?! Already many editors that are your friends have tried to coax you out of drama-mills and go write sports articles. Why are you falling back, you are no doubt disappointing them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My comments are not hard to understand. If you keep lashing out at others, you're going to wind up blocked. If that happens, our chess articles will suffer for it. Don't lecture me about involving myself in things that don't concern me. The issue of you attacking other users in discussions that they are not involved in is very much my business, mainly because you have done it to me before. Yes, this is the venue for discussing these things (whereas a third-party user talk page is certainly NOT the venue for your attack on The Bushranger). Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I don't owe you any explanations or even a discussion, Northern. But if I did entertain a discussion with you (and other users like you, e.g. SummerPhD) I would put the simple question to you how it is with all your professed interest in "civility" that you overlook and apparently excuse the vicious PA against me by the OP, which was repeated at least three times by him, and even attempted to justify it, as well as an admin saying it was justified. In what world do your civility principles become so blatantly hypocritical? (Please don't answer. I really do not want a discussion with you, and especially, not here. You ask me to "look in a mirror and ponder". Well, shoe's on the other foot -- big-time.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask questions if you don't want answers. Max Browne, as I recall, called you a 'classic narcissist'. Now, that wasn't very nice (and I never defended it, either). However, a narcissist is basically someone who is in love with himself. Considering that you almost never want to admit that you're wrong and that you fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, it's not hard to see why Max Browne said what he said. Maybe you should have given some thought as to what you do that causes someone to think of you as a narcissist (even if he shouldn't have said it).

Now, why did I overlook it? Perhaps it was because of all the nasty things I've seen you say about others, including me. In effect, you are a bully who can't handle it when other people don't play nice with him. You can dish it (and you do a lot of that), but you can't take it. Someone who dishes it out like you do can't expect a ton of sympathy from all the people they've alienated. Stop acting so superior ("I don't owe you any explanations or even a discussion...") and put your shoe back on.

Also, you just dragged SummerPhD's name into a discussion that does not involve him so you could use him as a negative comparison. What is it going to take for you to realize that you aren't supposed to do that? Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You just proved how hypocritical are your concepts re "civility" -- justifying a vicious PA the way you do based on "he deserved it" or "it's true" or whatever self-serving twisted logic that makes you think you make sense or are consistent. You have zero credibility with arguments like that. If I were you I'd be very embarrassed/ashamed, but you are not. End of dialogue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If Max Browne's comment was a vicious PA, your comment on The Bushranger was a vicious PA. Deny it if you will, but it's the truth. At any rate, the dialogue between us does not end unless you are willing to avoid talking about me behind my back (i.e. things like what you just did with SummerPhD). If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Further critical commentary on me made by you in a discussion I was not involved in will be considered harrassment. Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ihardlythinkso Two things I'd like from you: 1) diff's pointing to what you considered to be PA's by MaxBrowne (after all, I forced him to go digging :-) ), and 2) a damned good explanation as to your pretty nasty personal attack on Bushranger, with a perhaps good reason why you shouldn't be blocked for that right now DP 19:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are no problem. (I don't know why you just don't go to the ANI however, and search on "MaxBrowne" and "narcissist"?) Regarding level of nasty, I don't understand how he as admin can reinforce the PA at my Talk via his "that's no PA, that's just calling a spade a spade", and then how anything I have said tops that on your scale of nastiness. (How is it that an admin can get by with that, and that you've overlooked it even though has been brought to your attention too?) If this website wants to be so abusive as to excuse and overlook an admin from reinforcing a clear and vicious PA, and block the victim for objecting to the craziness of principle going on, ... then I don't know what to tell you Panda. I'll produce those diffs presently. (Again, they are very easy to find. Why is this so difficult, like a court of law? When clearly there are no jurisprudence or even consistency or even fundamental fairness, here. This thread was about an interaction ban request presented by the OP. I was already warned by admin The ed17 for comments re Bushranger. What is it that you would achieve by a block at this point, something preventative?) I've brought up the issue of Bushranger's reinforcement of the PA to four admins now, including you, and have gotten no reply. (Just two threats, one insult, and one nothing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What, you can't tell that I'm trying to give both sides the same leeway here? You know full well that the OP's actions are also fully subject to scrutiny when they file at AN/ANI. Let's try some equality here, shall we? DP 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. (I did not bring this AN, the OP brought it to request an interaction ban. I have no interest or need to interact with the OP at all, he has been levying constant attacks and insults. I have no agenda with this AN, and I have no request here, and I certainly have no interest or cause to examine or continue any dispute on any basis with the OP.) I've simply brought up the obvious regarding a PA issued repeatedly against me, by the OP and Bushranger reinforcement of same, and now even you can see Northern has reinforced in his own way. No editor should have to be the target of such PAs, otherwise PA means nothing and is a joke. The fact that an admin has reinforced the PA at my Talk, is the more disturbing to me, not only for the PA itself, but that it comes behind the force of the block bat, and is wholly inconsistent with expectations at WP:ADMINACCT. (Whereas I don't have same/similar expectations of professional conduct from a reg user like the OP.) The fact that you are an admin, Panda, and I've gotten no responses from three other admins on the matter, puts me in a position to ask what is going on? Yet, it wasn't my intention or need to morph this AN outside its original purpose, and I'm sorry if my comments lead you to think that. (I'm simply talking to you about it because you are here, on an unrelated matter. Because I have gotten no answers as mentioned.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyway (to be responsive what you asked for):

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So can we clarify this here, it's only in the first where you're called a narcissist, and the rest he's explaining as per your request what he meant by it ... you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying the one, I'm just trying to gain perspective here based on YOUR comments which seem to have led to HIS comments, which has now led to additional comments by YOU. Am I getting this correct overall? I'm concerned that your reaction is to insult first, then come across surprised and angry when you get insulted back. As much as I say "someone else's incivility may explain yours, but it will never excuse it, the links shown by both parties so far show that you're regularly the alpha AND the omega in a situation ... and although there's occasionally a gamma and a mu, you're often both cause AND effect. If you start it and someone else responds, that's considered baiting, which ArbComm has already considered to be a significant "evil"...am I being unfair in this analysis? DP 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

as per your request what he meant by it. I never made any such request, nor would I. you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. I disagree. YOUR comments which seem to have led to HIS comments. That PA at the ANI was unprovoked. I had no recent interactions with the OP prior, in fact considered that we had parted ways much earlier, and I wanted no contact with him, nor did I make any. your reaction is to insult first, then come across surprised and angry when you get insulted back. Again, that PA was unprovoked. And beyond that PA, going through past exchanges, you will see the exact opposite of what you have described. (I've never, ever, insulted the OP unless it was a provoked response where he initiated with incivilities or insults. [And I stand behind saying so. But I doubt this is a forum to go through ancient exchanges to examine to prove or disprove. But I'm perfectly happy to do that at my Talk or in a dedicated subpage with you, or whomever.]) p.s. The PA was equivalent to asserting an editor is "classic paranoid" or "classic bi-polar". Those are personal -- about a person, slamming their mental health. "Asshole" is just an expression someone is pissed at someone for something said. I think these differences are obvious and don't need my explain. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

