Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277

Mishae

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've just declined an unblock request here from Mishae (talk · contribs). By a strict reading, I could theoretically be considered WP:INVOLVED as I once had quite a snappy exchange with Mishae after I proposed an article he'd written for deletion; per my comment on his talk, I explicitly abrogate the wheel-warring clause regarding my decline, if anyone feels this is an unblock request that ought to be accepted. ‑ iridescent 10:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline. --John (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Horrible decline. You were involved and you had no business declining. Caden ^cool 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline. Mishae is fond of mouthing pretty words and sweeping generalizations and then after being unblocked going off and doing whatever the hell he pleases, including disruption, incivility, general incompetence, and outright deception. His last edit summary before TPA was revoked was so vile it had to be revdelled. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I had to deal with some of Mishae's behavior in insect articles and finally got a large number of vandalism-like edits fixed (removing Wikiproject tags from thousands of articles even when the project said they should remain). Coupled with attacking editors who disagree with their edits and overall demeanor described above, the unblock decline is very appropriate considering the history of going right back to the problem behaviors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah Mishae. I wondered why this name was so familiar especially after a quick refresher from the ANI back in April. I had made a comment at the time with the intention of joining the discussion but a job and city move prevented me. Reading back over his unblock requests, I get the sense that he never has truly understood what it was he was blocked for. While we should give all editors regardless of race, religion, creed, or ability the benefit of the doubt when it comes to contributing, there comes a time when we have to say enough disruption is enough especially when it's impacting the editing health of other editors. The needs of one cannot be placed above those of the many. @Mishae: your inability to fully understand the circumstances that led to your block are the reason why many, including myself, will endorse your continued block. This has never been about your disability, just your inability. Blackmane (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• I didnt realise being racist was a disability... While technically having a past disagreement with an editor might fall foul of the involved (as you dealt with them in a negative manner on a content issue) I would hardly say it disqualifies you completely. Otherwise, decline is fine given their patten of behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good decline. I can't see that INVOLVED is part of the equation. That said, at the risk of being INVOLVED I've just warned Mishae that he's verging on TPA withdrawal again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Block of Thewolfchild

