Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281

Time for 50-100 new admins ASAP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know what's happening, but it seems administrating WP is coming to a grinding halt. At ANI, for instance, a large number of even the most obvious reports are ignored and it seems the default option is to just let things get archived. I understand this perfectly well, and none of it is because of any poor admin actions as such; it's just a matter of admins being unpaid volunteers and seriously understaffed. But that, in a nutshell, is the problem. There are far too few active admins on WP to cope with demand. At WP:RFA, there are currently two candidates, and the last three months has seen on average one new admin per month. This is, quite frankly, far too little. If WP is to function smoothly, it needs active administrators. Looking at RfA, the implicit question seems to be "who is worthy of becoming an admin?". That is, I posit, the wrong question and the wrong mindset. The real question should be "how many active admins do we need?", coupled with "how many active admins do we have?" and, if there's a gap (as I believe it to be), then that gap should be filled, not through a slow and cumbersome process, but as fast as possible. Once again, I have no complaint with any existing admin and argument is with the current system, not any admin or any administrative action. Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation re: ANI. It seems to me that quite often the correct response to a thread there is to let it play itself out, the participants come up with their own solution or they tire themselves out and move on to something more constructive. The reports that need to be actioned quickly often are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, that is often a good strategy that can lead to a solution, in which case everything is fine. It can also lead to things completely spiralling out of control, which unfortunately also happens. I do not object to a strategy of supervising without stepping in, but no supervision at all is not a good response. My comment today arose from seeing a number of (in my view) very obvious cases being ignored. I myself commented on a POV-pushing nationalist actively using an IP-sock. The comment after mine is on a clear vandal, and after that an even clearer case of very disruptive IP. In my reading, all of these are clear cases where admins could and should step in quickly to close, as the policy violations are obvious. Instead, I found all of them completely ignored many hours after they were filed. Do note that I don't think my own report to be particularly urgent and I did not start this tread to get a close for that report. It's rather a feeling I've had for some time when looking at ANI, but also at AIV and RFPP at times. Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Half the issues that come to ANI do not need admin attention. Often they need mediation, discussing or as Ivanvector points out, just to play out. Some of the best mediators around aren't admin. The places we do have serious backlogs are places that admin don't like to do, no matter how many we have. Sometimes a thread stays open without admin intervention because it revolves around a topic that no available admin is familiar enough to dive into. More numbers don't guarantee quicker responses because most admin don't patrol ANI anyway, particularly new ones. Finally, more than once I've just gone and addressed a problem I saw on ANI and didn't post about it for various reasons. And we don't "supervise" as much as mop up or use the tools on behalf of the community once a consensus is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Other times, the various users of said threads contrive ways for themselves to get blocked, which is certainly another way to sort out the matter. Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

First ten callers get to become admins. And if you're the 12th caller, you'll win two tickets to the monster truck extravaganza being held tonight at the Carson Fairgrounds. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin? I'm just here for the tickets, man.TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah! A-N tailgating! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll just take the Renovator Extra set of hands, please Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• If anyone is wishing to become an administrator, they are welcome to apply at WP:RFA. The community would not reject qualified candidates. If a potential candidate wishes an objective review before submitting an RFA, there are a number of experienced admins willing to review a candidate's activity on the project prior to their application at RFA. Nakon 04:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Whiiiich, the OP having already suggested the RfA MO is lacking fitness for purpose to a certain extent, singularly fails to address his stated concerns :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, largely because RFA is probably only second in nastiness to ANI. One basically has to have a squeaky clean record as well as no grudge bearers, but then the argument swings to the other side by saying that if an editor hasn't experienced or gotten involved in the dirty side of WP, where one would generally collect grudge bearer, then how would they be able to handle being an admin? Catch 22 much? Blackmane (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Catch-22???? That's one helleva catch, that one. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• RFA is still better than it was a few years ago. Mine sucked but I got over it. In some ways, the RFA does the vetting itself. If you can't handle hell week at RFA, you probably can't handle being thrown in the middle of a heated dispute in an Arb restricted area. Sometimes, you don't choose what you thrown in, it simply gets dropped on your lap. Perfection isn't the goal at RFA, we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed. It is all about judgement and reaction under pressure. Yes, we could use more admin and you don't have to be a genius or perfect to be one (take me, for example), so if you want to run for it, just run. Or go search out candidates, vet them and nominate them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed" - Can you provide two or three examples of such RfAs, please? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Berean Hunter passed unopposed with a block in his history. Secret wasn't unopposed but I'm fairly sure he had blocks from his previous account. There are others, those are just off the top of my head. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well in that case Admins have been promoted despite being sanctioned under their previous accounts ;) It didnt work out well in the end. Personally I favour de-bundling over 'more admins'. Most people willing to do 'admin rights needed' work only want to work in a specific area. RFA basically gurantees they will get oppose votes based on 'has no experience in this area' which can scupper an otherwise worthwhile candidate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hunter had one block from about 8/9 years ago, and the other had to use another account for a "clean start". So unless you're squeaky clean or a sock, you've got pretty much no chance of getting through. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

my limited experience with ANI suggests it is a total zoo over there..I've done some things to try to look into this recently (proposed some things on TALK page there etc)...I do think a big problem is there are simply not enough admins out there to deal with things (ie theoretically competent editors)..if Wikipedia has less admins today than it had in the past than it could be in for a death spiral...with more and more articles to be maintained etc etc....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

there are 546 total active admins?? you have GOT TO BE kidding me..this is an existential threat to Wikipedia..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A good 10% of them are pure chocolate fireguards who a) don't do any admin tasks or b) wouldn't know what to do if they were called upon. Someone who got made 10 years+ ago, sits on their elbows all day and doesn't get "stuck in" isn't helpful. Plus RFA is a clusterfuck that would put off the vast majority of people who may be interested in stepping up to help. I'm looking forward to when it all goes tits up myself. WP:FORMER is worth a good look. Nearly the first of the month, so queue another half-dozen or so dormant users to get removed from the current list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe something we could consider would be some sort of "draft" process for admins? I myself get the feeling that in at least some cases some newer editors might not run for adminship because they either don't think that they would get much support in the RfA, or don't think that they would necessarily be able to do that good a job at admin functions. Specifically for cases like that, having some existing admins maybe talking somewhere about individuals they think could do the work and indicating which they would think maybe the most qualified might help encourage some newer editors to seek adminship. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I just looked through the history of active admins..there were closer to 1000 in 2010...have been falling off steadily since...not good68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The active admin count is misleading for a couple of reasons, 1.A lot of 'active' admins didnt use the tools that much. 2.A huge amount of work previously done by admins is now done by bots. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

with more than 5 million articles to be maintained and all the other existing spaces involved in this maintenance..this can't possibly be enough admins..and Wikipedia can't be operating anywhere near to optimally because of this, which can lead to a death spiral of editors/admins (which is probably occurring)...I would think at least 5x more admins are needed...I mean wow..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that there may be some questions about what the IP editor thinks admins can and should do, and what activities can be done by others. There are a lot of things that we do need admins to do, like blocking editors, protecting pages, etc., and it might be that there might be more help needed in those fields. But, in a lot of other areas of activity, most of what is needed to be done doesn't necessarily require the individual be an admin, although I note that there have been and still are several editors, including long-term editors, who want to make some of those activities admin-only. Also, I suppose, although I haven't checked, that there are a large number of individuals who have some "extra rights," like maybe being a template editor, which some might think are admin-only functions but aren't. If we added all those individuals to the number of active administrators, I wonder how high the total number might be. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I see the solution as around one-half new admin recruitment and one-half aggressive expansion of the role of non-admins. I'm sure if you asked an admin from 2-3 years ago to look through my contributions, I'd be called a disruptive editor. The non-admin delete closes at TfD would be enough to draw just about any admin's ire from that period (allowed as per an RfC from around a year ago), and the closure of difficult discussions listed at ANRFC wouldn't sit well either. Non-admins can do a lot more than we tend to think we can. ~ Rob^Talk 17:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is just my impression but when I look over ANI, some disputes are very complicated and require a lot of time, going through diffs, page histories, looking at the contribution history of all of the editors and their exchanges on article, noticeboard and user talk pages and I just don't have the hours to parse through the accumulated animosity. What can also happen is that two feuding editors get in a tit-for-tat argument, counter argument on ANI that runs on for days when if they would just restrain themselves, other editors and admins could get involved and offer their assessment. But it is hard to find space when the editors are furious and exasperated with each other and can't help but argue with each other as if there is no one else in the [virtual] room.

Unless an admin who wanders by is feeling particularly energetic and bold, these disputes often get archived because whether there is misconduct or who is responsible for the misconduct is murky, at best (or both editors are responsible). I agree with Dennis that many of the complaints that editors bring to ANI are more situations for dispute resolution than admin action but the filing editor is seeking a block or topic ban, not reconciliation and compromise. It also seems like some editors file ANI complaints regularly for what are minor disputes and the more frequently I see some editors at ANI complaining about other editors, the less serious I take their complaint. But that's me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

bottom line though: more admins paying attention would be a big improvement, right? and this would likely require simply more admins in general..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone is proposing a community ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia^talk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: [1]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [2].

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 18:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[3] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals[4][5][6] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia^talk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How busy does one have to be to be too busy to make less than thirteen edits a day I wonder...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}: This is not the point. The point is that "being too busy" is just an excuse used by him to justify his edits that are intentionally and consistently misinterpreting sources, his edits that are against consensus, etc. When editors complain about his edits on talk pages and ping him, he does not respond. You cannot have time to make dishonest edits, but then pretend to be "too busy" to respond to editors who are complaining about it. This is clearly an editor who wants to make POV edits and do not care about what other editors are trying to say to him. You can see this pattern in Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline, Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages. And this is not even mentioning all the messages on his talk page that he keeps deleting dismissively... Tradedia^talk 09:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 continues to disrupt Syria map page. More here: user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah (permalink). Please, block him. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. There is more! Check the talk page with complaints. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: What is being proposed is a ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• It has been almost a month since anyone has taken any interest in this. I highly doubt that any action will be taken, so it's probably time to let this die off. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request rejected based on dubious reasoning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Templestaykorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeondeungsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been editing a bit in the "Korean Buddhist temples" area lately, and just noticed the piping hot mess at Jeondeungsa, but of more concern at the moment is the fact that its creator was blocked based on their username and their appeal was rejected even after they said they would change their username. They appealed and said they would change their username, several days later the blocking admin posted a list of further "questions", and then several days later still the unblock request was rejected based on the questions not having been answered. The only part of the original block rationale that was not addressed in the appeal was the (dubious) claim that the account "has been used only for advertising or promotion".

At least one of the questions had nothing to do with the initial block rationale, and appears to have been meant for another user, as the exact same questions were posted simultaneously on the talk pages of four unrelated accounts. If the pages the user had created had not met GNG, I would have thought some of them would have been deleted in the intervening six months. But even if these questions were relevant, it doesn't seem fair that a blocking admin an expand on their block rationale close to a week after the block has been appealed, and then another admin can reject the appeal based on its not having addressed the new, expanded rationale.

Both Diannaa (talk · contribs) and MaxSem (talk · contribs) are good sysops who I am sure have had to deal with a lot of crap on here (including legit advertising-only accounts that try to deceptively claim they are here to build an encyclopedia) and only occasionally make good faith mistakes like this, but it seems like they both dropped the ball on this one. I think another admin should probably review the original block rationale and the unblock request. It's possible the user won't want to come back six months after having been bitten like this, but I really think they should be allowed to.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you discussed this issue with the two admins before starting this thread? It's better to handle matters like this directly with the relevant admins and only seek broader input if needed. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No... I didn't want them to think this was about them. I doubt they remember this, so their continued "involvement" is questionable, and I only notified them as a formality. I don't want this to sound critical of them, and it's difficult to say "are you sure you made the right call here?" (as well as all the stuff about adding to a block rationale after the block has already been appealed) to their faces without sounding critical. I just think an admin should review the block, and I can't post an unblock request for the user. I get that I might have kind of shot myself in the foot on the "not seeming critical" thing because of how often AN is confused for ANI and so this might look like "these two should be desysopped for abusing admin tools" by virtue of my posting it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the blocking admin remains the primary contact for the block as long as they remain active on Wikipedia. I've been contacted about blocks I implemented years after they came into effect. I'd suggest closing this thread and discussing the matter with Diannaa in the first instance. Given the user name and their edits, this block looks reasonable to me. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Nick-D - good block. The user inserted URLs into these articles with the domain name templestay.com, and I would have blocked them too. The blocking admin is always your first contact if you have a problem, and that goes for protection and deletion as well. Coming here with your concerns first does the exact opposite of what you claim you were trying to avoid, because you brought it here to this big noticeboard with all these eyes instead of quietly posting to the admin's talk page. All you have to say is something like, "I saw this block you made – could you tell me about it? I think it might be excessive." Editors come to me all the time with stuff like that and I promise you we don't get offended or upset with good-faith inquiries. :-) Katie^talk 15:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Those are the standard questions we give to accounts that are promotional in nature. This is a not just valid, but common. HighInBC 16:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The user was blocked for a username violation, because there is an organization called "Templestay" with a matching webpage Templestay.com. The user was reported to WP:UAA as one of the around 60 to 100 reports that are filed there daily, and that's how I came across him. The block notice on Templestaykorea's talk specifies their account will be unblocked if they intend to edit on topics other than the subject where they have a conflict of interest. It also asks that their unblock request should specify what types of edits they propose to undertake if unblocked. The Three Questions is a template, Template:Coiq, which we often use to help the blocked party clarify what their future intentions are if they are unblocked. Looking at the other examples of my use of the Coiq template that day, I can see that two of them were indeed inappropriate, because the block notices specified that the username violation was the only reason for the unblock. I will definitely be more careful about this in the future. I see that Templestaykorea posted their unblock request on December 7, but on December 8, before anyone even responded to the unblock request, the account user:Sungwookchoi was created. This is very likely the same person, as they copied material from Templestay's sandbox into the article Geumseonsa with this edit, and edited the article Temple Stay and various other related articles. — Diannaa (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at CAT:NCT

There's a 59-day backlog at CAT:NCT, most of which are very easy deletes. Would be greatly appreciated if some admins could spend a bit of time on it. Cheers, FASTILY 03:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago – these are the F8 deletions. At one point it had over 7,000 files in it, so we're making progress. Most are indeed easy, but some have more than one version and require some finesse. I'll work on it when I get home next week or if I have some time this afternoon. Katie^talk 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I started work on the list, ran into something I didn't quite understand so asked a question on the talk page. That was 15 days ago. Here's the question. Is someone can answer it, I'll be happy to help out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass moving of Ukrainian toponyms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier this year, the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law banning toponyms of Communist origin. Several days ago, it approved (and in some cases not approved) lists of localities to be renamed. Because of that, we have many Ukrainian users, some of them being established editors, but others just being random lurkers, renaming a large amount of articles. Some of the moves went smoothly, but some met resistance, for example, I had to fully protect Dnipropetrovsk. In most cases (in contrast to Dnipropetrovsk) renaming is uncontroversial, however, the edits are often substandard (an example) and almost always premature (i.e. a new name has been proposed but not yet legally adopted). Since many of us will have to deal with this, I suggest the following strategy:

• All changes should be sourced. If there are doubts as whether a source is reliable, I am willing to provide advise;
• Old names should be kept as historical, not just removed;
• No nationalist cruft should be added and no useful info should be removed (for example, if a Russian name was in an article, it should stay there and not just get removed);
• They should be uncontroversial. If users in good standing object, the discussion should start at the talk page. All moves of Crimean toponyms are likely to be controversial.

I suggest that if a move with subsequent editing does not satisfy the above guideline, the user should be notified at their talk page, and if they are unwilling to correct, their contribution should be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea; further, I'd be willing to watchlist some articles (if a list of articles which might be editid is feasible at all); in additon, pending-changes level 1 protection might be appropriate to stop the worst "onslaught" of anonymous or newly-created users. Lectonar (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the Ukrainian parliament is not English usage, we need to enforce our naming conventions by reverting all moves of this sort unless solid evidence can be shown that English usage has changed. This is why Kyiv is already a protected redirect, for example, because of nationalistic attempts to use the Ukrainian-derived version that's nowhere near as common in English as is the Russian-derived Kiev. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend. All new Ukrainian names should be redirects to the old names until standard English usage can be shown ti have started using the new names. Protection may be used as necessary to enforce this, as we do with all other issues. And yes, when we do move the articles to the new Ukrainian names, we should keep the old names as redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging for safety @TaivoLinguist:. I guess most of the names just have no common English usage, and these moves should pretty much be uncontroversial, since we just adopt WP:UKR romanization. The only move so far which created a serious turmoil was Dnipropetrovsk, and there is a heated discussion at the talk page. However, since the Rada also renamed some localities Ukraine does not control - in Crimea and in the separatist areas of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts - I can imagine some issues there as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I see Nyttend's point, but agree with Ymblanter that most names are outside English usage so I see little point in waiting for English usage to emerge; I'm guessing 99% of locations in Ukraine are not mentioned often enough for there to be an English usage. For the few exceptions (Kiev, Odessa etc.), we should of course continue with the established English usage. For all other localities, I don't see a problem in them being moved. Jeppiz (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of detailed maps of Ukraine have been printed in English-language publications, and those will demonstrate established English usage. Of course, if they disagree with each other, that will demonstrate the absence of establishment. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I see no reason to wait for English maps to be printed for Ukraine. If the locality is neither a major city nor a place that is often mentioned in English media, I'd say there is no problem in moving it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. For many years, lots of atlases have been printed that depict localities in Ukraine; you don't have to wait. Just visit your local library if you don't already own such an atlas. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

License notice template

Since admins do all the image deletion, I'd appreciate admin opinions at WP:VPM#Old licenses. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oluwa2Chainz: collateral damage from Wikicology?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As an ArbCom clerk, I hardblocked Wikicology as part of closing his case. Yamla (talk · contribs) unblocked Oluwa2Chainz (talk · contribs), who had been autoblocked as a result of the Wikicology block (is the IP-address pool that small in Nigeria?), and Oluwa2Chainz is now requesting IPBE. I'm trying to AGF, but O2C began editing the day before Wikicology was blocked and I'm not familiar enough with Wikicology's socking to grant WP:IPBE without input from someone who is. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean: Oluwa2Chainz's first edit was 12 May 2015, not 12 May 2016 (the day before Wikicology's block). BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And has 11,000 edits... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Given how their talk page history isn't filled with complaints I am thinking it is probably someone different. I know that in Kenya every IP I tried to use was blocked on a lot of websites, I don't think they have a lot of IPs. HighInBC 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Trout duly noted, and I'll grant the IPBE. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cat on Commons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

OK, this may not be the best place to ask but it's driving me crazy. Another user asked for somebody to create a Commons category titled National Cutting Horse Association Hall of Fame. This user uploads lots of great photos, so I created the page on Commons (which I've done before). However, I forgot to make it a category page.😝 Can somebody please get over there and make the page into a category so some photos can be uploaded to it? I would ask on Commons but they don't have a lot of English speakers in their help page. It won't give me the page move tab there, either. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly:  Done Mdann52 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sorry I messed it up in the first place. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New article assistance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just created an article, and damned if I didn't forget to capitalize the title; I'd like to think that I typed "A Blade of Grass (Penny Dreadful episode)", but clearly, I fonked it up. I don't know how to fix that after the article is created. Can I get a little help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. See the "move" tab at the top of every page; that's all you need. Basic instructions at Help:How to move a page with additional details at WP:MOVE. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, both instructions on how to fix the problem and the prac-ap of it being done. Thanks, Nyttend! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jennyriarchi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please block this user, who has gone well over WP:3RR at Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal today without listening to any warnings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 for 1 week for 3RR and WP:NPA violations. I've also temporarily protected the article, just in case. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick request of any passing admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone pop over and close Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Xender Lourdes one way or the other? (It's very easy even if you've never done it before; just go to Special:UserRights/Xender_Lourdes and check the appropriate tick-box, then add a {{done}} or {{not done}} to the request; the bot will do the rest.) The thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Administrator instructions#Note re PC has had the unintended consequence of making every admin who regularly closes RFP/R requests technically WP:INVOLVED, so this is languishing far longer than it should. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed. I don't consider myself involved though I work PERM pretty regularly, and this was clear to me. He can come back in six months. Katie^talk 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Frustrating, as he's obviously someone here to help and not a driveby MMORPG-er, but equally I can't see what he actually wanted the permission for (and if he's talking like this to a bunch of experienced editors, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable handing over access to something with as much ABF potential as STiki). ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I heard that :) It's alright. Katie's declined my request. And I've shot myself in the foot by writing another layer of silliness below her decline. I think I got off on such a wrong foot with you (by the way, I'm a 'she'). The rollback is not important for me. Collaborating with editors here is. And I'm thankful to have learnt something better from the interaction at the rollback noticeboard. Sorry again for starting interacting with you on a wrong footing. And apologies to KrakatoaKatie too for the unneeded reply I've left her on that noticeboard. See you around. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFD close request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney? It has been open for three weeks now, has several dozen !votes and twice as many comments, and we're unlikely to see any new arguments that haven't been made. I have !voted myself, so I won't express an opinion here on how it should be closed, just that it should be. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. I don't see how I could have closed it any other way (the topic is obviously considered notable by enough people that it's not a clear-cut deletion, and there's no obvious merge target), but I nonetheless it to be at WP:DRV in a couple of days for the near-inevitable challenge. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

seeing the above, I'm supposing it's okay to request this here...will an experienced, uninvolved admin undertake closing the RfC at "area of a disk"...it's been open about a month but discussion has pretty much died over the past couple of weeks...about 30 people contributed with 26 "voting" (16 to 10 favoring "circle") with lots of policy points/discussion on both sides...it's a very long rfc and will take a not insignificant amount of time to close it properly..so you'd have to be willing to spend some time...(I posted this on the closure noticeboard too a while back but it appears that's backed up for months on end etc)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

okay, I never went back and noticed that..but that was two weeks ago..but I guess it will technically be 30 days in less than 48 hours so...so will repost then, I suppose..68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jim1138 keeps on removing what I write on article talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Jim1138 keeps on removing what I write in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:500_Questions when I am trying to discuss something that I do not agree with. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

a bot just removed the template as 30 days has passed..so requesting again..will an experienced, uninvolved admin please undertake closing the RfC at "area of a disk"...it's been open a month but discussion has pretty much died over the past couple of weeks...about 30 people contributed with 26 "voting" (16 to 10 favoring "circle") with lots of policy points/discussion on both sides...it's a very long rfc and will take a not insignificant amount of time to close properly..so you'd have to be willing to spend some time...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Difference between a ping and a noticeboard notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The instructions are clear about using {{AN-notice}}, {{ANI-notice}}, etc. when there is a discussion about an editor. Would a user ping serve the same purpose? The only small technical difference is that it's received as an "alert" rather than a "message". Either way, the user should be able to get the notice. Both methods can indicate the involved thread. Are the noticeboard notices preferred over pings? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not all pings are successful. Sometimes it's a bug, sometimes the editor has done it incorrectly - they may try to fix it by editing an re-saving it but that doesn't work. Also, I get talk page notices automatically emailed to me, but not pings. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, editors can opt-out of ping notifications, but not talk page notices. The only sure way to generate a notification is to edit a users talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The templates were created long before Pings existed, and (I think) before alerts generated an email. All we had was the Big Orange Bar of Doom. As it stands now, pings can me shut down and Alerts can be disabled for everything except edits to your Talkpage. I personally prefer pinging, especially considering WP:DTTR, but unfortunately the template is the only way to be certain they see the notice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And for transparency. It's easy for a discussion to get bogged down with claims of the user not being notified, someone digging out diffs of an aledged ping, etc, but there's no disputing the notice on the user's talkpage (even if they revert it). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• We've actually had this discussion 2 or 3 times since notifications came out, on the talk page here and ANI I think, and each time it was clear that a consensus believed that regular notifications are still required, for the reasons given above. Lugnuts probably points to the biggest issue, which is that others can clearly see you complied with notification by simply looking at the target's talk page history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive252#What_constitutes_notification.3F. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explain this block to me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm interested in and have been following blocks and unblock requests on Wikipedia recently...can someone explain this one to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:108.162.157.141 ..it appears this user has had difficulty with the 3 revert rule in past...however, it appears to me A. Jim1138 beat him to 3 reverts on the talkpage of the relevant article...and B. the talk page question itself can't automatically be interpreted as forum discussion...I would interpret it as a question looking for knowledge/sources for potential new info to add to the article...so in this particular case it would seem Jim1138 is more out of line...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify people on their talk page when you bring them up, especially when making accusations by name, at AN/ANI. So, you should have placed a talk page message on Jim1138 and MusikAnimal's talk pages. You have to make sure you do this going forward. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have you asked the admin @MusikAnimal: about this yet? The first step for clarifications of admin actions should be to the admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just trying to understand how things are working here...I wasn't trying to actually get involved...ie like using this as an example to understand how things work in practice...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, its still a requirement to notify people you discuss in these public forums. Even conceptually, it makes more sense to consult the person who did it, than to speculate with others who weren't even involved. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Step one is to discuss with the blocking admin. We can't speak for them. HighInBC 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

okay I'll post on their talkpage about this thread...it's likely I'd like others to weigh-in too though, if they'd care to...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

do I have to tell the other two as well? I don't really want them here arguing about it...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you must notify anyone you bring up for discussion here. It is not acceptable to discuss people on a noticeboard without their knowledge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you just want to ask someone a question, just post to their talk page; it really is that simple. If you reference other people, link their names [[User:username]] if you want them to get notifications. You do not have to contact them personally to have a discussion on someone else's user talk page. If you want to involve the blocked user, you will need to have the discussion on the blocked user's page - as it is the only thing they can edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

When I first reviewed the ANEW report, I sympathized with the anon in that they were questioning actual content and not intending to use the talk page as a forum. However the user is well aware of what constitutes edit warring and what they should do in such a scenario, as evidenced by their history of similar disruption. I would block on the basis of the edit warring on 500 Questions alone, before they started edit warring on the talk page. One could argue Jim1138 was also edit warring but they were clearly acting in good-faith to enforce WP:NOTFORUM policy. I do not think they have any vested interest in the subject nor were trying to WP:BITE. There are a dedicated suite of user warnings for WP:NOTFORUM, as opposed to just a "general notice". Patrollers could easily assume such reverts are exempt from the three-revert rule, particularly when it is policy-related. Jim1138, I know you mean no harm, but next time seek administrative assistance or outside help if you are presented with this problem, as technically those reverts are not exempt. Hope this clears things up and that we can all walk away learning something from this — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal Yes. Will do. Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the explanation of the blocking admin and the prior history of the IP I see nothing wrong with this block. HighInBC 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the response and your reasoning...it seems this user has a hard time with the 3 revert rule in general...but the history also suggests to me that he's found himself in a couple other borderline situations where there was perhaps some other not entirely appropriate behavior on the part of others (like in this case)...but maybe this user's history has to play a part in the result...viewed in isolation, however, in regards to solely the issue with the talkpage I would think Jim1138 stepped more out of bounds...it was far too early to revert the post based on forum..so the initial revert was inappropriate imo...he then beat the IP to 3 reverts as far as I can tell...In any event, like I said, I'm kind of just trying to get a sense of how things work in practice...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As a general matter, you have to edit pretty badly to hit any of the hard boundaries that can get you blocked without a lot of prior back-and-forth. So you seem to be asking "just how badly can I edit without hitting one of those boundaries?". Don't ask that. Instead, try to edit as well as you can. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note I have unblocked this user after they demonstrated an understanding of why they were blocked and made a commitment not to continue such behaviour. I also discussed this with the blocking admin and acted with their agreement. HighInBC 15:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long overdue RFC needs closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation_and_inherently_ambiguous_titles needs to be closed. It's already listed at WP:ANRFC, but it's gone unnoticed there since April. Calidum ¤ 02:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JzG admonished three times. Is he out?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JzG has been admonished three times by ArbCom. Shouldn't he be out?New England Cop (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

His conduct on the GMO case was also subpar as discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#JzG but he was not a party, so escaped another admonishment there.Dialectric (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Three and a half times, I guess. New England Cop (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't baseball. HighInBC 05:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was discussed and it was not decided to do that. If you want to go down that route see Wikipedia:Arbitration#Requesting arbitration and open a new case. Nobody but ArbCom has the power to desysop someone and this discussion is completely pointless. --Majora (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If the community can elect him then we can unelect him. The time is ripe for that to happen. Maybe JzG will do the community justice and resign? New England Cop (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Desysoping is done(or not done as in this case) by arbcom, not noticeboards. As for them resigning that is something you will have to talk to them about. HighInBC 05:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have notified JzG that you started this thread about them, which is something you should have done first. HighInBC 05:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Finishing the sentence above '... in eight years'. I guess we are by now a couple of innings further. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Was that one of the quickest closes ever? Surely threads should be allowed to run for at least 24 hrs (except for extreme circumstances) so that editors on the other side of the planet to the US have a chance to comment. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to keep the discussion going if there's nothing that can be done. Revocation of the admin bit is an ArbCom job, not an admin job. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP was rather vague in what they were suggesting. "Shouldn't they be out" has been taken to mean desysop, but it could have meant a site ban (or other sanction) which can be settled here - I don't know. However, there would have been little harm in letting the thread run for a while so that if a proposal was taken to ARBCOM with a formal proposal to desysop, there would be a discussion in place for ARBCOM to decide whether they should take on the case. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• It should be noted that this is hardly a new record. In fact, one editor I'm aware of received five admonishments and a 6-month desysop between 2005 and 2009, and is still an active administrator. That being said, I think enough of the community's time has been wasted regarding the events of four days in April. The damage is done, and now in order to heal we need to forgive and move on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-vandalism page could use a little love.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Getting kinda crowded in there. HalfShadow 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's that smell? Hmmm. Smells like ANRFC in moldy state of decay.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As in, forex, Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#RfC: Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK?. Tks.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We are aware of the backlogs. No need to bring them to our attention. Katie^talk 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jadcherla

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

University of Law

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by sfarney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

You are prohibited from (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year.[7]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by sfarney

Prioryman (talk · contribs) filed the May 31 AE request that resulted in the ban. Immediately after filing the AE request, Prioryman selected and canvassed The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) to participate.[8][9]

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

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

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

Prioryman also canvassed another administrator, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), to his ArbComm request with the same text.[10] That administrator also presided over my May 25 AE request against Prioryman, watched Prioryman WP:PA attack me, acknowledge that I had been attacked, then closed the hearing by telling me to be nicer in discussions and ask questions instead of insisting on WP policy. Eh?? Dennis Brown also showed for the May 30 AE request and spoke against me.

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

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

I argued extensively on the talk page against those edits, but I broke no WP rules or policies. Unable to convince the editors to follow policy, I took the matter to DRN. Robert McClenon immediately closed the issue, and suggested the matter was not DRN appropriate and should go to ArbComm.[11]

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

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

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

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

• Though several admins comment that the ban is "appropriate", no one has yet shown that I have done anything on this subject in violation of any WP policies. Surely, WP requires more than "we don't like you", and "you are in the way" to ban someone's editorial opinions. In addition to those problems, no one quibbles with my criticisms of that page. All the comments implicitly agree with me. Where is the rule book, folks? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I call The Wordsmith involved because with the large collection of which s/he boasts, obviously the subject is a big part of his/her life. I have not objected to him/her editing, but I do object to him/her applying WP administrative functions as though s/he were ruling on the conflicts between pro- and anti- instead of WP policies. I believe that is improper. So would I believe if the Pope were sanctioning apostates. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some editors seem to be arguing that regardless of what laws I broke or whether I broke ANY, I should still be punished. This is a very odd argument. Do we punish people for being inconvenient? In the real world, if SPA is not appropriate, the sanction should be canceled. No harm, no foul. If the antagonists want to bring another matter, they should start a new AE action. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• @The Wordsmith: Thanks for the advice on my signature. You could have mentioned that on my user page without going through AE. It is quite recent and I have no problem altering it.
• As for the sanction, the usual process is to consider whether the accused has broken any laws or rules. As Alice told the Red Queen, the verdict should come first.[12] But as yet, no one has shown that I broke any of the rules. My biggest crime seems to be that I insist that Wikipedia should treat an unpopular subject in accordance with standard editing policies. Insisting that the topic reveals the WP:TRUTH is not the way we do things -- policy is also clear on that. It doesn't matter how many books the admin has on his/er desk, there must be WP:VERIFIABILITY. So let's have a little discussion, if you please, about whether I have committed any wrongs and what those wrongs might be. There will be time enough for the sentence after considering the verdict. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think the question deserves a direct answer here, folks. What exactly am I being sanctioned for? Which policy have I violated? What conduct must others avoid so that they do not share my fate? And what will you do for that article that is so blatantly in violation of WP:FRINGE? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 19:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• (Responding to off-line remarks on my user talk page:) Let us recall that The wordsmith was first to bring up his/er private life background, boasting that s/he knew more about the subject than any of the believers and had a handsome library of primary source books and recordings. The wordsmith's statement was an argument from WP:TRUTH rather than the policies and values of Wikipedia, and I believe it was both prejudicial and improper to the subject at hand, which was the WP:VERIFIABILITY of the article. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith has written below the following statement: "There is also private evidence in play, which I have submitted to the Arbitration Committee." If The Wordsmith did not consider it substantive, those words would not have been written. But if The Wordsmith (and others) considered it substantive and based his/er decision on it, I should be allowed to address it. Instead, it is hidden from me and from this forum. Does anyone care that this matter is off the road and into the weeds, far from the principles that Wikipedians believe they are following? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• This just gets odder and odder. An admin uninvolved editor states that those who agree with me have a "clearly deep partisanship" and are not "capable of rendering an unbiased opinion in this matter." Even the witnesses and commenting editors are attacked if they speak the wrong words! And not a word here about the "deep partisanship" demonstrated by Prioryman and his/er earlier cognomen, "ChrisO", when s/he was sanctioned by Arbitration and then pardoned? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• More news in the odder and odder department: Admin Dennis Brown declares (below) that his opinions about the issue have nothing to do with content (which is the only real product of Wikipedia and is being tragically ignored in this proceeding), but only about my conduct in "dealing with others". Admin Dennis Brown was witness to Prioryman's personal attacks against me in the May 25 proceeding (linked above), and acknowledged them at the time. But Dennis Brown says nothing about Prioryman's conduct now. Instead, Dennis Brown makes vague, unsupported statements about my conduct. This allegation by Dennis Brown about me without evidence is itself a personal attack WP:PA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• A Note to BMK: Please do not attempt to give other editors legal advice about what they can consider and not consider in commenting on these proceedings. Your statements are not backed by WP policy. This is not "litigation" (as you call it) and the rules of Appeals Courts do not apply. Other editors may examine as many facts as they hold to be relevant, they may investigate wherever they wish, and they may offer their opinions freely, without the crab-jointed constraints of The Rules of Federal Procedure and American courts. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• It is singularly improper for JBH (moving party below) or anyone else to misrepresent the bases of this appeal, of which the multiple major points are: (1) The ruling admin (The Wordsmith) was canvassed and summoned to the hearing by the filing party. (2) The admin sanctioned me on the accusation that I was WP:SPA. On re-examination, all editors agree that is simply not true. (3) The sanction is not based on applicable policy, rules, or prior arbitration and none has been cited; it stands only on "he's in the way" and "we don't like him". (4) Everything I said about the article in question is proved true and no one can deny the bald fact that the article matches WP:FRINGE to a T (wild accusations supported only by flimsy sources) and violates WP editing policies. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Truly, the article R2-45 sites a number of secondary sources. But as I have reiterated, the most outrageous statements have feeble support: One statement is supported only by a blog. Another is supported by Wikileaks, a single book, and primary sources. A third is supported only by cherrypicking from primary sources. A fourth has only a professor's essay (not peer reviewed) in a field where he is not an expert. This is not in keeping with the requirements of WP:FRINGE, gentlemen, which states that A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. The strongest critics of Scientology do not even mention the subject of this page. WP:VERIFIABILITY states that This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Accusations that an organization is committing or has committed criminal acts is most certainly likely to be challenged. WP:PSTS states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. When an editor repeatedly violates editorial policy, that editor should be disciplined. When an admin supports the editor by sanctioning the reporter of those violations, that admin is clearly out of line. To pretend this is NOT a content issue is disingenuous. To pretend this is ONLY a content issue misses the boat entirely. If this sanction is upheld, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia because that will mark a day when Wikipedia's goals are officially sacrificed to another agenda. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Then, Lankiveil (talk · contribs), as one more editor who is certain the correct decision has been reached, you can tell me what rules I have broken and which policy you would be pleased to see applied. That would edify both me and any outside editors who might be puzzled by this process. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs): You have "offered" me nothing. Your imposition of WP:SPA is simply bizarre and wrong. Having done wrong, you now rectify your mistake -- or you do not. There is no "offer" and acceptance of "offer". If you want to do something nice, you should tell this forum why you are punishing me and exactly when I supposedly transgressed. No wait -- justice requires that also of you, and you will not have my agreement to do anything less. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Dennis Brown asserts that "There is no justice at Wikipedia." If s/he truly believes that Wikipedia has none of the qualities among the editors that we call JUSTICE, I suggest it is long past time for Dennis Brown to work in the direction of implementing it -- or resign from his admin position until he is willing to do so. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Dennis Brown

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

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

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

Comment by JzG

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

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

The second is also easy to answer: probably not.