at least 8 times the previous week you dropped my name into conflicts that had nothing to do with me. So drop the "unprovoked" bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No BS. I fail to see how your PA at the ANI was provoked. (I don't see any provoking diff from you for said PA.) Also, you should redact the PA and your reinforcing comments too. (So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade".) There wasn't contact between us any time recent prior to the ANI. Also you've been continually insisting that reference to your username (and even no reference to your username but any link to any post by you) in any context or discussion, constitutes "personal attack". You've demonstrated more than once as already shown, how you have erupted with both unnecessary ABF personalizations, and imaginings of self-persecution, to posts I've made at article Talks re subjects I happen to care something about, when you are also involved with the subject matter. [14] [15] You also confessed at the ANI My patience with this editor is exhausted. which I presume was to prepare anyone reading how you might fly off the handle in anger and irrationality. What you don't understand is that I have at least equal or twice as many grievances about you and your behaviors (valid ones, not imagined ones), but the difference is, I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional, instead of what you do in displays of obvious hatred and irrational rage, and having fun issuing vicious PA and even expounding on why you think you are "qualified" to make such PA at the ANI, and suggesting that since I objected to said PA, it means the PA "stings" and therefore "must be true". Extremely shameful behavior. (It'd be hard to come up with something more "personally derogatory about a contributor" -- go read WP:Personal attack.) But you won't see me open any noticeboard complaint about it. (The Bushranger, on the otherhand, has WP:ADMINACCT standard of behavior expectations per his role as administrator, so, that is importantly different.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"No BS. I fail to see how your PA at the ANI was provoked. (I don't see any provoking diff from you for said PA.)". Clearly you fail to see that dragging people's names into conflicts that have nothing to do with them is thoroughly objectionable behaviour. You have continued to do this even in this very discussion.
"Also, you should redact the PA and your reinforcing comments too. (So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade".) ". Subsequent events have only reinforced my impression of your behaviour. And there you go dragging other people into the discussion again with respect to The Bushranger.
"There wasn't contact between us any time recent prior to the ANI. ". So why bring my name up 8 times in a week?
"Also you've been continually insisting that reference to your username ( and even no reference to your username but any link to any post by you) in any context or discussion, constitutes "personal attack". " Show me one single diff where I have said that. What, you can't? Then stop lying about me.
"You've demonstrated more than once as already shown, how you have erupted with both unnecessary ABF personalizations, and imaginings of self-persecution, to posts I've made at article Talks re subjects I happen to care something about, when you are also involved with the subject matter. ". I apologised and struck the comment. Something I've never seen you do, ever. That's old stuff and I don't see how it's relevant, except as a convenient stick for you to beat me with.
"You also confessed at the ANI My patience with this editor is exhausted. which I presume was to prepare anyone reading how you might fly off the handle in anger and irrationality." You "presume" incorrectly, and that is not a "confession" but a statement. My patience with you is indeed exhausted. I wish to end all interaction with you, and especially your mentions of me in contexts where I am uninvolved.
"What you don't understand is that I have at least equal or twice as many grievances about you and your behaviors (valid ones, not imagined ones)," Then open a RFCU or ANI, or shut up.
" but the difference is, I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional," such as this one?
" instead of what you do in displays of obvious hatred and irrational rage, " I have no hatred for you, only contempt. I pay no mind to you whatsoever when I'm not on wikipedia.
"and having fun issuing vicious PA and even expounding on why you think you are "qualified" to make such PA at the ANI, and suggesting that since I objected to said PA, it means the PA "stings" and therefore "must be true". " Where did I say "must be true"? If you're going to attribute quotes to people and even put them in quotation marks, you'd better be damn sure that the quote is exact. Otherwise, you are simply lying.
"Extremely shameful behavior." I consider deliberately misrepresenting people rather shameful. I also consider dragging people's names through the mud in contexts where they are not involved shameful.
"(It'd be hard to come up with something more "personally derogatory about a contributor" -- go read WP:Personal attack.)" I can think of many things more personally derogatory. And you seem to think that the policy you just linked to doesn't apply to you.
"But you won't see me open any noticeboard complaint about it. " That's what those notice boards are for. I suspect the reason you don't open threads there is because you know your own behaviour will come under scrutiny too.
"(The Bushranger, on the otherhand, has WP:ADMINACCT standard of behavior expectations per his role as administrator, so, that is importantly different.) " Again you drag an uninvolved party into the discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your PA at the ANI was unprovoked. You didn't offer the/a provoking diff. Mentioning your username in a discussion in context does not jusfity making the PA you did. (You seem to think different. You are very wrong.) // "Bringing your name up" does not equate to personally attacking you. Show me one single diff where I have said that. What, you can't? Then stop lying about me. "Likewise about the "don't post to my attention" thing; that includes posts like this Would be good if we could just stay out of each other's way. Shut up about me and I'll shut up about you, deal? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)" As explained at the ANI, that thread with Drmies was not "about you". If you read NPA it says comment on content not on contributors. The dialogue with Drmies was about competing ways of responding to a sock, pros and cons. The fact that you fictionalized my post into something personal ("about you") is attempting to transform a discussion into a personal attack, and that is dishonest. // I apologised and struck the comment. Said apology was for other editors, not me. You seem to feel perfectly justified in abusing me without apology. At the ANI opened by Mann jess, and in this AN. That's old stuff and I don't see how it's relevant It's the same behavior of you justifying abusing me. So relevant. // My patience with you is indeed exhausted You should explain the significance of said "statement". (What it means re translation into posts on the Wikipedia -- the only thing editors do on this site.) // Then [...], or shut up. Again, you've imagined and accused over and over again of personal offenses where there are none. // I have no hatred for you, only contempt. I really don't care. And splitting hairs "hatred" vs. "contempt" is irrelevant for purpose of this thread, as is what you do or don't do off-wiki time. It does not justify the PA you made at the ANI, and you should redact it, as already told you. // Where did I say "must be true"? You're playing with words, that paraphrase is exactly what you were trying to convey: If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. [...] MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC) // The other stuff is just your personal soapboxing/insulting opinions that I don't care to get in the mud with you by commenting on. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Clarification (your diff shows me I confused you): When I wrote "I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional", that was regarding posts at Talks on subject matters where you might potentially respond. (And not regarding user Quale or any other user.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear here: there will be no redaction, as there was no personal attack to be reinforced. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. The fact that you have shopped your complaint to (at least) four admins and gotten "two threats, one insult, and one nothing" should indicate that the problem is not the 'personal attack' you are claiming. There comes a point where your refusal to listen to what everyone is telling you and continuing to insist they're all wrong and you're right becomes an indication that you are not capable of being part of a collegial and constructive editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong not to redact your reinforement of a vicious PA. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. My, aren't we exaggerating here. ("Everybody"? Only you, Bushranger, only you. Perhaps the offending user also, one would assume.) I have to make correction, re which now you have tried to use against me, re contacting four admins and receiving "two threats, one insult, one nothing". That was a miscount. I contacted three admins, received one threat (from Panda), one insult (from you), and one no-response (from admin Resolute). So that is in no way a "reflection of community" -- both you and Panda are distinctly enemies of whatever I write, and will misinterpret anything I write if it can be used against me in manipulative fashion. Also your accuse of "canvassing" is equally absurd (I was already in a discussion w/ Resolute on something else). Your arguements are boring, and wrong, and show your abusiveness and disregard to your responsibilities and behavioral expectations per WP:ADMINACCT. (You overlooked a vicious PA to block me for a provoked rhetorical response. Biased much?!? Abusive much?!?) You should redact your "that wasn't a PA, it was calling a spade a spade" so that I do not have to take the measure (which I have been trying utmost not to do by asking for you to redact) to consume time/attention of Arbcom members. (It is not something I prefer to do. But your pretend ignorance what a PA is, and insulting obnoxious comments to reinforce, are over the line. You should reconsider your position, obviously.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've already explained things w.r.t. my involvement multiple times at the ANI that sparked this whole brouhaha, so I won't bother repeating myself since it's been clearly demonstrated it won't be listened to by IHTS. I am, however, rather curious as to where the accusation of being "POV-oriented" came from, as I have no clue where it came from or how it relates to this fracas - as it is it strikes me as another case of IHTS making up something out of whole cloth about an editor he's decided he dislikes, as with the "you were busy" comments at the ANI. I, personally, don't see a need for an IBAN on my account - I've been (as has been noted) not interacting with IHTS anyway, and when it comes to his repeatedly trying to throw mud at me, that's water off a ducks' back, as well as reflecting on the mud-slinger for making unsubstantiated personal attacks (the same thing he's so quick to accuse others of, oddly). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• With respect, the majority of this thread is irrelevant to my request for an interaction ban. If the admins believe I am partially responsible for this state of affairs... fine, if you say so. I'm sorry that I don't respond well to the level of hostility and aggression displayed by IHTS; please excuse my lack of people skills. Now please impose an interaction ban on this editor so I can edit wikipedia without being under constant attack. I am willing to abide by the same conditions. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I have no interest in "argumentum ad playgroundium", i.e. "he started it", "it's his fault" etc etc. I just want this editor to leave me alone, and I don't believe he will do so unless such a directive is imposed on him. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-way WP:IBAN I have been trying to determine through questioning whether this is better as a 2-way WP:IBAN, or if the rare 1-way IBAN is the best approach. So, after trying to unsuccessfully pry information out of IHTS, and any information that is forthcoming is incomplete - and in many cases 90-100% incorrect. Other than information that IHTS has provided has already been refuted by the community as being violations of WP:NPA (or at least, not significant enough to warrant action), I find IHTS's continual attacks, and dragging MB's name up again and again as inappropriate, bordering on harassment. As such, I fully support a 1-way interaction ban as requested by MB, with the stern warning to MB that: a) the "narcissistic" comment was indeed close enough to be considered a violation of WP:NPA by many so please take that as a warning, and b) I highly recommend you voluntarily WP:IBAN yourself from IHTS as you have already volunteered to do. DP 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  trying to unsuccessfully pry information out of IHTS?? I have no idea what you mean or what you are referring to. Ditto your IHTS's continual attacks -- you're making that up -- diff these unprovoked "attacks" to support what you accuse. There are none. dragging MB's name up again and again as inappropriate Whenever I have mentioned his username it has been in context with whatever issue. (Show where it has not been, with a proving diff, rather than just making up whatever you want to accuse.) bordering on harassment. That is totally assume-bad-faith on your part, and a manglement of something serious like WP:HARASSMENT. Your idea is to set up one-way ban even though I have never issued any incivility toward MaxBrowne that was not provoked by him, and MaxBrowne is able to continue to chararacter-assassinate without provocation, and issue unprovoked PAs, as he did numerous times at [this ANI and [this Talk thread "with the stern warning" that doesn't really mean anything as you ask him "please"?? How absurd. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support mutual interaction ban. I don't think the blame can be apportioned symmetrically here, but there is enough to justify the interaction ban being mutual. As for Ihardlythinkso, he has been badgering other users and admins about MaxBrowne for a very extended period of time. This has also been directed towards me, three months ago he launched a rather vicious rant against me and he was utterly insulted every time I pointed out to him that he should not make "fuck off" comments and the like. All this is chronicled at the end of this thread. Highlights:
  • Calling MaxBrowne "Mr Bully Editor".
  • When I told him not to respond with personal attacks, he attacked me for "Your BOOMERANG thoughtless crap to justify the result you want" and told me to "stop lying and mischaracterizing me at that thread".
  • " I wouldn't lower myself to the likes of that kind of tacky shit"
  • "What a do-nothing waste of time with you in this thread!"
  • " I've put up with his shit best I can but there is a limit."
  • "he gives a flying fuck, since you essentially have OK'd him to do anything he pleases"
  • "The onus is on you to explain this shit, not me."

From reading whay IHTS is saying, you would think that he is completely blameless, that admins and MaxBrowne are forming an unholy alliance against him, and that all the personal attacks from him are completely justified or not personal attacks at all. His constant sniping at MaxBrowne has gone on for months and apparently shows no sign of abating. The behavior of MaxBrowne is less severe, but this is a WP:POINT violation, and his approach towards Ihardlythinkso has at times been undiplomatic and lacking in decorum; calling people narcissists is not helpful. It is best that he not interact with Ihardlythinkso either. This conflict has taken a heavy toll and wasted a lot of editorial resources so a sanction that puts a stop to it is long overdue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh Bullshit. (Have you even read his [not only vicious PA but] attempts to character assassinate at this ANI?? Ditto this thread at WT:CHESS?? The aggressive and uncivil editor is MaxBrowne. I have initiated no incivilities with him. (Ever.) I have only responded to his provocations. And fuck you for backing his vicious crap and supporting his unprovoked defaming and slanderous crap. People should take a look at your user Talk where you show clear bias to not criticize MaxBrowne's unprovoked incivilities. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, you've made more than one accusation here: all the personal attacks from him are completely justified or not personal attacks at all. His constant sniping at MaxBrowne has gone on for months. Now back it/them up. (I have only ever said my incivilities toward MaxBrowne were provoked, and that is all. Your extending what I said to "completely justified" and "not personal attacks at all" is pure bullshit and made up by you. I never said those things. You like stuffing things I never said or thought in my mouth. Regarding constant sniping -- same deal: back it up. Present examples where I have "sniped" at user MaxBrowne. My complaints about that user at your user Talk were not "sniping at" that user, they were explanations of my dissatisfaction with your inept and do-nothing approach to that user regarding his clear and on-going incivilities. (You call his vicious PA at the already-linked ANI "undiplomatic and lacking in decorum; calling people narcissists is not helpful"??? Jesus! Who the fuck are you trying to kid with your politically correct descriptions and minimizations??) This conflict has taken a heavy toll and wasted a lot of editorial resources By MaxBrowne at ANI and AN and WT:CHESS. Not by me but by that user. I don't create complaints to consume others' attention. (Exception was your attention at your personal user Talk.) I tried to negotiate with you regarding reeling that user in, then gave up, when I saw you were biased to not do anything about that user, and were fictitiously laying blame equally. (That was bullshit. And it was why I disengaged with you for the rest of my wiki-life. But now you are here again and laying more bullshit blame. If you make a charge, back it up in context for examination. Otherwise it is pure slander. Your list of quotes is without any contexts, and clearly based merely on "bad words" in attempt to defame and discredit. The "bully" name was justified, if you like to examine it; but clearly you don't want to examine anything in context, just accuse and smear. You already have shown your civility-warrior status by blocking Eric Corbett over rough words, and were chastized for doing so by the community. So now you turn to an easier target to carry out your one-dimensional view of incivility. Your POV is rigid and narrow and transparent. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You write "I have only ever said my incivilities toward MaxBrowne were provoked, and that is all." In all of your postings, I have never seen you take any responsibility for your swearing, rudeness, condescension, and personal attacks or any acceptance that you cannot do that, regardless of who initiated it. You say you did all this because you were "provoked", that is an attempt at justification. Indeed, in your reply you write: "The "bully" name was justified".

Regarding the evidence of sniping, since coming to my talkpage to complain about MaxBrowne, you have been complaining about MaxBrowne, for example on the talkpages of Quale, Resolute, Cobblet, SummerPHD and EatsShootsAndLeaves. If this goes to ArbCom, I am sure that either I or someone else will be more than happy to present evidence of your attacks on MaxBrowne, as well as any other editor who said something you didn't like.

I could have used sharper language to describe MaxBrowne's use of the word "narcissist". I believe it was an attack on the person, and a violation of Wikipedia's behavorial policy. I believe that making such a characterization was utterly stupid of him. I believe he ruined much of the hope I had for reconciliation with that statement. And as I said, I think it is such a severe incident that the interaction ban should go both ways. Usually, I am not that direct unless it has become clear that a person isn't listening at all. But sanctioning him for that attack, while not sanctioning your conduct, would be completely unfair since the sheer volume and intensity of incivility and attacks are much greater from you than MaxBrowne.