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

• No more admin action or discussion is required on this topic. It is time to finish up this discussion before more trouble breaks out Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I blocked Thewolfchild earlier along with Cassianto after I saw them still at it. TWC's edit summary contained a petty attack and it was clear that both were trying to bait each other. Later, after going back and looking further in TWC's history, I see that he had criticized me on Liz's talk page. I want to report that here because otherwise that could look like that had something to do with his block. I'm not sure why I was mentioned there as I only reformatted the thread originally at ANI and mentioned that but otherwise wasn't involved in that case. The criticism had nothing to do with the block but in all fairness to TWC and for the sake of prudence, I would like others to review the situation and remedy if necessary. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Legitimate block. I saw the baiting and general IDHT on Liz's talkpage and was preparing to do the same thing if it continued. ‑ iridescent 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I got flack for simply closing an ANI discussion that was clearly over when all parties received 48 hour blocks. But MSGJ got the brunt of the IDHT treatment despite their patient explanation on why the three editors received blocks for edit warring. At a certain point, you find yourself just repeating yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looks fine. Legit block, they absolutely don't seem to be able to disengage and move on. Lots of rage flying around. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• A sensible response. Being criticized does not make you involved, if it did then it would be pretty simple for a user to make any admin they wanted to "involved". HighInBC 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Legitimate block - and even rather lenient all things considered. I'm also surprised that Cassianto hasn't already been blocked a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• I saw this and thought of this - should Cassianto bring his duelling pistols, or his swords? Anyway, this is okay as a cool down block, but for a week? Can we please shorten it to 24 hours? They're making themselves hot and bothered but not actually disrupting any other bit of the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• We generally don't block to let someone "cool down". Given that the dispute between the two users has been going on for weeks now I don't think 24 hours is going to be significant. HighInBC 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think we're just going to have to accept we have different views on blocks and that's just the way of the world. I guess my stance comes from stopping my kids from quarrelling with each other, I can't "block" them! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well when I was a kid and being a little shit I was sent to my room. If I was really bad I was sent to my parents room(no toys there). HighInBC 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block. And you only got sent to your room? You got it light. I used to get a thrashing with a bamboo switch, or a feather duster, or a ruler or even an open hand. Nothing teaches a rowdy consequences as fast as a thrashing. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully my parents took a more modern approach. HighInBC 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I got whupped with a piece of rebar while I was walking 5 miles to school through the snow. And when I asked to have the Rolling Stones play at my 16th birthday party, my parents just sneered and booked Herman's Hermits instead. BMK (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at 6:00 in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work 20 hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed talk page access from Thewolfchild as they were using their talk page to further provoke Cassianto. As always my actions are open to review. HighInBC 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Given my and MSGJ's experiences, HighInBC, I'm pretty sure you will face questions once this block expires. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page you will see I am no stranger to that sort of thing. I am always happy to answer questions. HighInBC 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw this brewing on your talk page, Liz and the sad thing is that there is a long history of this sort of thing from this editor. See the last block review discussion for reference. I do not understand how the mentoring that this user was supposed to be receiving from TParis has been allowed to be twisted into such a mockery of itself without comment. Obviously both parties to this particular set of blocks are in the wrong, and the blocks are warranted, but I think this situation needs to be monitored. It's only possible to look the other way and kick the can down the road spooling out more and more WP:ROPE for so long. Severely anti-collegial behavior doesn't only make the perpetrator look like a fool, it drives away good editors who have to suffer the abuse. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: It has been brought to my attention by Thewolfchild that my comment about severely anti-collegial behavior can be interpreted as a veiled suggestion that his behavior is to blame for the retirement of Cassianto. For the record I wanted to note that I was unaware that Cassianto had retired when I made my above comments. I was not thinking of Cassianto as a victim but as a party equally as anti-collegial as Thewolfchild. The victims I had in mind were new editors who are likely to be driven away by caustic aggression of the sort we have witnessed here. Of course it's also a shame whenever an experienced editor is provoked into retirement over something as trivial as the matter these two editors have been squabbling over. -Thibbs (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, if they do their IDHT thing again, they'll be blocked again. BTW, I also advocate some leniency for Cassianto here, who is much more of a net positive and (Redacted). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Drmies: advocate leniency for one party by all means, but probably better not to insult the other party ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• If we're going to redact that we got a long way to go. And if we're going to be picky, I think blocking someone and removing talk page access is a much bigger "insult" than a few mild words. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• An indignity perhaps, but not an insult. The thing to keep in mind is that people are perfectly capable of being insulted at something that was not an insult. HighInBC 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me. For the most part it is largely a useless exercise, as your block log is permanent and regardless of how questionable, or just plain bad a block may be, it will always be there to be thrown in your face, or even used to support further (and lengthier) bad blocks. Further, I now also see that questioning an admin per WP:ADMINACCT is now apparently a blockable offence per WP:IDHT. Lastly, I'm not interested in conflict, I'm really not, nor am I here to disrupt. I am here to contribute, in my own way. I may not churn out dozens of FA/GA articles, but I do contribute. I'm not trying to build a resume for adminship, I just look to improve articles of interest to me or fix small errors that I come across anywhere in the project. Sorry if some of you don't see any value in that. Anyway, I come away from this bearing no ill will nor carrying any grudges. This whole experience has certainly been... enlightening. - ^theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  Just be a bit nicer and you won't get personal attack blocks. It is directly connected to how you choose to act. HighInBC 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  That's certainly one of the more positive comments you have made in recent days. I think it may be time now to move forward and leave the past behind? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• We apparently can't ever take him at his word. When he wrote, "For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me.", he lied. Would it be considered disruptive that he responds like that here but turns around and does just the opposite? He just keeps on trolling...
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I posted those comments. I did not challenge or question your block. I simply requested that we go our separate ways and that in the future you refer any admin actions towards me to another admin. I also listed my reasons for this. I did this is a respectful fashion on your talk page, instead of here in the open. The fact that you, again failed to respond to me, (or respect my request) and instead come racing back here to call me a "liar" and "troll" in front of everyone, underscores the fact that that you still carry a grudge and are biased, and certainly supports my wp:involved concerns. This clearly shows that in the future, you have no business taking any admin action against my edits or my account. I will ask that you remove these highly insulting and very un-admin-like personal attacks and disengage from any further behaviour like this. I can assure you, and the community I will also be disengaging, as I want nothing further to do with you. - ^theWOLFchild 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TWC, you posted falsehoods in that and I do not accept that garbage. Trying to get in the last word as if you were correct and make like it is a cordial post...please. I'm not getting into it with you because you have such a bad case of IDHT that I won't waste my time with you. No one believes your twisted logic...not even you. I don't accept your attempts to buy yourself insurance with the involved ploy. I reserve the right to block you if you do something wrong again which it sounds like you are planning since you are so concerned about it. Truth is that if you could behave yourself, you wouldn't need to worry. You tend to be all heat and well, no light. You bring these blocks upon yourself but don't seem to be able acknowledge that you are the one in the wrong. That lengthy block log of yours is one of your own making.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, well the question that kicked off this thread appears to have been thoroughly answered now. Thewolfchild is to be commended for attempting to drop the stick and to step away from this obvious sore spot, however it might also be worth his while considering that a lengthy 3-bullet-point outline of why he believes Berean Hunter's block to have been biased might easily be understood to constitute a "challenge or question" to the validity of the block. No doubt it would be putting too fine a point on it to recommend that Thewolfchild could look to Steelpillow or even SchroCat and Betty Logan for examples of how to step away from the sore spot gracefully, so in lieu of that perhaps a kindly admin could just close this tar baby of a discussion to forestall any accidental resumption of the flogging? -Thibbs (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The "3-bullet-point outline" was simply reasoning to support my request that we go our separate ways and that he refer off any future admin actions. The persistent hostility and personal attacks in his two replies above also clearly support this measure. That's all I was asking for, some distance to avoid any future issues. I don't see how that merits such bitterness and rancor, from an admin no less. But, I certainly agree with closing of this... section. There's really nothing left to be said. - ^theWOLFchild 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To me that post looked like you were asking to stop further conflict with one side of your mouth while continuing to engage in it with the other side of your mouth. Like you were trying to get the last word in while stopping the conversation at the same time. It did not look like an honest attempt to de-escalate. HighInBC 05:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What a shock. Don't do or say anything about the admin displaying an appalling lack of good faith, while at the same time openly posting hostile personal attacks. Just rag on me some more. Good work. - ^theWOLFchild 10:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Closure review at Talk:Martha Jefferson