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

Comment by OID

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

Comment by Prioryman

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

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

Statement by John Carter

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

Statement by Laval

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

Here is User:Prioryman removing a threat [13] made after threatening me with a similar ban as Sfarney [14], but only after I made clear I gave into his and his gangs bullying [15] and his false claims of "consensus" -- if "consensus" on Wikipedia means a gang of anti-Scientology editors can do whatever the hell they want, then fine. As I wrote there, my health and sanity are more important than putting up with this crap. Topic ban me and whoever else tries to do some good according to policy here. Wikipedia keeps losing good editors and it's clear to me that the situation is hopeless, and like others before me, I give up. Prioryman and his anti-Scientology want to bully me off of Wikipedia, and they've succeeded. Laval (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Slashme

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

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

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

• Lane, Jodi M. (January 30, 2008). "Malignant Narcissism, L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology's Policies of Narcisstic Rage" (PDF). University of Alberta.
• Lane, Jodi M.; Kent, Stephen A. (2008). "Politiques de rage et narcissisme malin". Criminologie (in French). 41 (2): 117–155. JSTOR 42745646.

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by sfarney

• WP:INVOLVED says

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

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

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

• The user has clearly been well cognizant of the nature of Scientology article sanctions for some time, and was given ample notice in the past. [16] shows an interest in the topic in May 2015. (" The History of man page states there are recorded Hubbard lectures on space opera, too. I think the lead should be rewritten to remove this innuendo completely. It sounds like the Wiki has an axe to grind about scientology, instead of just telling the facts." Slade Farney).

And a host of warnings from Bishonen as well, culminating in an indefinite topic ban on Rick Alan Ross and "all related pages and content" (note that article is directly related to Scientology in itself). Not to mention [17].

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

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

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

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

  Those are really the only issues to address. This is an appeal not a do-over of the AE discussion.

  Jbh^Talk 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• I don't understand the comment above by Laval. Is Laval an involved editor in this? Should Laval have been notified for some reason? Is there any reason that Laval's medical condition should hold up a decision about whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted or not? The tone of the comment seems to imply that the answer to all these questions is "yes", but I'm not seeing where Laval is involved in this specific issue in any way, except perhaps as a general supporter of Sfarney. [18] BMK (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Move to close

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result of the appeal by sfarney

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admins requested for moderated RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions about process

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

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

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

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

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

• @SlimVirgin: Thanks for reading the ARCA comments from ArbCom members: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

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

• Laserbrain: "this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case" [26] (also [27]).

In fact, it was Trytpofish who threatened another full ArbCom case if he didn't get this RfC on his terms: "Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2" [28].

• King: "Not to sound like a broken record... but part of the reason we have this ArbCom mandated RfC (it’s too late for people to say we shouldn’t have one)..." [29].
• Tryptofish: "the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom." [30]

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

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

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

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

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

Doxxing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Wordsmith, several points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Coretheapple, Laser brain is in fact an admin, has been one for seven years, and does not need air quotes or scare quotes around their name anymore than you do. DS is in effect all over the place, and admins can enforce decorum if they so choose: please show a little bit of respect and maintain decorum. If you disagree with someone you can do so collegially. Thank you in advance, Drmies (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well I didn't expect that scare quotes would register on the Richter scale. However, I am glad to see that he has apologized for the comments to which I was referring, and hopefully we will all proceed henceforth with the savoir faire and collegiality for which Wikipedia is justly known. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have my concerns about opening things back up again because some editors, with Petrarchan as an example, have shown a repeated inability to focus on the RfC regardless of warnings. Having Laserbrain warning them for aspersions saying DS will be enforced if it happens again,[31] only for Petrarchan to double down[32][33][34] on those same comments when Laserbrain stepped out due to harassment over those warnings[35] seems to have been more than enough rope. We've already been given ample time to sort out the RfC details already, so if we do open this up again, we'd need something extremely pressing to justify that before it launches on Monday.

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

• Not involved, but the warning that Petrachan should have gotten was to stop and take it to AE and ask for a topic ban (if they wanted to pursue it). It's either willfully or mistakenly designed to be disruptive to raise such an obvious conduct issue and conduct remedy on the RfC content page, as Petrachan did. My advice, now go back to the RfC talk page and figure out the the WHO issue. That is not worth discussing here and the rest about Laser Brain being gone is an off-site and thus Arbcom matter. The community will also have a chance to weigh the value of the questions and what they signify in the RfC (and who could possibly be against getting outside input [36] ). And most won't even want to know about the issues between individuals. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idea that Domingo and Krimsky are the best review articles we have is laughable and suggests the inability to properly weigh and summarize GMO science isn't Tryptofish's issue. Capeo (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Attempting to thwart Discretionary Sanctions

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

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

You can see in diffs above that Laser brain issued a DS warning to Petrarchan. Uninvolved admins can, if they want, see the diffs and decide for themselves whether or not the warning was correct. Personally, I think it was entirely correct on the substance (setting aside whether Laser brain now feels that the tone should have been more balanced). You can look at the diffs and decide for yourself whether or not Petrarchan has continued the conduct that she was warned about, after the warning. Personally, I think she did, and it's a potential AE concern. But Petrarchan was actually welcomed to offer her own proposal for the RfC: [37]. Nonetheless, she later said that her proposal was not "serious", in effect a pointy prank: [38] (first line).

Jusdafax has been posting on the talk pages of every member of ArbCom about a phrase in a post by The Wordsmith, portraying The Wordsmith as disrespectful of ArbCom. But is this really about respecting the institution of ArbCom? During the GMO case, an editor (later topic banned as an AE action) posted a disruptive edit on one of the case talk pages. An Arb rev-deled it and blocked that editor. But look here: [39]. Jusdafax copied the rev-deled comment to his own user talk, and hosted a gloat-party about it. And look who took part: some of the same users who are coming here and objecting to going forward with the RfC, some of the same users who berated Laser brain for warning Petrarchan. The agenda isn't to protect ArbCom from The Wordsmith. It's to undermine The Wordsmith as he tries to enact the RfC under DS, under a mandate from ArbCom.

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

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

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

• ArbCom did not say it was unacceptable to point out pro-industry content or editing. They ruled that it is unacceptable to claim an editor is "paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill)" without evidence. Not the same at all. An editor can put in pro-industry content without being paid and without having a financial COI. The ruling is here: [40].

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

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

WP:ARCA is that-a-way

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

75.162.244.4 disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

Nobody has been willing to answer my questions here yet: [[41]]. 75.162.244.4 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I responded to this question on my talk page, this seems to be a copy/paste of the same question. You can read the answer there: [42]. HighInBC 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I am far more concerned about their harassment of this IP: [43] than the harassment of myself. I am too involved to block but I have given them a final warning about harassing the newbies. Also, I am happy to consent to a checkuser if anyone is really concerned I am this IP as 75 suggests. HighInBC 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPBE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the love of Pete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some please close this. [44]. I don't care how, but close it. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggesting ban for User:Mr. Eisenhower

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Note that the user page now claims that the editor is an administrator, which clearly is not the case.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: They went ahead and re-created it. At this point, NOTHERE comes to mind. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I hadn't noticed that. Re-deleted, and given the final warning some minutes before the page was recreated, I've blocked the user for 24 hours. User:Insertcleverphrasehere, it's a Meta userpage: if you have a userpage at Meta but nothing locally, your userpage at Meta appears locally. I tagged the Meta userpage for deletion as a copyvio immediately after deleting his local userpage the first time. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, see his first edit, impersonating another user. I also suggest an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE, as the user has been here to cause trouble from edit #1. --MuZemike 00:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support community ban. OldTraffordLover (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

PS

This isn't done, yet. When User talk:Mr. Eisenhower was created with copypasta of the entirety of Talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower. I have removed all of the copypasta. After his 24-hour block was placed, he restored everything and then posted something about being elected as an admin here, which makes zero sense. --MuZemike 04:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creation request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to make a formal request to redirect ((())) → Triple parentheses, but the page is currently blacklisted. It would make sense if it redirected there. Currently, (((echo))) redirects to it, but the general public, largely unaware of the phenomenon, would not search for "echo". — Confession0791 ^talk 01:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me but I don't know the history of the blacklist. The subject is getting a lot of play in social media recently, so may be a hot search item.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I had not previously heard of this topic but have now read the article, which seems like a legitimate (though extremely unfortunate) topic. The {{{}}} page is not blacklisted from creation because of anything to do with the topic. The blacklisting is automatic based on a rule in the title blacklist that "disallows six consecutive characters that are not letters (in any script), numbers, or spaces." The history (predating the blacklist) also includes two edits about an unrelated topic, a non-notable Mexican music EP, that was created in 2007 and speedied the same day. Thus, there's nothing in the history that seems inconsistent with this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is so much strange stuff in this world. BMK (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at WP:FFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question - Am I allowed to provide a diff to a page I am TB'd from?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am considering raising a case against another editor on either AN or ANI regarding their behaviour. Some of the evidence I would like to provide are diffs to pages I am now topic banned from. The interactions between myself and the other editor occurred before the topic ban, so the question is not whether I have breached the TB, but would publishing diffs to those interactions now be a violation. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the interactions were prior to your ban shouldn't make a difference. At the present moment you can't make any reference to the topic of your ban, even in a statement of evidence. I assume you are referring your GMO ban. Without a strict understanding of what is covered in topic bans, people could keep on dueling about the topic of their ban forever. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a big place, with many people around. If the person in question is behaving in a way so as to need sanctions, someone else, who isn't you, would have also noticed, and would bring them up here as well. If only you noticed, and literally none of the other millions of Wikipedia users have, then it probably needn't be brought up at all. Either way, there's no compelling need here for you to violate your topic ban. --Jayron32 17:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step... _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks for this. The irony here is that I can not even discuss your [EJ] post directly because others have indicated this in itself would be a violation of my TB! The diffs I want to use would indicate incivility on the part of the other editor. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to use them to discuss the subject matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can clarify the question I am raising. If an editor has called me a **** on a page I was subsequently Topic Banned from, can I provide (list) a diff indicating this edit (with no other comment about the diff) when building a case about incivility? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not. You're not editing/contributing to the page directly, meerly bringing an issue about WP:NPA to ANI. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I'm saying this as a non-admin, so you ought to see if an admin confirms what I am about to say, before you take any action based on what I say. If the situation is as simple as another editor having recently made an NPA violation against you, and they referred to you specifically, you have every right to make a complaint about it, but the complaint must be absolutely separate from anything having to do with the topic area of the topic ban. (If an interaction ban is involved, instead, you cannot do anything unless they explicitly named you.) On the other hand, if this sort of thing is really blatant, other editors are likely to have complained about it for you. And if the timing is that the comment about you was made prior to the enactment of the topic ban, that means that it was a long time ago, and is probably too stale to justify any complaint by you now. If many months have gone by since the time of the diff in question, and nobody else has raised an issue about it, I think you might get a bad reaction if you bring it up now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It would make more sense to mention the recent diffs from after the topic ban that were personal attacks and simply leave it at "This has happened before." If someone asks you for more diffs, then link to this discussion and leave it at that. They can go looking for them. If there is no recent issue from after the topic ban, then it's a non-issue that doesn't need to be brought to a drama board. ~ Rob^Talk 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this Rob. This sounds very sensible and is probably the approach I will take. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I see a "general" question like this posted on a noticeboard about what a topic-banned editor may or may not discuss, the fullness of time almost always reveals that the best answer is either

• Yes, your intended actions violate your topic ban and should be avoided; or
• No, your intended actions technically don't violate your topic ban, but they're still bad for you and the project and should be avoided.

Just a wild guess here, but are you planning to renew/extend a conflict with an editor who was previously involved in your existing topic and interaction ban(s)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ermmm, sorry, but I do not see the relevance of your question. Surely my question is a point of basic adminship and instruction to the community and there should be a yes/no answer. I do not mind which it is, I would just like a clear answer. What is your answer @TenOfAllTrades:? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Awfully demanding, aren't you? Part of the problem with asking a vague, general question is that you can't get a black-and-white answer. I can readily imagine gray areas and circumstances where I might respond either way. And you're explicitly insisting on entirely missing my point—merely being 'not expressly forbidden' is never a good test for whether or not one should do something. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

By utter coincidence, the talk page of the other user, to whom DrChrissy refers, turns out to be on my watchlist, and I just happened upon the specific situation in question. It seems to me, DrChrissy, that you have nothing to gain by adding the diff you ask about, and you would be better off not bringing it up. The other user happens to be blocked, and there are plenty of admins examining the unblock request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I am talking about multiple, and I do mean MULTIPLE diffs about incivility directed at me, so I am not sure what you are referring to. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. At one point, you referred to a single diff. But I still think there could be an issue of timing. If there have been multiple diffs in the past few weeks, that could be a good reason to pursue this, but if a lot of them are from a long time ago, then I think that the admins who are discouraging you have it right. Heck, users say awful stuff about me almost every day, and I generally try to shrug it off (not that I don't also make mistakes). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I indicated a single diff. I am talking about a general point. I could ask when does an editor calling me a **** become "stale"? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:TenOfAllTrades's somewhat haughty rhetoric makes a lot of sense--well said. User:DrChrissy, folks who seek the edge of their topic ban typically end up violating it; they certainly waste the community's time and resources along the way, and avoiding that was the purpose of the topic ban to begin with, one presumes. Look, I'm still here, and I could be writing Trump on Twitter. Tryptofish, you are not devoid of reason and experience, I think: is the supposed insult blockable? is it bad? has the editor been warned? (These are things that every single editor can do, of course, and probably should.) Drmies (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm not devoid of experience. At this point, I'm not sure which insult we are talking about, per DrChrissy saying that there were multiple incidences. But I'm getting the impression that we are, for the most part, talking about non-recent stuff and stuff where there are already multiple eyes. It feels to me like DrChrissy is kind of pushing for someone to "give permission" to make a complaint, and my advice to DrChrissy is to let it go. (And I saw your other post, about "beel the fern", which is becoming my new mantra!) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say, I am not in the slightest seeking permission to make a complaint. I will now be making the complaint regardless of the advice given above. I was hoping to give historical evidence of the extremely disruptive behaviour of the other editor to give a more complete picture of how damaging the editor has been to the project over a period of many years. I have no desire to "seek the edge of my topic ban" ...am I not allowed to ask a question on this noticeboard without a disruptive agenda being attached to me? I will make the complaint and not place the links I had been thinking of. This editor's behaviour has been so disruptive recently that they will almost certainly attract sanctions, however, admins will be looking at this with only half the evidence. Hmmmmm..... DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless the personal attacks are very bad or they are an ongoing/recent issue, your complaint is not going to go anywhere. Personal attacks only get action when they are either new/IP editors or particularly nasty. Since in your case they are both stale and mildly incivil, you will be wasting yours and others time. RE 'disruptive', from checking the issues that led to their sanction for edit warring, while they were incorrect in edit-warring, the substance of their issues at Ken Ham was certainly correct, and a brief look at their contribution history shows they generally take a stance that is line with the wikipedia house POV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And since we are obviously talking about Jps I have notified them of this thread. Should you actually raise a formal complaint about them, they will most certainly be unblocked in order to defend themselves. Given that you involved yourself in an edit warring report on an article you dont edit, proceeded to goad jps on the edit warring noticeboard and have a history with the user, your conduct will be equally looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

John blocked jps for edit warring and 3RR violations according to the block notice and log. He did not make any other comment to jps, but did tell DrChrissy at the EW noticeboard thread that civility was also a factor. I think John's failure to give his full reasons on jps' talk page or in the log was somewhere between careless and incompetent, given it misinformed both the blockee and any reviewing admin. I believe that DrChrissy is taking my statement on jps' talk page that it is inappropriate to retrospectively change the rationale for a block as a reason to argue that jps' manner in the discussion is unpunished and so can be blocked again. John's block was blatantly punishment on edit warring grounds as the report was stale (no warring for more than 24 hours), the previous 48 h block being escalated was reversed, and jps is right about the content (what was being added was inappropriate content). JPS' behaviour at the EW thread was problematic and unwise, I'm not gong to defend it. However, DrChrissy, the block will be seen as acting on that even though John failed to include it in his rationale. Further, your own behaviour will also be scrutinised and that won't be good for you. That John is threatening an indefinite block for not explaining what is already explained (and subsequent to my pointing this out) is not going to add to the chances of further punishment. Short version: pursuing this is not going to make anything better. I doubt John will even get other admins pointing out his poor judgement. EdChem (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 June 2016‎

Comment I hate to say this, but it feels awfully like some admins are closing around to protect an editor and provide a very chilling atmosphere to my potentially bringing an ANI case. All in the absence of knowing who the complaint may be about, or what might be the subject! If the above conversations were going on at another editor's Talk page, I would not be surprised to see an ANI launched. There seems to be a massive amount of mind-reading going on here, and a terrible assumption of bad faith. I came here to ask a perfectly legitimate question and rather than give clear answers (which is what I thought admins were supposed to do) drama is ramped up, accusations are flung at me and very thinly veiled threats are made. Should I raise the complaint I am considering, the diff to this thread will be part of that to show that some admins have already decided on what should be done without even reading any evidence. I suggest the admins making those assumptions should recuse themselves from the complaint if I make this. Furthermore, if another admin has made a bad close, that is between you guys - I don't think I have ever had contact with John before the edit-warring incident so I had nothing to do with his decision - I simply requested a clarification after the event. If you are upset with him, take it out on him, but leave me out of it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, just to clarify... I am not an admin, I have no power whatsoever, and am just expressing my opinion. I am not suggesting you did anything wrong in asking John for clarification, and had he not responded as he did, his subsequent comments on the unblock appeal would be much much worse. I think he did a poor job and yes, that is not to do with you. However, your response to me made me anticipate an ANI case. You are free to launch one, of course, but I honestly believe it is unwise. EdChem (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have just realised that my previous posting is threaded as if it were a comment on your posting. That is not what I intended. It was supposed to be zero indentation and given as a general comment, not a reply to you specifically. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: given the on-going disagreement with the user in questing (please see User_talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#Blocked), the timing of this thread and line of commenting @ a noticeboard does not appear to have been done not in good faith. This may be just my impression and I'd be happy to stand corrected. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • K.E. my apologies, but I am having a little trouble understanding your post here (perhaps not helped by the probably unintentional double negative). Are you suggesting that my original post here was not done in good faith because the editor JPS is currently blocked? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's the timing that makes it look so suspect. Honestly bringing AN threads when jps happens to be blocked and helpless comes over as pretty poor form. Perhaps it's simply time to cut all this b.s. No don't break your sanctions. And stop from these sort of passive aggressive threads. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
      • What evidence do you have that my question relates to JPS? I have not made any accusations here, I simply asked a question which you have not even attempted to answer and ABF. You will also be asked to recuse yourself if I should raise the complaint. Are there any more for this list? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Recuse? What do you think this is? Editors are not required to "recuse" for anything whether you want them to or not and, specifically, recusing is the domain of Arbs not regular editors and admins. Capeo (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I looked up the definition of recuse and read "excuse oneself from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality". I feel the comments of some here indicate they would not be impartial if I raise the complaint. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
            • That's not how WP works. If you raise a complaint on a noticeboard any editor, so long as an existing sanction doesn't prevent, has the ability to comment and present evidence. It's up to the closer (admin in most cases) to decide if any mitigating circumstances would allow for not taking said evidence into consideration when judging consensus. Capeo (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the clarification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
        • "What evidence do you have that my question relates to JPS?" Because I have an IQ that is just *slightly* > than a doorknob. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I am pleased that you are more intelligent than a doorknob, but it does not matter how intelligent you are, this does not amount to evidence. It is supposition on your part and I urge you to read WP:Casting aspersions...and remember these are findings of arbcom and sanctionable. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

These ban edge/ban questions seem to come up every couple weeks. I suggest that the purpose of a ban is to stay completely away from the topic and associated conflicts. Continually poking at it and questioning it is, in my firm opinion, becoming disruptive in and of itself. DrChrissy if you have a question about whether your ban applies or not in any given situation assume it does. That is what "broadly construed" means. My gut says that if this type of poking continues that some sort of sanction is in order to get the point across. I just do not know how it should be constructed. Fortunately figuring that out is not up to me as I am not an admin. Jbh^Talk 16:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jbh, thanks for that advice. I think like some others you have perhaps missed the point of my question. Someone has been extremely incivil to me recently. I am building a history of their incivility toward me and many other editors. Some time ago, they called me a **** on a page which I have now been topic banned from. All I am enquiring about is whether I can post a diff to that comment as evidence of the editor's incivility. I do not wish to make any comment, hint, reference to, or whatever about the topic I have been banned from. I have many eyes watching me (as evident by the massive amounts of ABF on this page - this is not aimed at you) so it would be madness on my part to do so. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If the case hinges on a single old diff then it is probably a weak case so just leave it out. If a significant number of the diffs are in the area of your ban then they are both old and a conflict you should not be continuing. My opinion is that you should be restricted to forwarding any question that even remotly touches on your topic ban to ArbCom. That will make you think whether it is really a question you need to have answered since bothering ArbCom for multiple times for trivial things generally has a bad outcome. That would give you the potential for relief if it is warranted and will cut down on these protracted threads, which to my knowledge, have all ended in "don't do it".

Like many others have noted, you do some good work here but you just can not seem to back far enough away from your problematic areas. I fear that you "have gone to the well" so often and so tenaciously in the past that even uninvolved observers like me start to think, when they see words "topic ban" in any of your comments, the disruption has not been solved by a simple topic ban because you can not disengage. Again, please assume if you have any question about the applicability of your ban not explicitly excepted in WP:BANEX just assume the answer is "don't do it" and move on to something else.

Jbh^Talk 17:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the sound advice. Please let me reassure you and others that this thread (at least for me) has not ever been about me deliberately trying to go anywhere near my topic ban. Other editors seem to feel I would not be in violation of my TB if I provided diffs about the editor's incivility, so I have actually received mixed advice, however, it will of course be safest for me to avoid providing the diffs. And no, the complaint is way, way more than just one old diff. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I would say you have your answer and your way forward - bring your complaint and avoid linking into the banned topic. Probably that strategy should have been self evident and the drama I see blooming above could have been completely avoided. Maybe it is time to close? Jbh^Talk 18:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I do have my way forward, but it was not self evident to me before starting this thread, nor to several others opining that providing diffs would not violate my topic ban. I think the thread should remain open a little longer - I have asked direct questions of several editors and I think they should be given the opportunity to answer these. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Location map Belgrade problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello! Please, can someone help me and create Template:Location map Belgrade using this image (File:Map of central Belgrade.png) I was trying so much, but its complicated! Please help! --Axiomus (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus: You should probably request help at WP:VPT. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus:A better option might be Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threats / Creating a chilling effect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Filbert007 was recently mentioned on the BLP board, he attempted to totally re-write the Peter Wyngarde article, and when that didn't work, he started creating a chilling effect / issuing threats of legal action in the article. Admin Nthep reverted him and started speaking with him on his talk page. In the meantime, Filbert007 created a content fork of the Peter Wygarde article, which I believe violates BLP. This draft was declined, and despite Ntep and I speaking with him, he's continued issuing threats of legal action. Just to be clear, he's not outright issuing legal threats in the truest sense of the word, but he's definetly creating a chilling effect, especially for those users who may be new to Wikipedia. Rather than clutter up this board, I have a write up over here . Sad thing is, I was willing to db-self this within 2 weeks of writing this (which was yesterday). I'm requesting addition eyes on the Peter Wyngarde , a possible block on Filbert007 for issuing legal threats and a deletion of the content fork in draft space here . Thank you. KoshVorlon 11:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, if the French action against google.com is successful (currently the RTBF law only applies to European versions of google, not google.com, the French are seeking to have the judgement applied worldwide), BLP will need to be seriously consider being re-written otherwise many biographies will just not show up in web-searches. While its great to say wikipedia is not-censored, and the Right to be forgotton law does not apply to wikipedia, functionally what is the point in including material in a biography if it prevents that biography from actually being seen or showing up at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a gross violation of WP:NLT. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE, block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Does that "what is the point in including material in a biography if it prevents that biography from actually being seen or showing up at all" only apply when it is France doing the censoring, or does that include things that China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea decide to censor? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well technically it would be Google doing the censoring as they have the control, but hypothetically if any country can compel the worlds primary search engine to not show results *anywhere else* in the world, it will be a big problem. The prime purpose of Wikipedia is to educate. If it cant actually reach readers, it fails in that purpose. Which is why I am hoping France does not succeed. Or should it go against them, Google just tell them to get stuffed. I dont think it will come to that, I doubt China will ever manage to get Google to censor Falun Gong results worldwide for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yay! Now there is a reason for Wikimedia to make its own Google competing search engine! Gah... </sarcasm> (Just in case Gah was not clear) But seriously if it becomes known that Wikipedia does not respond to RTBF orders and Google/Bing/etc people will simply make Wikipedia a secondary search site. It is also an issue big enough, and directly effecting its mission, that the WMF should be spending some its money to fight. As interesting as it is I guess the general conversation would be better on Jimbo talk though.

Per the threats on the draft talk page. Block him per NTL or go all the way and indef per NOTHERE now rather than later. People that try to use legal leverage to control content directly or indirectly simply do not belong here.

Jbh^Talk 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That wouldnt actually solve anything, since a separate Wikimedia search engine would also be subject to RTBF requests. You would end up with the laughable situation where the WMF's own search would not bring up wikipedia results. Thinking the WMF can actually do anything about RTBF is silly. Google have a much bigger vested interest in fighting it, and significantly more money. So if they dont win, there is little the WMF can do other than deal with the consequences. (As an aside, I have removed the most contentious part of the BLP concerned as I feel it massively violates WP:UNDUE, left a note on the talkpage, and one for the editor explaining that if consensus decides its not UNDUE, since it doesnt violate any sourcing, crime or BLP policies, then there is no reason it cant stay in the article) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, This isn't massively relevant to Wikipedia because the vast majority of people redacted by Google under RTBF aren't notable anyway; either completely non-notable or BLP1E cases. For clearly notable people with notability stretching over a period of time (i.e. the subject of this, Peter Wyngarde), RTBF doesn't apply. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

True. My comment was more a knee-jerk sarcastic/ironic response to the recent/not so recent WMF drama/issues re search engines and such. Probably best if I do not do irony before breakfast. :) Jbh^Talk 13:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked per NLT. If the threats are retracted, any other admin may unblock if they see fit without reference to me. Bencherlite^Talk 13:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Baisla

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear sir what is the problem with the baisla page this is wikipedia source and wikipedia source is not a poor source See http://everything.explained.today/Baisla/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devnarayan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan Baisla Jdb (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but it is a poor source as Wikipedia cannot be its own source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Britmax (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feeding the trolls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia has always suffered from trolls (most created by inexperienced or ignorant admins themselves but that discussion is for another day) but over the last decade, there has always been a 'common denominator' which I have seen myself many times and its when these trolls decide to stop contributing completely and start trolling..obviously most users we ban daily are sockpuppets who either are violating WP:NPOV or pushing their own agenda but a random few do it for teh lulz, these trolls are dangerous because they come to wikipedia not to just be an ass but to be the 'biggest ass they can be'..this started way back with 'WillyOnWheels' and was later carried on by the one we called 'Grawp' but it seems nowadays when admins or editors who patrol these type of trolling come across such trolls, the first thing they do is to tag them, and then report them....this is where the issue lies...If you give a troll who is chasing fame by tagging them as a "sock" and then creating categories, they would never go away...Its like giving gremlins water after midnight..but in this case, any time of the day..it will just make things worse.. I propose we delete categories and sock tags of every "current" vandal with over 100 sock accounts, salt (lock and hide) those that we can (with the help of stewards) but keep a hidden list off-server or in a private mailing list accessible by all admins (and above) and certain selected non-admins dealing with vandals like these on a daily basis....I could name atleast 2 current ones who deserve to be 'salted' for good, but I assume there is atleast 2 dozen more than should be completely and ruthless "expunged"...When it comes to trolls searching for fame on wikimedia, there is only ONE wikipedia policy we should adhere too, and its about time we did... --Stemoc 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You lost me when you wrote that "most [trolls are] created by inexpereinced or ignorant admins". After a bizarre statement like that, I didn't read any further. BMK (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well my comments were for admins and editors involved in that area..not for a glorified troll so ignore it please, till the big boys come over and read it.....--Stemoc 06:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This big girl admin stopped reading there as well. We are by no means victims, but I'm not going to listen to someone who blames me for getting rape threats just for blocking and tagging a vandal. Katie^talk 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Propose Immediate closure of this thread as not requiring any administrative intervention (indeed, it seems to exist solely to allow Stemoc to WP:VENT over an imaginary non-issue. Suggest that whatever issues the OP has, they are not ones that can be settled here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So.... we just completely remove the sock tags and templates? Seriously? That would never work at all. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I'll just add to the bottom then, I'm not venting (funny how you close this thread based on a policy which does not exists), I'm pointing out an issue which is actually being created by admins and vandal-fighters alike, we did not select you as admins so that you can ignore the masses..and can people who have no idea about anything please stop closing the threads....I'm here to talk to the more experienced and knowledgeable admins who would find this interesting and above all useful, if you are not it, no need to read the topic, just move along, its not meant for you...anyways back to the topic.. don't avoid the issue, the question asked was why are we allowing 'trolls' to use the wiki as their play ground, coming in daily and using the wiki as its playpen, not only attacking contributors and admins alike but also intentionally acting like they need their diapers changed....well like spoiled brats basically...why do we continue to keep a list of these "babies" seeking mommy's attention?...infact a good spanking (as mentioned in my OP) is all thats needed..since none of you bother to read the OP, let me give a few examples of such trolls, sadly, I'm "feeding the trolls' by listing them down but alas I have no other option, lets take this user as an example who currently has 67 tagged in confirmed and unconfirmed bu there is more or this person who does this routinely, 2 or 3 times a day who currently has over 160 confirmed accounts (but a lot more via other wikis)..why are we keeping lists for trolls?, why are we enabling them?, why are we feeding them? We intentionally ignore the basic rule when it comes to such trolls and that is WP:DENY so why not actually start using a WP policy that actually works?--Stemoc 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Stemoc has proposed something over on Meta, here. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

By the time they define a 'troll' to the satisfaction of the lawyers who corollarate the ToU... The grant will have run out. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I was glad to find this out, it gave me the opportunity to express my opinion, i.e. that I adamantly oppose any WMF funds going into Stemoc's bizarre proposal. "Glorified Troll" (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of bolding!! But Stemoc has a point; enwiki does a lot to glorify these trolls. Needless ANI discussions are started about banning them, when there are no demonstrable change that result from that other than further glorification of their trolling. They are catalogued publicly on SPI and LTA pages for all to see. Given that our technical realities allow these people to come back and resume trolling whenever they want, maybe we should start following this old wiki principle a bit more closely again? Ajraddatz (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

DENY isn't a policy, and we've been using LTA since 2004 or earlier, while DENY dates from 2006. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you responded to my central point, to be totally honest. I was not concerned with how old LTA is, or whether or not DENY was a policy - indeed I called it a principle. What about my core assertion that not glorifying trolls can make them lose interest and go away? And you'll have to forgive my time line, I wasn't around in 2004 or 2006, and on projects where I was first involved there was no documentation of LTAs but DFTT was definitely a thing. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You didn't call it a policy, but I was responding to ..that is WP:DENY so why not actually start using a WP policy that actually works? I was around in 2006, but I knew nothing of this kind of stuff; the only way I knew that was digging into the page histories in preparation for responding to you. Sockpuppet investigations and LTA pages are useful for tracking them; they're not merely memorials. Conversely, the ban discussions are worthless; anyone with piles of sockpuppet accounts isn't going to be unblocked by anyone, but people throw a fit when you try to cut through the bureaucracy and close a pointless ban discussion as pointless. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. The SPI and LTA pages are definitely useful to an extent, though tagging userpages and making categories and keeping such detailed archives I would argue has limited usefulness beyond being a shrine. There are already block reasons given, and CheckUsers can go through the logs to see why an account was checked if it ever matters in the future. And with indef blocked socks, it almost never does. I have seen you comment against useless ban discussions in the past, and I appreciate your efforts to do so. I think Stemoc is trying to raise awareness of how much people are (unintentionally?) glorifying the trolls in hopes that some best practices/procedures can be changed like that, though obviously there were some issues with his presentation. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

{[ec}}Having raised a couple of ban discussions in the past, I, on the whole, agree with Nyttend. It's a rather pointless exercise to propose a ban on long indef'd trolls/socks/vandals, especially in clear cut cases where no admin in their right mind would unblock the master. However, there is a certain value in initiating a ban discussion on an editor who has become unrelentingly disruptive shortly after an indef. For some, process is important. As I said in my closing statement above, many of these "memorials" are highly useful to those who don't know the history of any given troll/vandal as non admin editors are usually the ones who are at the coal face with dealing with these nuisances. Giving these editors access to information that helps them spot these nuisances is certainly better than hiding it away to avoid "glorification". Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder of Kylie Maybury

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone help me in adding the information about the breakthrough in the case - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/man-arrested-over-historical-child-abduction-and-murder/news-story/1c59dc4508b341474473ce6042a2be37 - to Murder of Kylie Maybury ? Also, should the article be at Kylie Maybury murder case as someone has now been charged and there will be a murder trial and only a court can convict someone of murder? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it might be time for an administrator to check in on the back-and-forth editing at that article's intro. Note, the article-in-question is under 1RR sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

An admin might consider 12 hours of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Likely the best option, until today's multiple Democratic primaries are over. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, much too much back and forth; fully protected for 12 hours. Any admin who disagrees is free to lift or shorten the protection. Lectonar (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Aha, the corporate media is now running the Admins' Noticeboard too, huh? Beel the Fern! Drmies (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, their influence now spreads all over Europe...drawing Germany into the Sanders/Clinton/Trump-Wars....Ve haff wayz off meking you tak. Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The same issues and behavior are happening at United States presidential election, 2016. A short protection (making sure that m:The Wrong Version is selected...) :) until the polls close at 8PM PST might be worth considering. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been quite calm for awhile, overall the related dispute at that article hasn't been as heated as at 'Hillary Clinton'. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring (guilty as charged) will probably spill over onto other related pages such as 2016 Democratic National Convention as well. ansh666 17:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that article's been quite stable. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Relatively, yes, but I'm just worried that protecting one will move people towards other related articles, and extra eyes can't hurt. That said, no action is really necessary anywhere else either for now or hopefully ever. ansh666 18:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's not give them advice on where to edit-war at next. ~ Rob^Talk 20:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WT:ANRFC discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just a note because WP:ANRFC is related to AN but there are two discussions at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure about limitations for the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Requests_for_comment section of ANRFC. One is to bar the inclusion of AN or ANI discussions from there and the second is a bar on the addition of RFC closure requests by people who have not commented in the RFC itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

{{humor}}Oh man, I can't wait for that RfC to be open long enough to appear on ANRFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So someone can request us to close a discussion that's overdue to be closed about closing discussions that are overdue. 😳 Katie^talk 02:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Joking aside, would both of you consider commenting there? Else it's just three people and ANRFC needs more eyes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made a request for closure of this discussion. It's canvassing. 107.77.229.153 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux and KrakatoaKatie: seems like instead it's this discussion being requested for closure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sport Aerobics to Aerobic Gymnastics please see Talk:Sport aerobics. I have waited long and hard for people to comment on this. I have who agrees and should be renamed and no nays. I've stated it should be renamed because the FIG who controls the sport on an international level calls it Aerobic Gymnastics and it seems to be consistent with other forms of Gymnastics ex. Artistic Gymnastics, Rhythmic Gymnastics and Acrobatic Gymnastics. Even its world championships is called the "Aerobic Gymnastics World Championships". I have made my case and am requesting an administrator 1) help change the name or 2) explain why not and whether or not there is anything I can do to appeal or make the article better or find better sources to support the name change. Please see fig-gymnastics.com which is the International Gymnastics Federation. I believe that should be a good enough source click on disciplines and you will see Aerobic Gymnastics not Sport Aerobics. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend you follow the steps at WP:RM and re-list it, as there was an oppose vote (no consensus) when this was done before. You can use the text you've posted here as your rationale on why you believe it should be moved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was this ever listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I suspect not as I don't see that a {{Requested move}} template was ever placed on the page. I suggest you start again, start a new discussion, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. The process ought take a week, which is not long given the length of time you have already waited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where to report a hoax Wikia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone know where to report a Wikia for vandalism. After years of vandalizing Weekly Shōnen Jump, Manga, and several other articles Cow cleaner 5000 has now created their own Wikia filled with their own blatantly false information. —Farix (t | c) 10:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipolice; but their office is only open weekday mornings and cattle market days. Hurry! _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is a blatant and obvious hoax you can add {{db-hoax}} to the article and it will put the article into a speedy deletion category. If it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user you can add {{db-g5}}. -- GB fan 10:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think- on a more serious note (but still nothing to do with us)- the OP means that Cow Cleaner has set up an actual separate and distinct Wikia (not a WP article). I guess he has had to sign up to and adhere to Terms of service of some sort, so if he is breach of them, report him; but I bet they only take stuff down if it's illegal in some way. Just like we do :) I dare say his definition of 'annacurate' probably differs (substantially) to yours. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Wikia is outside the domain of anything related to actions taken here. You may wish to contact Wikia staff regarding the Wikia, but otherwise, there is nothing we can do here. --Izno (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A case of not being able to read, I asked where to go to report a fraudulent Wikia. I did not request any action to be taken on the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, a case of "I doubt your ability to correctly identify where you should be asking your question, taking into account that this isn't it". As it happens, I also provided you a link to a Google search for Wikia staff, so off you go. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to say - Wikia office/staff does not take down content unless a rights holder makes a complaint. Wikia is for-profit - they make their money from advertising on fan-sites. Blatantly incorrect information would not be enough to make Wikia take down a site. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fanboy cruft- The saviour of capitalism _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So a Wikia that attacks a 48 year old manga magazine and publisher by calling it terrorist organization and a front group for ISIS/Al-Qaeda as well as attacks Wikiepeia editors would not be bases for Wikia to take it down? —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not unless the situation has changed recently. I have not managed to get Wikia staff to take down blatantly and obvious libellous material before without getting the actual rights holder involved. They just dont care unless someone with standing makes a genuine legal threat to them. They want the ad money rolling in. If it is making accusations against specific wikipedia editors, I suggest you notify the editors and get them to complain - that might get some traction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If only Wikia had a founder as committed to integrity as we have at Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration clerk call for script writer [cross-post]

The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are looking for a script writer who will work with the clerk team to automate portions of the clerks' procedures. If you are a skilled script writer and are interested in working with us, please email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration clerk call for script writer

Personal information on new user's page

I hope this is the right place to ask this.