You write: "Your list of quotes is without any contexts". I don't think it was taken out of context at all. And even if it was, do you really believe that there exists a context where using that kind of language about other volunteer editors is acceptable?

Ihardlythinkso, you have made numerous positive contributions to chess articles. Nearly everyone on Wikipedia greatly appreciates good article contributions, and so we have a great deal of patience with editors who provide that to us. But the patience is not unlimited, and you are burning through the community's patience at an alarming rate right now. For example, one of the chess editors I greatly respect, and who I have known for almost ten years on Wikipedia, was for a long time appreciative of your presence, until a few weeks ago when you told him to "fuck off", explicitly in an edit summary. I have not seen him edit since that. If this is allowed to continue, your conduct will drive people away from whatever you involve yourself in. Therefore your conduct will not be allowed to continue in the long run. What will happen if you stay this course is that you will face an indefinite ban handed down from ArbCom or the community once that patience is exhausted. It has happened to a handful of very able content contributors in years past, who I shall not name here, but whose cases can be found in the ArbCom archives. You are still not banned and you can still turn this around, but you must stop making these very vicious attacks on your fellow editors, whether provoked or otherwise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, I've avoided totally you after I gave up on you re the thread on MaxBrowne. But now you are here "spanking [my] bottom" and lecturing me. I think not. This is not a forum for that, and, if you really wanted to discuss the issues you've raised seriously, we could do that at my user Talk, or yours, or in Email. But you don't. (You just want to lecture, spank my bottom like my "mommy", in a mud-throwing AN. [Oh let me correct myself. Your opinions are always correct and must never be questioned or challenged, because you are "God"?!? And anything I say, as a non-admin, is immediately in jeopardy of being disruptive and a ban, because I defend myself against an obviously attacking pernicious user who's out for blood, and, I'm not allowed to do that, else you come in here and tell who is boss and "knows better"?!? How is that?!?] I don't care if you've known User:Quale for 10 years or 100. Duration of knowing someone does not exempt them from being human and evincing clear prejudice against one user [me] while complimenting often grossly uncivil and pernicious users [three] that have asked for my head on a pike. But I should shut up and take whatever you have a mind to say, because you are admin?!? And aren't the subject of an AN?!! (When AN, ANI, even RFAR can be opened by anybody for any reason, bogus or not, agenda-driven or not.) You are in no position to lecture me, Sjakkalle, other than you carry a block bat, and the fact I'm subject of an AN decided to be opened by a clear enemy who wants my blood and has attacked here repeatedly to poke and defame. And your assumption that others beside myself can be driven off this project, but apparently not me, from gross incivilities and abuses, is really interesting. (What the fuck do you think I am, a robot?? Not a person??) And the fact you dwell and concentrate on word "fuck" and not dynamics going on, show where your head is at re civility/incivility. [Which is an extremely shallow and voluntary/arbitrary place. You are not "God" and your POV re what is blockable incivility should have been repudiated with your block of Eric Corbett. But I am a lesser target, so above instead of block you bring up "banning". {Well, well, well. I'm shocked.} You wanna talk with me, then do it seriously as prev suggested. Not your drive-by spanking at an AN.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are trying to provoke me into saying something that you can use against me. I have no idea what Eric Corbett has to do with this. You have complained a lot about people making false allegations and slandering you. But I will challenge you with the same tone that you are using against me: You are attacking me for blocking Eric Corbett. Prove that I have ever done so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to provoke you. (Perhaps that's just your ABF peeking out!?) Am I mistaken? (I thought you blocked Malleus/Eric Corbett over some incivility[s]. [Is my memory failing? Could be.] The point is that such block demos your concept of incivility being centered on "bad words", not seeing baits or other less obvious forms of incivility other thoughtful people both suffer under and deem worse than a list of "bad words". I see also that you bend over backwards excusing "classic narcissist" with your euphemistic "not helpful" rather than calling it what it clearly is -- an unmistakable and clear personal attack. (What could be more personal, and more derogatory, than claiming someone has a personality disorder to the tune of a diagnosable mental illness?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Surely a block is in order? This editor has not even discussed the proposed interaction ban, just ranted at and insulted anyone who dares to criticise. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It has already been shown how MaxBrowne imagines attacks and slights that do not exist. (He stated this dialogue was "about him". He imagined my posts to this article Talk were personal and a persecution of him. He blew up at WT:CHESS and again became ruthlessly uncivil by personalizing and mischaracterized my contributions to a subject discussion [gender-neutral language], even constructing a personal attack page intended to defame and discredit in that project Talk page thread. What do all of these incidents have in common? MaxBrowne's inability to control himself from making unfounded accusations and unprovoked attacks including his vicious PA at the recent ANI which others like to excuse or minimize. The problem editor here is MaxBrowne, not me. If mentioning another editor in a discussion, or diff-ing one of their posts in a discussion about some topic, is considered "impolite" or "not acceptable", well, quite frankly, I don't quite understand that, but perhaps I could if someone explained it to me. (Because it does not seem uncivil to me at all. Only with an intent to insult or snipe, and that has never been my intent, in spite of accusations by others who apparently understand my internal motivations better than I do because they have crystal balls.) If mentioning a user by username is such an "unacceptable behavior" as has been shouted about here in this thread, then, isn't it reasonable to ask to point out what guideline or policy says as much? Since there is so much emotion behind it? Because the accusation of bad intent is false, and User:MaxBrowne seems to erupt just at fact that a diff of his, or his username, is brought up in any context. Without a policy or guideline or demonstrable intent to irritate, his complaints are nothing more than prickly imagination and jumping up and down in tantrum. Perhaps he should be admonished to settle down and stop accusing based on his active imagination of slights, which have already been demonstrated he is wont to do. (And if you appease his childish protests and demands, it is nothing more than coddling the unreasonable, because he "protests so much".) The fact is I have been sincere that I have intended or meant no poking or jibes at MaxBrowne in any context where his username was mentioned. He is oversensitive and imagining it. And why should I be sanctioned for his over-sensitivity and sense of self-persecution that has no basis except his imagination and "contempt" for me?? The editor who needs to be reeled in is MaxBrowne, not me. The mentioning of his username in discussions in context have been called "interactions" repeatedly above. They are not "interactions" because they were not hyper-linked (or if I did, that was a mistake; but I don't think I did even once). The only way he could or would know about his username being mentioned in discussion in context therefore, is through him following my edits, looking for something to cry foul about and scream about, as he has done in this AN. MaxBrowne issued a vicious PA against me in the recent ANI, and, even though I have asked more than once for him to provide the/a provoking diff, there has been no diff. That PA was out-of-bounds, should be redacted, and was unprovoked. His reinforcement and elaboration about why he can make such a PA, and others' support of same, is a shame (and will probably result in just more drama and waste of time at Arbitration Committee). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Admins. Please. Do. Something.MaxBrowne (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who opened this AN, MaxBrowne. I've responded to what's been written here. I have left you alone and had no interactions with you whatever. Yet you attacked me at the ANI with a vicious PA unprovoked, and also invested in out-of-context character-assassination at both the ANI and at WT:CHESS. I've stayed away from you long before these things. You are the pursuer and aggressor. (Prickly, hyper-sensitive, loudly complaining over imagined offenses.) You've admitted in this thread you have "contempt" for me. That is fine, have it. But you are responsible what you write here. As I am. I would like to continue to edit Wikipedia articles and contribute what I'm able in peace. You are just filled with unwarranted/undeserved attacks levied at the ANI, attempts to smear and defame at the ANI and at WT:CHESS, and attempts to sanction and block here. (Pattern?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Admins. I am at my wit's end. Please do something urgently. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I suggest that, for a couple of hours, you stop following this. I don't think posting for help repeatedly in bold letters is going to accelerate any decision, but it does seem to be resulting in more replies from the editor with whom you wish to interact no more. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, I'm not insensitive and can see/observe how super-sensitive you are to any reference whatever that indicates you (username or even a diff). Though I feel your reactions have been over-reactions (and your accuses over-the-top), no matter ... I can do my best, consciously, to avoid stepping on your toes. p.s. Good luck on orthochess articles; there is much to do there, there are few active editors, and so much is in disarray. (And I've seen you do some real improvements, too.) It's a lot of work. Best of luck. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your backhanded compliments and the implication that I'm the one with the problem for objecting to your insulting me multiple times in threads that have nothing to do with me. It is of course sheer sophistry to claim that I object to any and all mention of my name, since the diffs I linked to were all instances of you insulting me, or at the very least portraying me in a negative light. The main victim of your insults was of course Quale (talk · contribs) whom you appear to have driven off the project (hopefully only temporarily). One of the crimes for which you endlessly reproached him was thanking editors you don't like for contributing to WikiProject chess. I still want that interaction ban, and I encourage other editors who have been the victims of your vicious rants to seek similar remedies. I am skeptical that you have truly turned over a new leaf. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Consistent? (Your dragging User:Quale's name into this thread, when it has nothing to do with him.) Consistent? (Your asking for zero interaction with me, yet you try and lay blame about everything under the sun and attempt to get in back-and-forth cat-fight with me.) I'll respond to only one thing: Contrary to what you accused, I never criticized Quale for leaving compliments to other editors. Rather his selectivity in leaving compliments to three editors he knows have been hostile toward me, while over the same timeframe never complimenting my contributions, only criticizing, leaving digs and lastly an unwarranted blame. So it is he who drove me from editing pure chess articles anymore, not vice-versa.) I'm ignoring your other accuses, because they're just invitations to a cat-fight ala The Jerry Springer Show. (Oh which reminds me, the reason I'll never open an ANI or AN thread isn't because I'm "afraid", it's because the cultures there are irresponsible with accuses thrown around like mud with no requirement to examine for fairness/unfairness, reasonableness/unreasonableness. I think no one [including me] should have to suffer that, it's uncivilized and a shame for all of Wikipedia to have such undisciplined and abusive forums geared to smear and defame. If that's your thing then that's your thing, you fit right in, and my opinion of the venues is "wrong". So be it.)

I offered what you want because you have made it obvious it is so ultra-important to you. (Simple.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've been watching this section for a while and I was hoping it would resolve itself but it would seem not. Both users are accusing (with evidence) each other of personal attacks, harassment and incivility including within this thread. Given that it would seem the best way to go forward would be to impose a mutual IBAN so that the attacks between them stop. This way we are not saying that one side is worse or more disruptive than the other, only that together they are causing disruption to the project and making the environment hostile for each other, and both seem to have either stated or implied this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow the logic. (I've had no interactions w/ the OP for some time, I have avoided them. The only exception is at an ANI where the OP made accuses and PAs, and in this AN. Without ANIs and ANs I would have continued my no-interaction strategy with the OP. The OP opens this AN and I reply. So now you want to sanction me for interacting at the AN itself? When outside of AN/ANIs, there are no interactions?!

  Also could you explain what how "hoping it would resolve itself" could have occurred? (I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain how it might have been possible to "resolve itself"? I really do not know what you mean. I'm not responsible for the OP continuing to poke and accuse. I didn't open this AN, and have no agenda here, other than to respond to specific things written, in my defense. [For that, you want to sanction!?])