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.

---

Purplebackpack89, and involved user of a discussion on whether subject warranted a separate article, decided to close the thread despite having an obvious bias. I stated on my talk page that closures to such discussions are inappropriate for involved users to make, but he insisted on taking this to a noticeboard rather than retract his closure. I am also concerned that WP:Notability (people) was being erroneously overlooked and/or disregarded. Whether the article is retained or redirected, I do not feel an involved user's closure should be allowed to stand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang: Fine, somebody can confirm that it was appropriate to close a discussion that was FIVE-TO-ONE in favor of retaining Martha Jefferson, with only Snuggums dissenting and nobody making any comments in two days. The discussion was also closed because Snuggums was shouting everybody else down, often by repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Snuggums needs to just let it go! Surprise, surprise, most people want the wife of a VERY prominent American who became President of the United States kept! BTW, Snuggums was so adamant that this be merged or deleted, he even went around removing all the links to Martha Jefferson, which is going to cause the community a great deal of trouble since Martha Jefferson is being retained. Frankly, Snuggums needs to disengage himself from Martha Jefferson, as he is too adamantly fighting clear consensus and is making too much work for everybody else. pbp 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a boomerang at all. I wasn't exactly "shouting", either, only stating and emphasizing points. Five-to-one isn't necessarily consensus per WP:NOTVOTE. WP:Notability (people) is against having pages on people solely noted for family connections. Even if consensus was against me, closing such discussions when you were WP:INVOLVED is not at all appropriate and frankly no better than anything I've done regarding the article. See WP:BADNAC for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that BADNAC is about deletion discussions and INVOLVED is about administrative actions, right? Things aren't as stringently enforced when it's a general discussion. Also, you've mentioned the notability guidelines dozens of times, first at the talk page and now here, and it's clear that nobody else agrees with your interpretation of them in Martha Jefferson's case. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean you get to override five editors. pbp 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said I got to override five, only that five-to-one isn't necessarily WP:Consensus, which is not solely determined by votes. My point in citing those pages and their premises is that involved users have obvious biases and therefore should not close discussions when they've already given input as a clear conflict of interest. Best to wait for uninvolved users to come along and make closures even if it takes a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument against a stand alone article based on WP:Notability (people) appears to have been rejected by everyone on the sound basis that in accord with that guideline, there is significant coverage of this woman's life. Thus, the bio supported 5 to 1 appears to be a WP:SNOW. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