A brand-new, young user posted their complete address and birthday on their user page. I deleted that info and explained on their talk page what I had done and why. Does the diff need to be redacted? If so, the user's name is (Redacted). Or else advise me what I should have done instead. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing should go straight to the oversight team, and not be posted in a public venue. On the other hand, this user is over 18 so it's probably not to be worried about. You may wish to advise them that they can ask for it to be oversighted if they wish. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They're not technically a minor (in most jurisdictions), so it's not really against Wikipedia policy. However, given that it's been highlighted here, I think it's wise to rev-delete it, which I have done - but if they put it back, then they're considered old enough to make that judgment. As BethNaught says, for any future examples like this, it's better to contact the Oversight team rather than exposing it on this very public board. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the age-18 thing. And thank you, I'll go to Oversight next time. — Gorthian (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Niranjandeshmukh

Would any admin consider revoking talk page access for this indeffed user? S/he appears to be abusing UTRS. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Revoking talk page access won't stop them contacting UTRS - in fact, UTRS is the recommended route for people who have had talk page access revoked. As they're not using their talk page, revoking talk page access would have no effect at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Denial of sock puppetry of Moatassemakmal

Yamla had been accused me as a sock puppetry of my user account Moatassemakmal. That's very unfair and untrue, I had been strongly denied of this allegations. It seems the administrator had trying to discredited me off from Wikipedia. I have been 2 months of anger with agony, please help me to clear my name and my reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.171.232 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Fear not; you have neither name nor reputation here. In any case, immediately changing your IP and then continuing the argument is hardly the most effective defence against such a claim. Happy editing! _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that the block applies to you, person-behind-the-username Moatassemakmal. Until your block expires, you are not permitted to continue editing here. To other admins, note that this user brought up the block on WP:ANI and the block was upheld and a permanent ban was discussed due to the user's long habit of problem edits, including but most certainly not limited to a death threat (against another user, only a threat of physical violence against me). --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

President of Brazil

We may need some administrative eyes on this article. An editor (NicolitoPaiva) appears unwilling to accept that Dilma Rousseff is still President of Brazil. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've issued a warning for edit warring. If the user persists, a block should be in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

He's back Kinu & is continuing to slow edit-war. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

More of a fast edit-war now. As one of those who's reverted him, I can't pull the trigger myself in this case, but he's hit WP:3RR in both letter and spirit of the law. ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay, Seems we having trouble on editing President of Brazil. I live in Brazil, i am State Judge of Pará (State of Brazil). I am Member of OAB (Order of Lawyers of Brazil). I certainly know all brazilians laws more than you , that's my job. You think Roussef is still president of Brazil, that's not how it works. When Brazilian Senate approves the opening of Impeachment Process, the defendant becomes suspended, and the Vice-President, becomes Interim President. If you check Portuguese page of list of Presidents of Brazil you'll see that Impeachment occurred before in history of my country, on President Fernando Collor, and Itamar Franco replaced him. This is happening with Dilma Rousseff, Since he's suspended, Michel Temer is the new President. If STF (Superior Court of Brazil) back to decision (impeachment), Roussef will return to presidency, if not, he will be unable to elect any public office for eight years. Sorry for not contact before, i was busy with many Federal Process. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think Temer's own press office know better than you about the matter, and they appear to think his title is still just "Presidente em exercicio". ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. "Presidente em exercício" means "Acting President", Dilma is "President Suspensa" means "Suspended President". do not talk about what you don't know, please. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Rousseff's presidential powers & dutires are suspended, but she's still President. Temer is still Vice President, though he's got the presidential powers & duties. But more importantly, you haven't gotten a consensus for the changes you want to make at the article-in-question & also, you've attempted to get at the talkpage there. Instead, you've been persistently ignoring everyone, via pushing your edits. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To solve our problem , I propose that we make equal the original page in Portuguese: Presidente do Brasil. We should put both Acting and Suspended President with their photos. Agreed? NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Temer is still Vice President with the presidential powers in his hands. Rousseff is still President, even if in name only. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Like i said, i am member of OAB (Order of Lawyers of Brazil). I Studied Brazilian Laws for 5 years in Federal University of Pará,

What do you know about the laws of my country? i affirm: Dilma is not President, he is suspended. Temer is acting president now. I proposed a middle ground , and put both names and photos, like in ORIGINAL page in portuguese. I propose again: Lets do that. or I will not give up of just put Temer, the acting president. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@NicolitoPaiva: This belongs at Talk:President of Brazil, not here. I also note you've been warned about edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that proclaiming that you will not drop your position and stop editing despite consensus against you is considered disruptive editing, and is grounds for blocking. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He's up to 'bout 5 reverts now, in the last hour or so. This is getting increasingly frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Neil, i didnt started this talk here, GoodDay did. Warn him then. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather than hand out multiple blocks for edit warring, I've fully protected the article for 1 day. Work it out on the talk page please. Further unilateral reverts after protection expires may result in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll open up an Rfc on the matter, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ok, thank You. Best way to solve it: we make equal the original page in Portuguese: Presidente do Brasil. We should put both Acting and Suspended President with their photos. That's not unilateral, and are equal original page. Thanks for moderate, and sorry for reverts. Tomorrow i'm editing to a bilateral and impartial page. Once again, Thank you. NicolitoPaiva (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Portuguese Wikipedia is not a source. I find it worrisome, that you're stating you'll continue to try & force your edits into that article. I'd recommend instead, that you participate at the Rfc I've opened & wait until/if you can get a consensus there, first. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@NicolitoPaiva: Couple things. Just as English Wikipedia content has no say over other language content, the Portuguese language article has no say on what is done here. We can use it for guidance but arguing "because the Portuguese Wikipedia does it this way" is fruitless. Second, if your "editing to a bilateral and impartial page" involves editing without consensus, it's likely you'll be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As I note on the talk page, there seems to be little interest in engaging in discussion in the RFC and instead just repeated arguing about what other languages are doing. Makes me feel like an oddball for actually looking at how sources describe the presidency and using that to formulate an opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Promotion of Mdann52 to full clerk

We are pleased to confirm trainee Mdann52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a full arbitration clerk, effective immediately.

We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Promotion of Mdann52 to full clerk

Please unprotect Thomas Pogge, there is a strong consensus on the talk page of a half dozen editors and 200 philosophers voting for inclusion of the well-sourced information

Against this, one editor, David Pearce, possessing a COI stands in the way. Unblock the page and restore the sources which were vandalistically removed by Pearce, leaving the article artifically froze in an embarrassing state of misinformation. Pearce, against 3 editors, reverted 7 times, yet the article was forzen in his version because of this laughable argument:

** The Wikipedia entries of countless educators and academics from classical antiquity to the present could be spiced up with salacious material or varying degrees of (un)reliability. Would the Wikipedia entry on Socrates, for example, be improved by adding a section "Controversies: allegations of grooming teenage boys"? Rather than turning Wikipedia into a downmarket scandal-sheet, a Comments/Criticisms/Controversies section might do better to focus on the work for which Prof. Pogge is notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case. Our sources are numerous and reliable; our consensus is strong. End this travesty now and restore the deleted sources.Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, Sarah Virgin grossly abused administrative powers in freezing on Pearce's version when there are 6 against 1, Pearce has a conflict of interest, and no sources for his claims. This is truly outrageous; I have seen more just administrative decisions made in Stalinist Russia than her cowardly protection of removal of adequately soutced content on false pretences. Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Widespread and protracted incivility by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Jps

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pinging all those involved on User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318) (section)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@EdJohnston:@1990'sguy:@Isambard Kingdom:@StAnselm:@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:@K.e.coffman:@James J. Lambden:@Johnuniq:@OldTraffordLover:@Tom.Reding:@John:@Roxy the dog:

re-pinging all those involved on User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318) (section)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, EdJohnston, 1990'sguy, Isambard Kingdom, StAnselm, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, K.e.coffman, James J. Lambden, Johnuniq, Tom.Reding, John, and Roxy the dog: DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that JPS has exhibited disruptive behaviour, particularly incivility, in many areas of Wikipedia for over a decade. They have received at 27 blocks at a rate of at least one block per year since 2006 (except for 2012, which was probably because the ban they received in 2011 extended into 2012). I feel it is time that strong action is taken here to protect the project and other editors from their disruptive editing and sometimes deeply upsetting comments. I feel it is time for, at the very least, the imposition of topic bans for the areas in which they have been incivil and made personal attacks on other editors. Having said this, JPS is undoubtedly an expert editor in astronomy and it would be a great shame to lose this expertise totally. However, even in this area, JPS' behaviour is far from stellar, so I am proposing 1RR for this topic.

JPS in a previous life

JPS once edited as User: ScienceApologist. Even in this previous account, JPS attracted warnings. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience JPS as "ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter".[45] [46] [47]

Proposals

My 3 proposals are
Proposal 1: JPS is indefinitely topic banned from pseudoscience and fringe theories, both broadly construed.
Proposal 2: JPS is indefinitely subject to 1RR on astronomy articles, broadly construed.
Proposal 3: Both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are adopted.
(I remain open to suggestions of Topic Bans and/or stronger sanctions in other areas needing protection from JPS.)

Decorum on this thread

Please read this – these are comments on editing decorum and other matters related to this thread (collapsed to avoid having to scroll through at each visit)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. I would like to remind contributors of two areas of editing decorum. First, I respectfully suggest editors familiarise themselves with WP:Casting aspersions in which ARBCOM states An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Second, I suggest we adhere closely to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (see image). Other comments I have my detractors and I am sure they will point to my past behaviour. Let me do this for them. I have two current topic bans and I had my one and only block early this year. I will not mention the subjects of these nor link to them as this may violate my topic ban, but I suspect another editor will be only too happy to oblige. Gross incivility directed toward me and other editors by JPS has been occurring for a long time. I raised at WP:AN the issue of providing diffs simply as an indication of an editor’s misbehaviour and whether this would violate my topic ban. There were mixed answers to this, but some editors opined that simply providing diffs to these would be a breach of my Topic Ban.[48] Therefore, I have not supplied these diffs (which I suspect reduces the evidence I can present by 50%). If I have not listed an incident of incivility here and this affects another editor, it is likely this is because of my topic ban, NOT my judgement that the comment/s by JPS are acceptable. One last comment here. I will not be surprised if editors try to deflect concerns about JPS’ behaviour by indicating JPS does good work in protecting the scientific or mainstream point of view. However, please remember this thread is not about the content/validity/acceptability or otherwise of the subjects that JPS edits on, it is about JPS’ behaviour towards other editors.

Supporting Evidence

JPS’ lengthy block log is here. There have also been warnings for behaviour which are not on the block log, for example,JPS is warned here for 3RR. I have tabulated below, incidents of incivility by JPS for the last 6 months (an arbitrary cut-off point). The diffs are obviously numerous. I recently saw an edit/complaint on ANI that requested an editor who had posted 16 diffs as evidence should trim these to just 4 or 5 diffs. I disagree with this idea, however, I have made the table sortable so that readers can filter to the “Top 10” if they do not wish to read through the others. They may also wish to read the evidence when sorted according to the category of incivility.

Please read this - Evidence of protracted and widespread incivility by JPS (collapsed to avoid having to scroll through at each visit)

Category of Incivility Quote & Notes Month Evidence (diff) Top 10 Ridiculing JPS started a sub-thread with the heading “Proposed Making Fun of DrChrissy”. Note: WP:Civility states Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. June [49] 1 Threat “It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.” June [50] 2 Calling editors “Trolls” ”For readers' information, DrChrissy has been serially-reverting on this page in classic trolling fashion” June [51] 10 Calling editors “Trolls” ”Made trolling smaller for readability.” June [52] 10 Calling editors “Trolls” ”DrChrissy and Fortuna trolling should not be fed” June [53] 10 Calling editors “Trolls” “Below are the trolling actions of those who think jps was uncivil to DrChrissy” [JPS’ formatting for emphasis has been omitted] June [54] 10 Creating non-neutral, personal headers. “The DrChrissy fan club does not like jps” June [55] 10 Lying about editors “I see, you and Fortuna collaborate on articles about fish! It all makes sense now. (For those not in the know, this is high-level trolling. Look for the smell of the feet.)” Note – the lie is about the collaboration, not the odour of my feet. June [56] 5 Calling editors “Trolls” ”So are you just a dramaboards troll then?” June [57] 3 Sexist/Belittling “Topic bans and 1RR restrictions are not enacted at this noticeboard, love!” June [58] 4 Bullying “It would be good if you stayed away from such topics as you've also demonstrated your lack of competence with regards to this particular subject.” June [59] 10 Name calling ”The problem is that the surreality-based editors are often more invested in pursuing their cause than the reality ones (for obvious reasons) and the noticeboards aren't really equipped to handle the longterm.” June [60] 10 Insult “I think you have a reading comprehension problem.” June [61] 8 Insult ”Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.” June [62] 10 Sexist/Belittling “My darling, the issue is clearly stated and the question was answered.” March [63] 6 Poisoning the well Jps started an WP:ANI thread and headed this “DrChrissy (yet again)” April [64] 9 Ridiculing “I think you're being entirely ignorant and laughably wrongheaded if that's what you think is going on, but it is better for you to be honest about what you think is happening than it is for you to beat around the bush in the name of "civility", in my opinion.” January [65] 10 Bullying (an admission) “If you don't like that, then there are lots of other things you can do at Wikipedia, but I don't think you are going to be successful keeping up this particular tactic of claiming that it is all the fault of the people like me who bully you for supporting the fringe-POV.” January [66] 10 Insults "My comment is that your contributions here are garbage." January [67] 10 Casting aspersions ”We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISIM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.“ January [68] 10 Chilling behaviour “I have a pretty good idea of who you are, 75.118.11.184.” January [69] 10 Insult “You live in an agnotological bubble. You are a general laughing stock and should be aware of this.” January [70] 7 Ridiculing “Academic use is neutral by definition. The title was crowbarred in by Christian apologists such as yourself to circumvent our WP:NPOV policy. Don't you know that lying (such as you just did about the history of the title of this page) is a sin?” January [71] 10 Casting aspersions “@DrChrissy, your documented promotion of pseudoscience in the past makes me inclined to ignore your protestations. If you prefer, you can form a cabal with zzz and attempt to sway Wikipedia policy towards credulity. I doubt you'll be successful.” January [72] 10 Lying/Casting aspersions “There is plenty of evidence that you have supported the pseudoscientific claims of various people, but we should not talk about this because you are topic banned from the subject. It is perfectly civil to say, in my estimation, your activism in these areas is promotional of pseudoscience. You can disagree with my characterizations and offer arguments to the contrary, but it is perfectly fine and, in fact, in the best interest of the encyclopedia that we identify pseudoscience POV-pushers such as yourself openly and honestly.” Note: My topic ban is not pseudoscience. January [73] 10 Casting aspersions “(See, it's not uncivil to say DrChrissy promotes pseudoscience, and even if DrChrissy takes offense, I don't think there is any way to change the wording without abandoning the meaning.)” January [74] 10

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Could someone please move my signature so that it appears as the last text in the above. Thanks in advance. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Done (I hope this is what you wanted) AIRcorn (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose, but not for the usual reasons. The irritating thing about this report is that it is doomed to fail which is likely to convince jps of his god-like powers to flit above the fray, so he may well continue on his chosen destiny and be indeffed. None of the pings worked (see WP:ECHO), and the timing of this report means it cannot receive serious attention because jps just finished a week-long block for edit warring and mooning the jury at WP:AN3. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and possible Boomerang I would support a possible 2RR on astronomy articles, or an interaction ban with Dr.Chrissy, but besides that, I wouldn't support anything. Banning him from Fringe articles would be a bad idea, and hurt the encyclopedia. I do think that he isn't always civil, but I still think that he is a good editor. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My responses to examples:

Extended content

I don't think that's that bad. It deserves a warning, but not much else. Not much of a problem Not much of a problem Insulting. A problem, not small, but not very large Small issue Sarcasm. It wasn't an outright lie, it should have been more civil, though. A problem I don't think that's sexist, small issue A bit harsh, but not that big of a deal A problem A small problem, but not that big A very small problem A problem, a stern warning would suffice A problem, though not as large as the previous one A medium problem Not a problem A medium problem A small problem A very small problem A very very small problem

I didn't mean to use up so much space, but an interaction ban, a 2RR on fringe topics, and a stern warning would suffice. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not necessary, and everybody just needs to move on. I agree with the criticisms made by Johnuniq and ThePlatypusofDoom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: With regards to the "threat", jps quickly clarified and said "no threat intended". But that still raises the question as to what was intended and what jps did mean. Also of concern is deceptive behaviour in appealing a block. jps argued that "Those who have commented here all seem to agree that the week length was arbitrary" and then when two editors responded by explicitly agreeing with the length of the block deleted their comments, and continued to argue that editors were agreeing with him. Now, I know that generally editors can remove comments from their talk pages, but this sort of dishonesty should not be tolerated. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

These valid points of concern seem to be ignored here, and this puzzles me. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - DrChrissy was counseled by the community not to pursue this complaint, and chose to anyway. DrChrissy has a history of problematic editing which has resulted in several topic bans, levied by both ArbCom and the community. DrChrissy has a history of pushing the boundaries of his topic bans, to the point that the ArbCom ban was expanded to be more general than it had originally been. Other editors have informed me that DrChrissy makes valuable edits in certain subject areas, and I am in no position to dispute this, but DrCrhissy, with clearly invalid complaints such as this one, is on the verge of becoming a burden to the project, and slowly reaching the point where he will be a net-negative. This will be inevitable unless DrChrissy begins to follow the guidance of the community, and to start understanding the idea of a collegial community of editors intent on improving an encyclopedia. At this point, DrChrissy should not be sanctioned for filing this report, but DrChrissy should clearly understand that the next step will not be another topic ban, but a site ban. If DrChrissy doesn't want this to happen, DrChrissy should straighten up and fly right, and stop filing nuisance complaints against other editors in which he attempts to tell the commenters how they must behave (see above "comments on editing decorum and other matters related to this thread".) BMK (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Meh Based on the observations I have made of DrChrissy continually pushing ther ban edges here and at AE, even going so far into talking themself into a more restrictive topic ban when Arbcom was trying to give them a less restrictive one, I can only imagine what goes on in articles where two strongly opinionated editors like jps and DrChrissy are in conflict. I pretty much feel this is a it takes two to tango situation. Continuing, repetitive behavior while not directly rude is likely to have push back and that is what most of this conflict seems to be. The most this seems to need is: jps be nicer so "jps be nicer". Jbh^Talk 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have redacted a portion of DrChrissy's complaint due to potential OUTING. Jbh^Talk 03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jbhunley, where do you get "outing" from? It's not outing to mention someone's previous names when he has this list prominently linked on his own userpage. ‑ Iridescent 10:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have put it back, its not 'Outing' by the wording of the policy anyway, and even had they vanished and came back, the acknowledgement on their userpage is enough to link them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Iridescent: The user page pointed to says "This is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn't here for privacy/harassment issues". If they are now publicly linked that message should be removed. Jbh^Talk 12:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish some of the science editors would show a bit more restraint with their commentary, many seem to love a good argument even when the argument is already won. And it is nearly always won. There is also a certain amount of arrogance on display from many, but this is understandable to a degree when you consider the level of some conversations they have to deal with. From my perspective I have yet to come across a comment from jps which relates to content where I disagreed with the sentiment, although often I would not have gone for that sort of presentation. Maybe he is brave, maybe I am a coward, but either way he is an asset to the encyclopedia and should not be topic banned from the area where he is most effective. An iban may be beneficial though for both editors and jps should not be violating 3RR so flagrantly (but that is another issue). AIRcorn (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As per almost everything BMK has said. With the exception that at this point I think DrChrissy needs a restriction from noticeboards except where they are directly a party. Quite apart from their recent deliberate entangling themself with Jps where their input was neither needed, wanted, or helpful in any manner. RE Jbhunley - there is no point in admonishing Jps to be 'nicer'. 'Nice' does not work with POV-driven editors. DrChrissy's editing outside of very defined areas tends to the fringey/pseudoscience/lack of basic understanding of subjects, which automatically puts them in conflict with hardline fact-based editors like Jps. There is a reason why DrChrissy has been restricted after a relatively short time here, and despite *mild* incivility Jps has been editing for years without serious problems. This is one of the few times I am minded to recommended a one-way interaction ban. Either way, DrChrissy needs to be restricted from causing more pointless and baseless drama. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• "...JPS has been editing for years without serious problems." Sorry to disagree, but 27 blocks spanning a decade is in my opinion, a serious problem. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Based on what I have seen of DrChrissy at noticeboards I would support some sort of restriction assuming one could be worded that would not create more drama than it avoids. I am also aware that saying "jps be nicer" is a pointless exercise - it is a pointless result for a pointless complaint hence my pointless !vote of "Meh". Jbh^Talk 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Either the restrictions imposed on Tarc ("may not edit any administrative noticeboards") or Abd ("indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.") noted here would work. I favour the latter as more specific and less prone to attemptes to game. Which DrChrissy has shown time and again he likes to push the boundaries of any restrictions placed upon him. The one for TDA ("indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started.") would also work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The third seems best to me but I have only witnessed their Noticeboard behavior. I would add a restriction to originating discussions at administrative/conduct noticeboards since, again from what I have seen, they originate most of the problematic threads. Jbh^Talk 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, as succinctly stated by Only in death; also support this sentiment: "DrChrissy needs to be restricted from causing more pointless and baseless drama." K.e.coffman (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang. @DrChrissy: is a serial plagiarist (here's the CCI) who has been topic banned by the community from altmed and by Arbcom from GMOs. The same battleground behavior that earned her her topic bans is on full display here. I'll also note that she intentionally followed jps into astronomy articles - an area she had never edited before - to stir the pot because she couldn't poke him on fringe articles. We need to discuss whether the encyclopedia benefits from her continued presence. 73.89.120.105 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)— 73.89.120.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose per BMK, I also agree that DrChrissy ought to stop with this nonsensical drama. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and it's probably about time for a one-way interaction ban to prevent DrChrissy continuing this type of thing, which simply wastes everyone's time. If an editor is seriously problematic, leave it for someone in good standing to bring the issue up. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Laura, I believe we have not interacted before. I was rather surprised to see an editor who appears to be female (forgive me if I am incorrect) voting in opposition to sanctions for sexist language. Perhaps you overlooked these in my evidence. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I like what, to me, appears to be the hounding of this editor even less. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and boomerang. I've lost count of how many houndish and tendentious ANI, etc. postings DrChrissy has made now. Others have already explained well that DrChrissy tends to pursue drama by following around editors they are in conflict with. This was also part of their GMO sanctions with an interaction ban with Jytdog there. Coupled with constantly testing the limits of their topic bans on the admin noticeboards and trying to pursue this action after jps already was sanctioned, it does seem like the community has reached the limit of their patience for DrChrissy. A ban from admin noticeboards as described above does seem warranted, as does the one-way interaction with jps to prevent further disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment To all those trying to deflect from JPS' incivility, let me remind you that if you are voting Oppose here, you are, in effect, supporting comments and behaviour such as

• JPS started a sub-thread with the heading “Proposed Making Fun of DrChrissy”.[75]
• “It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.” [76]
• Lying about editors to malign them|[77]
• “I think you have a reading comprehension problem.”[78]
• “My darling, the issue is clearly stated and the question was answered.”[79]

I also note that 4 of these 5 examples are directed at editors other than me - this issue is not about me and JPS, it is about JPS. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• While you may wish this to be only about JPS, it is normal for AN discussions to look at all involved. I am afraid you can't exclude yourself from the scope of this discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• My clumsy wording. Yes, I recognise my behaviour will be scrutinised - I acknowledged this in my opening comments, but thanks for the reminder. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• My apologies if I misinterpreted you. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)Oppose and boomerang of some kind. This drama seeking needs to stop. DrChrissy has followed JPS to articles, pops up in conflicts they had no part in just to take shots at JPS, and just pushes and pushes and pushes. Hence the broadening of their topic ban. I usually am not big on one-way interaction bans but I'd vote for one here. DrChrissy has a tendency to pop up and throw in their 2 cents whenever one their perceived enemies ends up at a drama board. It does nobody any good and needs to stop. I'd also have no problem with a notice board ban unless they are directly involved. Capeo (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and boomerang. This is too much. The one-way interaction ban and notice board ban start to seem like sense too, opposed as I usually am to such measures. Begoon ^talk 18:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. Not enough substance here to merit anything more than John's warning to Jps on his talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

Based on the discussion above: Propose DrChrissy is indefinitely prohibited from opening threads at or editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads where he has been named a party.

• Support as proposer. (I am open to better wording) Jbh^Talk 19:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I feel this is the only way we can stop this endless drama. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This time, at least, it was a genuine case. Although I did not suppose the topic ban for jps, it would be a grave injustice to punish DrChrissy while letting jps off the hook. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Wording is fine. (To StAnselm, then bring a separate proposal for jps if you like.) Begoon ^talk 19:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Begoon: I have been criticised above for making posts in threads which other editors suggested I should not be involved in. You and I have never interacted before to the best of my knowledge. You are not an administrator. What is your motivation for making your posts on this thread? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Anyone can post here, DrC, as you well know, and unless you have a damn good reason to question Begoon's motivations, I suggest that you owe that editor an apology for your WP:casting aspersions, a blockable offense. BMK (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per my comment above. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support, in the least. I'm still open to an interaction ban proposal. The recent interactions by DrChrissy at ANEW and jps' talk page were definitive drama seeking for the sake of it. It needs to stop. Capeo (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has an unignorable and germane block history, regardless of who brings it up. John has said to I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Let's also consider that any repetition of this behaviour will be met with an indefinite block.. In lieu of my support of either of DrChrissy's proposals (despite the WP:SNOW it has received), I support John's decision, which seems like it would satisfy all parties involved.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The other thing that is unfair about boomeranging this is that DrChrissy was specifically referred here by User:EdJohnston, the admin who closed the edit-warring noticeboard thread. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Yes indeed, both EdJohnston and John indicated a filing for topic bans here at AN was admissible (without their encouraging it). DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Advice that something is "admissible" (i.e. allowable) can in no way be construed as approval of doing so, so I fail to see St. Anselm's objection. (I do note, however, St. Anselm's role as a party to disputes involving jps.) A very recent thread right here on AN started by DrChrissy as a "hypothetical" (which clearly wasn't, despite his denial - and here we are) resulted in multiple opinions from members of the community that DrChrissy should not pursue the complaint. These were specific to the value of the complaint and not, as was the case with EdJohnston and John, simple statements of what is and isn't allowed. BMK (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Multiple people told them this was a bad idea and they didn't take the advice. Less dramamongering is needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Editors who already knew DrChrissy's background (I don't think EdJohnston has kept up with it) cautioned DrChrissy not to file this, but they plowed ahead anyways. DrChrissy has been warned plenty of times already just to continue the plowing ahead behavior, testing topic ban limits, etc.. Another slap on the hand saying next time will result in a site ban is pointless considering all the past warnings. The more reasonable approach is to not give them as much opportunity to pursue behavior they've so far shown they are incapable of stopping in order to prevent further disruption. If they persist even after that, then it's time to consider a site ban, but this approach gives them a better chance to work on content as opposed to keeping this outlet open for what would otherwise result in a site ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, why the double standard? This is essentially the same argument DrChrissy is making against I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. If action is taken against DrChrissy, then I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc should receive equivalent treatment.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. I've also been concerned about the double standard on display here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:John has made it crystal clear that he's standing over jps (a/k/a AlphaBits) with an itchy finger on the indef trigger. So, far from being a double standard, the proposal here is rather lenient compared the strictures under which jps will be working. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy & subsequently Kingofaces43 with others are asking for action now (which, for the former, is completely understandable, given the exchanges I've seen b/w DrChrissy & I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc in the astronomy space), while John is promising conditional action later. I'd see DrChrissy dismissing this complaint and moving on as equitable. If not, any action levied against DrChrissy on account of "being warned plenty of times but not stopping" without equivalent action against I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc does indeed resemble a double standard.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Shock, if that is the way it pans out, itchy finger, then fine. I'm more concerned about the discussion here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no double standard. The difference is that jps already received their block and is being watched by an admin. The focus of this proposal is solely on DrChrissy. DrChrissy decided to double down when they saw blood in the water and pursue more drama against jps. They have been specifically warned about this many times, especially when they follow editors into topics they haven't edited before. That is a problem of DrChrissy's that in part resulted in their ArbCom sanctions. The fact that they are continuing that behavior and constantly bring all that to the admin boards is why the community is fed up with it. This proposal is largely independent of whether jps was in the wrong or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I regret doing this because (per my earlier comment) it might encourage jps to plow on when in fact he must adapt to how things work at Wikipedia or be indeffed. However, DrChrissy is incapable of resisting an opportunity to waste community time and a topic ban is needed to direct them towards something productive. If another editor really is a problem, someone will notice and deal with it. Re the "double standard" comment above, that's not relevant to this discussion, but it is worth bearing in mind that jps is correct about content—his problem is how he reacts when faced with fringe enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct about content? Possibly often. But he also oversimplifies and ends up misrepresenting important issues, as per recent exchanges on the age of the Earth. His dogmatic approach is actually both inaccurate and counter-productive. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've across this misconception before, that jps is "correct about content". He's not - at least, he wasn't in this instance. He was edit-warring to introduce the word "measurement" into the Ken Ham article, and the subsequent consensus version that came out of the talk page discussion did not have that word. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite apart from being a massive distortion of the actual discussion: Jps was against arguing that 'scientific consensus' should be the wording RE the age of the earth and wanted 'measured' because the first implies that there is any sort of discussion about the age (there is not). You two were effectively trying to have the article weaseally worded to imply that there is some sort of ambiguity or the age of the earth is in dispute (it isnt except by fringe loons and people with literal interpretations of the bible). One of the diffs presented by DrChrissy above is where Jps suggests Isambard Kingdom has reading issues. Uncivil yes, but when someone says 'go to article X and try that there' when article X includes in the very first line the information as a fact... either Isambard didnt actually read the article or they did read it and have as Jps suggested, reading comprehension issues. Personally I would have assumed ignorance rather than incompetance but since you are still harping on about the age of the earth, I am now leaning towards the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Um, read the second sentence too? Read the cited sources? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The comments in this "Boomerang" thread have convinced me that my previous reticence to sanction DrChrissy was too lenient given his background of continuing disruption, so I support this proposal. BMK (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps those supporting could suggest what DrChrissy should do if he feels harassed/attacked in the future? Surely opening noticeboard threads others found frivolous doesn't mean he has no recourse except to hope someone names him as a party. OTRS? Message to arbcom? (this comment/question should be understood as unrelated to the thread about jps that led here, but rather about the possibility of attack/harassment that exists for anyone) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend an email to ArbCom - everyone has that option and this sanction does not take it off the table. Arbcom has the ability to handle behavior problems and it means he would need to think seriously about whether the issue being brought to Arbcom is frivolous or not. Multiple inappropriate or drama seeking requests to them would have negative results but if there is a genuine issue he can still get relief. Jbh^Talk 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The last time I emailed Arbcom it was over 24 hrs before I received a reply (possibly because of the geography - most members of Arbcom appear to be from the US whereas I am from the UK). Given that there have been several attempts to Out me, this would not be a suitable method of my receiving protection. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that going to ArbCom is necessary. Most behavioral problems can be handled by an individual admin issuing a warning or a short block. If the admin believes that the problem is larger than that, they can make the decision to take it to a noticeboard. BMK (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an absurd suggestion. The last time I approached an admin for advice on my interaction ban, I ended up with a 1-week block (my only block ever) for breaking my interaction ban! DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: This statement is completely false. I realize the conversation has progressed significantly since you wrote this, so no one will read this correction, but for posterity: The reason for your 1 week block is clearly stated in your block log, and in more detail at the AE thread you started, here. It had nothing to do with "approaching an admin for advice on my interaction ban"; you attempted to get the other editor sanctioned, for completely baseless reasons, after 2-3 previous instances where your topic ban violations were dealt with by patient explanations and warnings, rather than blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for posterity, Noted. It did seem rather Kafkaesque. Floquenbeam on trial immediately! _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Outing is addressed by individual admins or WP:OVERSIGHT not by posting at a Noticeboard. And if you were blocked for violasting an interaction ban for asking an admin a question that should be a solid clue you should not have brought up the issue at a Noticeboard. Jbh^Talk 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I note that the remedy as written actually has a number of broad loopholes in it, intentionally or otherwise. The prohibition applies only to (conduct) noticeboards, which means that – for better or worse – DrChrissy would still be able to comment and create threads on article and user talk pages, even where those discussions involved user conduct issues. Technically DrChrissy would still be allowed to ask other editors to create noticeboard threads on his behalf. DrChrissy could even deliberately insert himself into disputes to a sufficient extent as to be named as a party, thereby bootstrapping himself into noticeboard discussions.
All that said, one could also argue that the loopholes are actually just a useful bit of WP:ROPE (to mix metaphors). If DrChrissy doesn't abuse his remaining privileges, then he would still be able to raise concerns about user conduct issues in a responsible, restrained, and constructive manner—perhaps by bringing those concerns to a trusted admin who could offer advice and independent evaluation. If he does abuse his remaining privileges or tests the bounds of this additional editing restriction, well...he's rapidly running out of non-siteban ways to curtail his disruptive conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the loopholes exist to give some good faith leeway. Also if they are gamed it provides solid evidence and justification for a site ban which is the next step if the behavior issues this ban is intended to address do not cease. Jbh^Talk 15:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not the kind of sanction that should be given to anyone pbp 03:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Are there not precedents in the bans to Tarc, Abd and TDA? What is different about a topic ban from noticeboards as opposed to a topic ban from a specific subject, or an article ban, a ban from moving articles, or, for that matter, an I-Ban, that makes it something that "shouldn't be given to anyone"? Do not all these bans seek to stop the disruption as specifically as possible while srill allowing the editor to continue to edit otherwise? What is the difference in quality or severity that makes this proposed ban beyond the pale? We deal out site bans and indef blocks, which are significantly more oppresive than a noticeboard block, so why should a noticeboad block not be among the tools available to keep the peace?BMK (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: If a person's actions on noticeboards are really, really disruptive (more disruptive than in this case), they shouldn't be topic-banned from noticeboards, they should just be blocked. If a person is allowed to edit articles, he/she also needs to be allowed access to people's talk pages and noticeboards to resolve disputes that arise from editing those articles. Otherwise, we're allowing the editor to be completely walked over, even though we trust his judgment in article-space. By the same logic, almost all interaction bans are full interaction bans (including mainspace), because allowing editors to revert each other in mainspace but not discuss those reverts in talkspace, userspace or noticeboards is disingenuous. Also by this logic, almost all bans from a single space are of article-space, because if a person isn't allowed to edit a topic in articlespace, it's unlikely he will cause problems on that topic in talkspace, userspace or noticeboards. Let's not forget why noticeboards exist in the first place: to resolve problems in article space. pbp 18:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• So your theory is we keep putting up with disruption and b.s. until until it gets so bad we indef them, that there are no legitimate steps inbetween complete freedom to edit and complete blocking. Nope, I do not buy that at all- and neither, I think, does the majority of the community. BMK (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: That's not what I was saying at all and I think you knew that. There clearly are steps between complete freedom and complete blocking. Topic-banning somebody from all noticeboards just isn't one of them, and that's for some really good reasons. The good reason is that, since access to noticeboards is essential to proper editing, we have to accept there being a certain level of BS on noticeboards. And seeing the comments in this thread, I'd say a fair number of editors that agree with that position. pbp 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, in fact, I did not know that, and I don't know how I could take any other conclusion from what you wrote. If you agree that there are sanctions allowed between nothing and all, then your reasons for not thinking that one should be applied to DrC allude me. Noticeboards are no different from any other area of Wikipedia, and people can be banned from them as easily as anywhere else, if there is justification. My feeling is that all those !votes here that said that editors should not be banned from noticeboards should, in effect, be thrown out, since they have nothing to do with DrC's behavior, and everything to do with the Wikiphilosophy of the commenters. Imagine if I started opposing all RfAs because "I don't believe that Wikipedia should have admins at all." How much weight do you think the buros would give to those votes? None at all, I would say, and the same thing is true here. If you don't like bans from noticeboards, write a policy that forbids it and see if it passes. It won't. In the meantime, this is not the place to air your feeling about noticeboard bannings, this is the place to decide if DrC's behavior has been disruptive enough to warrant a sanction. If you have another sanction in mind, let's hear it. BMK (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, and please don't ping me again. I read this page frequently and I find the pings disruptive when I'm trying to work on an article. Thaks, BMK (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure he needs to be sanctioned. And sorry, BMK, noticeboards are different from article space. Most people who use Wikipedia don't read them; the people who do generally know what to expect there. There's a lot less damage to be done on noticeboards than there is in articlespace. pbp 01:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fundamentally disagree with barring any editor from all noticeboards. There are certain things that non-admins need to be able to report (legal threats, personal attacks, threats of violence, etc). Where can a user topic banned from making reports do that? Instead, an interaction ban may be appropriate if reports against a certain user or set of users are becoming disruptive. I haven't evaluated whether they are, although the support here seems to indicate so. ~ Rob^Talk 04:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • All of those can be reported to individual admins or to ArbCom, and do not require access to noticeboards to be dealt with. BMK (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Both of those options are slower and less efficient, especially when dealing with any pressing matters. What is being accomplished by this topic ban that can't be accomplished by an interaction ban? ~ Rob^Talk 04:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not just interactions with jps that are an issue though I think there should be an interaction ban too. DrChrissy seems drawn to threads that involve incivility even when they weren't involved at all. And their comments seldom, if ever, serve to defuse the situation but instead inflame it. Capeo (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I might withdraw my opposition if the topic ban were much more narrow (i.e. can only participate at noticeboards in discussions relating to things he was directly involved in, narrowly construed), but I still think this proposal is extremely broad. It sets a precedent that I'm not comfortable with. ~ Rob^Talk 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• * Comment. While it is clear that there is very strong support for action to control the excesses of DrChrissy's serial vexatious complaining at dramaboards, I worry that the community proposals so far are woefully inadequate. Considering only this latest episode, much of the disruption has gone on at a user Talk page which would not be covered by community sanctions currently under discussion.