  I'm also confused, how you define "disruption" (to Wikipedia), when the only interactions are at ANI/ANs, not initiated by me, and not my idea there to levy accuses and pokes. I did not open those threads or ask for community time or have any agenda. It was not my idea to either open ANI/ANs, not issue blames there or accuses. What did you want of me after these things are done by others whom I do not control? (Don't defend myself? Those boards are public and permanent record, and some very defaming and nasty accuses have been made. I have not even replied to all of them. So defending oneself is now a sanctionable offense? And a "disruption" to Wikipedia??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you've avoided them in the past would you have a problem with a mutual IBAN, which as I said, doesn't imply that you alone are the cause just that when the two of you interact it stops working as well. It's disruptive because for example, this section has been carrying on for more than a week, and absorbs people's time. I was hoping that you'd see that this is an issue because it keeps coming up, so therefore you'd agree that the best course of action would be a mutual IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You make it sound so simple. ("IBAN" is just one word. So simple, right? No. Not as simple as seems to "sound".) I've offered what MaxBrowne wants. If a (mutual) IBAN is imposed, there are many questions left hanging ... And who do I ask, who controls it, who defines it (the conditions, the rules), clarifies it, who supervises it?? (For example, if MaxBrowne decided to edit a chess variant article I also edited ... there can be no discussion over a content dispute?? If MaxBrowne opened a thread at WT:CHESS that related also to chess variant or chess problemist articles ... I cannot post to that discussion?? If he edits a chess variant or chess problem or chess problemist BLP article, then I cannot edit that article?? That is equivalent to a revolving-article ban, or even topic ban! [There are many possibilities.] This will only cause future problems and commensurate time-sink. I have offered to not reference MaxBrowne by name or even a diff of a post of his, since he seems to so adamantly need that. (Even though he mentions User:Quale who is not involved in this discussion or issue?!?) I have no interest to squabble with MaxBrowne over anything (or insult, or defame, or accuse; however, he has shown distinct pattern to do all of those things to me at the ANI and AN -- that is not me complaining, that is simple fact). MaxBrowne has made a war of this, and other than defend myself at ANI and AN, I have had no part of it. (Who is the aggressor here? Who incites interactions and where??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is why I said above that one-way IBANS don't work. When an IBAN is proposed for two editors, each one always says, "It's not me who's the problem, it's them! They should be banned from me, but I should be able to mention them." Who's going to wade through all this to determine who should be the "bad" one not to contact the other? Mutual IBAN or move this elsewhere. It's really dragging. Doc talk 07:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You've commented a few times Doc, and you say that you want this to be resolved with either a mutual IBAN or moved elsewhere. So given that, are you supporting a mutual IBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I don't support a one-way IBAN. I truly support the dropping of the IBAN request and the two of them just ignoring each other and closing this thread. If that is simply not possible, and a formal IBAN must be issued failing all other options, I guess the only way to be fair about it would be a mutual IBAN. No bad guy, just two editors that must be separated. Doc talk 08:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• the two of them just ignoring each other and closing this thread. If that is simply not possible. That is not only possible but doable from my end. I have already offered it. The stumbling block isn't me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Ihardlythinkso stated above that it would be doable for them to just ignore you from now on rather than having a formal IBAN. Would you agree to do the same thing from now on and is this arrangement acceptable to you. Given that it looks like consensus is going to be lacking in this section to impose an IBAN I'd suggest that this would be the best way to move forward. If it doesn't work either of you can take it back to AN linking to this and then asking for a formal IBAN which will be easier to show is necessary as the informal option hasn't worked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but an informal agreement is absolutely unacceptable to me. I'm quite adamant about this. As I have already explained, IHTS has previously demonstrated that he will not respect an informal request to cease interaction. An informal arrangement would give him license to continue on his current course of randomly smearing me during the course of conflicts with other users. While I don't like the implication from some in this discussion that I'm equally to blame for the current state of affairs, I'll shrug my shoulders and say "whatever" for now. I am confident that my post-IHTS wiki life will be considerably more productive due to a drastic reduction in conflict levels and stress.
I want the terms of the IBAN, and the consequences of violating them, to be very clearly spelled out to avoid any gaming of the system. The terms being: (1) No posting to each others user page or talk page (2) No replying to each other in discussions (3)No referring to each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. (4) No undoing each other's edits (but we can edit the same articles so long as we keep to the terms of the iban). Basically as described in WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Callanecc, I think a formalized IBAN - even if mutual - needs to occur. One needs to only read the absolute sense of exasperation in MB's writing, more than once. I do not believe that's fake, and I believe it's truly indicative of someone who's teetering on the edge. As much as we say "it's the internet, get over it", that's not always as simple as it sounds. There must be the spectre of a block-at-any-time at this moment in order to help both parties retreat from the brink. This will allow both to recover from percieved or actual issues without the fear of "what's the other person saying about me on Wikipedia right now". We cannot do "partial circumcision" or "half-pregnant" right now - this needs to have the elements of reality built in ES&L 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the comments by MaxBrowne, that an informal agreement won't work because it hasn't in the past, plus ES&L's comment I restate my support for a formal, mutual IBAN to be imposed with the wording from WP:BAN. I hope that Ihardlythinkso can see where MaxBrowne and ES&L are coming from and allow the formal mutual IBAN to go through without any more drama, especially since they didn't have a problem with just ignoring each other. See it as an extension of that, mutually imposed so it doesn't state that there is clearly a problem with one side over the other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If MaxBrowne really wants a mutual IBAN, there's no easy way to deny the request. Since "dropping it" is not an option, and a one-way ban request is no longer on the table: what other choice is there? Doc talk 12:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's just do this

Rather than let the discussion waver towards that point, let's just put it on the table. I've been following this discussion for the last few days and it's high time to put it in black and white. Proposal: Formal interaction ban between Ihardlythinkso and Max Browne backed up with the usual restrictions, exceptions and sanctions for violations of said ban, per WP:IBAN. Blackmane (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose interaction ban. This is an Wikiquette assistance thread which, unfortunately, has to be played out here because we made the stupid collective decision to shut that forum down. The thread's be going for 7 days because, let's face it, there's not a lot of benefit in attempting to sort which of IHTS and MB (listed alphabetically) is being more immature, and the fact there's been little response should be a clue that it's up to them to act like mature adults. There are, in fact, one-way interaction bans and the best ones are the uber-secret unpublished ones where an editor simply stops interacting with another editor. Back in the WQA days folks unhappy with my opinions would tell me so on my talk page. Often, I would simply ignore them -- no comment, no revert, just let the bot archive it. The all time record for the number of times an editor would try to interact with me was only six. (Since I'm over 14 both biologically and maturity wise I fail to see why I should care about a Wikipedia editor spouting unsupported nonsense about me. See also The Bushranger's spot on comments a week ago, above.)
The problem with the interaction ban -- besides the make work for the admin closing and notifying the editors and they or a wiki-gnome updating editing restrictions -- it is won't work. Look at MB's statement above, especially the "indirectly" part. What that means is the next time IHTS makes any ambiguous critical statement about other editors they'll be another thread arguing whether or not he meant MB and whether it was a violation. NE Ent 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The "directly or indirectly" is part of the IBAN language. Changes to that page need to be discussed there. Doc talk 13:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "indirectly" would only apply to clear cut cases, e.g. if I were to say "that <expletive> who constantly dropped my name into arguments with other editors", or if he were to say "that <expletive> who called me a narcissist", there would be no doubt in either case who was the <expletive> being referred to. For me the status quo, i.e. IHTS is free to rant and insult me to his heart's content with no consequences, is simply unacceptable. Failure to impose a formal IBAN will enable this behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reiterating support for mutual interaction ban per my comments above. Enough is enough, this conflict is a drain on our editorial resources and the personal attacks are patently unacceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• And reiterating my support per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not just for the sake of the 2 editors, but for all of us ES&L 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support though to be honest, I'm not sure how useful this is going to be. The way in which the relevant editors are commenting suggests they both need a short break from the topics they are interacting on, or even Wikipedia. I don't think either of them would desire those sanctions, but if they fail to respect the spirit of their agreement or formally imposed restriction to avoid making/causing more unnecessary issues, how many other alternatives are left? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Bored now. Mediation, if you must, but if they insist on attracting admin attention then I for one am likely to just block the pair of them until they can get along. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Before chiming in with the "they're as bad as each other" mantra, which I find personally offensive, please consider the relative amounts of conflict and admin time generated by the two editors apart from with each other. This is the only conflict I've been in that has carried on for any extended time; in all other cases WP:STICKs have been dropped and encyclopedia-building has continued.
  It's a common tactic for serial WP:NPA/WP:CIV offenders to seize on any violations made by the other party, bring them up relentlessly, accuse the other party of the exact same things they themselves are guilty of, and do all this with copious amounts of text. The effect is to intimidate those who would disagree with them, generate far more heat than light, and create sufficient confusion in the minds of observers that they end up saying "they're as bad as each other, let's just WP:TROUT them". And so the cycle continues.
  Concerning the "it won't work" argument, that's a cop-out. If such measures "don't work", that's a matter for discussion at the relevant wikipedia policy talk page, not for this or any other individual case where such a measure is under consideration. The fact is that current wikipedia policy allows for such measures to be taken, and that this editor is desperate enough to request one. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh trust me, IDHT decided to play that "seize on any violations" game on one of my talkpages recently. There's a difference when one is actually willing to do one's proper penance and change one's outlook and behaviour DP 23:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Another bot malfunctioning

Well about a month ago, a same issue occurred . Been looking at filter logs and spotted Special:Contributions/10.68.16.31. ///EuroCarGT 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a short while so we can get this worked out. ---Jayron32 03:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another: Special:Contributions/10.68.16.39. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well 10. addresses will be operating in the internal WMF network, so it will not be a good idea to block, collateral damage is likely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• ^This. DO NOT BLOCK INTERNAL IP ADDRESSES. You will cause random collateral damage via XFF blocking. Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Better to figure out which bots are involved, even if it involves asking a checkuser to help. I've blocked both the bots, and will now unblock the IPs. Risker (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't block a bot when its only malfunction is logged-out editing — this only prevents logged-in editing, after all, and won't affect anything that the bot's doing wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• What would your recommendation be? -- KTC (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

How about doing the "figure out which bots are involved" part, without blocking anything until you understand what's going on? It doesn't look like there is any page corruption happening here; it's just logged-out editing. My guess is that when the WMF reset editing sessions to deal with the Heartbleed bug, that the bots didn't "notice" that they had been logged out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the bot's editing tokens still work when the bot is logged out. Someone should probably open a Bugzilla ticket about that, if there's not one already. Anyway I'd ask that the bot not be allowed to edit logged out. It's difficult enough to tell bot and human edits apart on any scale even when the bot is logged in. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely: logged-out editing is by definition an improper functioning of the bot. All bots are supposed to be coded so that they automatically are shut down if they get logged out, and either have coding that logs them back in, or they are manually restarted by the owner. Bot edits are flagged differently than logged-out edits, they show up on watchlists differently, and many actions of approved bots would be considered suspicious if carried out by logged-out editors. Many bots also have additional "privileges" that require them to be logged-in to activate (for example, anti-vandalism bots can edit semi-protected pages, and certain bots even have admin permissions), so they're by definition not working properly if they're logged out. This is a core functionality of bots, it's not something that's nice to have, and logged-out bot editing has been deprecated for years. Risker (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Warning for letting the Russian point of view be heard

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

---

(The diffs I want you to look at are in bold.)

I would like to hear some feedback on what happened at

• Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Requested move (April 2014)
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
• User talk:Moscow Connection#Warning

I think Future Perfect at Sunrise expressed a much stronger personal opinion about the Crimean crisis here, when closing a move request.