2015 San Bernardino shooting

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 really use some neutral eyes. Seriously. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted here, the article has already been placed under semi-protection; a wise choice. Given the number of admins. who have either contributed to the article proper, and/or the talk page, I suspect that there are quite a few eyes on this. I appreciate you bringing this here; but personally, I'm not seeing anything actionable beyond the protection, so I'm not sure there's anything we can, or should, be doing at the moment. If something specific that you're concerned about arises, a new thread can be opened at that time. — Ched :  ?  11:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding note: Admins. alone, nor this notice board, determine content; although admins are free to contribute to it. — Ched :  ?  11:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I urge any admin. to close this upon passing. There is discussion on the talk page. — Ched :  ?  12:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver:, I recommend posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and any other content or NPOV noticeboard whose interest may intersect with the article. As Ched says, admins are already aware. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• OMG, imagine if we didn't have NOTNEWS! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Planned Parenting shootings

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

---

User:Muboshgu and User:George Ho are blocking the move of 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting from 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per talk page consensus[[1]], can an admin intervene? Cheers. Artw (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell is already there, suggesting it stay open for a couple more days, which sounds like good advice to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Also, singling out these two editors is odd as there are more editors opposing the move. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Out of Scope for the Administrator noticeboard All I see is an ordinary editing dispute. The editors mentioned by name have done nothing improper at all. They have merely taken a contrary position in a move debate. They have not been disruptive in any way. There is no reason for this discussion, unless and until an editor breaks policy. This is not the place to complain about ordinary editing disputes. I support the move, but respect their right as Wikipedia editors to stridently voice their opposition. Safiel (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Self-defense I'm not blocking a move. The RM that I saw was ongoing and hadn't been closed. No admin or non-admin had presented a closing rationale determining the consensus or lack thereof. You might notice I didn't post in the RM discussion because I don't have a particular opinion on what should be the article title. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

RFA2015 Phase II RfC

Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in Phase I of the project. Thank you. Biblioworm 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rescinding unused community sanctions: WP:GS/BI