There are in fact a few voices that consider DrChrissy a useful contributer to the project, and no calls thus far for a community site ban, which for me is the only remaining way to stop his disruption.

I suggest turning our approach upside down on this. Given that some of us still believe that DrChrissy can make positive contributions, perhaps we could allow him to edit articles, and their Talk pages, while banning him totally from the rest of the project. A suggestion that he restrict himself to comment on content rather than contributor might also be a condition of the community allowing him to retain editing priveleges? -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang; noticeboards, toxic as they can be, are generally places of last resort, which every editor has an established right to edit. If a behavioural pattern could be established, then it might be within the purview of the community to embrace such a proposition; but it hasn't been so it aint. And, after all, there's no necessity to force oneself through the morass. If someone doesn't like it: there's an encyclopaedia to build, somewhere. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a strong element of The Boy Who Cried Wolf about this. While we don't want DrChrissy to cry "wolf" all the time, there may come a time when they have a genuine issue to bring to a noticeboard and they should be freely available to do so. It's clear that there is a genuine problem between these two editors and giving JPS the freedom to bully and be uncivil at will to DrChrissy in the knowledge that the latter is banned from reporting it is a very bad idea. WaggersTALK 11:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. As we move towards the inevitable site ban, let's at least try and limit the amount of the community's time this editor wastes on the drama boards. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per above. This is the only way that we can deal with this disruptive editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is an absurd sanction proposal. Darwinian Ape ^talk 13:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I provided examples above where equally or *more* restrictive sanctions are currently in force. So its not that absurd. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Whether or not jps should be blacked or not, I do think that his behavior was very rude, uncivil, and (to be frank) very immature, especially towards DrChrissy. I do think that is was, at least, completely understandable for DrChrissy to report jps. I strongly oppose any sanctions against DrChrissy. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural comment while I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to restrict, I can't support it in its current form. Firstly disruption, as far as I can tell, has only occurred at AN and ANI. Also a mechanism should be given for overriding this restriction, as well as an appeal process. Therefore I would like to suggest the following counterproposal, which may be a compromise:

  Proposal: User:DrChrissy is community banned from opening or editing threads or at the following noticeboards: WP:AN and WP:ANI. Except for threads where he has been named as a party, or with prior written permission from an administrator. Appeals to this ban can only be made with permission from an administrator; after six months, and after that six months apart.

  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think ANEW would, in the least have to be part of it. The latest drama stems from DrChrissy showing up there to hassle jps when they hadn't been involved in the article in question at all. They went so far as to propose topic bans and other restrictions. It was plain silly and just a continuation of them gunning for jps any chance they get. That's why I think an interaction ban is in order as well. Capeo (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question: Would this leave me to contact Arbcom directly about issues such as harassment and incivility? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support a ban on participating in admin and behavioral noticeboard threads except when named a party, and a ban from opening threads unless cleared by an independent mentor. I've observed this user's contributions on various noticeboads for quite some time and noted that they are largely either completely extraneous, or needless fanning of flames. Nothing will be lost from their lack of participation in these venues. Examples:

• Chimes in to provide a definition of "waahmbulance" in a thread they have nothing to do with.
• Opines that a frivolous thread that didn't belong on that noticeboard, that they had nothing to do with, was closed too quickly.
• Keeps going after being informed (again) that the thread doesn't belong there.
• Comments on a complaint they have nothing to do with to criticize the OP's choice of venue and stir up emotions by calling them angry and threatening them with a boomerang.

These are from just the last week or so. If no ban is issued, they could benefit from asking themselves the following three questions before posting to any of these boards: "Does this need to be said? Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me right now?" --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

These criticisms are based totally on ABF.

My comment on "Whaaambulance" was to clarify the term. I had never encountered it before (perhaps it is a term widely used in the US, but it is not used here in the UK) and I was trying to save other editors the time of having to research the term.

My opining that a thread was closed too quickly is based on a WP:CBAN policy which states Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members.

"keeps going" Hardly disruptive

"Comments" I was trying to offer impartial advice to an editor. More seriously, and very seriously, you have accused me of threatening a boomerang. I typed specifically that I would not be issuing a boomerang. You are seriously misrepresenting my comment to the community and I invite you to strike it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Point of order There's no such thing as a thread that an editor- almost any editor- has 'nothing to do with.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I fail to understand the hostility and ABF of Laser-Brain - Another editor I think I have never interacted with before. (I reiterate, if it is questionable where/when I enter into noticeboard discussions, surely the same criticism should be made of other editors here.) However, Fortuna's point is totally valid. These are community noticeboards - not the privilige of just those directly involved. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • You should consider that when several editors who you have not interacted with before have very strong feelings about the time you waste at noticeboards that you have indeed "gone to the well" too often and exhausted the communities patience. Jbh^Talk 15:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose these boomerang threads except in clear cases of serious disruption. There have been a few boomerangs recently against people who brought things here in good faith. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for obvious reasons, but also in strong agreement with the admin SarahSV. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm just not seeing the egregiousness other people are. Good idea to open the thread? No. But I think this response is disproportionate. The introduction of random diffs to highlight DrChrissy commenting in threads he has "nothing to do with" is furthermore absurd (I think almost all of us have a time share in that glass condo). DrChrissy should heed the advice given here, and know that perhaps his judgment in what demands a noticeboard thread may differ from some other people's -- and that if it happens again, there may very well be a block or topic ban. ArbCom is still available if having trouble with another user and, after this, understandably gunshy to take it to a noticeboard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and I hate boomerangs in general. I know that I don't bring valid items to AN/I for fear of a boomerang that someone might be able to dig up. This place needs to be less bureaucratic. If this AN/I is without merit, then an admin can close it. But if there's merit, are we to say that users now have to suffer because they can't complain about it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I really don't like the precedent this sets and I don't see any clear evidence this user has been disruptive to the point of needing to be banned from participating in any boards. If he makes a post or comment that's inappropriate, it can be solved with a conversation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Per my comment above. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I would support good-faith advice to DrChrissy to just drop this stuff and move on. I'm tempted to say "why can't we all just get along?". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal

Because this is going nowhere, but some editors would support a less strict version of this, here's a new proposal (based off of MrJulesD's idea):

Dr. Chrissy is community banned from starting threads at ANI, AN, and ANEW unless given written permission from an admin. Dr. Chrissy is only allowed to comment in discussions where he/she is a party, unless given written permission from an admin. Dr. Chrissy is not permitted to file any charges against jps, unless given permission by an admin. If he/she needs to report something urgent, she/he should go to IRC, or email an admin. jps is warned, and is strongly advised to ignore Dr. Chrissy, even on noticeboards. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comments above. The same general reason for not sanctioning DrChrissy still applies here. Whether he should be blocked or not, jps's behavior was very rude and immature and DrChrissy's actions are understandable, in the least. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• E/C*Oppose for obvious reasons. If the proposals above were going nowhere, that is because the issuing of a boomerang was disagreed with. Simply making up more proposals is not going to change people's minds. They are disagreeing with a boomerang being issued, not the proposal. Your new proposal will be forcing editors to come back and ivote again - this might be considered by some as disruptive. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as- misguided, shall we be charitable and say? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC). _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support with appeals as I earlier stated "Appeals to this ban can only be made with permission from an administrator; after six months, and after that six months apart." --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose although I believe a "final warning" regarding disruptive edits, or, perhaps, discretionary sanctions allowing for sanctioning such conduct in the future, might not be untenable. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment In their haste to get any sort of sanction against me, this thread is descending into total chaos. Is the proposal "second proposal" being suggested as an alternative to my original proposal of sanctions for JPS due to protracted incivility (I actually made 3 proposals)? If so, evidence (diffs) must be provided as to why I should have these sanctions. Such diffs have been notable by their almost total absence in this thread. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as above, and a recommendation this thread be closed. (I would, however, support a proposal which requires DrChrissy to file noticeboard TPS reports in triplicate, printed with 2/3" margins and stapled in the upper-left corner, sent by carrier pigeon to the Internet's treehouse, being sure to mark boxes 14a-22d, but not 17b unless 19a is also checked. So if you could go ahead and do that, that'd be great...) sorry :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you have a preferred font? (joke) DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: It's not the font you gotta be worried about... _Muffled ^Pocketed

• Oppose. No-one has actually provided evidence of a pattern of sanctionable behaviour. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as ineffective, given the AN thread that preceded this one, in which there was a lot of advice not to initiate this one (yes, I know that suggests the existence of a problem that might require a boomerang, but I still do not believe that it rises to the level of requiring a boomerang). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per StAnselm, also I still think it's absurd to ban people from noticeboards, a perfect way to create catch 22 situations... Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure

Could an uninvolved admin please close this whole thing? There is no consensus for action against jps nor any boomerang action toward the filer. Now it's devolved into a series of proposals that are generating more heat than light. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support The nail has been firmly hit on the head. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. At last a proposal that I enthusiastically support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately. No sanction against jps is a no-brainer. If people had simply allowed the initial proposal for sanction against DrChrissy to run its course, we might have found out whether there was support for it or not, but now that everyone and their grandmother has decided to craft their own proposal, the water is so damn muddy that it will never be clear. I would recommend that the closer -- an admin, please -- let DrC know that he has dodged a bullet here. BMK (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment No bullet to dodge. Where were the diffs as evidence of my having been disruptive? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• The comment above speaks volumes. BMK (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Question to experienced admins This has clearly become so complicated that any sensible admin is going to shy away from closing it. In the interests of letting us all escape this mess with feathers ruffled but no serious damage, I would like to ask, if I were to withdraw my original proposal, would this allow an admin to close it on this basis of a closing statement "closed due to withdrawal by the OP", but with no further comment whatsoever regarding the participants on this thread. I really am trying to find an easy way out for the admins so I hope this is not mis-interpreted in any way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This has not been "complicated" in the way you're framing it. Your proposal re: jps was shot down, pure and simple, no question about it. What was left was what to do about you. At this point you can withdraw the complaint about jps, but that should not have anything to do with the second part: what, if any, sanctions should be heading your way. You were told not to make this complaint, and you did anyway; you've sowed the wind, now you must reap the whirlwind. BMK (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Note for readers: BMK is not an experienced admin, they are not even an admin. I asked the question to experienced admins to hopefully avoid any further disruption such BMK is immediately provoking. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to DrChrissy: You posed a question, you got an answer from an experience editor. That you didn't like the answer is clear, but you cannot control who answers your questions any more than you can set up rules for commenters on your noticeboards complaints, as you tried to do here. BMK (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's responses like this that are why this all came so close to boomeranging on you, DrChrissy. Common sense should tell you that if BMK wanting you sanctioned is "disruption" then you wanting jps sanctioned is as well. Clearly, despite advice given prior to that, you don't believe the latter is the case so why do you see the former being disruptive? You really need to consider the perception of your actions. We get it. You don't think you should have the sanctions you have. It seems clear you think some other editors should have gotten sanctions instead of you. That's not what happened though and continually trying to pursue what you may think is justice can simply end up looking petty. It's perceived as drama for the sake of drama in the eyes of a lot of editors. And, please, please, stop making appeals to authority. Stop pointing out who is or isn't an admin when someone disagrees with you. You do this far too often. You seem often to forget you're appealing to the community, not just admins, everyone. Coming off as belittling does your argument no favors. LaserBrain's advice above is very good. Next time you feel the urge to comment on something think it through. Is what you're about hit save on going to increase conflict or reduce it? Is anything good going to come of it or is just the continuation of past battles? Capeo (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both the original request and the backlash boomerang are suffocated in a quagmire of !consensus (the opposite of consensus). The "whirlwind" has blown itself out. Let's move on. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. @DrChrissy: Although Beyond My Ken is not an admin, Laser Brain is. It would be wise to listen to his advice, and stop WP:HOUNDing jps. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Offer Since no admins are stepping up I'm willing to do a non-admin closure before this thing descends further into the abyss. (This reminds me of why I turned in my admin badge all those years ago...) No offense taken if folks would rather I didn't. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you commented in this thread and participated in the discussion at User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#Blocked, I think it's better if you didn't. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Community Ban of DrChrissy

Bad faith proposal by probable sock of user with account
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We all know that DrChrissy is going to get banned sooner or later, with a good chance of sooner, so why not just cut to the cha Support as proposer. 207.38.133.122 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Bad faith. Admin please hat this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC) The proposer is clearly someone with an account. These are their first edits. I'm not waiting for an admin, I'm going to be bold and hat it myself.BMK (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting relief

I was topic banned on 1 February 2016 on Mudar Zahran article, I would like to request relief after I stopped editing article. I was topic banned when I was talking about the users in the discussion, when my words were misunderstood as accusations. 6 months were sanctioned and now more than 4 months have passed since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Links: User banned by @Drmies:for 6 mos. on 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) at User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 1#January 2016 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. HTH. Rgrds. --64.85.216.223 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the edit history of Mudar Zahran and recommend that you wait out the full duration of the six-month ban. There were some questions on whether the various parties, including yourself, were editing neutrally and as to which sources were good enough to use. Incidentally User:Drmies' semiprotection has expired and I can see how there might be a need to renew it. Since this ban is a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA, your appeal options require using the steps given at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, unless you can persuade Drmies personally. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have been subjected to other sanctions if I weren't editing neutrally, the topic ban came after my words in discussion on my talk page were misunderstood for accusations. I know and respect all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, this is shown in the fact that I have never been topic banned anywhere other than this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, six months is six months. I wouldn't have minded an early release for good behavior, so to speak, but what I see here is a failure to recognize what was the problem in the first place. Makeandtoss still does not seem to realize that it wasn't that their comments were misunderstood for accusations: they were, rather, understood as accusations because they were accusations. The link to the archived talk page discussion already provides enough evidence of that. BTW, I do not understand Zero0000's advice about CU and functionaries: there is no way anyone was ever going to run CU on SmartSE based on the wild allegations from Makeandtoss.

  The article that gave rise to this is contentious enough, of course, but I'm mostly worried about this lack of understanding--it's like someone making statements about race or ethnicity and then complaining that their comments were misconstrued as being about race or ethnicity. So I am not going to give this user the benefit of the doubt, not personally; if another admin looks into it and feels differently, they have my blessing.

  Drmies (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, my comments were in fact accusations, but that was before you warned me. After you warned me, I made a comment, which you understood as accusation. It wasn't meant as such but if you insist then I am ready to do whatever is necessary to prove that it won't happen again. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is very important to clarify that I didn't make any racial or ethnic comments, I was accusing a user of sockpuppetry. Then I was warned by Drmies to stop doing so, and while I was talking with him, my words were understood as another sockpuppetry accusation and I got topic banned. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Wikipedia:UAA has a massive backlog. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC on setting up a separate section for BLPs at requests for page protection

• Hey guys. I just thought I'll leave a note here about the above RFC. Those interested in commenting may leave their opposes, supports or comments here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Addition of a separate BLP protection section. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Suning Holdings Group

The page was keep on advertised by newly created user which claim themselves as staff of Suning, but falsely added wrong information (or intentionally mixing Suning Holdings Group and Suning Commerce Group). I knew it is hard to verify my citation and contribution on that page as most references were in Chinese, but i don't see any benefit to start edit war to new user who propaganda. Matthew_hk tc 18:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Help... my user page has been vandalized and protected by an overzealous editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I carefully read the policies for inclusion or exclusion of content on a user page. After deciding that I was well within my rights within the spirit and letter of said procedures and policies, I copied an article that I felt was being deleted in an attempt to overtly squelch a minority viewpoint - along with all relevant debates on that suppression - into my User page. I then started to build upon the removed article (while retaining the original as a comparison (for what collaborative editing could have produced if good faith were employed, essentially)) in hopes it could become a collaborative space in line with that stated element of User pages. And also to 1) preserve why I've left Wikipedia, 2) preserve a copy of the purportedly violative content to show the violation of Wiki's spirit and policies (in order to suppress said minority viewpoint); and 3) preserve the illegitimacy of the removal of the page in question and the incommensurability and disingenuous of the debates surrounding their removal.

Now an editor has removed that material. When I reverted it, he removed it again under the guise of disruptive editing and protected the page. This is totally outrageous and I am embarrassed to have to argue for control over my own user page - or even an explanation for what incorrect interpretation of policies/procedures would justify such an undue intrusion. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, no. Content deleted per a deletion discussion should not be copied and pasted into userspace. Userspace is not a magic shield that can protect you from the community's decision. That is really not how it works. And as clearly stated at WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE user pages should not be permanent long term storage of things that look like articles. In any case, your user page was semi-protected to stop disruptive edits from an IP. You should still be able to edit it. I really think you need to drop the stick here and move on. That article that you copied into your userspace was not appropriate for Wikipedia. It was a POVFORK and FRINGE material and belongs nowhere. Move on. --Majora (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As I noted here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Help..._My_User_Page_has_been_Vandalized_and_Protected_by_an_Overzealous_Editor) that is not a correct reading of the policies on User Pages - unless there is a page/info to which I have not yet been privy. I can start to quote more about how I meet criteria for what can go in User Pages, but it might be easier for you to just summarize the violation concisely. Elsewhere that'd be called the first step toward de minimus due process. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh and per the giant notice on the edit window and the notice at the top of this page you must notify people you decide to bring here. I have done that for you since you failed to do so. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Msheflin states above that the IP edits were really done by himself. Given that, the reason for the protection no longer exists, I have removed the protection. That being said, it is still inappropriate to keep copies of deleted articles in your userspace, for the reasons I stated in my AfD close, and again on my talk page, and as reiterated by User talk:Majora above. Please do not replace the deleted material. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and I understand how it might seem that I am trying to skirt the deletion. I assure you that's not the case. I also apologize for misunderstanding that he only locked out IP edits. And I apologize for my misunderstanding of how to use this board. I think you misunderstand the purpose of my user space. It was not to magically retain the article. The retention was merely as an example of what had been removed - I think - without cause. That's why I also retained the debates over removal, to demonstrate that the original consensus for exclusion (from an article) lacked any "legitimate concern" and then to show that the deletion discussion similarly lacked reference to the article itself and was simply blowback from the majority viewpoint. The 'disruptive' edit was clearly me on my cellphone reverting the vandalism, but again I apologize for this confusion. I will not be dropping the stick. I will instead be taking this to media sources. It's offensive to call this fringe. And I'll point out that my user page appeared to contain the only reference to the Guccifer leak on wikipedia, I think pretty clear evidence of a majoritarian sanitization effort. I truly hope I'm wrong on that. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Msheflin: I see you have once again restored the deleted material. So there is no further misunderstanding, let me be quite clear. Do NOT restore it again. If you do, you will be blocked from any further editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm very confused... And now glad I opened this. On what grounds will I be blocked from further editing of my user page? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, putting back that material would violate the three revert rule. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Very concise! I'll copy and paste it back in so as to not violate that rule. Or are you saying that you get a consensus say in what's include on my user page? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, you might find it informative that "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR ... 2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." So if you block me from editing my user page for a 3RR violation, we'll have a real issue... though it might support my original point about victimization. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of "do not include that content on your page" are you missing? This is approaching WP:NOTHERE territory and I wonder if the whole userpage is worthy of a WP:MFD deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand illogic used to impose hierarchy... What part of the internet revolution did you miss? Also... per disingenuous attempts to get me to shut up - you might note that "[b]ecause Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, the community tolerates a reasonable degree of non-encyclopedic content. Examples include certain humor pages, userboxes, and a wide range of user page designs." However, User Pages may be problematic if they "include social network pages and promotional material in user-space, negative pages about other users, 'laundry lists' of complaints, cliques and self-selecting or 'restricted membership' user-created bodies, and non-project material likely to prove overly disruptive or divisive." How is non-project material on my user page likely to prove overly disruptive/divisive? Or do you see other conditions in there that would exclude said content? Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have missed an important concept here. You stated above, I apologize for my misunderstanding of how to use this board. And, that's the problem. This is not a board. This is a serious project to build an encyclopedia. It's not a board, or a blog, or a social network, or a chat room, or a free web hosting service, or an outlet for political statements. Everything that happens and exists here, including user pages, is explicitly to support the goal of writing an encyclopedia. It's not your userpage, in the sense that you have some sort of ownership of it, or any rights to it. It is a tool which is intended to help build the encyclopedia. And that means there are policies about what's appropriate and not appropriate to do with it. Two specific policies that you were violating are described at WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have. I was apologizing to Majora for incorrectly using the Administrators' noticeboard... A serious encyclopedia would not have squelched this viewpoint. And as I quoted above, your attempt to fit those policies here is totally inappropriate and disingenuous. Quote from those pages what I am violating. But be careful, because the quotes you'll need actually touch upon affirmative rights to use User Pages as proto-article collaborations, and I will thus be responding with that quote. So your goal here is to outthink Wiki's policies knowing what my response will be. Your move, sir. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually you can just look at my petition for protection, which notes the explicit Wikipedia policies protecting the content on my User Page that you have disregarded. I assume you just weren't aware of them, so have a look through this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User:Msheflin). Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And you have been pointed to the policies which apply here - WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UP#COPIES, and WP:IAR. As I told you on RFPP, bothering by the book doesn't help on Wikipedia. To me, you're coming across as someone who's ragequitting because a consensus decision went against them and thus you are trying to cite specific policies to support your cause while at the same time outright disregarding the other policies that contraindicate what you're doing. Also, please bear in mind that we have policies with regards to minority/fringe viewpoints: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE cover these, and both essentially mean "They should be proportionately covered only insofar as reliable sources have covered them". —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can seem to you anything you like. Quote what I'm violating from those articles... None of the undue or fringe aspects apply to my user page. Also why would these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F . "Provided other users can quickly and easily find the pages they need, users may, within reason, freely organize their user pages as they choose." I accepted consensus excluded this info from the original Primaries article; I accepted the consensus deletion. I still feel those were illegitimate and my talk page was my attempt to record the process in hopes of returning to his issue later. Those are expressly protected by the spirit and letter of wiki policies. Full disclosure, by the way, I back all of this stuff up: http://2016-dem-primary-fraud.wikia.com/wiki/User_Page_Vandalism_and_Lockout

Moreover, WP:Fringe "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." This is my user page not an article. WP:Undue "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace". Neither apply to my talk page. I have also cited to the affirmative rights wiki grants me in this regard. This isn't just explicit, it also violates the collaborative, good-faith assuming environment wikipedia is supposed to embody. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have deleted the user's user page, which violates WEBHOST and also attacks other Wikipedia users. Msheflin, you are seriously risking a block here for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comment that I attacked other users is likely defamatory. It also, I assume, encompasses the transcripts of discussions. That is explicitly protected in User Pages; and it inherently attacks no one. If that is the justification for your removal, you may revert my page. If you intend to push that spurious and malicious line of thinking I may have to consider more litigious options. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point you will want to read WP:NLT as you have walked right up to that line and might have crossed over it. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a law student. That is not a legal threat. But accusing someone of attacking others - where false and malicious as here - is on the line of per se defamation. Do you guys read the stuff you cite to... "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Defamation) Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This editor has - yet again - restored the link that has been removed more than once. Clearly they are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't understand that I couldn't post a link on my talk page; this discussion has entirely concerned my User Page. Are you unfamiliar with your duty to assume good faith? Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive backlog at FFD

There is a massive backlog at FFD, many of which are very easy closures. It would be great if a few admins could clear these out. -FASTILY 09:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

30/500

Hey all,

I don't like jumping the gun, but decided to place Peter Nguyen Van Hung under 30/500 protection, believing to find a warrant in the phrasing "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied where authorized by the arbitration committee or in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption" in WP:30/500. (I'm not claiming to be ArbCom here, right--it's the second part.) This article has been the topic of a specific longterm vandal who very cleverly (yes, very! bravo!) figured out how to get around semiprotection. If you all disagree or if I done something wrong, feel free to correct. You may notice also that I set the clock for "infinite"; I have reason to believe that the Nipponese Dog is still in the prime of his life and has nothing better to do with it. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• And how about a nice rangeblock that includes 223.136.24.246 and 223.137.163.82? Drmies (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Drmies, that wording was introduced incorrectly in late May. The Community has still not decided on a mechanism for applying that protection level. You may be interested in WP:VPI#Extended confirmed protection policy, where we are working on ideas for an RFC. --Izno (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's all just too complicated for me. But if this is not OK, I'm changing to full protection--it's no skin off my back either way. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Probably for the best to change it to FP for the time being. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• That range is too big for one rangeblock. 172.58.216.96 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If this application is supported by the community, I have a small list of pages that could use 30/500 protection based on the activity documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002/Archive, where a couple other editors and I have been playing high frequency whack-a-mole with a particularly sneaky vandal for months. Given my experience there, I strongly support the use of 30/500 protection in cases where sockpuppetry has been highly persistent (longer than a month), highly disruptive (sneaky vandalism, BLP violations, or edits subject to WP:RevDel), and resistant to semi-protection. (I'll post this at the VPI Izno posted above as well). ~ Rob^Talk 16:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Most likely these articles can benefit from semi-protection, since Никита-Родин-2002 socks rarely survive to autoconfirmed. Could you please post the list at WP:RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Seriously, someone is obsessed with Rainbow Fish?? Drmies (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Ymblanter: Никита-Родин-2002 has evolved recently after we started consistently blocking his accounts and semi-protecting articles. He now regularly registers accounts, makes zero edits for a couple weeks, and then makes ten swift edits to userspace to gain autoconfirmed status. Given that he operates on a large range, it's not even easy for CheckUsers to catch the sleepers before they "activate". This is almost certainly going to ArbCom to authorize 30/500. I'm talking to an arbitrator about it now. ~ Rob^Talk 03:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• As Izno said, the wording introduced did not accurately reflect the relevant consensus. Izno has now clarified that the verbiage you quoted applies to discretionary sanctions only. However, Drmies, since Van Hung is still alive, you can impose 30/500 in line with policy under the BLP discretionary sanctions. So all is good, I think. BethNaught (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I was about to post a clarification request about this. The ArbCom agreed in May that:

"Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption."

I took that to mean that admins can use it in any topic area if the above applies. Have I misunderstood? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin: See a recent statement by kelapstick at User talk:Opabinia regalis, which seems to indicate that ArbCom did not intend to create policy on what this protection level can be used for. At the very least, his comment states the community can decide when it's used, although I doubt that aspect of the comment is official from the Arbitration Committee. ~ Rob^Talk 03:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. BethNaught, you mentioned the relevant consensus. Can you post a link to that discussion? The usual thing is that admins can decide when to apply any of the protection levels, so I think there would need to be a very clear consensus to the contrary. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• On the topic of the puppeteer I brought up, there's a discussion here at ANI on potentially applying 30/500 to a specific set of articles. ~ Rob^Talk 04:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Is protecting the article really the best solution? As far as I can see, the version that has been reversed 70 times so far has the same content, apart from the day and month of birth (current version only gives the year), the absence of redlinks, and a different picture. The only substantial difference is the removal of 6 references, 4 with broken links, one that imo fails verification, and one that seems doubtful. I know references shouldn't be removed simply because the link isn't working, but endless reverts or 30/500 protection doesn't help much either.

• Ref 1: (Helen Schwenken report 2011) failed verification: only mention of him is in the Acknowledgements section, as one of 48 persons being thanked. I don't see how "Especially, we want to thank [..], Fr. Peter Nguyen (Hsinchu Diocese, Taiwan)" supports the statement "Father Peter Nguyen Van Hung (chữ Hán: 阮文雄; born 1958) is a Vietnamese Australian Catholic priest and human rights activist in Taiwan."
• Ref 3: Not Found.
• Ref 4: no article (url just gives you the https://vietbao.com/ homepage).
• Ref 6: Not Found.
• Ref 7: Unable to connect.
• Ref 8: is a three question "interview" with Peter Nguyen Van Hung ("how would you describe the people of Taiwan?", "Taiwan's people are very friendly, very caring, but why is there still much abuse of foreign workers?", "which characteristics of the people of Taiwan impressed you most?") on coolloud.org.tw. Not sure the intro or his answers support the statement "His work has also made him the target of intimidation in Taiwan".
• Ref 2 (US state department) and Ref 5 (Taipei Times) are RS and have working links.

Maybe it would be more sensible to fix the broken links (and perhaps remove 1 and 8)?

• Working link for Ref 3: http://www.bhr.com.tw/web/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=399
• Working link for Ref 4: https://vietbao.com/a96701/moi-du-buoi-noi-chuyen-cua-linh-muc-nguyen-van-hung
• Ref 6 doesn't seem to be online anymore, article was published in the journal 法律扶助 (I think volume 8, google translation wasn't clear).
• Ref 7: http://news.pacificnews.org, which was Pacific News Service's official website, doesn't exist anymore (according to sourcewatch, "their website now forwards you to New America Media", but I guess that info is also outdated). Archived version of the page available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090222140648/http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=e71dd248a07f9623345db1a848943abb

I can't make the changes, I'm not extended confirmed... Prevalence 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Young Girls

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone remove my GAR of Young Girls. I have recently realized that there's not time remained to review it, as I'm already engaged in two fellow GARs and with personal project. Thanks, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Are you requesting speedy deleteion of: Talk:Young Girls/GA1? Please note it has been edited by @MarioSoulTruthFan: who you may want to check with first - then just throw a {{speedy|WP:CSD#U1}} tag on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: @Cartoon network freak: has checked with me, you can remove his GA review so that anyone else can have a go at it. Fine by me MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An overdue speedy delete for Chi Long Qua

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

I requested speedy delete for a mainspace article: Chi Long Qua as a hoax about nine hours ago. I am under the impression that hoaxes are to be deleted swiftly.

Also, I blanked the page because there was an image of someone - and I was concerned this could compromise some person in some way under BLP. Could an admin please go ahead and delete this page now. If the edit history is checked, and the text of the article is viewed, I am sure it can be seen there is no reason to keep this - whatever it is (certainly not an article). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted at 17:41 (not by me, just reporting it)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: As an aside, I'm not sure why you mentioned that hoaxes are deleted quickly. Attack pages get a privileged position at the admin dashboard, {{Admin dashboard}} but as far as I know hoaxes are treated as an ordinary CSD. Perhaps there are some admin who pay particular attention to the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as hoaxes cat, But I don't know that we have any institutional processes for treating these as more important than other CSD nominations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GS/SCW&ISIL clarification sought

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting within the scope of the 1RR general sanction as described here: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR.- MrX 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If ISIL has claimed responsibility, surely the article is related to ISIL, broadly construed... RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that ISIL is claiming credit (unconfirmed) and the gunman is reported to have sworn allegiance to them [80], I would say yes. BethNaught (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I must have been asleep when the community placed such broad-reaching sanctions.- MrX 19:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been numerous reviews of the sanctions after each attack like this, and every one has resulted in their maintenance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hold on: Are you folks really telling me that discussion is what is being claimed as consensus for casting such a wide net over so many articles? Please tell me that there was village pump discussion in which dozens of editors consented to these general sanctions.- MrX 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The net was cast prior to that discussion. That discussion merely clarified the scope as it was being enforced. The reason I opened that AN thread was because the "Syrian Civil War" sanctions were being used by administrators for anything related to ISIL, because ISIL was related to the SCW. This kind of extension was a bit strange, and I didn't understand it. So, I asked for clarification. It was granted. Indeed, subsequent reviews have maintained that scope. The most recent discussion was this one. General sanctions are never established at the village pump, always at AN. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - since i placed the SCW&ISIL notice on Orlando attacks article and have already provided warnings to some editors, i should add that the expansion of SCW scope to ISIL topics and later community agreement to keep those sanctions in-tact, provide a solid basis for inclusion of Orlando event within the scope of sanctions. One important thing - the sanctions are designated to reduce edit-warring and NOT to punish editors. We do have a notification policy for users first engaging on ISIL-related articles, so sanction application on new users comes only after a standard notice is made, in order to make clear what is and what is not allowed; when users are aware of the sanctions, they typically refrain from edit-warring; this is the purpose of such sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Something this far-reaching should definitely be discussed in a more public venue than AN. Is it reasonable to assume that that the one revert in this 1RR means a wholesale revert, and not simply inadvertently removing content in the course of copy editing? I'm all for solutions to prevent edit warring as long as they don't punish people editing in good faith. - MrX 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Object (as an editor to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting) - this is a developing news story and it is still not clear if this is ISIL related or not - there have been a lot of back and forth on the article, but most of it has nothing to do with ISIL topic - but about layouts, inclusion/non inclusion of certain lists, reactions, etc - so far consensus discussion has been working well on the talk page - but arbcom sanctions may cause some unintended editor slapping, afoul of WP:AGF. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Object Thin and dubious link to ISIL. All the article needs at the moment is sensible editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have removed the SCW/ISIL notice from the talk page. User_talk:NeilN#Edit_notice details why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think that we should remove the discretionary sanctions from this article. At best, it's tangentially related to ISIL and the Syrian civil war. I don't believe that the sanctions were intended to cover articles such as this. Mike V • Talk 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• In general, we should not be adding sanctions to articles that don't need it. At the most, edits associated with ISIL at the article can be under sanctions but not the whole article, especially one that is pretty fluid at this time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• There doesn't seem to have been an ISIL connection before the shooting took place.[81] Obviously ISIL has to be mentioned in it, but I'd treat the article as non-ISIL for the most part. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Note: I've unarchived the discussion since it hasn't been closed. If an uninvolved admin could decide the consensus or determine if further discussion is needed, that would be appreciated. Mike V • Talk 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove some rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Would an admin kindly remove my epcampus and eponline right please? I intended to use them, but have never got round to it. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin needed to close ANI discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone please close Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: topic ban for EllenCT before it slips off into a morass of tangents and the issues fail to be addressed again. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 In progress I'm reading through the comments now to determine consensus, and will close shortly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion from 3 days ago

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I requested that the redirect at Arrow (season 1) be speedily deleted almost three days ago, so it could make way for Draft:Arrow (season 1) to be moved there - would it be possible to bump this by posting it here? Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What a mess. Maybe it was left for three days because the edit history was split over three separate pages and it was difficult to figure out a coherent timeline for how the content developed. I think I've got it all now, but there are probably still attribution problems with content taken from the main article. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect article creation request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask to create a redirect to the page European Tour 2015/2016 – Event 2 from the page 2015 Paul Hunter Classic, which has been restricted to administrators. Paul Hunter Classic is the alternative name of the snooker event which used to run as a part of the European Tour. Redirects to the previous years' events (e.g. 2013 Paul Hunter Classic, 2014 Paul Hunter Classic) already exist. Vinitsky14 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Created — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mentor wanted

I do have Magog the Ogre as my current mentor. However, I feel that I need at least one or two more mentors. It doesn't have been permanent, although I like a long-term one. I need someone to help me construct backstory telling. If that's not possible, I need someone to help me construct a good conversation with others. If that's not possible, I need someone to help me have second thoughts before I do something that would be deemed drastic. I don't want to get blocked again. --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring is generally only effective with newer editors. You've had an account here for almost 11 years, and you've made more than 82,000 edits. What is a mentor going to teach you that you shouldn't have already learned yourself? BMK (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see that his specific request for help with "backstory telling" might be about something a lot of people might not know about. And I also know that the policies and guidelines have changed a hell of a lot since I've been an editor, which is a bit short of ten years now. If you want some help regarding specific articles, maybe the best and most effective way to get help is through an active related WikiProject, but, if you would prefer to drop me a line, I can't say I will necessarily respond very fast, but I can see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Putting up cynical resistance here is a terrible idea. We shouldn't be stigmatizing long-time editors asking for help with things they "should already know". I saw another editor catch flak at the teahouse recently for being an experienced user asking a Wikipedia 101 sort of question. Rather than being too experienced to learn anything from a mentorship, perhaps GH is experienced enough to know the ways a mentorship might be able to help him (e.g. in the ways loosely outlined in his original message). Maybe it won't be fruitful, but it certainly can't hurt and everybody else stands to benefit. As for whether this is the place to ask, vs. the Adoptee's Area, well, that's a separate thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree, If an editor doesn't have a pretty thorough understanding of the workings of Wikipedia after 10+ years and 80K+ edits, then the chances that a mentor is going to help them get it are pretty slim. The editor would probably be better off doing some soul searching and deciding if they're really cut out for editing Wikipedia. Despite the propaganda ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit"), editing Wikipedia is, in fact, not for everyone, and we actually have too many editors (some of them fairly high-profile) who don't understand what the purpose of editing here is, and indulge in all sorts of irrelevant activity which just absorbs energy unnecessarily. Whether this editor is of that sort, I don't know -- I'm not that interested to do the research to find out -- but anyone who's been here for a while has got to admit that this request is a bit bizarre. BMK (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: What is "backstory telling"? Rgrds. --64.85.216.134 (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, while were at it, I'd like somebody to help me figure out how to promote some actor BLP articles to 'B'-class (Yes, I've read the B-class guidelines, but I found them to be as "clear as mud" enough that I'd like to work with somebody who's done it before to work with me on one or two so I can get the hang of it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

George, I'm also puzzled about what "backstory telling" is. If it has to do with (say) writing articles about movie sequels where you have to summarize what happened in earlier movies, the obvious suggestion is look at existing articles which deal with that problem and follow their examples. If it has to do with Wikipedia dispute resolution, then take a simpler approach and stay out of disputes! Wikipedia's bureaucracy is mostly a bad thing, so don't amplify it. Edit neutrally; don't do drastic things; don't take Wikipedia nonsense too personally; turn off your computer for the night if you find yourself getting upset; and either co-exist with editors that annoy you, or switch to some other area of the encyclopedia where they're not active. Take note that an awful lot of self-appointed "guardians of the project" are actually destructive and incompetent, so try not to be like them. Instead, figure out who the really good editors are, and follow their example instead. Is that anything like the kind of advice you wanted? 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate, I want to retell any situation that I am in for background, like conflicts with editors. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I had guessed something like that. My advice is to focus more on staying out of conflicts. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, the article quality pages have examples of articles that are rated A class, B class, etc. If you want to bring an article to B class, then get it to what you subjectively think meets the standard of the example article, then ask a relevant wikiproject for a B class review and deal with any issues people raise. Don't worry too much about the unclear instructions. It's all pretty loose anyway. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