But then again, it can be hardly in serious doubt that this very much matches the reality in this case: no independent real-world observer could deny that the action in question here was in fact unilateral, and that it did involve force. If the term "annexation" is factually accurate according to the hugely dominant view of the events as expressed in reliable sources, then the WP:NPOV policy cannot be held to prevent us from using it. We'd only be forced to avoid it in favour of a more neutral-sounding option if there was a real, significant disagreement among reliable independent observers (i.e. other than the opinions of the perpetrators themselves) as to whether or not the events here constitute an act of "annexation". I do not see anybody citing any reliable source arguing such a point

— Future Perfect at Sunrise

But after I constested his closure he warned' me for comment where I simply wanted to persuade Wikipedia editors to be more tolerant towards other opinions and choose a neutral title for the article.

(Reply to your previous comment) The problem that it wasn't unilateral, but the "Annexation" title makes it look so. No one took anything from anyone. People who live in Crimea didn't like what was going on in the state they happened to find themselves in 23 years ago and decided to join another. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Off topic.) And by the way, it may sound strange to Americans, but Ukraine and Russia are single nation. Most people have relatives in Ukraine or have Ukrainian ancestors. (And those who don't simply don't know they do.) All attempts by the Western media to make Russians and Ukrainians hate each other will fail cause we are them and they are us. Russia didn't take anything from Ukraine, it simply saved some people from the rule of some evil people. It is very sad that Wikipedia instead of providing a neutral view of things (and in this case it should have been kind and understanding and let the Russian point of view be heard as well as the Western point of view) is promoting hate and intolerance. I'm not talking about this particular article but you can look at any article related to the 2013/2014 Ukrainian crisis and you'll see a lot of hate. At least, let's name articles neutrally. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

— Moscow Connection

I tried to demonstrate that the title starting with "Annexation" was a Western point of view and I explained the Russian point of view and I asked people to be more tolerant to other people's opinions and let the Russian point of view be heard along with the Western point of view. I personally see a lot of pro-Maidan POV stuff in Wikipedia articles related to the situation in Ukraine and I find it rather disturbing how non-neutral they are.

By the way, I've seen people expressing very strong and very personal anti-Russian opinions on talk pages. I can find some examples easily. Can I list some of them here? Will they be warned just the same as I was?

I would also want to know how I should behave to not be blocked. I have honestly tried to do something about a few of the biased articles, but I think it is too dangerous to continue. I would like admins to tell me how to behave in the future. It looks like i've already been warned and the next time I try to explain the anti-Maidan POV I will be blocked.

P.S. This topic is no way an attempt to attack the admin. I simply want to know whether the warning was fair. I also want to understand whether a person who wants to make Wikipedia articles less anti-Russian is welcome or hated in the English Wikipedia.

P.P.S. And yes, I would really like to get some feedback cause I'm practically scared of what happens on Wikipedia lately. Wikipedia seems pretty happy with articles titled like "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". I just want to know if I am going to be blocked if I don't stop and let the anti-Russian articles be.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Our goal is not to "let the Russian point of view" be heard. It is to summarize facts, as the reliable sources have reported them. If most are calling the events an "Annexation", then the neutral thing to do is to call them the same thing here. "Neutral" doesn't mean give every person who has a different point of view a chance to air their musings on the event. If there are significant differences in how it is being reported by different sources, then those different views can be documented and cited within the articles. In other words, we don't take sides, we just document and verify facts that other reliable sources have published, period. And the names of the topics are reflective of this: they are not our opinions, they are based upon the opinions of the reliable sources only. As for Future Perfect at Sunrise, his actions in warning you seem to be proportionate to the problem. I found the closing to be extremely detailed. This isn't RFC Review, it is WP:AN, so I haven't tried to reweigh the votes myself, however, I don't see any misconduct of any kind by Fut. Perf. Indeed, I see a well though out closing that went to great lengths to offer a full explanation of the rationale, using policy and participation as a guide. I'm sure I couldn't have done it as well myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  But what should I do now? Should I just shup up? If someone states it was a forceful annexation — it's okay. If someone states Russians and Ukrainians are one nation — it's not okay.
  It's obvious that most English-language sources express the Western point of view. But most sources in Russian express the opposite point of view. Wikipedia should not be anti-Russian simply because the Western media is.
  I'm quite frustrated with what is happening in the English Wikipedia and in my comment I was warned for I simply tried to explain a different point of view to people. I thought that maybe people should understand there are other opinions, not only "forceful annexation", "occupation", etc. It is really strange how you can say "forceful annexation" and it will be considered a neutral POV simply because it agrees with what the Western sources say. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Well, the Wikipedia isn't really the proper forum for pro-Putin hegemony. As the Russian media is largely under the thumb of the government these days, they really can't be said to be much of a reliable source for anything either, so we go by what the actual reliable sources say on the matter. The North Korean leaders, when they aren't busy shooting singing troupes in the head or barbecuing former party members with flamethrowers, would likely love to get their point-of-view represented in North Korea, but it ain't gonna happen for similar reasons. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  This is much worse than what I was warned for. (That's exactly what I meant. There are plenty of statements like this in Wikipedia and they are considered normal. "Pro-Putin hegemony", comparing Russia to North Korea, etc.) [By the way, keep in mind that what you hear about North Korea might not be true. I wouldn't say something like this because I don't know anything for sure, but you said that North Korean leaders are "busy shooting singing troupes in the head or barbecuing former party members with flamethrowers" and you will get away with this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• We are not here to Right Great Wrongs, so Wikipedia is the wrong place to try to present "the other side of the story". We don't discriminate against foreign language sources, however we do consider that Ukraine and Russian sources likely have their own bias, as they aren't completely objective. If most of the sources are saying one thing, that is what we say here. That is the role of an encyclopedia. If there is significant coverage stating that it wasn't an annexation, then that can be worked into the article, as we do want to show every significant perspective but the titling and lede are based upon the majority of coverage, using the best independent and objective sources, regardless of language. We do NOT publish "The Truth®", we only publish verifiable facts based on what others are saying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While my personal POV is that this was pretty much a straightforward aggressive act of territorial acquisition of the type that has thankfully become less common post-WW2, I think that the position of Moscow Connection deserves consideration. Pretty much all "reliable sources" consider this an act of aggression if we limit our search for sources to Western media. But on many issues, the POV will be very different if you examine the media in countries with which the West has historically had a rocky relationship. Are Chinese, Russian, and Arabic newspapers automatically excluded from being "reliable sources"? My guess is that "mainstream" opinion expressed in these outlets would be very different on many topics than those of Western media. I suppose one could argue that there is less media independence from the government for the media in these companies than in the West, but then folks in those countries could equally point to the ownership of most Western Media outlets by large, multi-national corporations.

I don't agree with him, but I think there is an element of truth on Moscow Connection's remarks that needs to be taken seriously. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are editorial matters, not administrative, and as I've said, we don't discriminate against foreign language sources, although obviously Ukrainian and Russian sources have to be weighed carefully as they have an interest in the outcome and perception. As to the administrative matters (what this board is here to review), I don't see any problems with Fut. Perf.'s actions, and they appear to be made in the best of faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very troubled by Future's use of the word "perpetrators".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When one nation violates the sovereignty of another nation, an act that is quite clearly illegal under international treaty, "perpetrator" is a rather apt descriptor. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then you'd encourage closing admins to make such statements? That should ensure they are accepted as fair by all. I'm reminded of the saying that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. We don't deal in justice here, but the principle remains. I'd like the administrator in question to clarify what he meant, please. Per WP:ADMIN. I'd also like Future to clarify if he is saying there that all sources based in Russia or Ukraine should not be considered for purposes of the closing or other U-R matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The point I was making was that in deciding what is or isn't a notable and significant disagreement regarding how to call a contentious and potentially offensive act, we give little or no consideration to the terminological sensitivities of the party responsible for the act itself – the "perpetrator" of the act, for lack of a more general term. That the person or party responsible for action A will disagree with calling it "X", when "X" has negative implications, can be taken for granted and is insignificant. What counts is whether independent observers have voiced disagreement over whether action A is an instance of "X". Such independent disagreement appears to be absent here. To give another Wikipedian example of such a case: Water boarding (action A) is known to be a form of torture (concept "X") – unambiguously so, without any doubt or significant disagreement about it in reliable independent sources. A couple of years ago, the government of a rather powerful nation, which was known to have perpetrated action A, insisted that action A should not be called "X", and many Wikipedians debated to what extent that ought to be reflected in our choice of language. Quite rightly, we came to the conclusion that it shouldn't. Our article on action A again calls it an instance of "X", without any hedging, because that's what reliable independent sources did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that it would be ill-advised to rely exclusively on the Russian government, by that logic. But what you seem to say is that Russia-based sources should be disregarded. That troubles me. By that logic, though perhaps I imperfectly understand what you are saying, in the water boarding debate, US-based sources should have played no part. Can you point me to where I am misunderstanding your closing?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said that all sources from Russia or Ukraine should not be considered for the purpose of closing? I didn't and I don't see where he did. I do know that WP:RS strongly prefers sources be independent of the event, so it might be preferable to have sources from say Moldova or Romania than Ukraine or Russia for some facts, and that we have to carefully weigh sources from involved countries, particularly if the sources are not independent from the involved governments, but I don't see anyone saying they have to be flatly excluded from consideration. Obviously they need to be qualified when used in an article, via WP:BIASED. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm asking the closing admin. You are a fine administrator, but you did not close the discussion. As Roberts said to Scalia, let's hear from counsel (or admin, in this case) I will say parenthetically to Moscow and others, that a good procedure to follow might be to discuss at the start of these debates how they shall be closed, and if possible agree on an administrator, or three, to do the closing. Between the Crimea discussion you closed, Dennis, and this one, this issue is spending too much time at AN/I, and I'd like to see that end.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say anything about wholesale discounting of published opinions based on their country of provenance? What counts is not what country an opinion comes from, but to what extent it is politically independent of the acting party, or can be seen to be evidently motivated by political expediency in defending (or attacking) action A. The USA are known for having an exceptional degree of internal pluralism in their published political discourse, and in the waterboarding case most of the public debate was done by commenters from within the country, many of whom could be assumed to be quite free from political pressures of the government in question. The same can hardly be said about published disourse in Russia today, I dare say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wish I had your confidence on both those points. I can't be bothered to spend more time on this. I would urge the admins who have been closing these matters, and others who are minded to deal with these matters, to act in a way that inspires confidence in the outcome. These closes have not been controversial because of the answer, they are controversial because what was said by the closing admin, or what he did, which undermines the very solid work that I do not doubt went into each close. In other words, I can hear all the noise way up in my ivory tower. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: While I admitt that you didn't said that, some are, in fact, constantly denying Russian sources on various grounds (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and even WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE), that conflict applies even to Russian legislation (which is denied at all these grounds, one or another) and often leads to what I would call edit warfare. So there is a big issue/controversy about constant removal/addition of these sources, issue which has to be taken into account. Seryo93 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree with this editor on some points, in that we must hold to NPOV and take into account both sides of the equation, I think that he has been conducting both tendencious and disruptive edits. Instead of trying to balance out the situation, it often appears that he attempts to inject pro-Russian material into articles which isn't appropriate. He has made repeated comments as such, such as this one. Given that Wikipedia is not meant to right great wrongs, as said above, I'm very concerned about the behaviour of this editor. He has even gone to the length of establishing a POV fork at 2014 East Ukraine crisis that duplicates the existing 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, all for the purpose of skirting around other editors who have consistently resisted his attempts at pushing a certain POV. I'm not sure if he has a conflict of interest, but I recommend that he remember to strive for NPOV, and not to get personally invested in the articles he is editing. I hope that administrators involved here will make that clear. RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: While I don't see a problem with the term "annexation", there is serious POV pushing--on all the related articles--favoring the Ukraine/West POV and denigrating almost anything negative about the actions of the Ukraine/West while emphasizing almost anything negative about the actions of Russia and denigrating anything with a positive opinion on the actions of Russia. It's hardly worth the trouble, unless you have nothing but time on your hands...—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been severe POV pushing on both sides, not just one. We've had a flood of pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia single purpose accounts, socks and what have you. It isn't limited to any one side, but I don't think anyone can really see past their own biases in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

PROD topic ban proposal for Nfitz

Long story short - Nfitz (talk · contribs) has a long history of removing PRODs from articles which are then subsequently deleted at AFD. Looking at their talk page, this issue was first raised back in July 2008 by Number 57 (talk · contribs). If it was the odd one or two, then fair enough - but we are talking about lots here (by my count 45 between 10 February and 22 March, and plenty more before that) which means it is becoming increasingly disruptive; just have a look at their deleted contribs. By doing so you will also note that a significant number of PRODs were removed en masse on 19 March 2014 with the edit summary of just "no" - simply not good enough. Despite recent attempts to resolve this situation here and here and here, this continues - see Glen Kamara, which was deleted by AFD today. Basically, I simply don't think they fully understand notability.