George, the whole mentoring thing has been tried to destruction with you. I was the guy who convinced Elen to rescind your original indefinite block with mentoring conditions. I spent countless hours (and I mean countless) trying to help you. You never learnt a thing, if I'm honest. You seem fundamentally incapable of understanding that you might be wrong sometimes, and backing off. BMK is correct. If it hasn't been fixed in 10 years it's not going to get fixed now. Sorry if that sounds harsh. Maybe this just isn't what you should be doing. Begoon ^talk 19:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see a general principle where an experienced editor might request a mentor. If an editor has spent all their time in one subject area, let's say science, but then decides to start editing in another subject area, perhaps films, the editing style, information boxes and even reliable sources can change dramatically. In these circumstances, a mentor might be useful, however, I know nothing about the specifics of this request. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Per Begoon, there comes a point when AGF reaches a limit; the mentoring thing has been going on for (literally) years now, and you still have just as much of an "anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy" mentality as you ever did. I would urge anyone considering becoming your mentor to read this old version of your talkpage from the linked point to the end to get a feel for exactly what they'd be taking on. ‑ Iridescent 20:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The root of the issue is this: Once George gets a "bee in his bonnet" about an "issue", any "issue", he cannot rest or drop the stick, ever. What makes this especially frustrating is that often the "issue" seemingly exists only in George's mind. His communication skills are extremely poor, so he is often unable to make others understand. This is compounded by the fact that he takes IDHT to astonishing levels, only "hearing" that which he thinks agrees with him. Many of the scuffles he gets into are over utterly trivial matters, but, like a dog with a bone, he is unable to let go. He doesn't really see mentors as people who can help him change this behaviour, but rather as people he can turn to in order to help him "win" whatever the latest bunfight is. With the best will in the world, I don't see any prospect that this will change - sorry. Begoon ^talk 05:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hmmmm... I've interacted with George a little and he has seemed congenial. Mostly it has been him asking for help re-writing something. Some I would do, some not but he has always been nice. I don't know enough of the politics to help with what he wants, I just wanted to chime in to say not all of his interactions are bad. Jbh^Talk 23:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, ok, but read from here to the end of that page, if you dare. 31,000 bytes of entirely unnecessary goalpost shifting, filibustering and wikilawyering to try and include a totally superfluous image of a vinyl single label because George had decided that was how it should be, but nobody else agreed. I'm not even trying to include the thousands of words on the forum-shopping discussions spewing off from that. And I didn't have to dig, or try to find this - this is SOP when George "needs" to be "right". Begoon ^talk 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Youch... just scanning that gave me a headache... Jbh^Talk 18:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Closing

This is an RfC about Wikidata fields in infoboxes. The 30-day period will run at 20:59 (UTC). I'll start work on closing this one at that time. Co-closers are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've boxed it up and asked for additional comments. Co-closers still welcome, for now. Unwatching here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Dank, that looks like some serious work and I wish you the best with it. When you're done, pick up your shirt from Jimbo's administrative assistant (I got you XL, with V-neck; hope that's OK.) Drmies (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Flame-retardant, I hope. I'll start dribbling out what I've got and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. in a few days. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Crikey Dank, this sounds more daring than wrestling crocodiles naked. I wish you well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Warm yourself up first with negotiating Kim Jeong Un out of his nuclear arsenal, then you might be ready to tackle infoboxes. (People around here get exorcised over the most trivial things.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, those replies were good enough to quote in my closing :) I went with something minimal, because consensus seems to be developing to re-start the RfC with a broader question, and I didn't want to get in the way. (Self-preservation had nothing to do with it. I think.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank, the other thing is just a discussion, not an RfC or anything that should get in the way. Lots of people took a lot of time to comment in the RfC, so it needs to be closed properly. If you prefer not to do it, that's fine, but in that case we need to ask someone else. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, wait, I see, I'll add what I think you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that needed to be more clear. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank, we need an impartial admin to read the RfC and summarize the consensus. That's all. The consensus seemed clear when I last looked at it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've said many times, anyone can challenge my impartiality or a closing result at any time. But maybe we can talk this out. Here's the problem: Wikipedians have a low tolerance for long closing statements. I've generally found that I can communicate two, maybe 3 things that I really want to communicate. I could go into much greater detail ... I've put a lot of work into this so far ... but then people would miss the things that I want them to hear the most. Does that make more sense? - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, I added a point that I hope better addresses your concern. I have minor regrets about lengthening the statement, but it's probably best since you're raising these questions. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Long closing statements are way better than inaccurate or incomplete closing statements. I've closed discussions with three paragraph closing statements before when it warranted it. (Not saying your close was inaccurate/incomplete, just offering general advice). ~ Rob^Talk 00:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope the point I added makes it clearer ... does it? Sarah? - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank, we need an admin to read the consensus of the RfC. Not a long statement, not his own opinion, just someone who will read the consensus. Would you please revert yourself so that we can ask someone else to close it? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see what Sarah's saying, but she obviously had strong feelings about this one, and I can't change a close to suit one side or the other. Anyone who considers themselves neutral ... did I stray too far outside the usual protocol here? Do you see my point about not wanting to make things worse, for no gain? - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank, I don't know what you mean about making things worse. The usual procedure is to ask on WP:AN/RFC for admins, usually a group of three in a situation like this. For some reason you stepped forward and did it alone, or rather didn't do it, and now we have a mess. I would like us to return to the status quo ante and follow the usual procedure by asking for three uninvolved admins to weigh the consensus. Please revert yourself and let that happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That's incorrect. See these 3 edits to ANRFC, repeated at the top of this thread. My invitation for co-closers has been open since before the 30 days ran, and is still open, but the window is closing fast. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank, the problem was that you decided to do it. Usually there is a discussion on AN/RFC at the end of the RfC, several people volunteer, other people say yes or no, etc. You bypassed that procedure, and now we have a non-close close, which means the RfC was a waste of time. I don't know what the procedure is for objecting to a close, but please don't make me go through it. Pinging Iridescent in case he has a suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone agree that I violated procedure here? - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the offer open for co-closers for a full week from when I posted it, so, until Tuesday, 13:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC). Also, given that there's a challenge, I need to be more conventional, and I'm going to go add more conventional elements as an addendum now. Sarah, I hope you know that I respect you immensely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Dank has violated the spirit of policy here, regardless of whether he's technically violated the letter of it. There are multiple questions which need to be asked, yet this RFC is conflating "is Wikidata reliable enough to use?" with "how should we be using Wikidata?", so participants are talking at cross purposes and unclear as to what they're actually supporting/opposing. I agree that there needs to be a structured step-by-step "Do we want to use Wikidata?", "What are we going to use it for?", "How are we going to implement it?" multi-stage process, regardless of the timesink it will become. A rushed all-or-nothing decision will either lead to what fr-wiki has done, disabling Wikidata importing completely, or to bulk importation of potentially problematic information. ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank and Iridescent, I'm asking about two separate issues here. First, I can't see where Dank come to be chosen to close the RfC. I would prefer that it be closed by three uninvolved admins after a request here or at WP:AN/RFC, which is how these complex RfCs are normally handled (which avoids the thing resting on one person's opinion).

Second, the question the RfC asked was: "Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out?" That's the issue people replied to, and so the closers need to summarize whether the consensus was for opt-in or opt-out, rather than deciding that in fact people didn't know what they were saying. I would like to go ahead and ask for three closers. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Curly Turkey. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't see how you could have found someone better placed to close this. Yes, in an ideal world it would have multiple closers, but for well-documented reasons most admins are going to be very unlikely to volunteer to touch anything relating to either Wikidata or infoboxes. (Most admins have perfectly understandable reasons for not wanting to touch something with a better-than-evens chance of winding up as a full Arbcom case, and with a damn-near-certain chance of degenerating into mud-flinging—picture this thread on my talkpage with thirty participants rather than four.) Realistically, you're unlikely to find three people who have the technical knowledge to understand the arguments on all sides, the Wikipedia "clout" to make a decision stick, and the desire to get involved in a discussion about infoboxes, who haven't already expressed a decision on the topic.
Yes, the question the RFC asked was "Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out?", but that's a question to which there's no sensible answer. Since we don't know the quality of Wikidata's data compared to Wikipedia's, it's literally impossible to make an informed decision on the matter, so unless we take the French route and cut ourselves loose from Wikidata altogether, "kick the can down the road" is the only way Dank could have closed the RFC since it's obvious that there's no consensus for either position. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've followed a lot of RFCs over the years (I look at far more than I participate in), and I do not agree that the "usual procedure" is to have a discussion in which three admins among the many volunteers are selected for writing a closing statement. We rarely have that kind of luxury.

I think Iridescent is correct: it's hard enough to find anyone to deal with any 23,500-word-long discussion in which all participants sincerely believe that they're defending the project. When you add the complexities of infobox wars and Wikidata (and a significant fraction of editors disagreeing about whether "opt-in" or "opt-out" means "each template, case-by-case", "each parameter, case-by-case", or "each article, case-by-case") – well, Dank asked for help, and I was not surprised that there were zero volunteers interested in helping him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion certainly went off the rails, and I tried several times early on to bring it back on topic: whether Wikidata should be allowed to fill in fields left out of infoboxes (which came up when ISBNs started appearing mysteriously in book infoboxes). I don't think enough people responded to that question to determine consensus. Sarah's concerns have strengthened my feelings that WD should be opt-in, but the fact is I was explicit that the question was not about the reliability of the data.

Let me point out that when I opened the RfC I had no idea that Wikidata had an Infobox-like legacy of acrimony behind it. I assumed the consensus was that it was a Good Thing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

WAID, we often arrange several closers for contentious RfCs or for issues that will affect everyone. I can only find two RfCs on allowing infoboxes to fetch text from Wikidata, one in 2013 and this recent one, both closed by one person. In the 2013 RfC, 28 people supported allowing it. That's the basis for this going ahead. See User:SlimVirgin/Wikidata RfC for the figures. If there have been other RfCs, please let me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Triumvirate closings" are requested more often than they happen. For example, we had a team of three when "verifiable, not truth" was removed from the first sentence of WP:V, the nearly interminable Pending Changes disputes, a few situations that ArbCom requested, and I believe some of the RFA reform discussions. Offhand, I don't remember a team of three admins closing anything this year. They're fairly rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is that we don't really have consensus for the current Wikidata situation. In 2013, in a confusing RfC, 24 out of 38 people supported option 4 (to allow infoboxes to fetch data "when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field") and another 5 for option 3 or 4. That was accepted as consensus for option 4. In 2016, in a confusing RfC, 28 out of 55 people want an opt-in instead. That is regarded as no consensus and the number of participants too low "for such a big question." SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the community isn't done with this subject. Some parts of the community, considering some particular uses, are happy with Wikidata in infoboxes. Other parts of the community, considering other particular uses, are unhappy with Wikidata in infoboxes. But this lack of consensus is an argument in favor of Dank's closing statement: let's not make any firm rules today, because we're not completely sure what we want. Let's neither issue a blanket ban on Wikidata content nor give carte blanche to Wikidata content. Let's move slowly, case-by-case, using good judgment and a willingness to experiment (and to revert those experiments that fail).

In the meantime, anyone who is concerned about Wikidata should go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and tick the box next to "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist". Maybe we should even make it the default, so that more people see these changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WAID, that's an attempt to force editors to become involved in another project. The point is that infoboxes have been edited to fetch data from another project, one that does not require sources. Therefore, WP:V is being violated. There is no consensus to suspend WP:V (and therefore WP:NOR and WP:BLP) for infoboxes. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:V is only violated when it's not possible to provide a source. It is not violated when the source hasn't been cited already – especially for content that we've never required a source to support (e.g., official websites, photos from Commons, ICD-10 codes, and more).

I don't think that watchlisting Wikidata would force editors to become involved in another project, even if we agreed that being involved in other projects, such as Commons or Wikidata, were a bad thing. My point instead was that if you enabled Wikidata changes on your watchlist, then a whole category of complaint (i.e., "Wikidata is bad because I didn't notice the changes to 'my' article on Wikidata") would evaporate, and more pointfully, editors would be notice the changes that affected this project, and adjust the infoboxes at this project, so that "their" articles displayed the information that they believed was best. I really can't see a downside to this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: the downside is that it's more unpaid work. What you say about V isn't correct. NOR is violated when no source exists. V is violated if no source is provided for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. That Elie Wiesel's Night is a novel is likely to be challenged, given that the author says it is not. For some reason a Wikidata bot retrieved that it's a novel from the Italian Wikipedia, overriding the local decision not to fill in the genre field.

As things stand, the only way to avoid a future occurrence of the Night situation is to fill in every single field of every single box in every article that uses them with "X =" to avoid Wikidata adding unsourced and perhaps inaccurate text. We would also have to watch every infobox in case new fields were added so that we can add those too to every single article. And we're in this position because 29 people voted for it in a poorly attended RfC three years ago. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you're "in this position" is because someone decided that genre was a good field for {{Infobox book}} to pull from Wikidata. So far, AFAICT, this specific decision has proven to be a less-than-perfect idea in exactly one (1) article, about a book that uncomfortably straddles several genres (including "novel", the choice supplied via Wikidata, a claim that is not only verifiable but even sourced in the article itself), and where the problem could be fixed with a ten-second edit. On the other hand, it may have saved us a lot of unpaid work in the other 37,000 articles that use this template.

I'm sure that improvements are needed there; for example, that infobox should probably automagically suppress ISBN fields, even if they're supplied locally, for any book whose original publication date pre-dates the creation of ISBNs. But I'm not seeing a good reason to believe that a imperfect or incomplete information in one or two parameters, on less than 1% of affected articles, is proof that Wikidata's content shouldn't be used anywhere, or that automagically providing information at thousands of articles, and removing it from 1% or less, actually results in a net increase in "unpaid work" compared to manually adding that same information to 99% of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The link you offered above is someone discussing how provocative it is to call Night a novel. That kind of discussion is why I removed the genre field from the infobox. The point is that Wikidata is adding unsourced text to articles in violation of the sourcing policy. I don't know where you get the under one percent figure from, and the argument that we would otherwise be adding things manually is a very poor one. We should be working together to minimize the negative effects of this, rather than arguing back and forth. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And the reason that the source – NB, which is cited in the article itself, so this is not "unsourced" by any reasonable definition – discusses that point is because a source actually did call Night "a novel", which means that the Wikidata content is both "verifiable" and "sourced" (in the article here). I will agree with you that it is not "neutral" (i.e., it puts UNDUE emphasis on that contested description), but I cannot agree with you that it is "unverifiable".

I would like to work together to get the best net improvements to our articles, taken as a whole, rather than exclusively focusing on the negatives. After all, we could permanently stop all bad edits by removing the Edit button, but that's not what's best for the project overall, is it? I believe that reasonable people may disagree on this point, but I'm personally willing to accept small improvements in tens of thousands of articles at the cost of a small amount of extra work in a few. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) I think these comments above are getting off-track and personalized. Night is a good example to use because it demonstrates how something can go wrong, and when testing it's always useful to try to break the code rather than trying to say it works most of the time. The instances where it doesn't work are the ones that need to be worked out. Beyond that, of course we can make small improvements to thousands of articles but some topics simply require more thought and sensitivity. The Holocaust will always be one of those topics. It requires more care, thought, etc., regardless of who's working the article. This is not an issue of OWN but rather an issue of getting it right. We have a strong responsibility to do so given that the articles we edit are so widely read - particularly one such as this which is required school reading in the US. Victoria (tk) 19:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: proof that Wikidata's content shouldn't be used anywhere—how is "opt-in" supposed to be interpreted as "shouldn't be used anywhere"? That's an awfully hysterical misrepresentation of the RfC question. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The responses to the RFC question do not have a strong correlation with your question. Statements along the lines of "We shouldn't use any Wikidata content in any infobox until they have adopted a Verifiability policy that's at least as strong as ours" amount to "shouldn't be used anywhere". Those statements have nothing to do with "opt-in" or "opt-out". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin and hardly ever post here, but this is an enormous issue that needs to be addressed and I think it's best to do so with baby steps until we have a full understanding of all of the ramifications. I don't feel that will happen swiftly, nor do I have a sense of where that should happen.

  I don't think this particular RfC should be negated. The issues raised in this RfC are real and need to be addressed now, before we address the larger issue of wikidata and WP:V, hence baby steps. There's really no reason not to begin with the ability to opt-in to prevent situations where "wrong" ISBNs are being introduced. To digress, the issue of ISBNs is thorny by itself. Imagine the number of ISBNs for a volume such as one of the Harry Potter books which has a ridiculous number of editions and ISBNS: English, American, foreign language, hard cover, soft cover, and so on. Currently we use the ISBN for the first edition, but with wikidata there doesn't seem to be a way to throttle changes, and there should be.

  In terms of WP:V, Sarah's example about Night (book) is extremely relevant, goes far beyond the issue of mere genre (although all kinds of disputes can arise over genres), but goes directly to the question of WP:V. Did the author write a memoir about events s/he experienced and knows to have happened, or did the author write a piece of fiction, a novel, and make up events? It's a nuanced situation, perhaps more clear to some than others, but not something that should change without verification. In that sense, I think for short term it wouldn't be the end of the world to give some control to en.wp and editors here who are curating articles.

  In the long term we have to investigate how to apply WP:V to all the data that's made its way to Wikidata before it gets disseminated out. My sense is that with 5 million articles only on en.wp and however many millions elsewhere, it won't be easy but it is necessary. After 15 years of populating the internets with WP articles, with all the mirror sites that now exist and have taken their data from our articles, it won't be as simple as googling to verify because there is no way of knowing whether the google result is returning a false positive.

  Also, I don't think this RfC is at all about the dreaded infobox issue, but rather about having data appear and lacking some sense of control about where, how, when it appears. This is a situation that could occur in navboxes, categories, anywhere and shouldn't be reduced simply to another acrimonious infobox fight.

  I do see Iridescent's point of view that kicking the can down the road is one way to go, and I don't think we're in a situation where we can throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. But my sense is that this needs a lot of thought, a lot of discussion, a lot of time, and in the meantime handing some control with the opt-in position wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Anyway, apologies for the long post. Just my many cents. P.s If I've posted in the wrong place, I don't mind if someone moves the post elsewhere.

  Victoria (tk) 17:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Victoria, thank you for explaining the key issues so clearly. It seems that Verifiability has been suspended for infoboxes if they are edited remotely via Wikidata. This has serious BLP consequences, apart from anything else. (Pinging Newyorkbrad who has mentioned that aspect elsewhere.)

Dank decided that the recent RfC resulted in no consensus, but this has been interpreted to mean no consensus to stop or control this, rather than no consensus to allow it to continue. But surely the sourcing policies take priority. And the number supporting opt-in in the recent RfC equals the number who supported the current situation (option 4) in 2013. (RfC figures at User:SlimVirgin/Wikidata RfC.)

How to proceed? Blueboar has talked about holding another RfC. If we do that, we should agree to have it closed by three uninvolved experienced editors/admins, and also make sure it's widely advertised, including on WT:V, WT:BLP and WT:NOR, pages watched by editors who work on sourcing. I'm pinging people who've discussed this above and elsewhere: @RexxS, Curly Turkey, Drmies, and Ritchie333: @WhatamIdoing, Iridescent, BU Rob13, SchroCat, and Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to agree on having three people close the RFC. I also don't think that we should agree to have only one RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV, I'm unsure how to proceed. I think Wikidata represents a fundamental shift in our workflow, i.e. instead of volunteer editors for each separate language wiki finding data points (presumably from reliable sources), the data is sucked into Wikidata from any of the wikis and then disseminated out to all of them. It's potentially nifty and cool with lots up upsides. The biggest downside is the quality of the data, and given Wikipedia's reputation for unreliability, particularly among educators, my biggest concern is that we find a way forward to get this right. I don't think it will be easy; I think it will involve a lot of discussion and probably more than one RfC, which is what I meant about taking baby steps in my long comment above. It feels like each issue we raise and discuss leads to another and another, so it's maybe best to parcel the issues out one at a time, as we work to define them, so as to avoid being overwhelmed and discouraged. Victoria (tk) 23:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Victoria, Wikidata's failure to put strong sourcing policies in place is puzzling. If it had a reputation for disseminating well-sourced text, most of the objections would fade away. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV: that's an interesting comment, because of the suggestion that's been made by a couple of people that we only accept data from Wikidata that is well-sourced. If that were possible, what would your reaction be? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I would like to see three things : (1) an RfC that results in clear consensus from the community that they want this; (2) that Wikidata put a sourcing policy in place that is as strong as Wikipedia:Verifiability; and (3) assuming it's technically possible, a way to make remote changes to an infobox show up in the article history, so that we're not expected to watchlist another project. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just with regard to your second point, I argued at the Village Pump that for en-wiki to be satisfied with the verification policy of Wikidata only requires that we are satisfied with the verification status of the data we include. In other words, if we have an inclusion method that does not include certain data, it doesn't matter to us if the excluded data is poorly sourced. Can I take you don't agree? That even if we were able to exclude data (e.g. anything unsourced) we would still need to determine that Wikidata's overall verification policy was of similar strength to ours? I have been hoping that the distinction I'm trying to draw here can be the basis for a compromise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike, I would need to know more about what you have in mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It is possible for the code that fetches data from Wikipedia to do so conditionally. For example, we could specify that a data item requires a source or it will not be fetched. Sources for data items exist right now, so this is perfectly feasible technically. The source might be something like "Imported from Italian Wikipedia" (as is the case for the genre of Night) so we would need to exclude those sources (if you will, we would blacklist data simply imported by bot). If we were to do this, then any inaccurate information that made it across the link would be sourced inaccurate information; and, presumably, we should investigate it in case the source tells us something new. This would have prevented the genre showing up in Night (book). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike, if that can be done, and if the requirement is that sources be reliable, it would help a great deal. It's obviously problematic for a bot to lift text from the Italian Wikipedia about a book in English so that it's added to a featured article about that book on the English Wikipedia, just as it would be vice versa. Requiring that only reliably sourced data items are fetched would cut out a lot of the problems. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV, I'm glad we agree on that. I think it would be useful to have a draft version of an infobox that included data using this approach, which we could point to in further discussions as a concrete option. It was Izno who told me that this was feasible, and if I'm not mistaken, RexxS was working on something along these lines, so I'm pinging them for comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike, sourcing apart, another issue is that the edits are not sensitive as to how appropriate they are. It makes no sense to add Wikidata (even if sourced) from the Italian WP to an English featured article about an English-language book. It might make sense to add it to an article about an Italian-language book, though probably not to a featured article, where basic issues such as infobox contents can assume to have been considered, although that might depend on how old the article is and how well it's being maintained.

A human editor would know this, for the most part. A bot doesn't know it, and nothing stands between the bot's edits to Wikidata and those edits appearing on the English Wikipedia. A level of control is needed at article level, so that we can say "Wikidata = no" in the infobox when an article becomes featured, or if it contains complex issues that are hard to explain in one word (the memoir v novel issue in Night is one example). SarahSV ^(talk) 19:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV, let's take "genre" as an example property, and let's pick a work for which the genre is uncontroversial; say, Murder on the Orient Express, which is given as "crime novel" in the infobox in that article. If the genre is imported from the Italian Wikipedia, I would expect the result to be in Italian, and not of interest to us anyway. This could be bypassed by having properties such as en-genre to capture the genre in each language, or perhaps having properties of the genre properties that give different language versions. However, in general I think we should be excluding anything for which the sourcing is "Imported from xx Wikipedia", simply because that's just not a source; it's a pointer to a possible source. If we do that, the concern you raise partially disappears. But now suppose someone adds the information that Murder on the Orient Express is a crime novel to Wikidata, overwriting the source field "Imported from Italian Wikipedia" with a full {{cite book}} reference. The information may have started as an import from another Wikipedia, but now it's properly cited. I'd say at that point we should be willing to consider letting that data in; we can no longer say it's cited from another language Wikipedia -- it's now just "cited". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work like that, Mike. The value for genre at Murder on the Orient Express (Q845889) on Wikidata is detective novel (Q20664817)}, but we only see "Murder on the Orient Express" and "detective novel" because we are on the English Wikipedia. On the German we'd see "Mord im Orient-Express (Roman)" and "Detektivroman", so it doesn't matter too much where the information is imported from, the translation of the labels can be altered or added by anybody. When you add a property on Wikidata, you most often have to give its value as another Wikidata item (QID), and that same QID has multiple labels that allow people on different language Wikipedias to see the value in their own language. Does that make sense? --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

[[User:RexxS|RexxS}}, yes, absolutely; thanks for the clarification. I should have realized that something as basic as localization would be built in. Is my underlying statement correct, though? That is, once the data is cited (in whatever format we agree is sufficient to say that) we don't have any reason to be concerned about the original source it was imported from. At that point the property=value statement has a source, and meets en-wiki's definition of WP:V, so should be acceptable here. Correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Break

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281

Author	George Orwell
Pages	92

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281

Author	George Orwell
Pages	92

On the right is a demo of an infobox that can fetch half-a-dozen specified fields from Wikidata. The first one gets values where they exist from Animal Farm (Q1396889). The second one only gets values for Animal Farm that are sourced to something other than a Wikipedia. Only fields that are on the 'whitelist' will be fetched. Below is a complete list of the values and references available in Wikidata for Animal Farm

Property	Value
distribution format	1. hardback -- NO REFS 2. paperback -- 978-0-14-000838-8 -- NO REFS
Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID	1. topic/Animal-Farm -- Animal Farm -- NO REFS
form of creative work	1. novella -- NO REFS 2. novel -- NO REFS
NooSFere book ID	1. 3335 -- NO REFS
named after	1. barnyard -- NO REFS
number of pages	1. <quantity> 92 -- United Kingdom ++ Ref = https://altamontenterprise.com/opinion/columns/field-notes/09212023/imagine-boot-stamping-human-face-ever, 20 October 2023
Bitraga work ID	1. 4296 -- NO REFS 2. 238 -- NO REFS
follows	1. Coming Up for Air -- NO REFS
BBC Things ID	1. a530916b-b148-4998-a382-08d8abb09c1e ++ Ref = BBC Things
BookBrainz work ID	1. 691ee8e0-01a8-4a6b-b17f-cf8a919f865b -- NO REFS
Bibliothèque nationale de France ID	1. 11985856j -- NO REFS
main subject	1. totalitarianism -- NO REFS
topic's main template	1. Template:Animal Farm -- NO REFS
publisher	1. Harvill Secker -- NO REFS
narrative location	1. England -- NO REFS 2. Manor Farm -- NO REFS
genre	1. roman à clef ++ Ref = Italian Wikipedia 2. satirical fiction -- NO REFS 3. fable ++ Ref = Japanese Wikipedia 4. dystopian fiction -- NO REFS
described at URL	1. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/animal-farm/animal-farm-at-a-glance ++ Ref = https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/animal-farm/animal-farm-at-a-glance, Animal Farm: At a Glance | CliffsNotes, 6 July 2022
award received	1. Retro Hugo Award for Best Novella -- The Man Who Sold the Moon, 30 August 1996, 1996, 1946, Killdozer! ++ Ref = https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1946-retro-hugo-awards/ 2. Modern Library 100 Best Novels -- NO REFS 3. NPR Top 100 Science Fiction and Fantasy Books -- 13 -- NO REFS 4. Prometheus Award - Hall of Fame -- The Machine Stops, 2011, George Orwell, No Truce with Kings -- NO REFS
National Library of Spain ID	1. XX2115710 -- NO REFS
WikiKids ID	1. Animal_Farm_(boek) -- NO REFS
author	1. George Orwell ++ Ref = 0-89356-451-6
first line	1. Mr. Jones, of the Manor Farm, had locked the hen-houses for the night, but was too drunk to remember to shut the pop-holes. -- NO REFS
Internet Archive ID	1. animalfarmnotes00alle -- NO REFS 2. animalfarmfairys00orwe_0 -- NO REFS
TV Tropes ID	1. Literature/AnimalFarm -- NO REFS
image	1. Animal Farm - 1st edition.jpg -- First edition cover -- NO REFS
country of origin	1. England -- NO REFS
derivative work	1. Animal Farm -- NO REFS 2. Animal Farm -- NO REFS
J9U ID	1. 987007592630705171 ++ Ref = Virtual International Authority File
Freebase ID	1. /m/0hhy -- NO REFS
NNL item ID	1. 001139674 -- NO REFS 2. 002126341 -- NO REFS 3. 001102737 -- NO REFS 4. 001139679 -- NO REFS 5. 002562608 -- NO REFS
Goodreads work ID	1. 2207778 ++ Ref = Goodreads, 18 September 2020
topic's main category	1. Category:Animal Farm -- NO REFS
Quora topic ID	1. Animal-Farm-1945-book -- NO REFS
Open Library ID	1. OL1168210W -- NO REFS 2. OL1168007W ++ Ref = https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1168007W/Animal_Farm?edition=key%3A/books/OL23269355M, Animal Farm by George Orwell | Open Library, 18 July 2023
Open Library subject ID	1. animal_farm_(orwell_george) -- NO REFS
FantLab work ID	1. 9633 -- NO REFS
Library of Congress Classification	1. PR6029.R8 A63 2003b -- NO REFS
followed by	1. Nineteen Eighty-Four ++ Ref = French Wikipedia
CBDB.cz book ID	1. 772 ++ Ref = Czech Wikipedia
title	1. Animal Farm -- NO REFS
Encyclopedia of China (Third Edition) ID	1. 513927 -- 《动物农场》 -- NO REFS
subtitle	1. A Fairy Story -- NO REFS
MusicBrainz work ID	1. e7f79309-abb4-44d0-94d3-77a9719968ec ++ Ref = MusicBrainz
full work available at URL	1. http://www.lib.ru/ORWELL/animalfarm.txt ++ Ref = Russian Wikipedia, https://ru.wikipedia.org/?oldid=99837125
Dewey Decimal Classification (works and editions)	1. 823.912 ++ Ref = http://classify.oclc.org/classify2/ClassifyDemo?wi=250525
GND ID	1. 4279895-4 ++ Ref = German Wikipedia
IdRef ID	1. 02791934X -- NO REFS
Vegetti Catalog of Fantastic Literature NILF ID	1. 1059850 ++ Ref = Italian Wikipedia, https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_fattoria_degli_animali&oldid=108638039
‎IDU original ID	1. 296 ++ Ref = Virtual Study of Theatre Institute, 23 August 2024
Commons category	1. Animal Farm ++ Ref = English Wikipedia
different from	1. Animal Farm ++ Ref = Polish Wikipedia, https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folwark_zwierzęcy&oldid=63140206
AusStage work ID	1. 9433 -- NO REFS
Store norske leksikon ID	1. Animal_Farm -- NO REFS
publication date	1. 17 August 1945 ++ Ref = English Wikipedia, https://aralper.xyz/jnL9BW7olBSMNgJWNZLVRKEA5slpd5fMFWZ01JjSJtE, enwiki-20221101-pages-articles-multistream.xml.bz2, '''''Animal Farm''''' is a [[beast fable]],{{sfn|Meija|2002}} in the form of [[Satire|satirical]] [[allegory|allegorical]] [[novella]], by [[George Orwell]], first published in England on 17 August 1945., ZIP
last line	1. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. -- NO REFS
OCLC work ID	1. 259236 -- NO REFS
Douban book works ID	1. 1131589 -- NO REFS
ISFDB title ID	1. 2423 -- NO REFS
The Literary Encyclopedia work ID	1. 6595 -- NO REFS
inception	1. 1945 ++ Ref = Ukrainian Wikipedia, https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Колгосп_тварин&oldid=22784938
National Library of Ireland ID	1. vtls000242869 ++ Ref = Virtual International Authority File, 12 January 2022, 184247291 2. vtls001095813 ++ Ref = Virtual International Authority File, 12 January 2022, 184247291
Canadiana Name Authority ID	1. ncf11576316 ++ Ref = Virtual International Authority File
NSK ID	1. 000352248 ++ Ref = Virtual International Authority File, 12 January 2022, 184247291
Wolfram Language entity code	1. Entity["Book", "AnimalFarm"] -- NO REFS
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie online ID	1. farm-der-tiere -- NO REFS
Vikidia article ID	1. fr:La_Ferme_des_animaux -- NO REFS
Library of Congress authority ID	1. no2014144000 -- NO REFS
VIAF ID	1. 184247291 -- NO REFS
instance of	1. literary work -- NO REFS
public domain date	1. 1 January 2021, 1 January 2041 -- 70 years or more after author(s) death, countries with 70 years pma or shorter -- NO REFS 2. 1 January 2021, 1 January 2041 -- 95 years after publication with notice and renewal, United States of America -- NO REFS
FAST ID	1. 1357727 -- NO REFS
place of publication	1. London -- NO REFS
pronunciation audio	1. LL-Q8752 (eus)-ElsaBornFree-Abereen etxaldea.wav -- Basque ++ Ref = https://lingualibre.fr/wiki/Q214859
Personality Database work ID	1. 604 ++ Ref = https://www.personality-database.com/profile?pid=2&cid=12&sub_cat_id=604, Animal Farm MBTI Personality Type - Literature, 26 July 2022
Libraries Australia ID	1. 35867878 -- NO REFS
translator	1. Juan Martin Elexpuru -- Basque -- NO REFS
language of work or name	1. English ++ Ref = English Wikipedia ++ Ref = Polish Wikipedia ++ Ref = Portuguese Wikipedia
LibraryThing work ID	1. 1477 -- NO REFS
has edition or translation	1. Farm der Tiere -- NO REFS 2. Beerta xayawaanka -- Somali, 2011 -- NO REFS 3. Animal Farm (Longmans 1964) -- NO REFS 4. Shamba la wanyama -- Swahili, 1967 -- NO REFS
copyright status	1. public domain -- 70 years or more after author(s) death, countries with 70 years pma or shorter -- NO REFS 2. copyrighted -- 95 years after publication with notice and renewal, United States of America -- NO REFS

80 claims

Edit this on Wikidata The question you have to ask yourselves is which of those values actually require a reference? So Mike, Sarah, does this move the discussion forward? --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, I didn't get pinged but I know about literature, write here about books and would like to take this on. First, thanks for setting up this demo. It's quite excellent. And I think you chose a good example.

Taking these one by one (and I've skipped some):

• Subtitle: Looking at the title page we see that the subtitle is "A Fairy Story" on g-books. The book itself is a source and we should have the correct title. BUT - the subtitle got dropped after the first English printing, reliable source here (needs some scrolling)
• Publisher: We should have that and I don't think it would be too difficult to find, but we'd either need a first edition to look at (primary source) or a secondary source telling us who published it. English edition = Secker & Warburg, American edition = Harcourt Brace. Ref here
• Awards: this info is iffy and shouldn't show up in infoboxes
• Dewey decimal is possible helpful and can be found at the Library of Congress website
• Publication date: we'd need a secondary source telling that or to be able to see the title page of the first edition. The book was actually published in August, [here, but apparently the date on the title page is earlier (I'm trying to find an image of that. First ed. costs $7000 plus, so it's a pricey book). The delayed publication was because of a wartime shortage of paper, per the source. The source is Brown University, so I'd accept it for purposes of WP:V.
• Genre: My deadwood copy of The Oxford Companion to English Literature tells me it's a "satire in fable form". That's a murky definition. Satire would probably be ok, and the "Oxford Companion" is a reliable source to satisfy WP:V.
• BnF ID: We can get that from the BnF
• ISBN: I plugged in the ISBN in your example and received this webpage. It tells me that particular ISBN is for a paperback Penguin published in 2003. That particular edition is 128 pages.
• Place of publication: We need the primary source - title page of the first edition - or a secondary source to verify that it was London (it was, but it needs to be verified)
• Number of pages: Varies with edition, i.e first, paperback, English, American, etc. Convention is use the first edition and we'd need to view the first edition or have a secondary source to verify
• Follows: should be deleted. Animal Farm is not part of series and that field should only be used for books in a series

I think this was a helpful exercise. Thanks again for taking the time to demonstrate. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. Can I ask how many of your observations on the sources required would also apply equally to the present Animal Farm article? I suspect that most of it would be just as pertinent. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. This is where my concern comes from in terms of Wikipedia's reliability, and honestly it's something I have deal with in my profession. When wearing the wikipedian hat I can only fix so many articles, only have so much time, but that article clearly needs work. The problem is, in my view, what happens when we scale that single example up times millions. Clearly not all our articles are about books and it might be helpful to use another example. Books are problematic, which is my reason for leaning toward an opt-in option. Victoria (tk) 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, thank you, this is very helpful. Two issues jumped out. The book was turned down by several publishers (out of fear of, or admiration for, Russia) and was eventually accepted by Frederic Warburg of (I believe) Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, so the box should get that name right. Harvill Secker is the current name. The publication date is important too. There were long delays in getting it out, which meant that it appeared after VE Day and after the Labour Party came to power in the post-war general election in July 1945. 17 August 1945 sounds about right, but it needs a source other than a Wikipedia article. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. You may already know that I'm not a fan of putting information into an infobox if it can't be described in a brief phrase or less, so I made the demo infoboxes in a way that it's easy to exclude a field if it's known to be problematical on that article. Also, we can fix a known issue by just supplying a better value in the infobox ourselves, like |publisher=Martin Secker & Warburg if that was how they were known when the book was published. Once a local value is in place, the infobox won't fetch the Wikidata value, which allows us to be even more selective at the individual article level. I'm still hopeful that we can come up with solutions that allay most of the fears raised (except for a way to improve the quality of referencing on Wikidata, of course). --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, the issue of needing a value to be in place to stop the infobox from fetching data means that we have to include all the values and leave them blank. One solution would be to have a field that says "Wikidata = no". We could use it for articles with sensitive or complex issues that are easy to misdescribe. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to put in "a value". In most templates, |title= alone will stop Wikidata; |title=<!--This item has been intentionally omitted--> usually also works, and has the advantage of discouraging new wikitext-based editors from filling in the blank. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No Sarah, I'm sorry I'm not explaining it well enough for you to understand. If you write {{Infobox book/Wikidata/Sandbox |fetchwikidata=author; pub_date; pages; dewey; congress; url }} instead of {{Infobox book/Wikidata/Sandbox |fetchwikidata=author; genre; pub_date; pages; dewey; congress; url }}, then it won't fetch 'genre'. If you leave out |fetchwikidata= or make it blank, it won't fetch anything. It's all arranged for you so you can pick exactly what fields you trust. You don't need any local value in place to stop Wikidata, but you can use a local value if you prefer it to what Wikidata supplies. I don't know what other flexibility could be built in. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, the confusion is my fault because I wrote value when I meant parameter. What happened at Night was that an infobox that said {{Infobox book | name= Night}} became {{Infobox book | name= Night | genre = novel}} because I didn't know that I had to add |genre= to keep out Wikidata. The box in the article didn't say |fetchwikidata=.

My understanding is that, in articles, we have to add every parameter and leave each one blank to stop Wikidata from filling them in. Is that incorrect? That's why I've asked whether the templates can be changed so that we can add |Wikidata=no to each box at article level. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's my fault, Sarah. When I developed the original Module:Wikidata, I was getting requests for infobox templates coded in such a way that they would fill in any missing information if it was available on Wikidata. So when I created test infoboxes like {{Infobox person/Wikidata}}, they did indeed automatically add fields if they were omitted, and you had to enter a blank local value for each to suppress them. That worked fine for infoboxes that are not used in many articles, and Mike Peel has made an excellent job of modifying {{Infobox telescope}} using exactly that scheme. It works because Mike curates all of the articles on telescopes and so can fix any problems himself, and I've encouraged other editors to use that as an example. However, as you rightly point out, if we use that sort of "opt-out" scheme in articles where the infobox has thousands of transclusions, then the job of checking the initial change to the infobox is too big, and editors like yourself suddenly find yourselves with unwanted fields popping up unexpectedly. As a result of the debate at Template talk:Infobox book and very helpful suggestions from Nikkimaria, I created a new module, Module:WikidataIB, which allows a scheme for "opt-in" to be easily implemented at the article level. The demo infobox at Template:Infobox book/Wikidata/Sandbox uses the new module to allow each article to have a 'whitelist' which is the |fetchwikidata= parameter. If I replaced Template:Infobox book with Template:Infobox book/Wikidata/Sandbox, nobody would see any difference at all. That is, until an editor adds something like |fetchwikidata=author; pub_date; pages to the infobox on an article; only then would that article's infobox attempt to fetch values for author, pub_date, and pages from Wikidata for that article. I'm hoping to encourage template editors who modify infoboxes to be wikidata-enabled to use the new module and syntax for any infobox that has a large number of articles using it. does that help? --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I said it should be implemented, and the initial refusal—the aggressiveness of the refusal and the insistance that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 said to go ahead and do it—was what led to the RfC. It really does need to be discussed further, though—look at how much grief so many editors have gone through to get just this far. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's absolutely nothing like what you were demanding. You wanted every article with a Wikidata-aware infobox to require every single field to have something along the lines of |parameter=WIKIDATA. That's what I said "no" to. You jumped the gun with the RfC and set it up as a binary decision, when there are many different ways of implementing what editors want. I already had Module:WikidataIB and related demo infoboxes working on 16 May, a day before I was even aware of your RfC with its misinformation about "always requiring a blank value to suppress Wikidata", which is plainly untrue. The only things that led to this grief-ridden RfC were your impatience, lack of understanding, and unwillingness to accept any solution that didn't exactly match your own ideas. You've made no effort to understand what I've been telling you for a month now, so I'll tell you what - you can do the rest of the development of the infoboxes. I'm washing my hands of it and unwatching the lot. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You wanted every article with a Wikidata-aware infobox to require every single field to have something along the lines of |parameter=WIKIDATA—horseshit I did. That was a single example of one way to handle it: the wording was say with "isbn=y". Other examples I gave were "|WikiData=all", "|autofill=yes", "|autofill=minimal", etc. You were opposed to all that, too—until you implemented it and took credit for the idea. You countered that there's no need for it because "There's no evidence that lots of editors leave out many fields deliberately", so you can't pretend you never saw that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, yes, that does help, and thank you for taking time to explain it all so clearly. What needs to happen so that your template can be used, and can we do the same for all the infoboxes? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) RexxS, thanks; this is very helpful. I'd like to try adding some reliable sources to the Wikidata properties, to see the effect on what shows up, and to get a feel for what it takes. I went to the linked page and expanded the 7 references for "author", clicked on "add reference" below the last "imported from" line, but could not see what to do next. I assume I need to add a field with a name like "sourced from", so that I can add the text of the citation, but I don't know what field to add. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes Mike, it's by no means intuitive, is it? Try 'reference URL' for a website - you should be able to just type 'ref' and the AJAX will suggest values for you. Otherwise 'isbn' is good for a book. Otherwise You can just type a couple of letters and see what is suggested for that property field of the reference. Let me know if you need more help. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I added the ISBN of a book that supports the claim that Orwell is the author. Obviously this is inadequate as a complete citation; it wouldn't work for a pre-ISBN book, and I would like to be able to give the additional information that it's in the chapter "Animal Farm", by Douglas Burger, and that it's on pages 45-47. How could I do that? Do we know to reproduce some of the structure of {{cite book}} as properties within Wikidata, and assemble a composite structure that is essentially a citation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, RexxS, SlimVirgin, WhatamIdoing, Curly Turkey, NewYorkBrad, and Victoriaearle and anyone else contributing in a non-"is this overturnable?" fashion: I think this has gotten a little off track, though it's good discussion to be having. Please consider leaving a comment/question/discussion at WP:VPPOL#Discussion re Verifiability issues with Wikidata. Though I will try to answer some of what I see here, I will do what I can for this discussion as well, since I appear to be a de jure ambassador right now. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS and Mike Christie: So, the best way to input citation information, when you're referencing a book work of some sort, is to use the step-by-step instruction at d:Help:Sources#Books. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Without wanting to appear rude, does anybody else think that the step-by-step instructions at d:Help:Sources#Books are part of the reason why Wikidata is almost wholly unreferenced? Trying to grasp all of that for a first-time editor on Wikidata is a frighteningly steep learning curve. Could I perhaps suggest we get first-timers to add just an ISBN or a reference url? as a curt reference is far, far better than none at all. Hopefully as they gain experience, they could take on the job of expanding minimal references. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the source itself becomes another WD entry. Am I reading that right? Yes, we want to add a book, but we want to use that book to verify information about another book that's a WD entry. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: Correct. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: It is a minuscule part. The larger part of why it is not in-large verified is due to having 15+ million items with which to contend, and we have only so many editors, who are most interested in other projects (import of data, certain domains, etc etc). It is not unlike Wikipedia in its formative years in this way. :)

That said, it looks like someone has already done exactly that on Nineteen Eighty-Four (Q208460). The references for the foreword and afterword are to an ISBN. I think, as a start, that's probably okay, but it's essentially the equivalent of an ISBN reference or bare URL here--something which I know we do not agree with here. I think there's a lot of room for improvement--the tooling needs some help if we want to move forward. On that note, I'm aware of at least one Phabricator task to integrate Parsoid with Wikidata, and I would suggest that the citation tools lying around here could use adaptation to Wikidata... but we have few enough people, much less people who are familiar programmers (ironically, for I would expect the Wikidata project, with one of its goals machine-readable data, to have more).

--Izno (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a steep learning curve, but making it easier to do is something we can solve if we need to. For now I'm more concerned with understanding exactly what it is that can and should be done. I just created some Wikidata items and statements; this might be useful for this discussion.

I wanted to put into Wikidata all the components of a citation for the statement that Nineteen Eighty-Four was written by George Orwell, just to see what it would look like. The citation I'd use in an article would be "Morsberger (1979), p. 1531", and in the Sources section of the article I'd have "Morsberger, Katharine M. (1979). "Nineteen Eighty-Four". In Magill, Frank N. Survey of Science Fiction Literature Volume 3: Imp-Nin. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Salem Press. pp. 1531–1536. ISBN 0-89356-197-5." In Wikidata, I have created the following data items:

• Katharine M. Morsberger
• Frank N. Magill
• Survey of Science Fiction Literature Volume 3: Imp-Nin (a book)
• Survey of Science Fiction Literature Volume 3: Imp-Nin (a specific edition of that book)
• "Nineteen Eighty-Four (review by Katharine M. Morsberger)
• "Nineteen Eighty-Four (first edition)", the first edition of Orwell's book.

There's also (already existing):

• Nineteen Eighty-Four, the book (not a specific edition).

The book has the "author" property attached, with 6 "imported from xx Wikipedia" references. There was also a "stated in" reference, with the source given as the book itself. I think that's an error; the source has to be an edition of the book, not the book itself, so I changed it to point to the first edition instead. I added an additional value for the "stated in" property of "author": the value is "Nineteen Eighty-Four (review by Katharine M. Morsberger)". I think that means that all the data necessary to produce a citation is now in Wikidata and is connected. RexxS, I think your code already allows us to display "author=George Orwell" in an infobox only when there is a reference other than "imported from"; could it also produce ref tags that contain the citation itself, in some form? Perhaps if the "Nineteen Eighty-Four (review by Katharine M. Morsberger)" item had a property such as "en-citation-format", we could even be flexible about the format of the output citation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: The work you did with the book item looks correct. I'm not sure about the review article in the work, but since you got the hang of the edition and book items, I suspect you're fine there also, though I have made some tidying edits all-around.

Regarding your question regarding the ref tags, yes, that's possible. I don't think you need to store an 'en-citation format'--for Wikidata, we try to avoid things that would be too language specific, and citation formats generally are regarded as such. So a module here could likely take care of the formatting of the reference for display here.

--Izno (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just read the closing statement for the first time, and I'm a bit baffled by it, to be honest. I don't mean to be unappreciative of the time you put in here, Dank, but your close clearly demonstrates that you're making sweeping assumptions that one or both sides didn't understand what they were discussing. You haven't pointed to any proof that this is the case. Additionally, the statement "Anyone can read the RfC; you don't need my interpretation of it" shows that your thoughts on closing are fundamentally at odds with what the role of a closer actually is. A closer isn't meant to just say yes/no to a question; they're meant to clearly articulate a summary of arguments and the community's current position on an issue. Stating that you aren't evaluating certain arguments important to the issue at hand because they can be dealt with at a future RfC just punts the ball down the road. If every closer did this, we'd never get anything but "no consensus" on any issue that didn't qualify for WP:SNOW. There was a clear consensus in this one, in my opinion. I didn't close this because my previous involvement in similar discussions could be construed as being involved, but I actually think consensus was clearly against the position I've taken in previous discussions. This close absolutely needs to be overturned. It doesn't summarize the discussion, it offers no clarity on what the community's arguments for and against even are (which could help guide future discussion, if there were no consensus), and it fails to articulate any aspect of consensus even though there are at least a few things that editors have displayed no real opposition to. I'll start a section below as per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. ~ Rob^Talk 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: Should this closure be overturned?

No consensus to overturn. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this closure be reverted and then reclosed by an experienced and uninvolved closer? Please keep threaded discussion above. ~ Rob^Talk 21:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn. For reasons documented above. This closure doesn't even attempt to summarize the discussion. Even a no consensus outcome requires a solid summary of arguments to provide direction for the community going forward. Calling for another RfC can be useful, but calling for exactly the same RfC is unhelpful. ~ Rob^Talk 21:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My issue with the close isn't the finding of "no consensus" as people are endorsing above; it's the issue that a close should summarize the discussion as a whole so the community has a way forward. I have no problem with a finding of "no consensus" if it's accompanied by "These are the small things the community agrees on or is significantly concerned about. This is what future discussion should examine closer." A "no consensus" finding with no such summary is a hard reset button that jettisons a month of editor time. When the closer was asked about his lack of summary, he responded by writing a note that included the statement "Anyone can read the RfC; you don't need my interpretation of it". But that's just incorrect; the whole role of the closer is to "interpret" the community's position on an issue. ~ Rob^Talk 17:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close assumed that people didn't know what they were saying when they responded. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is getting personal enough that it's probably time for me to recuse myself from the discussion. Several points made above are just wrong. I won't be participating in or closing any future discussions about infoboxes or Wikidata, if that helps. Best of luck. I understand that it's easy to lose track of what's been said when you care about what's at stake. Someone please ping me when the discussion is over, or when someone evaluating the discussion needs my input. Unwatching here and at ANRFC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SarahSV: I don't think "people didn't know what they were saying" was Dank's assessment of the discussion. As I said above, people weren't responding to the question posed, but rather to larger or other questions, such as the reliability of Wikidata. I was explicit that the question of reliability was not the subject of the RfC, even if that's also an issue. People "knew what they were saying", but were talking at cross purposes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is getting personal. It's just that we need a close that, at the very least, assesses the arguments so we have a path forward. That's a minimum outcome for any large-scale RfC that many people put time into. In response to Curly Turkey, I agree that people talked past each other a bit, and that does make it more challenging to count votes to determine overall support for each position. But consensus isn't a vote count and a proper close would evaluate each person's arguments to determine what they were arguing for. ~ Rob^Talk 23:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Rob: I didn't say anything about !voting. I brought up a particular issue, and people spent their time talking about something else. What was the consensus on the RfC question? Is it even possible to determine? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I mentioned how I personally would have closed it below. ~ Rob^Talk 03:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not going to !vote for or against overturning the closure; I haven't seen enough closures of complex issues to be confident in my judgement of this one. However, I would like to suggest that whatever the right answer is, it needs to involve further discussion, and not simply a decision in favour of opt-in or opt-out. Curly Turkey started the RfC because of a real problem with the way Wikidata is used, but the discussion on how best to deal with verifiability of Wikidata should be broader than that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I can say that, had I closed it (which I will not, since I'm semi-involved), I would have closed with a summary of arguments for and against, consensus that Wikidata has systemic issues with verifiability, and consensus that the use of Wikidata should be opt-in by default. Additionally, I would find consensus that this default can be overridden by local consensus (i.e. editors are free to switch to opt-out if they choose to do so after a discussion specific to any given template). I think every aspect of such a close has clear consensus given strength of arguments, the unopposed suggestion to defer to local consensus, and the need for some default where local consensus has not been assessed. ~ Rob^Talk 22:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I've performed some difficult closes (and gotten the flak for it). Sometimes I summarized arguments, sometimes I didn't. In my experience: when people start talking next to each other during an RfC, as was the case here, that is an indication to better not give a full summary of arguments in the closure, which might easily be perceived as a supervote (while in that case one has to discriminate between on-topic and off-topic comments which is often more questionable than not summarizing). Especially difficult to close are those discussions where disputants start to give their "obvious" and contradictory summaries of what the closer should say or should have said. I takes a special kind of courage to close such discussions. None of that invalidates Dank's closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn, though simply reclosing doesn't seem useful. I have no prior involvement with that discussion or topic, but after a quick read it seems to me that Dank was a bit quick to hit the button. I suspect he was trying to merciful, but misstepped. It seems to be an important discussion, so perhaps someone can come up with something better response. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse closing statement. Closing this wide-ranging discussion as "no consensus" is well within the usual limits of an admin's discretion. While a "vote counting" exercise shows more people using the words "opt-in" than "opt-out", a review of the actual rationales finds a far more complex situation. Editors disagree about what opt-in means in practice, and a few of them seem to base their votes upon factual errors (e.g., a belief that Wikidata changes can't be seen in their watchlists here). Even the editor who started the RFC says that several editor's comments had little to do with his actual question (a comment, BTW, that demonstrates his interest in neutrality, since simplistic vote-counting would put those votes on 'his side'). Especially since another RFC had already been opened on one of these subtopics, I think that Dank did the right thing by saying that it's more complicated than seeing which label gets used the most, and that the community needs to continue having further discussions on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, in case it escaped some editors' attention, the "opt-in" position was only favored by about half of the respondents in this RFC. The numbers (by Sarah's count) are 51% for "opt-in", 31% for "opt-out", and 18% for another approach. When you add to this weak showing the fact that several editors used "opt-in" to describe mutually incompatible approaches, I think that a "no consensus, keep talking" approach is the most accurate option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse closing statement. Reading the rationales provided by participants indicated that several questions other than the explicitly posed one were being answered by participants. The community will address this issue in future RFC's, and Dank was both correct and well within his discretion as the closer to make way for the more clear RFC's. Dank' closure violated no policies that I am aware of, and was well within their spirit. We should move on, and hash out the underlying issues, rather than debating the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of policies, but of good management. Abrupt and graceless closures leave bad feelings. With a little more care (and less delta v) there would be less demand for a closure review. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, and please stop giving someone who had the courage to step up to the challenge of closing something in such a complex field, and did so more than adequately, such a hard time. Conducting more limited and specific consultations, as suggested by the closer, is what should be done now instead of losing more time on this closure review. I kept out of the original !vote while not fully understanding the matter (seems I was right in that: nobody apparently did – at least the closure made me understand a bit better what this was all about), and can only hope that the scope of the follow-up consultations can be explained more clearly. There's no consensus to overstep WP:CIRCULAR, a part of the WP:V policy, which would need a very strong consensus to overstep anyhow. I'm sure editors with an expertise in the field of infoboxes know how to deal with that, give them some credit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, per Francis, can't say it better. COI: Dank asked me before closing, see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. Not even a no consensus close, but completely sidestepping the issue. There was good and thorough discussion at this RfC, and to simply say the participants didn't know what they were talking about and throw it all away is the opposite of what a close should be. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. No consensus was definitely a legitimate close here. The situation in the discussion was far more complicated than simply "opt-in" or "opt-out". Omni Flames (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An alternative approach

I was pinged above to comment on this discussion, which I appreciate because it raises issues of interest to me; but I won't have time immediately to read through all the background material, and in any event, I'm not conversant with all the technical aspects.

However, let me see if instead I can offer an alternative suggestion that, if it won't satisfy everyone, might at least not dissatisfy everyone.

As I understand the situation, the issue is whether Wikidata information should be used to populate En-WP article content that would otherwise be blank, or not used for that purpose. Sources of disagreement on whether this is a good idea include (1) uncertainty how accurate the Wikidata information is, (2) disagreement with whether specific items should be included in particular articles, and (3) general unease about including information on English Wikipedia that may not have been verified by any English Wikipedia editor, nor has a decision to include it been made by any English Wikipedia editor.

I am just thinking out loud here, but perhaps a way to address (2) and (3), and to get more information relevant to (1), would be to have a trial in which there would be a process to identify information found in Wikidata but not in the corresponding English Wikipedia article, and output that data to a report on the talkpage of the En-WP article. As appropriate, an En-WP editor could then decide whether the information is reliable, requires a source, should be omitted or included, etc. Someone could also maintain a page tracking instances in which the data proved reliable or unreliable. It would also avoid the problem of potentially BLP violative information being added into articles without being looked at by anyone.

There would be a zillion technical details to address, but is this a productive avenue to explore? Pinging SlimVirgin since she asked me to comment here, and Iridescent since I was discussing a related issue on his talkpage. And my apologies if this turns out to be an unhelpful detour. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be easier to set up tracking categories for this, where individual editors can go through and see if Wikidata information should be copied over. I'd support this, although it's a bit of an aside. ~ Rob^Talk 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, this is a very good idea. It would mean (a) that the Wikidata text would not show up on Google until checked and moved into the article; and (b) that the appearance on the talk page of the proposed infobox, or infobox data, would show up on watchlists, in contrast to the current situation where there's no indication that the infobox has been changed. RexxS, what do you think of this? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently, I think we can solve all of the technical details, given time and effort, but the big stumbling block remains the very high percentage of claims on Wikidata that are unsourced or only sourced as "imported from Xyz Wikipedia". If you look through the example for Animal Farm, you'll see that quite a few probably are sourced to themselves, like the Freebase ID. Nevertheless, Victoria's analysis brings into clear relief the sort of worries that editors will naturally have. At some point there will need to be a concerted effort among Wikipedia projects to raise the level of sourcing on Wikidata if that project is ever going to reach its potential. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply crossposted from my talk page

I can see an obvious drawback to that proposal, in that the articles where importing from Wikidata is likely to have most utility are going to be articles on obscure topics which likely don't have many watchers. If new information about John Major comes to light it doesn't really matter if Wikidata picks it up or not, as someone will add it within minutes to the article if it's appropriate, but if Wikidata picks up new information about Almeric Paget it could take years for the same data to find its way into Wikipedia without an automated process. Thus, these obscure topics are where Wikidata has most value. However, a bot post to Talk:John Major will probably be read and reacted to appropriately within a few hours at most, but a bot post to Talk:Almeric Paget might literally go for a decade before anyone actually sees and actions it. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Which infoboxes have been Wikidata-enabled?

Does anyone have a list of which infoboxes have been enabled so that they fetch data from Wikidata? I see that Nikkimaria objected when Frietjes changed Infobox book. This is the kind of contentious change that shouldn't be made without local consensus, particularly when it involves editing through protection. The 2013 RfC doesn't mean people can override local decisions about individual boxes. I hope no more boxes are enabled until we have firmer consensus or a technical solution. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Templates using data from Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Izno, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm glad that Infobox person isn't enabled, but I'm wondering what Template:Infobox person ii is, which is used in these articles. Pinging ManosHacker who created it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  A preview of an article should make it clear. --Izno (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Izno, that's very interesting (and clever), thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox person ii is not updated to follow infobox person. I have used it only to show a potential of a trick I discovered to add functionality on unsaved pages. I was moved to discover it as in Greek Wikipedia we use infoboxes automatically filled in from Wikidata. A lot of times Wikidata is poorer and sometimes there are data conflicts. Now you have paid attention, let's clear it from the articles it has been used in English Wikipedia. Thank you.--ManosHacker (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

ManosHacker, thank you for creating it. I can see that it would be very useful. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Location map Bangladesh Dhaka

Please move the page {{Template:Location map Bangladesh Dhaka}} to {{Location map Bangladesh Dhaka}} Kayser Ahmad (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Pogge

Please unprotect Thomas Pogge, there is a strong consensus on the talk page of a half dozen editors and 200 philosophers voting for inclusion of the well-sourced information.

Against this, one editor, David Pearce, possessing a COI stands in the way. Unblock the page and restore the sources which were vandalistically removed by Pearce, leaving the article artifically froze in an embarrassing state of misinformation. Pearce, against 3 editors, reverted 7 times, yet the article was forzen in his version because of this laughable argument:

• The Wikipedia entries of countless educators and academics from classical antiquity to the present could be spiced up with salacious material or varying degrees of (un)reliability. Would the Wikipedia entry on Socrates, for example, be improved by adding a section "Controversies: allegations of grooming teenage boys"? Rather than turning Wikipedia into a downmarket scandal-sheet, a Comments/Criticisms/Controversies section might do better to focus on the work for which Prof. Pogge is notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case. Our sources are numerous and reliable; our consensus is strong. End this travesty now and restore the deleted sources.Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, Sarah Virgin grossly abused administrative powers in freezing on Pearce's version when there are 6 against 1, Pearce has a conflict of interest, and no sources for his claims. This is truly outrageous; I have seen more just administrative decisions made in Stalinist Russia than her cowardly protection of removal of adequately soutced content on false pretences. Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my clumsy fingers... rolled back my mistaken archival. Also, this filing is quite ridiculous. Boomerang for incivility wouldn't be out of the question. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks are likely to get you blocked, Eminent Jurist. Given the history of editwarring on that page, a few days of full protection are justified. Use that time wisely. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and take particular care in your sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I had gone and collected a few diffs [82] [83] but the point appears moot now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked Eminent Jurist for repeatedly abusing SV here and elsewhere. I'll post diffs on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick-D. I protected earlier rather than blocking after a series of reverts, but given the response I was starting to think blocking made more sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Jurist has a point however, consensus on the talkpage is clear that the information should be included. While there are BLP concerns, the info can be sourced to more than one reliable secondary source (describing the Chronicle and Huffington Post as 'blogs' in order to exclude them is weak), and there are many primary supporting sources *including where the subject has addressed the issue*. Likewise there is the issue that Davidcpearce does have an interest that may/may not be verging on the COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  It's a BLP article, with contested controversial material - all Eminent Jurist has to do is start a civil discussion on the talk page and wait for a consensus (and I don't really see a conclusive one yet), rather than fiercely attacking everyone (for which Eminent Jurist has now had their talk page privilege revoked). If it is decided that the material should be included, then it doesn't have to be there instantly - it's far better to calmly discuss it for a little while first to try to get as wide a consensus as possible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And is (was) probably socking too: User:Anti Conflict Of Interest Crusader's only contribution with a half-hour-old acount is here, continuing the war. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"*Jurist has a point however, consensus on the talkpage is clear that the information should be included. While there are BLP concerns, the info can be sourced to more than one reliable secondary source (describing the Chronicle and Huffington Post as 'blogs' in order to exclude them is weak), and there are many primary supporting sources *including where the subject has addressed the issue*. Likewise there is the issue that Davidcpearce does have an interest that may/may not be verging on the COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)"

Those Who Protect Evil Men Are Complicit In Their Crimes just joined the fray. Considering the style, both wrt. user names and prose, I believe we are dealing with socks of Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I reiterate that (a number of) the points made are not unsound; this obviously 'was' a notable incident in the fella's career, and I think we've all learnt by now how apparant whitewashing can come back and bite the project in the arse, as it were. Can we not impartially assess the sources, weigh them, and insert the required amount of material? Whilst maintaining the protection- no edit-wars will occur, and we, as ever, will ne WP:NOTCENSORED... just how we like it _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need full protection on the article? Drmies (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I added full protection for three days because it was a content dispute, rather than vandalism or disruption. There is at least one RS, but most of the information is in non-RS, including self-published sources, so it's something that will require editorial judgement. I'll leave a note on talk that if they reach consensus, they can post an edit request before the protection ends. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

IP range block?

User:Eminent Jurist is now editing logged out to continue their aggressive personal attacks. From User:2600:1017:b41b:4b66:496:49db:dbf5:b987 at User talk:Eminent Jurist (see here), and from User:2600:1017:b401:9d0b:e5af:8b73:4e6f:7582 at Talk:Thomas Pogge (see here). Can anyone who knows how to do such things work out if a range block is plausible? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've just worked out how to do a wild card contributions check, and here are the results for two ranges...

• 2600:1017:B401:9D0B:*
• 2600:1017:B41B:4B66:*

All edits clearly by our friend. I just don't know how to do the actual range blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked 2600:1017:B401:9D0B::/64 and 2600:1017:b41b:4b66::/64, Boing!. It worries me a little, though, that the user has access to both those ranges. Normally one need only block one /64 range for one IPv6 vandal. I hope it doesn't mean that they have a ginormous range, such as a /43 (which would cover both the IPs you give). Can't block that! Bishonen | talk 18:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. If they do have a really big range, I guess it's just revert and ignore. They might get bored, I suppose - or better, they might calm down and start talking civilly! They have used an IPv4 too, but it's a wireless dynamic IP that we can't range block either. Ho hum, what fun! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: The /64 rule-of-thumb doesn't apply to mobile IPv6 ranges. Unfortunately, mobile users can be assigned addresses from just about anywhere in the entire possible range, which in my experience, is always much wider than /64. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, dammit. No sooner do I imagine I've got my head round the "rule of thumb" than these complications turn up. :-( But thank you, DoRD.Bishonen | talk 20:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

That Verizon Wireless ISP has everything from 2600:1000:: to 2600:1017:FFFF:FFFF: FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF so there's not much you can do beside playing Whack-a-mole one /64 at a time. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can count on Eminent Jurist calming down any time soon. Their hackles are up. Perhaps semi protecting their user talk pages and the article talk page until they've calmed down. Blackmane (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User calling me a Vandal

Hi, as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Morocco&type=revision&diff=721759820&oldid=721283486 I added valuable informations but it was undone by a some IP user not to forget he called the edit vandalism. we all know morocco went through ifrenid and maghrawid rule.
kind regards
Unstored Data (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy has requested an unblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, since he is community banned, I'm bringing it here for review. He says

I would like to start out by apologizing for my disruptive behavior/sockpuppetry. My past actions were irresponsible and childish. I didn't know what I was thinking at the time, and wished now I hadn't acted in such a way that would get me blocked and banned from editing on Wikipedia. I admit I used sockpuppet accounts, and denied it, which was immature of me. If there is anything else you want me to do to get my ban lifted, please let me know. Thank you.

Anyway, thoughts or comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheREALCableGuy: - which accounts were your socks? SQL^{Query me!} 03:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather than just name his socks – after all, he could just name a bunch of blocked accounts and IPs – shouldn't TheREALFCableGuy show ownership of his socks by going onto each of their accounts and posting a comment in the sock's name on their talk page? BMK (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note two facts: (1) TheREALCableGuy has only been blocked since May 13, just a few days over a month. (2) The REALCableGuy has accounts on 16 other Wikimedia Projects, but only 1 edit to any of them (Simple English, in 2012). True, 5 of them are non-English projects, but it seems like TheREALcableGuy could have made some effort to show his good faith by editing productively on one of the other 11 projects in the last month. Really, we have nothing to go by here except the assurances of the editor that he's sorry and will behave better. Can someone speak to whether that is sufficient? BMK (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Uh, a month? He's been blocked since 2013... [84] Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed he has. My error, and thank you for the correction. BMK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Has he socked in the last two years? If not, that's good enough faith for me. If he has _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well on his talkpage he says he socked until April 2015 at least. I have no opinion on an unblock, that's just a FYI. Begoon ^talk 14:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but it would take a CU to establish that he hasn't socked, and, as we know, CUs on en.wiki are not allowed to do "fishing expeditions", an enormous hole in our security procedures. That leaves us where we started, with whether we believe TheREALCableGuy or not. BMK (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you BMK... For clarifying the DUMBASSARY nature of the policy! What about at the user's own request, or with his permission? Then, similarly, if he gives permission, that's a good sign; and if he didn't- then it would tell us we wouldn't need to run it anyway- if you get my drift? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:Checkusers says

On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted.

BMK (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kww:. Any thoughts? Doc talk 09:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Could WP:IAR apply here? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, IAR isn't a free pass to being unblocked nor should it ever be, Just my extremely helpful 2¢. –Davey2010^Talk 13:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think he meant IAR on the CU policy. Good luck with that. No CheckUser will run a check with no evidence of ongoing sockpuppetry, even upon user request. It wouldn't even accomplish what you seem to want it to accomplish, since CU can only connect accounts going back a small period of time, and they also can't connect accounts over dynamic IPs, proxies, etc. Further, we shouldn't fault a user for our own policies on CU, nor should we require a user to prove a negative (that they didn't sock). It's impossible to do that even if we had no restrictions on using CU, given the technical restrictions of such a tool (both those put in place by the WMF and the general limits that would apply even if the WMF didn't abide by its policies on personal data retention). This ban appeal should be evaluated on the merits of how long this user has gone without having a confirmed sock, how disruptive he was in the past, and whether he's likely to be a net positive going forward. ~ Rob^Talk 14:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Has the user indicated what positive contributions they would like to make? I tried to clarify the "socking" timeline on their talkpage. (IAR might just have been TPOD wondering if chipping in on noticeboards was ok after being advised not to. I think that's fine, but one lives with the results.) Begoon ^talk 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) After taking a look at the original ban, I'd support (see below) unbanning if a WP:1RR restriction and and topic ban on all pages related to television, broadly construed, were put in place instead (both indefinite). Such restrictions would give the editor a chance to show us that he can edit constructively in areas other than where he's caused problems in the past. Appeal available after 6 months of constructive contributions and zero 1RR or topic ban violations. Over a year without socking warrants another chance, so long as the user understands that plenty of admins have their cursor hovering over the block button in case he continues editing tendentiously or doesn't abide by the restrictions. ~ Rob^Talk 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the most important question here is whether there is any benefit to unblocking him. There isn't: when he was an active contributor, his contributions bordered on useless. His socking spree demonstrates that not only does he have nothing useful to contribute, but he is a dishonest on top of it. There's no upside here at all.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In looking through his past contributions, I see several positive contributions of uploading files that are still in use in articles years later. Scrolling to a random page in his mainspace contributions, the first major edit I found (a bolded green edit is what I considered major) is [85] which also looked like a positive contribution. That information also remains in that article today. I don't think this is someone who is so incompetent as to have no potential benefit whatsoever to the project. ~ Rob^Talk 19:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I ran into this guy frequently and blocked many a sock, and he may be surprised to find me supporting his unblock appeal. I'm half-tempted to bend (or break) the rules and run CU, but I don't really care. I see Kww sees no positive here, and Neutralhomer (courtesy ping, Homer--you deserve it for having dealt with him so often). I think he has positive things to offer, and I gladly believe him when he says he hasn't been socking. I also think that he's three years older than he was when we blocked him indefinitely. So yeah, let him come back. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any use of a CU, support unblocking. We either trust that the person hasn't been socking or we don't. We should not be letting people return while we guess whether or not they have been lying. CU is not for double-checking people's trust and I don't like other people's privacy uses just for this kind of thing. Otherwise, it seems like the editor has admitted their socks and some useful contributions so I say give a second chance after a year of non-problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I think a checkuser should be ran on the original account to check the IPs that he previously used (and IP ranges) for any sleepers or any socks. Also a checkuser run on everything on this page. If there are none, then yes I would support an unblock, I think 3 years is enough time. Obiviously if he has been socking, then I can not support any unblock.

I believe, just as I was, that he should have an admin to watch over his edits and behavior. That way, if there are any problems, that can be nipped-in-the-butt right fast. Should he be unblocked, I support BU Rob13's 1RR restriction and TV related topic ban. I think that will keep TheREALCableGuy out of trouble and keep him from falling back into old habits.

Depending on what the checkuser of his previously-used IP addresses says, I am leaning toward Support, but right now I'm in the Neutral column. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01 on June 18, 2016 (UTC)

The question is, how much watching is needed. The prior editing problems was television articles content. If the editor returns and is reasonable in their approach from now on, we're all good. If they are disruptive again, then it's all over again. I'm neutral on whether to impose a topic ban on return but I can see the point. However it's been almost a year and a half so I'm more in line with returning and then dealing with topic bans if they are needed. It would definitely be something I support almost on day one if antics continue but I still say give a chance before that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought a CU was standard procedure for unblocking someone blocked for sockpuppetry (maybe standard offer or something), but I'm probably mistaken. ansh666 23:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 With the problems caused by this editor in the past, I think a topic ban is needed and it can be revisited after 3-6 months of non-problematic editing. Remember, this editor was community banned, this wasn't just an indef block, it was a full-on ban. So stepping stones are going to be necessary for some editors/admin to allow this user to come back. I had to do the same thing and I was only indef blocked. TheREALCableGuy is going to have to prove himself the same way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:10 on June 18, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, on second thought, support unblocking with a topic ban from television articles and a WP:1RR restriction per above. We'll see from there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ricky, that's fine with me too. Homer, I didn't finish my sentence in my first comment (aargh!), but you got the ping--thanks for weighing in, and I appreciate your broadmindedness. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You're Welcome, thanks for the ping and letting me give my input. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45 on June 19, 2016 (UTC)

Man did I miss the call here. Glad to see I was wrong on policy and now oppose based on the editor's edits. As to policy, that's not for AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I reverted/blocked him a few times back in the day. At the time, definitely net negative, but there were some decent edits at least earlier on. Seems like he's owning up to his past, it was indeed a while ago, and that he intends to be constructive. Sounds like a great case for a WP:Standard offer. DMacks (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Support unblocking with conditions. That is, what other people have suggested, the topic ban and 1RR. 2013 is well in the past now and considering that not all of their edits were blatantly unconstructive, I think we should give him another chance. Omni Flames (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• As I understand it, IP logs are only retained for a short period (90 days?), and so CheckUser checks on accounts from several years ago are not possible. I don't like the "once bad, always bad, throw away the key" approach, which leaves no possibility for a return and is definitely not in the spirit of WP:Standard offer. I support allowing TheREALCableGuy back, and I'm happy with the suggested restrictions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose unblock as per CU results below. Very disappointing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unban/unblock - This editor was blocked, then community banned for a good reason, and subsequently created literally dozens of socks over a three-year period, including one whose name mocked an editor who worked on enforcement in his case. Last sock was in April 2015. I'm saying a little over a year is too little time elapsed to prove good faith. Maybe in another year, with continued lack of socking, and the point about seeing a reasonable amount of constructive editing in the coming months on the other Wiki's, made above, is a good one. Jusdafax 16:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral for now As someone who filed the most SPIs on the user and initiated the CB request, I'm going to need to see the user seriously repudiate their past behaviors and take the initiative to understand our rules and guidelines before we give them the keys back. There has been no sign of them for a year, this is true. But they refused to work with and cooperate with any editors in any appreciable way during their original run here (it took a block to make them understand our copyright policies for userspace, for instance), and under their socks, were downright contemptible towards anyone reverting their edits. I also remember a few of those accounts personally attacking me in very crude and harsh terms. I would like to see more specific apologies and promises to respect copyright and differing opinions, especially understanding differing opinions about the Parents Television Council and children's programming policies and laws, before they resume editing here. At this point I want to see their communication with others involving the unblock before beyond a standard statement of apology before I'm bent towards one way or another. Nate • (chatter) 17:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, was TRCG the guy who kept removing all links to CommonSenseMedia, or was that someone else? That would need to be addressed as well, I think. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It may have been, @Cyphoidbomb:, I definitely knew about their issues with the PTC and any mention of FCC children's guidelines. Whatever the case, with the CheckUser coming back it's moot now; I feared it would because I've noticed TRCG-like behavior on some station articles of late but no true MO hits that compelled me to take them to SPI (it's helped that the PTC has pretty much thrown up their hands and gave up regarding Family Guy in these later seasons like most of the viewing public has, but I digress). But now it's confirmed and I switch to strong oppose of an unblock lift. Again, I want to see a long-term cease to articles in any form before the SO is offered (and I would still say it's open), and the CU showed that isn't the case. Sorry. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support Oppose per CU note below - I suspect that this is a kid who, perhaps from growing older, has realized that he was acting like an ass, and wants to contribute constructively going forward. As far as any of us know, he hasn't socked since April 2015. If he was bent on continuing his disruption, why did he stop? I don't see a huge up-side to continuing to marginalize him. If he's allowed to edit and he starts up with the disruptive editing, he'll get indeffed soon enough. As for the community ban issue, I won't speak for Mrschimpf, who proposed the ban, but I do know that a few years back I thought that community bans would make it easier to combat vandalism--by going to AIV and logging "Duck of TheREALCableGuy, who is community banned". This was before I was aware that indeffed editors were "de facto" banned anyway. I participated in the ban discussion, but in retrospect, I would have abstained for "de facto" ban reasons. I noted in the discussion:

"I'm not an admin, but I support this ban. It's unfortunate because his factual edits tended to be solid, but he was notoriously uncooperative with the community, and he deleted any and all criticism from his talk page almost immediately without responding."