I know this is a potentially controversial one given the very nature of PRODs, however I propose that Nfitz is topic banned from removing PROD tags from articles. The constant removal of PRODs from heaps of clearly non-notable articles is disruptive and simply has to stop. GiantSnowman 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Has this user make any effort to address the reason why an article was prodded in the first place, e.g. find sources, trim puffery, assert notability, etc...? Tarc (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc:: In most cases yes. The problem here isn't a lack of understanding of the procedural mechanics of proposed deletion. It's more that they either don't understand the notability guidelines, as GiantSnowman suggests above, and more importantly seem unable to learn what they are, or simply do not care, as Number57 suggests below. In any case, Nfitz tends to repeat the same deprod rationales despite seeing them rejected at afd time and again, and in doing so creates a lot of otherwise unnecessary work for the rest of us. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, just trying to see if this is a straight "drive-by de-prodding" or if there is effort to rectify the articles. If effort is being put in but the nature of the effort is consistently rejected at AfD, then that may be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, yea. Being wrong isn't a crime; there's Article Rescue Squad members that are wrong...some spectacularly and nastily so...in deletion discussions all the time. It should be a rather high bar to meet for being wrong to be considered disruptive/incompetent. I'll hold off on voting until the subject weighs in. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: Appoligies, I misunderstood your meaning of addressing the reason for PROD'ing. In the sense of substantive improvements to the articles in question, these have been relatively few. I understood the phrase to mean providing a counter-argument to the PROD rationale. I agree that bar needs to be set high, but I think that systemically ignoring or failing to understand a core policy for six years qualifies. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I also support a topic ban, and would like to add a bit of context to some of the numbers GiantSnowman provided. At the time of writing this, the current article alerts archive for the WikiProject Football lists 70 articles deproded by Nfitz since 1 January of this year that were subsequently deleted. By comparison, the number of deleted deprods over the same time period by all other users combined was 30. (This second number also includes any number of procedural deprods where keeping the article was not the intention of the deproder.) Simply put, since the beginning of this year, roughly two-thirds of the PROD related afd work of the WikiProject Football is directly attributable to Nfitz and most of it was unnecessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately it seems that Nfitz is singularly incapable of using the prod/deprod system in a productive manner, and this has been going on for years. I would have no problem if the subjects of the articles he was deprodding met various notability criteria, but they clearly don't. When this was brought up in March, I pointed out that he had already deprodded almost 60 articles in 2014 alone that were subsequently deleted - creating a huge amount of pointless AfDs. I think he he knows full well what the notability criteria are, but overlooks them in favour of claiming just about every footballer ever meets the GNG (which they clearly don't). Only he alone knows why he does this, but a quick scan of his contributions over the last couple of years suggests that deprodding articles is now his major contribution to Wikipedia, and it's verging on SPA territory. Number 57 18:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not just an ignorance of deletion policy, other issues include removing a BLPPROD with a edit summary of "add ref" ... which was someone's blog; deprodding 13 articles in 10 minutes with an argument based on WP:CRYSTAL; removing a BLPPROD on the basis a completely unsourced article had an interwiki link to another language wiki; and deprodding with edit summaries of "per WP:IAR". Not to mention what appears to be deliberately "misunderstanding" FOOTYN and GNG when it suits. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez, BK...based on what you found, a topic ban AND a block for disruption appear appropriate DP 20:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"BLPPROD with a edit summary of "add ref" ... which was someone's blog" - uh what? I've always tried to be careful removing BLPProds, which I do take very seriously. As far as I understand, that is allowed if one adds a proper reference. And I think I almost always have done this. I added someone's blog? This doesn't ring a bell. Can you point it out? It's possibly an error I made. Don't the remaining edits predate my March 24th commitment to be more discerning? Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You removed the BLPPROD on Firmansyah Priatna with the edit summary "add ref" by inserting a reference to http://forzapersija.blogspot.ca. The BLPPPROD was replaced by another editor. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on @Black Kite:. I didn't think http://forzapersija.blogspot.ca was a blog. It might be hosted on blogspot, but it doesn't look like a blog. It's been used as a reference for other Persija Jakarta players by other editors, without objection. And that player also has a Wikipedia article in Indonesian at id:Firmansyah (pemain sepak bola kelahiran 1995). The Indonesian version uses [16] as a reference, but I had trouble opening it at the time, but it seems to be working now. I had no doubt in my mind that he was a real person, and a player on the team. I was actually unaware until now that the BLPprod had been restored. Reading further, yes it does seem to be a blog. I should have used the [17] as a better reference. A poor edit perhaps; however I don't believe there's a pattern of bad BLPprod removals by myself though. Also, it does seem bad form to BLPprod an article with a reference to a foreign-language version, which IS properly referenced. Why not just add the reference from the foreign language version instead of adding a BLPprod? It's not as if there's concerns that this isn't a real person. Nfitz (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Because I think there is a better way to do this than to ban someone from doing something that is not really against any the guideline. Yes its disruptive when someone removes PRODS for no real reason, and yes its even more disruptive when they are removed in mass, but theres nothing in the guideline against removing them so it really wouldn't be fair to ban someone for following the guideline. Despite my recent involvement with an editor who removed a PROD for no real reason on an obviously hoax article, I can't really see anything in the guideline that says that there needs to be a reason. It just "encourages" the person removing them to state a reason. Also there's nothing that says that they can't be removed in mass. I suggest we dictate a section at WP:PROD that not just "encourages" a reason, but "requires" a justified reason why the article should be kept, and not just the "It needs more discussion" argument, because thats a poor reason. That way we are not simply blocking for disruption, but theoretically closing the loop hole that created the disruption in the first place.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue is not necessarily that Nfitz does not provide a reason, but that the reason he uses (at least in the AfD arguments) does not stand up to scrutiny in those debates. If this was a recent problem then I could understand your reluctance to support action, but this has been a problem for over half a decade. At what point do you stop assuming good faith and accept that someone is just disruptive? Do we just put up with a stream of completely pointless AfDs just to humour someone whose sole activity on Wikipedia is now deprodding articles and debating the results? Number 57 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not suggesting that its not disruptive, but banning the user would be like continuing to bail the water out of a sinking boat while continuing to ignore and not fix the hole. Lets fix the hole in the boat first before topic banning people for doing something that is, albeit disruptive, not against guidelines. Because of we topic ban for this, where do we draw the line and how do we know its been crossed?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • But tightening up the guideline won't stop what he's doing unless the guideline is specifically edited to say that a prod cannot be removed from an article on a footballer unless they pass WP:NFOOTY - this is the precise problem (he always claims they meet the GNG), and I don't believe changing the guideline is possible solution (it would seem rather odd to include that one specific requirement), unless you have an alternative suggestion? Number 57 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I have to disagree with the assessment that Nfitz's actions do not violate policy. They do not violate PROD policy per se, but disruptive editing of any kind does. If done, as Number57 suggest, in full knowledge of what the notability guidelines are, it qualifies as Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Current PROD policy has it's down side, but works effectively when not abused. When it is, broader guidelines apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just oppose, per Jojhutton  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose given the nature of PRODs.--v/r - TP 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a last resort. I haven't run across this editor before, but sampling a number of the deleted contribs makes it pretty clear that this isn't as simple as explaining to them, and has gone on for a long time. There is a pattern to this, of deep misunderstanding of the deletion process as well as GNG, IAR and other basic policies. If they are not stopped from participating, they are headed down the path of getting a WP:DE block log before too long because these kinds of deletions are disruptive and becoming too frequent. A limited topic ban is the least disruptive way to allow the editor to contribute, while keeping them away from a problem area. If they really feel a PROD needs removing, they can bring it to someone else's attention, who can perhaps act as a filter, and in time they may actually learn what is and isn't an appropriate removal of PROD, by example. If the goal is to remove the disruption and give the editor the change to actually learn, this would appear to be the proper solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not even sure why this has been brought here. As far as I know this was all resolved in the original discussions that User:GiantSnowman referenced here and here. And also in the third discussion on this, that for some reason User:GiantSnowman failed to reference here. I've been open to discussion, I have made concessions, and I have tried to work constructively.