If we can get some sort of assurance that he will participate in discussion, deal with criticism better, (like, by responding to notices calmly and rationally instead of knee-jerk deletion) then I don't think it's unreasonable to drop the community ban. It's worth noting Drmies' comments as well:

"I'm the CableGuy's only champion here, I suppose, and a lousy one at that. Moreover, as is pointed out above, he's de facto banned with Kww hitting mass rollback, no doubt, every time he runs into him. I've tried to connect with CableGuy, always unsuccessfully, but--as is pointed out above--his edits are solid. What a shame."

Even Mrschimpf's proposal was hesitant:

"I never wanted to take it to this step as TRCG would have been good for the project if they followed our guidelines, but their refusal to do so has brought me to this step."

The fact that TRCG is talking, speaks loudly. If he is capable of expressing himself by describing how he'd do things differently, then I think he might be ready to come back. Blocks are, after all, not supposed to be punitive. I'd probably like to see him agree to certain stipulations about sourcing, edit-warring, and some broad plan for how to communicate better. Maybe as a condition, he's not allowed to delete talk page warnings for the next 3 months? And/or a stipulation that he has to respond to any user-generated notices and warnings? Seems like there's some way for him to demonstrate good faith. If we do unblock, I think we should be a little patient with him as well, since he's got a huge hill to climb ahead, and I'm sure we've all been in that position where we kept royally screwing up in front of the boss... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: TheREALCableGuy has made a significant amount of edits while logged out over the past few months. Mike V • Talk 19:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To preemptively address some of the comments regarding the use of Checkuser, the global and local policies permit a check to be run in order to check for sockpuppet abuse and limit disruption to the project. Mike V • Talk 19:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose due to trust issues in light of the recent checkuser information. They have already violated the expectations of the standard offer. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per CU report. BMK (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - In light of the Checkuser report, I am switching my !vote from Neutral to Strong Oppose. I was willing to allow TRCG back, but with this new information, I can't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:40 on June 19, 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose now due to the CU report, but I have serious concerns over the fact that CU was used here. Global and local policies do allow CheckUsers to check for sockpuppet abuse and limit disruption, but the only evidence of sockpuppet abuse/disruption here was past sockpuppet abuse/disruption. I cannot possibly state how strongly I disagree with the idea that past sockpuppet abuse/disruption serves as a license to check an account permanently. ~ Rob^Talk 00:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You might disagree, but it is supported by policy. See Wikipedia:CheckUser. Also the check was in response to an unblock request. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Policy states "'Fishing' is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry." Where was the current evidence of abusive sock-puppetry here? Nowhere in the policy is a fishing expedition authorized due to an unblock request. In fact, requests initiated by users to check themselves are explicitly disallowed ("On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted"). ~ Rob^Talk 00:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • No credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry? Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive. It doesn't mention that the evidence must be current. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
        • We require evidence to be current to block an account. You're suggesting the bar is lower for CheckUser than blocking? ~ Rob^Talk 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
          • In this case, I believe there was legitimate grounds for the use of it. A concern that TRCG was still socking leading up to this unblock request. This would fulfil the requirements of Grounds for checking: CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to 2. Sock puppetry. Given TRCG's prolific socking history, there were certainly grounds for checking in response to the unblock request. Under the CheckUser and privacy policy section, 1. there was credible concerns of bad faith editing, which is generally how sock editing is usually viewed, 2. a request was made above by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for a CU, or at least a question was raised regarding socking, 3. TRCG's history of socking would in my view substantiate a need for a CU in this case and 4. in this case isn't relevant as no data was going to be revealed. There is no strict requirement that evidence of socking be "current". Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
            • This needs clarification. It is not trivial to set the precedent that CheckUser can be used at any time on an editor who has ever abusively used alternative accounts, regardless of how long ago that was. (To be clear, whatever the outcome of clarification on this, I'm not suggesting any action in response to this check. Mike V acted in good faith, and this is apparently a far more gray area than I think it to be in the community's opinion. I don't mean for any of this to read like an attack on him.) ~ Rob^Talk 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

*@BU Rob13: I believe there were two reasons for the checkuser being done. First, the user had a long history of socking. Second, many editors/admin asked for it to be done. Since this was a indef-blocked, community-banded, long-term sockpuppeteer, for many editors/admin, simple good faith just wasn't going to cut it. Proof that TRCG hadn't been socking was needed for many of us (myself included) to make a decision whether TRGC should be allowed back. Many were in the Neutral column without that CU. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on June 20, 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The ultimate authority on what is and what isn't CU'able lies with the m:ombudsman commission. Requests to the commission may take a while (the one and only time I know of someone contacting them it took somewhere between 2 to 3 months to get an answer) but they would be the final say on if this falls in line with the WMF's checkuser policy. If you really want a concrete clarification on this matter they would be the people to contact. Enwiki's policy can be more restrictive than the WMF's but it can't be less and since we don't know what the baseline is the OC would probably be the best ones to answer. --Majora (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While we may have to discuss the ramifications of the CU, what's done is done. The knowledge that a prolific sockmaster has basically lied in their unblock request when asked about recent socking is enough to void any smidgin of good faith, and there was precious little of it to begin with, that could have remained. Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: If TheREALCableGuy keeps off the project for real, he may claim the SO. I'm not going to comment on the procedural propriety of the use of CU here, but will note that this is exactly, precisely the sort of task for which CU was created: To prevent people from blowing smoke about not having socked or edited while being logged out. Periodically the community gets into an almost frenzied habit of assuming good faith even to the point of refusing to recognize waterfowl with green heads and white bands around their necks. I believe that, at worst, the mistake here was to identify specifically that TheREALCableGuy was editing while logged out, rather than the bland statement along the lines of "Checkuser evidence indicates that TheREALCableGuy has very recently engaged in block evasion." The use of CU to, say, do a sleeper check of a known sockpuppeteer, especially given use of the master account refreshes the CU data for that master, is hardly controversial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, he could say that, even though strictly they're different things. _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• @BU Rob- This is not a matter of civil liberties. Wikipedia is a private website, and can do whatever it damn well pleases with the data it collects. If you don't like what it does, your option is to quit the website and not give it access to your data. Socking is a serious problem on Wikipedia, as any long-term editor knowa, and I, personally, am not predisposed to allow it to go on due to some sort of delicacy about whether it's "ethical" to determine if someone is a sock or not. The tools available to our functionari4w have been artificially limited by Wikimedia's rules, so when they're actually allowed to do something, the last thing they need is Wikopedia editors looking over their shoulders and saying "tsk tsk". My mantra is, and has been, "We're here to build an encyclopedia", and that means that anything that gets in the way of that is bad, most assuredly including socking editors who lie about their activities and still want to come back to edit. You'll excuse the expression, I hope, but "Fuck them". If they really wanted to contribute to Wikipedia they would have controlled themslves and not socked. My thanks to Mike V for providing the needed data, and let's close down this hullshit discussion about whether it was a legitimate use of CU or not. Any use of Cu which helps prptect Wikipedia is legitimate, by definition. BMK (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of the problem of sockpuppetry, having filed dozens of SPI reports myself. The artificial limits you mentioned aren't really limits if not clearly defined and followed. CU balances the desire for privacy with the desire to mitigate disruption — a philosophy statement that is set out in the CheckUser policy itself. Wikipedia actually can't do whatever it pleases with the data it collects despite being a private website. Multiple states, such as Pennsylvania, consider a misleading privacy policy to be a deceptive business practice. When the WMF created a privacy policy, it created legal obligations that the project must meet. As I mentioned above, my comments are not meant to be an attack on the CheckUser, and I fully recognize he acted in good faith. Whether or not this use was a mistake can be discussed elsewhere, though; this editor's appeal is obviously going nowhere. ~ Rob^Talk 08:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Respectfully, I don't think there's a legitimate concern there. Even in the states that like to rake service providers over the coals for weird privacy things, this is something done in order to ensure compliance with the ToU, by a high-level volunteer or employee. As I said above, the only real worry to be had here is that by pointing out the mode of block evasion—that it was by editing while logged out rather than via socks—might allow a person familiar with this case to do... something. And even then I think it's a moot point. We're not talking about some kind of privileged communication being leaked by a person with a special duty towards end users. And even a cursory review of the privacy policy makes it clear that CU technical data is retained and may be used for anti-abuse purposes, which, honestly, cannot reasonably be interpreted to exclude discovery of outright lying by people seeking the lifting of a sanction, or for that matter exclude the prevention of abuse (i.e., the discovery that a sanctioned user is bypassing that sanction). In any event, this is not the forum for claiming a violation of the privacy policy. This is a thread about this particular editor's eligibility for an unblock, which given the information provided by the CU, is not going to happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • What exactly is the issue here? Someone who had a history of sock puppetry was suspected of sock puppetry based on that history. That suspicion became relevant due to the unblock request. People requested such a check based on relevant suspicion and a very real history. The check was done and the suspicions were proven true. This is well within my reading of our checkuser policy, not that this is the venue to resolve such things. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Query: Hi Mike, could I trouble you to please clarify something about the CU? I'm curious whether we're talking about rampant and consistent socking, or that the user made one or two edits. He's steadfast that he's not edited here since 2015, so I'm curious. Like, are we in the "maybe he honestly forgot that he might've tweaked a few things," ballpark or the "he's straight-up lying" ballpark? It's mostly for my own edification so I don't feel like too much of a tool for leaving a "You have disappointed me and your mother very much" note on his talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'd estimate it around 200-300 edits. Mike V • Talk 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've checked Cyphoidbomb's mother, and she's not disappointed at all. On a more serious note, HighInBC's comment just above is spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi-yooooo! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question Mike V--were the logged out edits any good? Obviously that won't get him unblocked now, but it's something to take into account if there's another request down the road sometime. If he did some good editing and found himself liking it enough to ask to rejoin the community (even under false pretenses), that's more encouraging than if he was up to the same crap as before. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've never understood the notion that being chronically dishonest can somehow be mitigated by editing efforts. Now that he has demonstrated his unsuitability for the project one more time, why would you ever consider knowingly allowing him to rejoin it?—Kww(talk) 00:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. While an individual's productive contributions to the encyclopedia are important, we can't rest on such first-order matters when there's an entire community attempting to do the same thing. Intentional failure to respect the rules acts to damage the encyclopedia, and while we can't point to an article that says "DICKS HAHAHA" for 15 minutes as a result of that damage, I doubt it's any less harmful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Mendaliv, you wrote further up: "If TheREALCableGuy keeps off the project for real, he may claim the SO.". All I'm saying is that TRCG may have unintentionally given us some info about what kind of editor we'll get if that day comes and we let him back in. I'd be more inclined to take back a good editor than a lousy one, so I'm suggesting that if we can have that info then we can use it. Kww, the (informal) existence of the SO shows the community generally prefers to be less draconian about this stuff. I'm not worked up about it myself, as I think the project has much bigger issues to worry about in other areas. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Close?

Since it is clear that User:TheREALCableGuy's request for unblock is going nowhere, I move that the request be denied and this thread closed. That OK with everyone? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)

• Fine by me. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jane Gazzo article

User:Satchett continues to remove sourced material from the Jane Gazzo article. Don't want to get into a 3RR situation. Help? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wikiklrsc: As the edit war is slow burning, I don't think 3RR (which is no more than 3 reverts per day, roughly speaking) is going to apply. The point of contention seems to be whether or not theweeklyreview.com.au is a suitable source to use on a BLP claiming Jane Gazzo's marriage and relationships to an otherwise non-notable person, and per WP:BLPSOURCES, if Satchett thinks the source is not sufficient quality, he is correct per policy to remove it. I think your best bet is to start a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your insight. One of the articles was a direct interview with Jane Gazzo regarding her new life as a mom and wife, so there's little wiggle room for misrepresentation or misinterpretation. We'll see how it plays out. BLP may be the correct avenue. Best. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2

The Sarah Marinos article is no longer a source of material for a footnote reference. It is no longer featured on the web. Hence deletion of this source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchett (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts. Second, sources do not have to be available online; deleting a source can be considered disruptive. Miniapolis 00:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Article is archived in "At home with Triple M's Jane Gazzo", The Weekly Review, June 1.2015 12:57 pm, BY Sarah Marinos. It's all there online. Jane, her husband, and son, and lifestyle taking points. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Satchett has stated that she is the article subject. While this is unverified, it does shed a different light on the issue. I would suggest that Satchett explain her objections to the material; if it's a privacy-related thing (and the name of a minor child who is not in any way a public figure is certainly a privacy issue), that should be taken under consideration on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Copied from BLP noticeboard. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I am User:Satchett aka Jane Gazzo. Would appreicate [sic] talking [sic] off wikipedia re my entry as the noting of my husband and child is causing major grief. --- User:Satchett, June 24, 2016

What is your particular objection to the material being included? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a good question, Jane. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't known, but suspected, that the moniker "Satchett" was you, Jane. Online, of course, we can't prove it. :( Regardless, the article is archived on the Internet Wayback Machine, and isn't dead on the internet. That being said, if this unintentional addition by me originally has somehow caused you some issues, I can't easily remove it as there are other editors involved now. THE WEEKLY REVIEW (Melbourne) article by Sarah Marinos which was an interview with you seemed jolly enough, celebrating your husband and son and your new home and even the BBC 6 Music record box. Editor User:NorthBySouthBaranof has noted that if this information has caused you trouble, then please state it as such. There is a mechanism to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and get an OTRS "TICKET" for an issue and they investigate and then action is taken one way or the other -- removing it or leaving it in. See this article: Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team. See Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects for how to contact by email. (info-en-q@wikimedia.org). Let's get this fixed. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the arguable step of removing the information, albeit sourced and in public magazines, since User:Satchett who says she's Jane Gazzo says it's causing her family problems and issues to have this published in WP. I've asked Satchett/Jane (we can't currently prove Satchett = Jane Gazzo) to write to the Wikimedia Foundation by email and ask to open an OTRS ticket to look into this issue. And if they decide it's to be removed, then they can expunge all old versions with the information. To be clear, I originally added the information as informational and as a jolly addition of a husband and son. Most notable people on Wikipedia have this information INCLUDED as a matter of public knowledge. But if it causes harm, we must relent. But I leave that to admins and OTRS volunteers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

'Causing harm' is not a requirement for removal. Non-notable family member names are rountinely removed from BLP's unless they are significant to the subjects notability (which they rarely are). WP:BLPNAME clarifies "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Bolding mine. Its rarely the case that the third bolded section, when put to an actual discussion, results in names of non-notable spouses or children being kept in an article. Merely being reliably sourced is not enough, you also have to demonstrate its relevant to an understanding of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Good points. I took it out and we'll presumably leave it out for now, unless other editors decide otherwise. I really hope User:Satchett contacts the Wikimedia Foundation and they create an OTRS ticket to investigate this matter so that if it's a problem then the older versions can be actually expunged. Most celebrities/public personalities have children/spouse history/relatives included in their articles, even if they are not famous or notable. So it's not an unusual practice and this was in a magazine interview with Jane Gazzo in Melbourne, Australia and sourced accordingly. Best wishes and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?

Please see the request at WP:ANRFC (which is where I'm watching). The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Now watching here too. I got a reply that the request for 3 closers "sounds weird" ... thoughts? I have no preference, but in a discussion above, some are saying that they prefer 3 closers for some RfCs, and this looked like it might be one of those RfCs. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Dank: Would this be a user right that users could request or something that all non-admins would be automatically able to do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15 on June 24, 2016 (UTC)

In the support section, no one is mentioning a userright. But they're drawing parallels to how things are done at WP:RM, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, so by analogy, different voters are going to have different ideas of how much clue is required among the NACs who do this kind of work regularly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I wasn't really sure and didn't want to wade through the entire discussion trying to find an answer. :) I think it's a good idea and will help in the long run. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on June 24, 2016 (UTC)

Btw, voting may or may not stay open in this one for a while. I'm not going to box it up for at least a week, but someone else might. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, apparently my request doesn't sound weird. Unwatching here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Russian IP removing apparently blacklisted links

I can do with some advice. I ran into 94.25.228.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP from St. Petersburg, Russia), whom I warned because on Guatemala City they removed some blacklisted archive link, but also content, without paying attention to what they were doing. I asked them about this, and found that they flipped a switch and returned as 94.25.229.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) right after I warned them. I blocked that one for disruptive editing (there are no explanations, no edit summaries); the next incarnation was 188.162.65.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and then 188.162.65.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'd like for someone to have a look at what this might be, what their interest might be in removing these archive links. I know there's a commercial interest in archiving stuff (we had this out here a while ago, with archive.is or something like that), but I don't know if that's what's going on here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I went through the history and reverted most of the edits, save for a few that removed non-archive links that weren't being used properly as references. I don't see any connection between the articles or the links, so I'm guessing that either it's someone who took an overzealous approach to removing blacklisted links and doesn't communicate well, or it's someone who knows that blacklisted links can't be added to articles and is trying to vandalize articles by removing blacklisted links so the edits can't easily be reverted. (Which doesn't actually work, since the blacklist doesn't stop the rollback button.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking into it. Yes, reverting is not easy, I noticed, haha. But I think that the purpose isn't just to vandalize with the blacklist as a kind of cover; I think the content removal was just a kind of incompetence, possibly a linguistic incompetence as well. I was wondering, and maybe it's the folks at VPP or the technical refdesk who know this, if there's something exciting about this archiving business per se. And perhaps your first option is correct... Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Template:Blacklisted-links is confusing. It contains very little information about what to do, how to deal with WP:DEADREFs, or anything else. The "click here to request whitelisting" points at the template itself (again), rather than a help page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC about mass-listing expired RFCs for formal closing

An RFC is underway about behavior at WP:ANRFC, and so far, there has been a notable lack of participation by admins. This seems a bit odd for a discussion about how to regulate an admins' noticeboard. So here's the link: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RFC: Require participants to add to RFC listings, and I hope to see more of you, and your practical ideas about how to improve the situation, there soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Overdue speedy delete from two days ago

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A speedy delete on Bob Bryar was requested almost two days ago. This was for the AfC Draft:Bob Bryar to be moved there. Suggested to also remind User:LaMona (as the user was the one to comment on the draft and request the speedy delete) to perhaps complete the AfC process. Sekyaw (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Bob Bryar and the accompanying talk page have now been deleted. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Maile66: And I've undeleted the relevant old edits. You don't just blast over 1,500 edits out of the water like that. Graham87 10:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. A similar situation happened just a couple of days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Speedy deletion from 3 days ago. Sometimes there are good reasons why pages have been sitting at CSD for a while, it's not always as simple as just hitting delete. I'm also unsure why some people are currently so keen on 'closing' requests like this recently once they've been actioned. If nothing further needs to said then it can just sit there. Otherwise, there are times when follow up is necessary. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for telling me about this. I shall certainly be more careful in the future. My apologies for this. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have a question about this. If the AfD was to redirect to the band's article because "as often with drummers, this article is not notable" (wtf...why all the drummer hatin'?) isn't that essentially a decision to delete? In these cases, if it had been deleted, then would that also require an undelete & histmerge? I'm just trying to understand how attribution is necessary in this case, unless the draft article took info from the pre-redirect article? Rgrds. --64.85.216.112 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As the creator of the draft and newly created article, this also confuses me a bit. None of the info was derived from the pre-redirect article and was done from scratch (mainly because the pre-redirect article was really bad in my opinion, in which I decided to make a new one to show his notability). It seems that the old edits don't seem that relevant to the new article. And sorry if coming here to close the speedy delete was wrong and if I should have waited before following up on it. Sekyaw (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not that the attribution is required per se; it's more the principle of the thing. The older edits can be safely and harmlessly kept behind the history of the new article, and there's no reason to make them inaccessible to non-admins (which is all deletion does). If they had overlapped in any way, I would've moved them to a subpage of the talk page. The result of a redirect close in an AFD just means ... redirect the page, nothing else. Graham87 15:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet heads-up

From Wikispecies Over at species:Wikispecies:Village Pump, there is a discussion about User:Stegana who is evidently a sockpuppet of User:Stho002, who has caused many headaches at that project. It's not necessary to take any action at en.wp yet (and we're discussing what we need to do there) but this user has an account here as well. @Stegana:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dragon City articles

I've warned GabrielPintabona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about creating many pages with the same content for the game "Dragon City", but could an admin delete the duplicate articles? Feinoha ^Talk 21:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:NeilN. Feinoha ^Talk 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also had to block GabrielPintabona as the creation of articles was continuing unabated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Heroes needed for WP:AFD

At WP:AFD, we have 10 day long backlog, which is highly unusual. There are may be a dozen of discussions, but most of them are difficult, and may take a lot of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone will add the relist template to them all and it'll go away for the short-term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of them have been already relisted twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

For non-admins hoping to help out: most are either clear deletes or really complex closes, so I'd leave it to the admins. Good luck, ansh666 06:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like AFD has been cleared up to the 19th. Great job, everyone! Nakon 00:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Huge backlog at WP:UAA

If some admins can please go to WP:UAA, it would helpful. There is a large backlog of user-reported cases, with some sitting there for the past three days. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: when I left the GLAM Boot Camp, I went straight into the hospital for an unscheduled triple bypass and am still here. I'm starting to catch up, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A mystery with alerts and messages

• I am an admin. At the top of any Wikipedia page is, in this order: my name, then an "Alerts" clickable with a number, then a "Messages" clickable with a number, then other stuff ("talk" etc).
  • If I click on the alerts clickable, I get a list of my alerts; the number is how many alerts I have which I have not read yet. OK.
  • If I click on the messages clickable, I get a list of my messages; the number is always "99+". But if I click on it, I get a list of messages, and at its top right corner currently the text "49 notifications", not 99 or more; and I have already read all these 49 messages.
  • If I go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anthony_Appleyard , I still get the 2 same Alerts and Messages links. This time, clicking on the Message link shows currently 38 messages, not 99 or more. But at other times this Messages link gets the first 100 of a long list of messages which seem to be every message passed in Wikidata, not only the messages concerning me.
    • What is happening? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Check User talk:Timtrent/Archive 31 § Notifications for a possible solution. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. It seems to have worked. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

JWilson0923 and The Zeitgeist Movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Zeitgeist Movement is under general sanctions. JWilson0923 has been notified of this. [86] Despite this, he's been caught socking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JWilson0923/Archive and is today reverting multiple times, characterizing good faith edits as vandalism and implying others are socking. [87], [[88], [89] Asking for a WP:1RR restriction or topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't "sock pupetted" anything and I suggest you get your IPs in order before you make such accusations. You are a failure as an admin if you continue to allow one lone editor have its way with a page about a respectful organization. How any admin can sit by and watch what you allow on the ZM page is unreal. I will stop editing and now move to have you questioned as an admin with any integrity. JWilson0923 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked as a checkusered sockmaster. The article has plenty of eyes other than Earl's on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support block. 1RR and topic bans is not enough and certainly not going to fix anything in my opinion. The socking alone should have been enough. If not that then the aspersions and personal attacks certainly are. The page is under ArbCom restrictions. Block and move on. --Majora (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support block - obvious WP:SPA operating in bad faith to turn the article into a puff piece. Would pull the trigger myself, but I'm involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Could block based on edit warring and personal attacks alone. GS isn't even necessary. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have this article on watch and I was suspicious about some of these reverts, but I wasn't entirely confident about engaging editors about it. I would also recommend some sort of monitoring for the article from at least two admins. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the above, yet another SPA, BMK (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please help out at CFDS

Can some more admins please help out at WP:CFDS? WE have unhandled requests going back more than a week. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about blocked editor

Few days ago User:Damianmx has been blocked for a reason of sockpuppetry, before his block he made many useful contributions, enlarged many articles, provided good sources and etc. After his block some users (e.g. User:Chipmunkdavis and User:LouisAragon reverted his edits without any discussion or revision were they useful or not. I talked to them about that according WP:EVADE Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. [But] This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor. You can see my talk page about that issue and articles' history involved in such reverts Russo-Georgia war and Georgia and also User:Chipmunkdavis's reverts history [90] from 19:56, 13 June 2016. I understand WP:EVADE as I wrote I don't know am I wrong and they are right or am I right and they are wrong, please help to solve this situation. p.s. User:LouisAragon reverted not only Damianmx's edits but also mine not providing any reason of doing that. --g. balaxaZe★ 14:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2/Archive, Damianmx is a sockpuppet account of Satt 2 (talk · contribs), the master account. If that's correct, every edit by Damianmx was an edit made in violation of the block on Satt 2. --Yamla (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And it looks like Satt 2 belongs to Polscience (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yamla Okay I understand that but then what and why WP:EVADE says: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor? I am in questions --g. balaxaZe★ 15:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It means it is optional and not required. If there are any edits you think of value you are welcome to take responsibility for them by restoring them. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edits by a blocked editor may be reverted, but don't have to be reverted. My personal opinion is that edits by people evading blocks should be reverted, because otherwise it encourages them to continue trying to evade their block. Not everyone agrees with that position, though. Wikipedia's official policy is that reverting edits is optional. --Yamla (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Any such restored edits, if contested, should be discussed on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say that goes for any edit. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but some think that those edits have to be removed without any further discussion and just simply revert everything, like this does user:‎Hebel here ► [91]. Please User:HighInBC, User:Yamla, User:Kansas Bear explain to him to undo his revert and let's revert all history until controversial edits of LouisAragon and after that choose what should be removed and will stay in the article. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand material added earlier by blocked users or socks, that has been removed, should not be reinstated verbatim without discussion on the talk page or consensus by other users. Therefore it is suppressed for now. Discuss first, reinstate later if the discussion allows for that. Not the other way around. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Do you read my comments? There is not only blocked user's edits but mine and others' LouisAragon hid that in his descriptions. That is not fair! You are reverting other users edits with no reason. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)~

User:Giorgi Balakhadze, see my Talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted, but once they are, they are! Looking at the content of the text involved cursorily however, I don't see any very striking POV issues. I think the issues involved can be reasonably discussed on the talk page of the article, which they should be because there is an aspect of block evasion involved AND because it will give other editors a chance to chip in, which is not so easy on a user talk page. I do think that's the first course of action now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, this issue is not only about those comments. As can be seen on their talkpage, Giorgi Balakhadze originally brought it up regarding talkpage comments, so there is I think a wider lack of understanding of our blocking procedures. CMD (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

CMD as you can read other users opinion I understood that policy quite well. Issue is that some users wanted to revert Damianmx edits even before his block but after his block they reverted only specific edits about specific topics not all of them... I won't afraid to say that some users try to use wiki policies only in favor to their personal POV.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No Giorgi Balakhadze, you apparently still do not understand the policy well. As I have told you before, the editor behind Damianmx has been blocked since 2010. There is no "before his block" regarding edits to be reverted. Personally I went backwards through contribution history until I ran out of time, but if you know of edits that have not been reverted, please do revert them yourself or point them out to others. Help would be appreciated. CMD (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis Stop your vandalism reverts (like here), in WP:EVADE and in discussion it is clearly said that you don't have to remove well sourced and 100% useful materials. Your actions are simply vandalism toward Wikipedia and its free knowledge. @Yamla: @HighInBC: @Kansas Bear: @Hebel: Please community stop this outrage--g. balaxaZe★ 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting contributions from a blocked user is not vandalism. It may not be mandatory but it is entirely appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

CMD, I understand what you are saying. But apart from the matter at hand here, it should be allowed to start a new discussion about whatever text for the article on the article's talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, I am unaware of any time I have complained about people starting talkpage discussions. If I have I apologise. On the other hand, it is not my modus operandi to describe changing the article to suit my POV as "a few corrections", edit war further, and then have the temerity to warn other users of 3RR and then ask them to observe the status quo. CMD (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors have different personal views about reverting the edits of blocked or banned editors. Some see it as important to revert in order to discourage problematic editors from getting re-involved in the project. Others feel useful content is positive, regardless of who placed it there. Both views are accepted on Wikipedia. Our policy on this is that reverts are allowed, and so it is not an admin issue when someone does revert the edits of a blocked user, unless this is in some way disruptive (such as restoring harmful material that the blocked editor had removed). As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it (ie. they have checked the sources to ensure what is said is accurate, is not copyright material, is not inserting unbalanced views into an article, etc). User:Giorgi Balakhadze, if you feel the material that Chipmunkdavis is removing is a net positive to the article, and complies with our guidelines and policies, then you may restore it. It is generally advised in such circumstances to let the reverting editor know what you are doing, and enter into a discussion with them as appropriate, but you only need come here if some issue arises out of your replacing the material that requires admin intervention. The first approach is to discuss and edit. If discussion breaks down there are dispute resolution venues on Wikipedia which can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SilkTork Thank you very much, finally I've heard something that is right. I will do as you have advised.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Be very careful about 3RR, even on an egregious sock, because detecting socks is sometimes hard, counting to 3 is easy. So you can easily be blocked by an admin for your edit-warring, whilst the sock is unchallenged. As SPI refuses to act on IPs, they are especially difficult to deal with.

There is no admin glory in nailing yet another trivial sock. But an established editor is a scalp worth collecting. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification question on topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had agreed to refrain from appealing a recently unjustly imposed topic ban pending the outcome of ongoing RFCs, but then one of the people involved in the topic ban discussion closed the RFCs out of process. Am I entitled to ask that the RFCs and their articles' dispute tags be restored in hopes that the RFC process will preclude the necessity of an appeal, and because the early closure was particularly improper because I had agreed to abide by the topic ban without an appeal pending their outcome? EllenCT (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No one asked you to refrain from filing an appeal. In fact I am sure most people involved would rather you get it over with. So phrasing it as 'your agreement' is disingenuous. Secondly, those were not properly formatted RFC's and had zero chance of going anywhere since the material involved was directly the cause of why people voted to topic ban you. A less kind AGF person might think you deliberately threw them up in your usual tactic of attempting to draw out and prolong the process. If anyone actually wants to salvage something from them and open a proper RFC without your POV-driven and misleading input, they are more than welcome to. However it is irrelevant to you because you are banned from the topic. So no, you are not allowed to comment on non-existant RFC's on a topic which you will no longer be editing. Rather than dropping the stick as multiple people have advised you to, your response is to grab it with both hands and keep swinging. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

They were not formatted improperly. I've seen dozens of successful RFCs formatted identically, and they already had comments from uninvolved editors who you have effectively censored by your out-of-process closing. EllenCT (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Which you cannot discuss because you are topic banned from economics. Suggest you go away, read WP:BANEX then drop the stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have read it. I am interested in administrators' opinions on the question. I am not restricted from commenting on the out-of-process RFC closures, as far as I can tell. See WP:GRAVEDANCING#Spotting actual gravedancers. ( EllenCT (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Since disputing the RfC closes is neither reverting obvious vandalism, nor appealing the ban itself – the two exceptions listed at BANEX – I agree completely with OID, you are forbidden to discuss them. If you disagree, please cite the language in BANEX that permits you to do so, considering that the RfC are certainly part of "economics, broadly construed". BMK (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. A broadly construed topic ban means you cannot discuss that subject anywhere at all on wikipedia, unless your edit is exempted by WP:BANEX, which this is not. You were already advised of that on the talkpage of this page when you combined this request with some strange request for a "link" to aid off-site co-ordination, (or something). You then proceeded to add to a closed discussion to rehash the same question. I don't think this will end well if you continue this way. Incidentally, nothing in your GRAVEDANCING link applies to anything that actually happened here. Sadly, that reinforces 2 things: firstly that you relentlessly wikilawyer to the death, and secondly that you disingenuously introduce links which don't actually support your position in any way. These things were fundamental to your topic ban. HTH. Begoon ^talk 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) First, one does not "agree" to a community placed topic ban one "abides by it" or ends up site banned. And this is not a legitimate clarification request just because the word was used - it is a continuation of the same behavior she was banned for, a total inability to let go and move on.

  My strong opinion here is that EllenCT should refer to the first law of holes and move on to another topic area. From the results of the just closed community topic ban discussion my impression is that the community is exhausted with her inability to drop the stick and there is a strong likelihood the regretful next step will be a site ban.

  Jbh^Talk 19:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost moved to suggest such a siteban, since, in essence, we have here multiple violations of the topic ban. But it's a new ban, and we should offer a limited amount of time for the editor to get used to/assimilate it. So I won't suggest that right now. Begoon ^talk 19:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agreed to abide by the topic ban and refrain from an appeal until after the RFCs ran their course. Closing the RFCs out of process under those conditions, after I have made that statement of my intentions concerning appealing, seems absurd and the same as gravedancing to me. Asking whether the out-of-process RFC closures were proper is not discussing the topic of the ban. Again, I am interested in administrators' opinions on this clarification question which I am allowed to ask here per WP:BANEX. I am trying to avoid an appeal, which I expect will not be necessary if the RFCs were allowed to run their course with the proper dispute tags. EllenCT (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard anything anyone said above? Begoon ^talk 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares if you appeal or not. Your appeal will go to the same community that banned you. There is no other recourse except for ArbCom, and I wouldn't expect you to find any relief there. BMK (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think its best to file an ArbCom case about the problems in the Economics topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought so too, at one time, but at this point, with a newly minted community topic ban in place, ArbCom is most likely going to reject any case request in favor of giving the topic ban time to have an effect. That's what usually happens in situations such as this. For the same reason, I would expect any appeal to ArbCom from EllenCT to be rejected, as there was nothing untoward about the discussion that ended in the topic ban, and there's been insufficient time to judge whether the ban has been effective or not. BMK (talk)

Yes, but with EllenCT out of the picture there things may look fine in the sense of no editing disputes boiling over to AN/I or elsewhere, but there may still be problems with the way the economics articles are edited. So, I think it's best to keep an eye on these articles and if there are problems then an ArbCom case could be considered (with or without EllenCT taking part). Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay EllenCT final warning. This RFC is under the scope of your topic ban. You are not to comment on the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, this includes declaring an RFC on the subject to be closed out of process. A few people have already told you this but since you want an answer from an admin, here is your answer from me an admin.

You say "I am not restricted from commenting on the out-of-process RFC closures", well yes you are as it is part of the topic you are banned from. If you continue to discuss the topic you are banned from then a block will be forthcoming. You need to leave the entire topic to people who are not you, if something unfair is happening then someone else will notice and do something about it. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you're just dying for an administrator's opinion, I'll give you mine. I sincerely hope you listen to the words because you're on a very short gangplank here of your own creation.

You started those RFCs, they were malformed and weren't going anywhere, and they were closed without prejudice as to their reopening in a correct form. Anyone is free to make another RFC except you. If new RFCs are created, you're not going to be editing them since you're topic-banned from the area. There was no 'agreement' on your part nor was one necessary, as this was a community decision – one in which all editors participated, not just administrators. You've been repeatedly warned to stop picking at this scab, to drop the stick, and to step away. You seem to be unable to hear that, so hear this: if you ask this question again, I will consider it a violation of your topic ban and block you accordingly. Katie^talk 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tangent

NB: This is a tangent; you don't have to read this.

A "properly formatted RFC" contains three elements:

• the {{rfc}} tag, ideally with one or more categories;
• some question or other statement, to give respondents some idea what you want them to comment on; and
• a date stamp for the bot.

There is a very large gap between "a properly formatted RFC" and "a useful, productive, and/or wise RFC". Having looked at the disputed RFC, I believe that it was "properly formatted". Whether it was useful, or wise, or moot, is a separate consideration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed topic ban for User:Basketballfan12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background

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

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

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

Basketball-related:

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

Baseball related:

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

The following have been speedy deleted:

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

@KrakatoaKatie: Basketballfan12 made a comment at Talk:Nate Fish, an article that they created; curiously, Basketballfan12 refers to themselves in the third person when commenting on their own talk page about the Talk:Nate Fish edit: "The author made some comments on the talk page, justifying his notability."[92] Basketballfan12's words imply a group account; moreover; they haven't been very forthcoming here on why a topic ban would not be suitable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Bagumba: If that is the case (English not being an apparent problem, the subsequent use of the Royal 'we', and the apparent misunderstanding of notability plus the lack of necessary discussion), then I think a temporary block of the account is in order. Topic banning them isn't going to get their attention - AfD'ing the articles the user is creating isn't stopping them. I think that a block - for the good of the encyclopedia - will get them talking, if for no other reason than to say, 'why u do dat?' That the problem made it here makes the point of its necessity, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: A block would at least an attempt to address the long-term problem. Still, I'm AGF that their contributions are useful outside of their judgement on article creation, and a topic ban would still allow them to contribute and learn about notability criteria in the draft namespace.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we just remove privileges when it comes to article creation? Is that an option? That is probably by far the best option in my opinion, that way Basketballfan12 can still submit articles to AfC if they want, and work on other articles where they have been doing some useful work (i say 'they' because it is fairly clear that this account is being used by multiple people from several of the comments by Basketballfan12.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: There is no specific article creation "right" that can be removed from a registered user. A topic ban is the only option.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Basketballfan12 has created another article on a minor league player, which I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Drossner.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You might want to also check a couple of other articles: Michael Barash, Charlie Cutler. Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A little update. A few more have been taken to AfD. Note that of the additional 18 additional pages that this user created that have been taken to AfD (by me), 15 of them were closed as Delete (this is not counting the pages listed above). This user continues to create articles about non-notable topics despite clear warnings not to and is wasting valuable editorial time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest PROD As this case drags on without a resolution, Charlie Cutler, another minor league player created by Basketballfan12, has been PRODed by Spanneraol.—Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that Basketballfan12's creation of an article for Steve Brown, regardless of his notability, was a WP:COPYVIO from [93], which has a GNU license which I don't believe is compatible with Wikipedia. I have tagged that article for speedy deletion if someone wants to confirm my analysis. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - I think a ban as proposed would be appropriate, since this editor has demonstrated a persistent lack of understanding of the criteria for creating articles. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note the GNU Free Documentation License is a compatible licence for using content in Wikipedia, but of course its terms must be met: in particular, attribution. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

    GFDL alone is not sufficient. GFDL and CC BY(-SA) are required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio speedy delete Steve Brown (outfielder) reported above has been speedy deleted by Vanjagenije due to unambiguous copyright violations (CSD G12).—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support proposed topic ban. Editor still has the ability to create drafts but at this point, it's closer to a refusal to pay attention to the appropriate standards and to correct their behavior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest AfDs closed as "Delete" Here's the latest round of AfDs closed as deleted on articles created by Basketballfan12 :

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Tolzman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Hof HaSharon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironi Kiryat Ono
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maccabi Rehovot B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Acre B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Emek Yizra'el
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Migdal HaEmek B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Kfar Saba B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maccabi Bat Yam B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Hevel Eilot
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Be'er Tuvia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beitar Kfar Yona
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Nesher
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Emek Hefer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Ramat Gan Givatayim B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Boylan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremis Smith

—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc). The evidence seems pretty overwhelming, and conclusive, at this point. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK Referendum...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to ask the admins opinion on how best to ensure Wikipedia's coverage is accurate regarding this, and that during tommorow it's not vandalised before or after the polls closed. Pre-emptive protection has not generally been popular, but someone on the IRC suggested that enabling Pending changes on relevant articles might be advised.

It was also my understanding that any claim as to an official result, until it's formally announced in a reliable source, would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any special treatment. An election takes place somewhere in the world virtually every day, most of them without any issues that can't be handled by normal RBI means. If it degenerates into vandalism and editwarring we can protect and block as necessary the same as we do for every other current event. (I don't know who told you It was also my understanding that any claim as to an official result, until it's formally announced in an a reliable source, would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons, but they were misinformed. We'll revert it as a matter of good practice, but Wikipedia is an American website and not subject to British law.) ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I know there is also nothing in British law that says such a statement "would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons". I am living in the UK at the moment and it is all very exciting, but it seems to me that claims of results after the polls close do no damage to anything outside Wikipedia, and claims of results while the polls are still open are certain to be removed very quickly by editors who have an interest in this topic. So I agree there is no need for particular concern. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall a Biritish MP that got into trouble for revealing the result of Postal Votes before the polls actually closed got cautioned by police. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to state the bloody obvious but Wikipedia is not an MP. The relevant legislation is RoPA 83 §66; unless you're included in (a)every returning officer and every presiding officer or clerk attending at a polling station, (b)every candidate or election agent or polling agent so attending, (c)every person so attending by virtue of any of sections 6A to 6D of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, (d)every person so attending in pursuance of permission granted under section 8 or 9 (observers at Scottish local government elections) of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (asp 14), you're fine. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a person with privileged access to results not yet made public. I agree that people who have such privileged access to results would be best advised not to publish them on Wikipedia, just like anywhere else. But that would still be their problem, not Wikipedia's problem. Also, for common vandals and people using magical powers to predict the future, there is no such risk of legal difficulties. MPS1992 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) Pending changes might not be a bad idea on the logic that IP's can still contribute (all be it with a minor delay), it will give anyone experienced enough a chance to view before it goes live. Other options are protection which wouldnt be the right thing as we do have various numbers of useful IP editors who shouldnt be excluded any more so than they already are due to no fault fo their own. Or we can leave it be. Pending changes would make most sense to me but as it would be a bit of an IAR situation consensus should rule. Amortias (T)(C) 18:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It's already under a month-long semi-protection due to repeated vandalism by a sockpuppet who has a variety of referendum-related usernames (Create account Opinion polling for the United Kingdom EU membership referendum (talk · contribs) was the last one) so hopefully we should be ok. Number 57 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper, there is no deadline and pages are not protected pre-emptively. Wikipedians are on the ball 24/7 with these sort of things, and I suspect a reliably sourced update within seconds of the result being flashed on BBC News without hesitation; to give an example of the speed we can do things, I seem to recall Mhairi Black got her article created and meeting the notability guidelines within about an hour of her winning her seat at the 2015 election. I strongly predict we will have enough eyes on this to not make things go wonky. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes Proposal

I propose that articles related to this topic are pending-changes protected, for 3 days. It will help the article stay objective, as there will most likely be many, many vandals who will target this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's already semi-protected until July so I don't think this is needed. Number 57 18:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the editor proposing this is experienced enough to do so unfortunately. Agree with #57 in any case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course he's experienced enough. You don't need all that much experience to make a proposal. I disagree with it, but there's nothing wrong with discussing it, as someone else likely would have made the very same suggestion. Please don't bite the newbies; this is why we have a problem with editor retention. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: That's ridiculous. There's no minimum level of experience needed to make a proposal, and you need to take a good look at WP:BITE. Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• The problem with PC in this little case is that it's designed for articles with low edit rates. The reviewers have to approve those edits and tomorrow they'll be overwhelmed if we change over to pending changes. I'm unwilling to change it. Katie^talk 00:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Katie. Moreover, reviewers only look for obvious vandalism, which arguable comes primarily from folks who can't edit a semi-protected article anyway. PC won't keep the article "objective". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose any use of Flaggedrevs/Pending Changes in general, but even if I didn't I still think semi is fine to keep out the trolls. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I put an edit notice up for the article, hopefully that will alleviate some of the usual editorial issues we usually have to deal with over new of this nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Article looks pretty stable for such a big news story. I think there are plenty of eyes on this one without the need of pending changes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Need eyes on David Cameron too

Things are fucking up on David Cameron, too. For instance every time I fix something (consolidate refs, fix dates to British style), etc., someone undoes it. It's a free-for-all since he announced his resignation, even though the article is semied. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm....anyone against fully protecting this for some hours? Lectonar (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be semi protected already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes..it is, as SoftLavender stated above...but we have autoconfirmed editors chiming in all the time. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure full-protection is warranted as long as enough eyes are on it. The trouble is, there are far less British editors than American editors on Wikipedia (population differences), and so there are fewer eyes to go around right now (most Americans are asleep now; and I always see a huge drop-off in WP activity when Americans are asleep and Brits are active). If people could just put the article on their watch lists for several days and observe changes closely, then we'd be ahead of the curve. Coming in after a lot of bollocks has already been done to it is more unwieldy. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Uniformity of Affected Pages Request

Ok, its obvious that this is a political nuclear incident, however I would plead with the folks working on this to attempt to keep uniformity among the affected pages (like same level of protection, same expiration time, same generic notices on talk pages, etc). It does us no good to suffer articles schizophrenia right now, and I would like for things to be uniform enough that we can adjust protection of the effected articles or otherwise to picot to address the major issues that arise as this unfolds.

For the sake of uniformity, I note that following to be up to date as of my time stamp:

• United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 is currently semi-protected until 14 July. An edit notice is in place on the article.
  • This article was apparently split from Withdrawal from the European Union. There is no protection in this article at present.
• David Cameron is presently semi-protected indefinitely.
• Pound sterling is currently unprotected. Judging from the referendum article though this may need to be looked at as the day unfolds.

If anyone else finds an article that needs attention or has been protected, please note it here so we can all stay on top of it for the next few days. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the concern on Pound sterling, but so far the only edits to it in the last week are grammatical & formatting changes to ancient history and a tag which seems well-merited. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree strongly that United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union needs to be semi-protected. It has had a blizzard of activity. And someone needs to read through it carefully to see how accurate it is. (I'm not volunteering because I'm American and it's not my bailiwick). Put it on your watch lists, too, please, if you would. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Its been semi protected until July 1. I added an edit notice to the page as well, though I am gunshy about editing since its about a British/EU issue and I'm an American. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More eyes on List of Islamist terrorist attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Breitbart has an article about the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting being off of the List of Islamist terrorist attacks. It has resulted in editors coming to the page and (re)inserting it despite the ongoing RfC. The page could fall under the ISIL general sanctions I think. Could use some extra eyes on it and possibly some intervention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for the next couple of hours. I think it's best not to rely on the GS though, as it's relatively tangential. BethNaught (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thank you. I mention the GS because that one does use the "broadly construed" language. But the current editing on the article seems to not be heeding the 1RR, so I'm assuming that GS is not being applied to the article (for now). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that the RfC currently has 36 !votes for inserting it and 12 !votes for removing it, on what basis are we ignoring the consensus? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due, the fact that this Breitbart article is a thing probably makes the numeric argument a bit less convincing. Mine was more of a no WP:DEADLINE revert. I don't have a strong opinion either way. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

According to CNN, Obama refused to call it "Islamic Terrorism".[94] I should think Obama speaks for America -- and for Wikipedia. For your interest, a Google search turns up also these: Fox[95], Allen B West,[96] NY Post,[97]. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• US Attorney General has taken the same position.[98] I suggest that the prevalent view of law enforcement rules here -- not the consensus of a bunch of editors. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No. POTUS does not speak for Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you should think that, but you're wrong. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Good thing I am wearing a helmet, then. What about the US Attorney General? Does she overrule the anti-Islamic forces in the news mob? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You've...been around for a while. Does someone really need to explain WP:CONSENSUS? TimothyJosephWood 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is fine, but many of those accounts voting Yes are either new or haven't made an edit for a very long time, suggesting they were all brought here via the Breitbart article - the RfC is tainted because of canvassing. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I am just looking at the arguments, not the raw count, and there does appear to be a strong consensus for inclusion even after you discard all !votes by new editors who gave no reason for their !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason to expect or demand an immediate decision. I'm also not sure that this is the correct venue to be having this discussion. For what it's worth, since we're here on AN, there is a lot of reverting going on there, by established accounts, and a temp protection may not be out of order. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC is unfortunately tainted. Apparently a number of Breitbart readers keep sleeper accounts here for such occasions. So much for the integrity of the process.- MrX 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly object to Guy Macon's declaration of consensus. He is not the closer and cannot be the closer because he is involved. Support full protection without the disputed content, per WP:ONUS, until the RfC is closed. Too many experienced editors are ignoring well establshed process here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I object as well. I !voted as ambivalent, but the campaigning and vote stacking does not sit well with me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page has been protected by Zzuuzz. Someone can probably close this now as no further admin action seems necessary in the near future, and discussion should probably take place on the talk. TimothyJosephWood 23:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey y'all, I'm trying to prove to the world that ArbCom is not completely useless. Can one of you kindly help out with that and have a look at the unblock request at User talk:Iistal? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I've addressed it, and hope to get an unblock out of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Lui Morais

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please unprotect Talk:Lui Morais so a talk page can be created. --Racklever (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is protected on meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist but I have created a page for you. Please check if the page is a spam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard Offer request for Wackslas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am submitting a Standard Offer request on behalf of Wackslas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wackslas has requested the Standard Offer through UTRS Request #15994 and has provided the following rationale: "I want to be unblocked because I've waited nearly 8 months now and also I've put forward a few suggestions on improving articles while I've been unblocked. And they should copy that onto the noticeboard.". I have no opinion regarding granting or denying this request, aside from a confirmation that Wackslas is eligible for the Standard Offer as the last reported sockpuppet was from October 2015. Please discuss and let me know what consensus develops so that I may notify Wackslas. Thanks, Nakon 00:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty slim rationale to hang an unblock request on - basically, just time served. Don't we generally require the editor seeking on unblock to talk about what they intend to do, and perhaps even show some history of uncontroversial editing on another Wikiproject? This really seems like "OK, I've waited for 8 months, so that's enough, let me loose." Would someone please post the discussion in which they were blocked? BMK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry block. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK. Not much that would convince me to support an unblock. Blackmane (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - unless something more comes down the track. BMK (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to note that while the user has indeed been blocked for a good length of time, he has repeatedly trolled helpers on various IRC channels and has been told this will be taken into account when applying for an unblock. Really, the "eight months" means nothing given he is still disrupting various offwiki processes. — foxj 00:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Bot Approvals Group notification

As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Need somebody with better template-fu than I have to respond to a user request.

In User_talk:RoySmith#Userfying_template, a request was made of me to restore and userfy a template which had been deleted, per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_18. I'm really not up on the technical issues around templates, so I'm afraid I'll mess something up. Thus, I'm requesting that some other admin who knows more about templates do the restore and userfication for me, and then respond on my talk page when it's been done. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the template page, blanked it (to avoid causing a mess somewhere by accident), and am about to move it to the requesting user's userspace. Is there a way to get the names of deleted subpages of a deleted template? I found the doc page by checking the deletion logs for the admins who previously deleted this template, Opabinia regalis and Czar (OR didn't delete any related pages at the same time, but Czar deleted the doc at the same time), but if anyone else deleted any subpages, I haven't a clue how to find them. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, you can search using Special:Undelete, e.g. [99], which just shows the template and doc page. But then, the log for Template:Pro gamer achievements/doc shows I deleted it, not Czar, so it seems like there's still another puzzle piece missing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see. Czar deleted and then restored the parent template, and then I deleted it again later. So it looks like it was just the template and doc page, and there weren't any subpages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Since when is there a search feature on Special:Undelete? WMF ran a poll at Meta, asking community members for their opinion on which features would be most important, and I remember voting for a search feature for deleted page, but if this is what I was voting for, I had no idea that they'd completed it. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been around for a while, it's the browsearchive user right, which is part of the admin bundle. It's a pretty crippled "search", though; it only looks at the beginning of the title of the deleted article. So it's not even a proper search of the titles, never mind the deleted content. (I'm pretty sure I discovered it doing the same thing - looking for subpages of a deleted template.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy

Just to let everyone know the RFC is live. Let's get this settled. Katie^talk 00:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

www.poolq.ee

Hi!

Unfortunately, our IT manager left among us, and we will not be able to log on to our website. We do not know the username or the password. We need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.249.58 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. However, we at Wikipedia are not able to assist you with your website. You might be able to find contact details using the search tool at http://internet.ee. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to develop and cite article "Criticism of the Quran" when users desire to minimize critique

The two articles in question are Criticism of the Quran and Jabr (slave). At the latter, I simply added a citation since the page's heading asked for references. I had not edited that article previously (as history shows), yet this user accuses me of doing so along with other nonsense.... I've also received accusations to adding unsourced material at the larger article, being called a liar and such by this editor (see history at talk page). Regarding the larger and exhaustive article "Criticism of the Quran", the user has challenged a few paragraphs that have been unsourced prior to me paying attention to the effort to find and provide proper citations.

A previous user (User:CounterTime) who challenged the very same paragraphs and had the same argument went back and forth with me, to which I flagged them for edit warring. Now that user is gone, but the user User:Alexis Ivanov seems to have picked up where they left off. I find this interesting to say the least. Now an admin User:NeilN is involved and calling me out for edit warring again within a short period of time, and I find the entire ordeal quite tasking (having to revert vandalism and then having to go back and forth with folks who don't seem to read citations but only desire to add their view of what something means). I've enjoyed my time on Wikipedia for the most part, and some of the subjects that are highly contested should be page protected or at least those who disrupt article development should be monitored or swiftly dealt with.

User:Alexis Ivanov seems to use a veiled approach to contesting certain portions of an article they do not like. And being aware of the rules, they first begin a discussion contesting past edits of users (my personal recent experience). After going back and forth on two pages regarding citations and not the content initially, I found proper citations for contested content. This user then proceeded to discuss (which is proper), but then simply deleted and rewrote portions of the article while omitting what was previously in the article and noted in the reference (and which are part of the subject matter within the paragraph, which the history shows). -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you're feeling worn out, but it's almost certain no-one here is going to dig through the entire recent history of two pages to find what you're talking about. Help us out and post links to diffs showing what you think are the problems. GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

HISTMERGE help needed

Resolved

At Choga, a new user seems to have replaced part of the old article with new. I think we need to split this article into two new ones and create a disambig, and the admin help is needed for proper history merge. This is the old article to restore. What followed was an apparently uncaught blanking vandalism that gutted the content for three months, and then a newbie replaced it with the current revision. I hope this mess can be sorted. I have made some minor c/e, so that this version is ready to be copied to a new article. I suggest ending up with Choga (disambiguation), Choga (garment) and Choga (architecture).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Completely agreed with your assessment, I've histsplit the two articles and created the dab so everything should be sorted now. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I already wrote this kind of request, but I can't find it, so I try to repeat my request. I'm asking to stop/ban Joseph2302 who followed me in my editing during Draft, or when the article was already submitted, and demanding that the article would be deleted. Instead of my request to you, he and another editor wrote you that I harassing them with the personal attacks (archive 925), which is not true. I understand that you will believe them more because they are a part of your "team", and even my prev. request looks is deleted, so I can't see the result of the dispute. I don't know Joseph2302 motive, I don't know him personally, but his action of asking for deleting my article by any course is done not in the good faith. And it does not make a good face for wikipedia as the organization. If you will find my prev. request, I have more details there, but here I just asking you to stop/ban Joseph2302 from any of my inputs. My article was deleted, then moved to the article, and now is moved back to the Draft, as Draft:Natalia Toreeva. From 10 pages in the beginning of the article, it was reduced by another editor to several lines, but still it was moved back to the Draft. If Joseph2302 will not be banned from my input, I don't see any reason to continue on the article, since it will be deleted without reason again. Do you have some independent editors who can look into this matter, and make the reason to define the article. Some of the editors told, the article is Autobiography, another told about notability discussion, and another editors including from Teahouse, notability is OK just need to clean up. Now, it is only several lines, but still..

So, I'm asking you to ban Joseph2302 from any of my input, so I can continue working on improvement of the article and put aside my struggling. Hope you understand it. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your request is unlikely to happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen unless you provide diffs as evidence. Also, since you seem to be writing an article on Natalia Toreeva, and your use name is Toreeva, one might surmise that you have a vconflict of interest, a policy you should read. If the article is about you, you should also read WP:Autobiography, in which writing your own autobigraphy is strongly discouraged. BMK (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would consider that likely given they uploaded File:Natalia Toreeva End of USSR 1992.jpg describing it as created by Natalia G. Toreeva and they claim to be the copyright holder. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Before writing an autobiography it is critically important that you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Toreeva: If you can't find your own past edits, then how can you expect others to? You need to provide some form of evidence, diffs, links to previous discussions, or concrete foundation for others to go and find out what happened. Furthermore, it will be extremely difficult to prove that someone is following you when 80% of your article edits are to one page and almost all of the rest of your edits are to a single page draft in a related area and your own user talk page (WP:SPA) -- maybe they just disagreed with you in two instances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the editing history of Draft:Natalia Toreeva, it seems as if quite a few editors have had a hand in editing it, and many of them reduced your text down to a manageable referenced article. Joseph2302 tried to get it speedy deleted [100], but was turned down by RHaworth[101], who then took it to AfD [102], all of which is perfectly legitimate if, in their opinion, the subject did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. At AfD, the community decided to delete the article [103], so it was moved back to Draftspace.

I'm not seeing how any of that adds up to a sanction for Joseph2302. BMK (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva provides some of the necessary background.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose that in order to reduce the community's general blood pressure, and to preserve any WP career User:Toreeva might have remaining to her, she is indefinitely banned from working on articles relating to her and her work, broadly construed. As noted above, lots of editors repaired that article, and it had been returned to draft space in order to continue that work. Her assistance in doing so is supremely unrequired and wholly of a negative impact. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment That's why I asked for help in editing and also the Teahouse editors, since I understand I can't do it on my own. The article was edited by some editors, including "Ymblanter" and "My very best wishes", for which I appreciated, so it should not be as autobio anymore, but still it was moved to the Draft. Now what? If it will be there, and I don't permitted to edit, and no one is willing to improve the article, what is the next step for it? It is obviously to me. As the bigger picture: I'm doing my input to the "Soviet Nonconformist Art" (unofficial art in Russia), specifically St. Petersburg art groups such as "School of Sidlin". which I was part of that movement, "Sterligov Group", and "Arefiev Group". I feel it is my obligation to write about that time of the 1970-1980, because the time is ticking, and the legacy of that historical art movement could be missed. For example, in Arefiev group, only 1 artist is still alive, in our group, Yuri Nashivochnikov is 92 years old, etc. That's why they asked me to make my input, and also to include the article about Natalia Toreeva to show that the description of the groups was done by the "real" person. And if this small article will not get any approval, I am not going to waste the time and working on the bigger project, that in my opinion will be lost for the art history.

• Another question I have: about the collections in museums. When I looked other artists for the structure of the article, for ex., Alek Rapoport, A. Belkin, A. Ney, V. Lisunov, etc, they mentioned the museums that have their art work in their collection. And the references are only the photos of those museums. But when I included 5 museums, where my art work in their collection, this input was deleted, since it should be the website of that museum, where you (editor) can read the name of the artist in their collection. I have the official docs of the museums, where my art work in their collection, but your editors told me it should be the references to those museums to see your name is there. Is it the big hole in your acceptance in notability of the artists? Why another artists were accepted just naming the museums, but my input was deleted? I asked, for example, Spertus museum (in Chicago), if they have any websites where your editors can read the info about specific artist in their collection. He sent me email, that my art work indeed in their collection, but they don't have any websites for it, may be in future. So, what I should do in this case? I have an official docs from them (in 1978) about my art work in their collection, but no website any museum has where they would mentioned the artists. I also have the official docs from Dhiagilev museum, the State "Tsarskoselskaya Collection" museum, who send me the official docs about my art work in their collection (2014-2016). It could be another interesting fact: I have my art work (sculpture and graphics works for the films) in "Lenfilm" film studio museum, 1976-1977, St. Petersburg, and I asked them also about if they have any Website about their artists and the art works in the museum. Yesterday, I got an email, that after the falling of Soviet Union (1991), their museum started from ZERO. Everything was lost due to the political or financial problems, so they just started to gather info about the museum. It will take probably several years to restore or re-build the museum. Same with the Lenfilm film studio itself. I also have my Posters in the Washington museum of Russian poetry, and I gave the references of the website. But the editor told me you don't accept the "blog" info. I understand it. But the work is there, so you can't just delete any info, so looks like the artist's art work are not in the collection. Should be some easier way to accept the info, or accept the email where you can see the real doc, but not in the website of the museums, which currently don't exist? Why another artists info about the museums were accepted but my info was deleted? Something wrong is here, or your policy should have some acceptance rules others than just easy acceptance to delete. I don't talk about other countries, but since the falling of Soviet Union, and the Underground of Russian art, it should be done some correction on acceptance the info about that struggling time. So, please give me advice what is the next step with the article which is now Draft:Natalia Toreeva. Thank you for your time.Toreeva (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the next step is that we don't have the article. Unless the concerns brought up at AfD are addressed somehow. The AfD found "a strong consensus that COI editing has made the current state of the article an unsalvageable mess. I would strongly recommend that if a future article is created, the individual who is the subject of the article stick to participation on and suggestions on the talk page rather than direct article edits."

So unless somebody who does not have a conflict of interest decides to create the article we probably just won't have one. If this happens your role would be best limited to discussion on the talk page rather than direct editing. If you just create it again in draft space then the AfD reasoning still applies. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly- which is why I suggest that Toreeva, for her own good (or, at least the good of the article) is banned from editing it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment All my references I gave in the Talk page, and the participated editors chose whatever references were appropriate for the article. That's why from the 10 pages, the article was reduced to several lines and 29 references, that supports the material, which I have no objection. All the drawings (5) were approved with no copyright problem, and I received the approval long time ago. The problem I can see that the article is about Russian (and American) artist, and some references are in Russian. So the "judging" editors should understand Russian lang. AND have the knowledge of the Nonconformist Art movement of 1970s in USSR, political instability, that forced many artists to emigrate. Without these "small" knowledge, any decision about the article (or as now, Draft) would be bias, that shows one more time, it is hard to find anyone with this knowledge, who would find time to improve the article and to pass the "judgement", not for the article itself, but for the history. ("Thanks!", "Спасибо!", "Danke!") Thank you again.Toreeva (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you find the community ill suited to judge your article, nonetheless it is the community that makes these decisions. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• HighInBC, it is your own interpretation. I very appreciate to the editors, who helped me with the article, but even though I'm disappointing with the result, I have a good lesson. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Ymblanter: and @My very best wishes:, mentioned by Toreeva above as helping with the article, to let them know of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not revealed my interpretation, I have just described the community's interpretation as they are the ones who came to the conclusion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

If I'm understand what I'm reading correctly, then I believe there are two issues:

1. Is Natalia Toreeva Wiki-notable?
2. Should editor Toreeva, who admits to being Natalia Toreevea, edit the (currently draft) article.

The first question seems to be difficult to answer for non-Russian speaking editors. Ymblanter seems clear that she is not, and Vellela seems to be saying that she is not. Editor My very best wishes !votes that she passes notability requirements, but I'm not sure of their fluency in Russian. The "delete" close of the AfD appears to me to be a correct determination of overall community consensus, and in this case we may have no choice but to lean more heavily on the opinions of those who can read the citations in their original language. So at this point, the consensus is mixed. of both the overall community and of those who can read the citations in the original language agree that Natalia Toreeva is not Wiki-notable. The Draft article should stay as a draft so that it can be improved until it satisfies those requirements, and deleted if it doesn't do so after a reasonable time period.

The second question appears much clearer to me: we're none of us particularly objective about ourselves, but Natalia Toreeva, in the guise of editor Toreeva, seems to be incapable of separating her role as an editor of Wikipedia, and her desire to have an article about herself that is as extensive as possible. I suggest that this is a textbook case for formally imposing the WP:COI protocols and banning Toreeva from directly editing the draft article, limiting her to making suggestions on the talk page. Further, if she cannot control her tendency towards wall-of-text comments, she may need to be banned from the talk page as well, leaving the draft article to the care of other editors. Again, if it's not improved in a reasonable amount of time to a form which will survive an AfD, then it should be deleted and salted, in both Draftspace and Articlespace.

Oh, and, of course, no sanction for Joseph2302 as requested by Toreeva. BMK (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I actually think she is most likely wiki-notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make that correction above. BMK (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. BMK (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as having said something similiar above. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment BMK, it seems to me that both (Ymblanter and My very best wishes) editors speak/know Russian lang. and they both told positively about the notability. Look Ymblanter's comment after your input. So, please correct your comments, and I didn't see any comments before of Vellela you mention. And secondly, I asked independent judgement to see my request to ban Joseph2302, and instead the same editor (Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi) who voted already to delete the article, and who already supported Joseph2302 from ban in 2015 from someone, and who received "Thanks you" from Joseph2302 for that. And my prev. request to ban him was deleted somehow and by somebody. And my request to Teahouse for help to improve the article was also deleted by Joseph2302, but then restored when I asked him why he deleted it? Instead you are voting to ban ME. Is it independent judgement with a good faith? ("God did not come to judge the world but to save the world" (John 12:15)).10:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Toreeva (talk)
• Support I think limiting their contributions on the article about themselves to the talk page is the best way forward. If nobody else is ready to make this article, it may just be that Wikipedia is not the place for it. If anyone without a conflict can make an article up to standards then all the power to them. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Toreeva You're obliged to notify me when you report me to this noticeboard. I haven't interacted with this user for a week or two, but support the user not being allowed to directly edit the draft. Without her intervention, I believe this article could be notable and written in a tone appropriate for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry Joseph2302, I thought it is going automatically to the person mentioned by name. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, you need to manually notify the editor on their talk page. Even using the notification function (i.e. "ping") is not a substitute for that. Can I also give you two tips about writing comments on Wikiepedia? (1) Break up your comment into smaller paragraphs then you're using now. Big paragraphs bring on the MEGO effect (i.e. "My eyes glaze over") and make comments much harder to read. (2) Indent your comments. Add a series of colons before the comment, with each colon generating a tab. So, I added a single colon and an asterisk to your comment above so it would appear indented from Joseph2302's comment, and my response (which you are reading now) begins with 2 colons and an asterisk, so it is indented from yours. In this way it's much easier for readers to follow who is responding to whom. BMK (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestions, BMK, I will try to use colons and asterisk. But in case of using Joseph2302 talk page, on May 27, he BANNED me from using his talk page. And this is my 2nd request to admin. Since the article was put on Draft with the improvement possibility, I see that no way the article can pass, independently who is helping to improve it, if he follows me with only one goal, to delete. So I asked admin. what is result of my complain, should I continue, or stop and get out from this unhealthy communication, and he said there is no my complain, so looks someone deleted it. Therefore, I open again this one for the discussion. I included this note just for your info, and not for the fighting again. I'm tired of it. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• My talkpage, my rules- I didn't want to be involved in this article anymore, but you keep dragging me back into it. Also the fact admins have already dismissed your complaints about my conduct shows you won't get the outcome you want. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oh and the discussion being referred to is this one, which was started by another user because you were harassing me. It got closed because everyone said "Let the AfD run its course and then re-evaluate". That turned out well, you're still harassing me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Toreeva & Joseph2302 - I am a person who is not shy about banning people from my talk page if I find them too bothersome, and the community has decided that that is within the rights of the talk page's "owner" (scare quotes because no one truly owns their talk page, the WMF does). However, no talk page ban can prevent a user from posting a notification that they are required to make, such as the notification of the filing of a noticeboard complaint about the person. That is required, it says so on every edit you make to those pages, and a short neutral comment such as "There is a discussion which concerns you at WP:AN (or WP:ANI). You can find it [URL-goes-here here]" fulfills the requirement and is also non-objectionable from the POV of the talk page "owner". I believe you'll also find a template in the orange box you'll see when you go to post a comment which you can use for that purpose, {{subst:AN-notice}} BMK (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment BMK, I hope I will not need to use it in future. I understand you would ban person, if it's "too bothersome", showing already your side of the discussion. But did you personally check his talk page where he accused me with my "bad behavior"? Objectively? NONE are there. I'm not going to interrupt you in this discussion, though. Previously I opened discussion to ban the person, and instead the discussion was switched from the helping to improve the article to deleting the article and putting it to Draft, and now discussing about to ban ME from the article, which shows the power of judgement the editors have in this system, independently from their knowledge of content. This is sad.. Thanks for your time. Keep Calm and Enjoy the 1st Day of Summer!Toreeva (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Ymblanter that the BLP page passes our notability guidelines, although not by a large margin. That was already said by me and by a few other participants during the AfD. The draft is not really a "mess", at least in its present state. On the other hand, the COI is very much obvious. I agree that COI guidelines (which are already in place - no need for anything special) must be respected. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to quickly note that the COI protocols in WP:COI are expressed as a suggestion of how to edit with a conflict, and that this proposal, on the other hand, would formally impose those protocols on Toreeva as a community sanction, which can be thought of as a ban on editing the article, but not the talk page. BMK (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I had no problems with fixing this page, as should be clear from editing history [104], no problems communicating with T., and no problem with reverting her edits on several pages. However, this AN request does look disruptive to me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Personally I believe the COI "best practices" should be mandatory but I know that is not the view of the community at large. However, I tend to base a large portion of how much AGF I am willing to extend to a COI editor on their willingness to follow those "best practices". If a COI editor becomes disruptive requiring them to follow those practices is a reasonable step. Jbh^Talk 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This was archived without closing and has been moved back here per request for official closure. Per request below that this receive an official administrator closure (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Archived without admin ruling), I moved it back to this board. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archived without admin ruling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion was archived without ever being actioned by admins- the consensus seems to have been for a topic ban, but we need an admin to rule on it, or unarchive it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed. I would unarchive it and close it myself but I was involved in the discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody wants to close this? Geez now I wish I did not comment so I could close it. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I've moved it back to this board now, up above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: Keilana has now closed the thread and informed the user of the result. Softlavender (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appealing a Past Offense for a Clean Start

Hi. I recently created a new account with a new name, since this one was created when I was back in high school and reflect my immaturity if you will. Shortly after creating that account I remembered that I had a topic ban from a long time ago. FYI, before I realized that I only added bullet points (as in the symbol itself) on two pages where it was missing. So, I checked for Wikipedia Help pages to see what is the right thing to do. I realized that while we, members, can have a Clean Start, we still need to take care of past offenses. I consulted with the administrator that issued the ban which I figured was the most direct way of knowing what to do.

My consultation with the topic ban admin here and here. Per that discussion, I chose AN for going forward with it. My goal is to have a complete clean start. I was supposed to do this long time ago but work and life in general got in the way. An empty Sunday afternoon seems to be good enough to give it a try. I looked for a template about such a process but couldn't find one.

Looking back at my history, the topic ban was issued somewhere mid-2010. I believe I appealed it at least twice (1 and 2), which both failed. Since it's been so many years I can't really rely on my memory at all. I'm as much of a stranger to it as the next person. So, everything I can say about it will be based on my User contribution page. There isn't much I can say as well. If I've offended anyone in any way that broke the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia back then, I am sorry. I'd like to have the chance to move on with a clean start. There isn't much I can add to that as I believe that's the essence of it.

If I'm missing any information that should have been here, or any action that I should have performed, please let me know. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something... your first problem is that it appears your still subject to an indefinite block by the Arbitration Committee on your old account... @Risker: @Guerillero: @Hersfold: Was that sanction ever lifted? Monty₈₄₅ 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, it has not been lifted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. As far as I'm aware, it was never lifted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

He was indef banned from Armenian Genocide topics to be sure, and that was 6 years ago. I hadn't , to the best of my memory seen any SPI's on him, his contributions show no posting of anything related to his ban. I'd say give him a chance, especially in light of how many years have passed. KoshVorlon 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not so relevant question. What's an SPI? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  WP:SPI. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, gotcha. Thanks. I never ever made multiple accounts in my life if I wasn't leaving the older one for good. If there needs to be an investigation I can provide the necessary information for that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with regard to the block, but my question is whether we can, or whether that is something only the Arbitration Committee can do in light of the block message. Monty₈₄₅ 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: If everything you've posted above is accurate, I doubt that anyone will try to stop you from registering a new account because you edited immaturely in one topic-area six years ago. The problem is that since I assume you don't want to publicly link your old account to your new account, there is no way for this noticeboard to reach a final resolution. The solution is for you to e-mail the Arbitration Committee using the instructions here and explain the situation to them. You might also want to explain whether you actually want to edit again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, and if so what you will do differently now from in the past, or whether you are just raising the topic-ban to make sure you are compliant with the clean-start guidelines. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, that was never mentioned to me before. I've been considering whether I would publicly reveal my older account or not though. Would that make a difference here? Nonetheless, I don't really have any immediate plans to edit in that particular topic, though I would like to be able to in the future. I'm usually a minor edit person at best. Most of my edits were about adding a bullet point here and there (as in the actual bullet point symbol) or fixing syntax and stuff like that as far as I remember. I would prefer to bring an important or considerable edit to people's attention in the Talk page and then go forward with it. That's pretty much what I learned especially in the controversial topics. I might as well do what you propose. However, I would prefer if it could be dealt with here. Is that decided by consensus here? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Guerillero: @KoshVorlon: @Newyorkbrad: Hi again. Given the inactivity, I guess the path Newyorkbrad suggested is the right one to follow. Can I get a show of hands confirming that? Thanks. 62.248.29.111 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Guerillero: @KoshVorlon: @Newyorkbrad: Sorry, forgot to login when I signed that one. It was me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: Yes, if you want to pursue this, the path I suggested is the best way. To save time, you can include a link to this thread in your e-mail and mention that you're sending it at my suggestion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CSD question

Is a 6-day wait for a CSD unusual? Peyton Meyer (originally created at Peyton Meyer (actor)), a page created by a now-blocked socker, has been sitting in the WP:G4 queue for over 6 days now. I know it's a holiday weekend in the U.S., but I can't figure out why this has taken so long, as it clearly qualifies for G4. Could an Admin take a look at this, and either grant the G4 CSD request, or deny it so that I may then boldly move the "proper" version of the article, at Draft:Peyton Meyer, to this location, and convert the socker's version into a redirect? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think G4 is just one of those categories that many admins don't take a look at. I've noticed similar wait times sometimes with WP:G6 in my work at XfDs. It's not as glamorous as A7/G3/G10/G11, etc. Six days is on the high side. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've declined the G4, it was not substantially identical the version that was deleted. No idea about whether or not they're a sock, will leave the G5 call for someone else. On the more general question, that is a very long wait. From my perspective (an occasional CSDer), I dislike G4s because most of them don't meet the actual criteria for G4 but are in crap shape/on obviously non-notable topics. If I decline the speedy I feel a responsibility to follow up with a PROD/AFD which you then have to keep an eye on for the next week or so – not really what I'm after when I'm looking to speedy delete a few pages. Jenks24 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the WP:G5 applies in this case, as the socker was blocked for socking after creating the article (though multiple different socks of that same user certainly did post revisions to the article (mostly edit-warring in violation of WP:BLP), if that makes a difference...). In any case, I just needed the CSD granted or declined, so I can determine what to do with the Draft article, which is basically the "best" version of the article. If the G5 is also declined, I'll commence moving the Draft to mainspace, and convert the socker's version to a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

G5 declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)