1. During the first discussion, I agreed on the 23rd of March to be more discerning about my prod removals, and provide a summary when I do so. Why then, has in this ANI has User:GiantSnowman chosen to cherry pick the prod removal stats, and only present the stats from before I agreed to this. If this is a case for ANI, shouldn't User:GiantSnowman be looking at the stats from after I made this commitment?
2. Since I made that commitment, the only article that User:GiantSnowman has identified in these discussions is Glen Kamara. This went to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara. Given that there is one reference that goes toward establishing notability at [18] and that the article also exists in the Finnish-language Wikipedia at fi:Glen Kamara which also has references [19], [20], and [21], I didn't think it was unreasonable that before we deleted the article, that we shouldn't have had a more complete discussion at AFD.
3. Since I made the commitment to be more discerning, I haven't removed more than a handful of prods (as far as I recall); all in the topic area of Football. This despite there being well over 100 prods currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Article alerts, and probably another 100 or more during the entire 3 weeks since March 23. It's being made out that I've been removing prods without discernment, and this has never been the case.
4. User:GiantSnowman is focussing on articles where I removed a prod that have subsequently been deleted. This ignores the articles which have not been deleted. While I admit that more articles where I have deleted the prod, have ended up being deleted, than not; surely raising debates about other articles, that were prodded in error, and then are not deleted, does have value to the project.
5. Much is made that I deleted several prods with the summary "No" (or something like that, I'm afraid I don't have access to the tools to see). I should have been more detailed, and I already admitted that, but my recollection is that this was just shorthand, and all the prod removals were of a very specific theme, and I felt it unnecessary to go into further detail. I believe the topic area was Irish footballers, who had long playing careers in the top-level of Irish football, some dating back nearly a 100 years. These were mostly articles that had been here for years. I was very uncomfortable seeing the work of so many people over so many years deleted without any discussion.
6. I don't think removing a few prods, does any particular harm. It's not like no one has ever failed to notice! I think a healthy discussion of an article before deletion is not a bad thing. It also eliminates a problem we do see, that articles get resurrected time and time again, with no documentation for users on why they were deleted in the first place.
7. My prod removals have been in very narrow areas. Long-standing articles with many edits over the years. Articles that are well referenced or exist in other wikis. Articles for players that have made the first team and are virtually assured of making a start soon (I've never created one of these articles, but I see little point in deleting them, only to recreate them days, or weeks, later). Yes, I've made some mistakes. Yes, at some point in February I removed some prods in error, as I was unclear on which policy was current; this caused no harm.
8. I've broken no policies. I've been discerning about my prod removals. I've generally documented the reasons for my prod removals (other than the removals of March 19th which we've discussed above, and I've agreed to document in the future). And I've tried to enhance and improve the project.
9. I'm concerned that there is a failure to WP:AGF by User talk:GiantSnowman and some other editors (some of whom have magically appeared here already), when I have only the best interest of the project at heart; it's starting to feel like WP:Harassment. I've been subjected to quite a few harsh and rude comments from several editors that fail to assume good faith.
10. My understanding (or lack of) understanding of GNG has been raised. Which is interesting, given I'm not sure the majority of my prod removals over the years have been on GNG grounds (but then I lack the stats).
11. We all have different understandings and interpretations of WP:GNG. I'll admit my understanding is more liberal than many. However I'm actually concerned that User:GiantSnowman's interpretation of WP:GNG is too narrow. The case I raised in the earlier discussions was the deletion of the article for Jack Wilshere where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wilshere User talk:GiantSnowman supported deletion, and even recently says that was the right decision. This despite the argument I made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 9#Jack Wilshere where I documented significant international media coverage and hundreds of media articles, with the examples [22] (which noted "Premier League club Arsenal has included 16-year-old midfielder Jack Wilshere in its first-team squad for the new season", Canadian Press, Setana Sports "one of England’s most talked-about teenagers", the International Herald Tribune where Wegner is quoted as "He looks strong enough and he is not fazed by the big games", and the Daily Mail "rated highly by Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA's director of football development, and a first-team debutant in the Gunners' pre-season games.", the Malaysia Star. Some of these links now no longer function 6 years later. Quite frankly, if these references don't document notability, perhaps then I really don't understand WP:GNG; in this case though I believe that it is actually User:GiantSnowman (and perhaps the closing admin) who have missed the point.
12. I'm concerned that this is a bit of a Wikipedia:Witchhunt based on previous disagreements with some of the involved parties. I'd rather not go into details at this time, though some were discussed in the referenced discussions
13. As I've previously made User:GiantSnowman aware, my avaibility is very constrained on weekdays; I tend to make few, if any edits outside of weekends, these days. I may not be able to respond to any comments or queries until the weekend. Please don't take my silence as agreement, or a lack of interest.

Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That is largely WP:TLDR but to respond to a few of your points following a skim read - yes I have been AGFing; you have removed PRODs from articles that have been barely referenced (all those Irish players, for example); the Jack Wilshere deletion was endorsed at DRV (which means GNG was reviewed twice, and both times it was agreed the article did not meet it); stating your bogus removals "does no harm" is nonsense as it does nothing but create a lot of work for a lot of people. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:TLDR refer to overly long unformatted blocks of text? I tried very hard to format the text for clarity, taking extra time to distill my thoughts into bite size pieces. The unnecessary use of the term 'bogus' is yet another example of User:GiantSnowman frequent violation of WP:FAITH; an examination of his talk page shows frequent complaints about this by many parties. Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You posted an overlong long response that serves no useful purpise (for me, at least) in what is intended to be a constructive discussion. GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My points were clear and concise. Why use a phrase like "overlong long"? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Why misprepresent what WP:TLDR says? Nfitz (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose given the statements above and the nature of prods. If BLPPRODs are being removed inappropriately on an even vaguely regular basis, that might be a real issue. But I'd prefer that be a different discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:WITCHHUNT Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - accusations that this is harassment/a witchhunt are not only false but also extremely bad faith. I'd invite @Lugnuts: and Nfitz to rescind these accusations. Same goes for accusations that I have not been AGFing - given the fact there have been numerous discussions over 6 years, including three started by me, it has to be clear that AN has been a last resort. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Expressing concern that it's a bit WP:Witchhunt and it's starting to feel like WP:Harrassment is surely at worst a bit bad faith, not extremely. Isn't the use of the term extremely unnecessarily dramatic? The use of AN here was entirely unnecessary given that the subject had been discussed at length already, and you'd already obtained the change in my use of Prods as per my March 24th agreement. The sole case you've been highlighting since then based on [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara]] is highly debatable given the existence of fi:Glen Kamara (which references [23], [24], [25], and [26]). While the quality and depth of sources might not meet GNG, there is no reason that a more complete discussion does any harm. This was hardly a last resort. Once again, I apologize that I'm not going to have a chance to respond to anything else here until ... well possibly Easter, but certainly not for another 15 hours or so. Nfitz (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it has already been discussed elsewhere - a number of times, over a 6 year period, and with no real change in behaviour - shows that AN was necessary. If you do not listen to me (because you believe I have some kind of bad-faith agenda against you or whatever) then perhaps you will listen to the other editors who also express concerns about your behaviour. Also please do not ping me, there is no need as I am watching this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you also removed a PROD recently at Andrew Stone (footballer) (now at AFD, likely to be deleted) knowingly violating WP:CRYSTAL. To say your behaviour has changed and you have stopped removing PRODs on genuinely notable articles is simply not true. GiantSnowman 11:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that AFD has also resulted in a delete... GiantSnowman 11:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It might well have been deleted, but if you read the AFD it's not like I was the only person who thought that deleting it was a waste of time. How is this any different than the AFD for one of his teammatesWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland which had a different outcome? I still feel deleting the article for a player, days before the start of the season, is an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. I'm also concerned that what actually happens in cases like this, is that another editor recreates the article, rather than restoring the deleted material, and the edit history is seldom ever restored. I don't believe that it is a WP:CRYSTAL violation, as WP:CRYSTAL doesn't say that something "has taken place", it says "almost certain to take place". And I believe this to be the case. Even if it wasn't, then I think WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:NORUSH, and WP:NORULES trump WP:CRYSTAL. There's no harm to to the project by leaving a harmless, factually correct article in place for a few weeks, rather than starting a deletion process. It doesn't improve Wikipedia. Leaving the article, does ultimately improve Wikipedia, as it almost certainly would be in existence in the future. Nfitz (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Invite to rescind politely declined (of course). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On what basis? GiantSnowman 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the lengthy post from Nfitz. Above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Activity by the user in relation to PRODding and AfD has recently become very disruptive. I agree in principle with JOJ, but feel this is an example of a user gaming the system rather than deprodding to raise leginitimate concerns. One of the main points raised by Nfitz above is that he I think a healthy discussion of an article before deletion is not a bad thing. It also eliminates a problem we do see, that articles get resurrected time and time again, with no documentation for users on why they were deleted in the first place. Healthy debate is to be encouraged, and I do agree in principle that PRODs should be removed by anyone if they think there is a chance a !Keep consensus could be reached. However, one only has to look here to see that this user has clear problems understanding current notability consensus. To provide a few examples, beyond the regular dismissal of WP:CRYSTAL highlighted by Black Kite above, of instances where such fundamental WP:COMPETENCY issues have arisen recently:

1. Here a suggestion that it is biased to apply the same notability criteria to people in western and non-western countries, in addition to unfounded and unexplained distasteful accusations of racism.
2. Here the same copy and paste comments in a different article.
3. Here a suggestion that because WP:NFOOTY does not specifically cover semi-professional teams the article should be automatically kept despite not presenting any GNG support.
4. Here one of a number where Nfitz fails to grasp the notion that the fully professional league listing, as a current consensus on initial notability, is an inclusive list, so if a country is noton it the players from those leagues are automaticall deemed non-notable unless GNG can be shown specifically.
5. Here, here and here some of numerous instances where he admist that a player is currently non-notable, but essentially begs for it to be kept for a while to see if the person becomes notable.

Althought this discussion is around a PROD ban, the examples above to me highlight an editor who has significant problems understanding the current consensus around notability within football and continues to fight against this consensus in a manner which is disruptive. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support Do I believe they they're sincerely trying to improve the 'pedia? Yes, and their explanation above makes that clear. However, that same explanation shows that they have an understanding of the de-prodding process that is nearly wholesale against what the process is supposed to be about. We don't de-prod "because in my opinion it should stay". We don't de-prod because "a similar article exists in another language with far more lenient notability requirements". We don't de-prod for WP:CRYSTAL reasons. We don't de-prod and add inappropriate ref's/EL's. We de-prod because we're in the immediate process of completely and directly addressing the reasons behind the prod. Even if only 10% of their de-prodding ran afoul of this (which unfortunately it's a much higher percentage), such de-proddings are wholly disruptive in their nature. For at least the next 6 months, if they come across a PROD, they should a) attempt to fix the issues, b) discuss the changes since the PROD tag was attached on the article talkpage and how they improved it since the PRIOD, but c) leave the damn PROD tag alone ES&L 12:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoping between sock accounts on the same thread? Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying reading WP:SOCK#LEGIT before such accusations of bad faith. The fact that I'm not logged into my admin functions on a non-secure network is not rocket-science. Have I !voted twice? Are my two accounts properly linked according to policy ES&L 13:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's also remember that unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about unsubstantiated? They're two accounts being run by the same person, but I just thought it was worth mentioning for the those not in the know. Pot, kettle, black about accusations of bad faith too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Two accounts being run by the same person" =/= "sockpuppets". Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but if the S-word is tossed out it's automatically an accusation of nefarious doings, whether it's intended that way or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• On the back of ES&L's suggestions about "discuss[ing] the changes" - I am more than happy to volunteer to be a 'mentor' of sorts, should Nfitz be in agreement i.e. if Nfitz wishes to challenge a PROD, I am happy to discuss the notability of the article and/or merits of the PROD tag and we can then decide on next best actions. GiantSnowman 12:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, it's not like he is always wrong in discussions and I do welcome dissenting opinion, however much I disagree with it in the main in this instance. However, I wonder whether it might be better idea to have someone outside WP:FOOTY to avoid and WP:INVOLVED issues. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• That would complete the solution and offer the best chance of getting the topic ban lifted in a reasonable period of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I am deemed too 'INVOLVED' to be a useful mentor in this situation - either by Nfitz or the wider community - then so be it. My offer, however, still stands. GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. GiantSnowman's offer of a mentorship-type situation is the best outcome, but if that does not work out I feel that this situation has gone on too long to remain unresolved. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• If the only outcome is to have a mentor or ban from PRODs, I'd be willing to do the mentoring. Keep in mind, I'm pretty far on the inclusionist side of the spectrum... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• If we have an 'inclusionist' mentor then we should also have a 'deletionist' mentor. GiantSnowman 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, all that is necessary to do is to see that he keeps within the spectrum of reasonable behavior, and Hobit's inclusiveness is not outside of it, certainly not to the degree he would be an inappropriate mentor. . I would be extremely reluctant to accept that a good faith but mistaken de-prodding is disruptive except in the most extreme of cases; forcing things into discussion at AfD is an inherently reasonable way of handling disputes. I point out that the proper relationship of the sports guidelines and the GNG is one of the most perennially disputed areas of WP, and there have been cases in the past of maneuvering people into a situation where they get blocked because of their differing view of notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. PROD is a relatively recent invention, after all, designed merely to lighten the load on AFD. AFD is the default venue for considering deletion of articles. I would counsel the user to explain de-prodding in more detail, to try to resolve the concerns more of the time, but in the end the entire process that set up PROD was designed around precisely this ability for any editor on any grounds, even pure whim, to remove the tag. If it becomes an issue beyond this one user then maybe policy might be revised but right now there is no problem to fix, other than a user who seems to be keener on keeping articles than on improving them. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you DGG. Work kept me from finishing a reply for hours, but this is exactly what I wanted to say. It isn't about "inclusionist" or "deletionist", it is about reasonable standards of when to use PROD, when to dePROD, and when to dePROD and send to AFD. The problem that necessitates a topic ban isn't one of determining where the grey area is, it is about understanding the process on the whole. Unquestionably, I trust Hobit to act as a filter and mentor in that respect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please help

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 6#WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities .26 Neighbourhoods not realizing that it required a protected edit. Administrative or template editor assistance is requested to revert [27] so as to recategorize the relevant talk pages. Also, Template:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods, which is move protected, should be moved to Template:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've granted you template editor.--v/r - TP 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tiresome hopping IP

• 142.136.84.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Road Runner Northridge, CA)
• 142.136.131.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Road Runner Northridge, CA)
• 64.134.235.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AT&T Los Angeles, CA)
• 63.92.241.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Verizon, Corporate, Apple, Granada Hills, CA)
• 64.134.233.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AT&T, Los Angeles, CA)

This user vandalizes the school information for judges and lawyers, mostly in the infobox but sometimes also in the body to make it "consistent". Like many disruptive socks, some of his edits are not vandalism. Also, the first one, whom I just blocked today, branched out into other areas. After I block them (each for a month, although one I reblocked), I rollback all of their current edits without regard to the quality of the edit (already exhausting enough).

I'm not sure what to do. I can't see any range block being appropriate here because I believe it would sweep too many addresses into the ranges. Perhaps an edit filter that incorporates both the kind of edit and the different ranges. Does anyone have any ideas? Should I be blocking them for longer than a month when they pop up?

(I'm not notifying any of the IPs about this topic.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Road Runner addresses are "sticky", i.e. semi-static, so those blocks should be sufficient until they are able to coax another IP address out of Time Warner Cable. The AT&T address is likely a WiFi hotspot at Starbucks, McDonald's, or some other establishment, and the Verizon/Apple address is probably an Apple Store, so those blocks are fine, but the vandal probably won't have much trouble circumventing them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DoRD. I added another one to the list above whom I just blocked, this time for two months, a lot of good it'll do me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian election articles - eyes needed, please

I've been contacted by The Times of India, which I believe is the world's largest English-language newspaper by circulation. They are going to be running a story about how editors involved with the Narendra Modi article are handling the extra attention caused by the ongoing elections in India. Perhaps stupidly, I've pointed out that the issues at the Modi article are no different in principle to, say, the issues at the Arvind Kejriwal article, Kejriwal being one of his opponents in the elections. They've asked if they can quote things that I've said and I get the impression that the story may be published in the next 24 hours or so.

I think it pretty inevitable that it will generate more POV and otherwise poor edits etc, so I'd appreciate some more eyes on at least those two articles (and Aam Aadmi Party, which I also mentioned) for a brief period. They're all semi-protected at the moment anyway but I predict some extra hassle. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I came across a beautyful article this morning that was quickly blpproded by someone. So I decided to find some sources. Corruption and allegations. Then I thought the subject would rather have the article go quietly rather then have that in there. Agathoclea (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed on original research noticeboard

Can we please get some more eyes on the original research noticeboard about the Bundy standoff page. [28] There is some persistent attempts to add original research and outright crazy things to that page. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I made an unusual block: block review of Cal Bare

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

---

I just made an unusual block that some could view as involved, so I'm reflexing it here for review. As some may know, I'm currently Wikipedian-in-Residence at UC Berkeley - part of what that involves is handling a couple education program classes. My in-person interactions with them are overwhelmingly things I would view as administrative in nature - I teach them about the technical and social aspects of Wikipedia, our policies, etc. Generally speaking, I don't intervene very much in content, except to point out style and sourcing issues, provide suggestions on tone, and stuff like that. With this particular student, they'd listened to a half hour lecture I gave about the history of Wikipedia in a room full of about a hundred students, attended about two hours of additional training with me. with about fifteen other students, and had some email correspondence about what plagiarism is and what excessively close paraphrasing is.

Some time ago, the student's initial sandbox came up as a copyright violation; I nuked it, but didn't take further action besides a discussion with them about what's okay and what isn't okay. Maggie beat me to finding some pretty severe copyright issues in their current sandbox - this time I not only nuked it, but indeffed the student. My intention is for the block to last at least until the student can sit down in person with me and his GSI (his TA) about the past and present problems and then go from there. I think this is a reasonable approach - one of the frequent complaints about the education program is the workload it leaves on community members who aren't participants in it, and since my contact has been primarily administrative (though in the real world,) I think I'm on the okay side of involved. However, I'm sure others have different viewpoints, so I figured I'd bring up my block for discussion pre-emptively. I hope this is not a recurring issue, but discussion here will also help guide my approach to any future student issues in classes I'm WiR/ambassadoring for.

I'd basically like to throw out two questions: is this a kosher block w/r/t involved, and is it a kosher block w/r/t me indeffing someone for something that wouldn't normally get them indeffed and then setting an unblock condition that is definitely not a common unblock condition? As a note, I've also taken the unusual step of not notifying the user I'm talking about, and would appreciate if others didn't as well - it's an abnormal situation, and I don't think he needs to comment on the Wikipedia policy aspect of it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that it meets the spirit of WP:INVOLVED in the sense that you are not in a content dispute with the editor, and the block is part of a continuing process of monitoring and working with them, which admins are expected to do. That is, I believe you are fine. Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Your work with this person has been purely administrative (albeit, with some in-person "administration" going on) and you clearly state that you intend to continue to work with them to educate them in person with Wikipedia policies. I think you've worked well within the spirit of Wikipedia policies here. --Jayron32 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block. I have a different concern which I'd ask Kevin Gorman to e-mail me privately to discuss. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like a cryptic comment from an arb to make a tuesday morning vaguely scary :) you have mail NYb. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing scary intended or implied. I think this thread can close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Stephanie Adams

I request remove (Category:American metaphysics writers) Stephanie Adams article because the girl is a model and not a philosopher who writes about metaphysics. Thanks--Alexis0112 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So all you need to do is go and discuss this at the talkpage of the Stephanie Adams article. Once you have consensus to remove it after a few days, you'll have no problem. Cheers ES&L 11:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alexis0112: Can you explain why you're systematically blanking a category from a large number of articles with no explanation? It's possible you're right to do so, but you appear to have joined Wikipedia and immediately set off, without any effort to justify why, to remove this category. If this is your first time on Wikipedia, that's a potentially problematic place/way to start. What's going on? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the categories because not correspond to the items, because all these people have no connection with metaphysics (you can check it yourself), his work focuses on the New Age and esotericism.--Alexis0112 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If there's a category that is suffering large-scale mispopulation, then it probably should be discussed at WP:CFD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unexplainable non-admin RfC closing and edit warring

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

---

Editor @I JethroBT: has closed an RfC at Talk:List of countries where Arabic is an official language claiming consensus for a certain option despite only a single editor favouring that option while a majority of commenters voted for the status quo. Can we get an actually impartial closer by an actual admin instead? Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing about closing RfCs is that they are not a vote, and rather than actually engage with me in discussion about the close, you reverted my close because you decided on your own that it was obviously wrong. I reverted your removal of my close and its consequent changes to the article once , so that this review could happen. That is not edit warring, it's how challenging a close works. Honestly, many participants in this RfC did not offer up particularly substantial arguments on either side. Furthermore, the fact that participants said Yes without elaboration when the question was Should the Palestinian Authority be included among "Sovereign states" or "Partially recognized states"? makes it ambiguous on what they actually support. What was left were the few participants who actually used sources and policy-based arguments to make their case. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The opening post seems to be a very inaccurate description of the discussion. Having reviewed (not easy, as participants have answered "yes" or "no" to a question of "a" or "b"), I counted three editors in favour of "partially recognised" and five in favour of "sovereign state". But even if it had been 1–6, the strength of argument is what matters. Given that "partially recognised" is how we describe Kosovo (e.g. here), I think an appropriate close has been made. Number 57 16:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure your comment here is unrelated to your dislike of me. Please list which editors you are claiming to have been in favour of "partially recognised", you must be counting the two who were engaging in denialism of Palestine. To get 5 for the status quo you must have also incorretly understood Sean.hoyland's position. Sepsis II (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it is too, as I'm not sure how I'd have a dislike for you given that I don't think we've ever interacted until yesterday. But anyway, Precision123, Robert McClenon and Serialjoepsycho all appear to be on the "no"/"partially recognised" side of the debate. If Sean.hoyland was not voting either way, then it would appear that the vote closer than I mentioned before. Number 57 16:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was right then, you are misreading Precision123 and Robert McClenon's denial of Palestine as somehow supporting placing Palestine as partially recognized. Sepsis II (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Precision123's viewpoint is very clear ("For the sake of neutral point of view, the Palestinian Authority will be moved back to partially recognized states"). I'm not sure how this could be misread. Number 57 17:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah fuck it, looks like I'm about to be fucked again by editors with their bureaucracy, handwaving, false claims, poor reading comprehension, socks, false analogies, and sources that engage in demonization and delegitimaztion of Palestine to further such offensive views into wikipedia. Gilabrand had it right, jump from article to article not caring if you're reverted once in a while; trying to show a wikipedian how they are wrong is a waste of time. Sepsis II (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So, Sepsis II, an RfC was closed and you don't like how the closer determined consensus and judged the stronger arguments. But, as we all know, consensus can and does change over time. If I were you, I'd stop contesting this closure and propose another RfC in 6-12 months that has less ambiguous wording so it is clear what editors are voting on. You might see a different result or, at least, end up with more participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In 6-12 months we should have that new crop of students from Haifi who get university credit for spreading hate of Palestine on wikipedia. I'm thinking the three opposers at the current RfA have a stronger argument than the 80 supporting. I think I'll go close it. If you disagree, well they can apply again in 6-12 months. Sepsis II (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

<- I decided not to participate in RfC after my initial comments for reasons unrelated to the issue itself. Now that it's over I'm happy to throw my 2 cents in. If it were up to me I would simply get rid of the existing segregation into 2 sets, "Sovereign states", "Partially recognized and unrecognized states", and have a single list. The article is a list of "countries", and conveniently it doesn't define that term. Despite the fact that Israel and Palestine are both partially/widely recognized states and we only treat one of them as such, they are both countries and treated as such by sources that deal with such things. I don't really care about the outcome of the RfC, but do I favor removing opportunities for the inconsistencies in the way editors think about things, inconsistencies that probably derive from "the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts" to quote Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, to impact on article content and produce conflict. Either way, simply replacing the inaccurate Palestinian Authority with the accurate Palestine was a step forward. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of making that edit tomorrow considering 1RR though I wish the population column auto calculated the total which is currently incorrect. Sepsis II (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: This seems like a reasonable alternative to me compared to the options laid out in the RfC, if not because of avoiding possible inconsistencies, then because the issue of categorizing countries by their sovereignty doesn't seem strictly necessary in this article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You have my axe I mean, I support this solution. I'd considered closing this a while ago, but couldn't find a close that wasn't problematic. This solves it. It's really obvious and I missed it... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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