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 "British Isles" community-authorised probation has not been enforced for more than three years, the last enforcement action having taken place on the 27th of May 2012. It is quite clear that these sanctions are not needed, and I believe that most in the community would agree that sanctions such as these should only remain in place if they are needed. Therefore, I propose that the authorisation for these sanctions be revoked by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd be taking away the sanctions on an area that is still quietly simmering, on the grounds that it hasn't exploded lately. Note the intensity of the arguments in Talk:British Isles/Archive 39. A typical comment there was "Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it." And see the current discussion at Talk:British Isles which is reminiscent of many that have occurred in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"British Isles", like many other topic areas, will never stop being controversial. That doesn't mean that a sanctions regime that hasn't been used in more than three years should remain in place. Plenty of controversial topic areas survive without such systems. If a volcano does truly "erupt", sanctions can be reauthorised. There has been no indication as such, however. Keeping unused sanctions regimes around merely because a topic area is controversial is byzantine. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove/revoke/whatever you want to call it. Support RGloucester's suggestion. Long-unenforced sanctions shouldn't be in place, if nothing else because they're not friendly to the uninitiated. Imagine that several new-ish editors engage in a good-faith content dispute on this topic: a longtime editor familiar with the sanctions can come in, play the sanctions as a trump card, and win the dispute. This flies in the face of standards such as WP:NOTBURO; we have too many rules, and getting rid of never-used rules is a good way to simplify things. As already noted, they can be reactivated if truly needed, but merely responding to intense arguments such as "Is there still...believe it" is no reason to have broad sanctions in place. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, leave in place It's rather silly to remove a sanction because it's working. The fact that it hasn't needed to be invoked doesn't mean that the problem has magically disappeared, it means that the sanction is doing what it's supposed to do, discourage people from editing in a way that invites invoking the sanction. BMK (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is hard to believe, given that there are no notices in place on any related pages that inform users of these sanctions (not even on Talk:British Isles). No notices regarding their existence have been given to users in more than three years, either. The purpose of general sanctions is to curtail disruption. If there is no disruption worth curtailing in more than three years, it is hard to believe that these sanctions should continue to exist. How can users be discouraged from editing in such a way if no one even knows that the sanctions exist? The only way one would find out is by visiting WP:GS, and that page is not a frequently viewed page. All in all, there is no evidence that an extraordinary regime is presently necessary in this topic area. General sanctions exist for extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the standard manner in which disruption is dealt with, and I do not see how an unenforced, unknown sanctions regime is aiding the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So ... if a public swimming pool posts prominent signs about no diving in the shallow end, and the number of injuries from diving at the shallow end drops down to nothing, your advice would be to remove the signage as it's clearly no longer necessary? If reducing the posted speed limit on a dangerous curve cuts down the number of accidents significantly, you'd tell the authorities to put the speed limit back up to where it was, since it's no longer needed? BMK (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a similar circumstance. First of all, there are no prominent signs indicating the existence of these sanctions. That's what I just wrote above. Furthermore, if it were a similar circumstance, we would have general sanctions by default in all topic areas. We do not. We only use them as extraordinary measures. If they are not used (or useful), we remove them. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The comparison to posting a sign would be to put a notice on related articles, whether by an ordinary template or an editnotice or something similar. Here, we're just pulling over drivers who infringe an unposted speed limit, giving them a warning, and arresting the ones who re-infringe...except for the fact that we're not doing this, because there's been no enforcement in three years. We don't need to maintain this policy of pulling them over, because infringing the unposted limit is a lesser included offense to dangerous driving, and we can still arrest people for that: editwarring over the inclusion of "British Isles" on pages, or willynilly removing "British Isles" from lots of pages, is outright disruptive and obviously nationalistic, and we don't need the sanctions in order to block someone who does that. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal per BMK - sanction warnings appear to be working —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support If we're not using them and haven't been using them for three years, by all means lift them! KoshVorlon 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per BMK. Sanctions exist both as a measure to take afterwards against problem editing, and to deter future problem editing. I am not persuaded that removing a sanction that is performing its job in preventing problem editing is a good thing. I would support say a 3-month suspension to see how it goes, if it kicks off again, it should be able to be reinstated without need for another long discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, how can these sanctions deter disruption editing ("preform their job") if no one even knows they exist? There are no posted notices of these sanctions anywhere, and no one has been notified of their existence in more than three years. However, the three month suspension is acceptable to me. If there hasn't been a use for these sanctions in more than three years, I hardly doubt that there will be in three months. RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike some other areas where disputes can be settled through extensive discussion and guideline building, like the MMA sanctions that were recently lifted, this is not one of them. Editors will continue to hold differing views about the concept of the British Isles. The ever present threat of general sanctions being levied forces editors to go do something better with their time than to chew over old soup. Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per BMK and Blackmane. Whether it is three months or three more years before and editor has to be informed about them is immaterial. They need to be there so they can be enforced when needed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As a witness to the many back-and-forth edit spats over usage of British Isles in articles, I recall how it was before the enactment of GS/BI. That there hasn't been any spats since then, is proof that it works. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an administrator please close this request? RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

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 propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-professed adherence to Odinism (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article.

During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated edit warring,[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] acted against two consensus decisions (by both renaming the article to their chosen title [7] [8] [9] and adding disputed material [10]), deleted text that was sourced to (academic) reliable-references because they didn't like what it had to say [11] [12] [13], and repeatedly added citations to non-reliable references in order to push possibly fringe views, meanwhile erroneously insisting that primary sources should be used [14] [15]. On the talk page and elsewhere they engaged in personal attacks against other editors [16] [17], made false allegations of sock puppetry [18], actively misrepresented the actions and arguments of their critics [19] [20] [21] [22] and engaged in "outing", a serious form of Harassment [23] [24]. Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour.

After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the Odinism page, which, as User:Snowded has pointed out, has basically been formed into a coatrack article in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry (adding non-reliable references, pursuing an 'insider' Odinist agenda etc).

Most recently, when I nominated the Heathenry article at GAN earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it. However, at this second GAN he again presented himself as a reviewer, at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time. This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, I think that we need to have a community discussion about how to deal with this problem, with my suggestion being that a topic ban might be needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Initial discussion

Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are WP:DUCK), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As our policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Wikipedia. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who lives in Kansas City, Missouri. Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GAN specific sanctions

As per the discussion above involving User:Nyttend and User:Snowded, this section is being established to deal with the proposal that ThorLives face sanctions specifically for their actions over at the GANs for Heathenry (new religious movement). It is not a place to debate the response to their wider pattern of disruptive editing, which will be dealt with separately in a different section below. Any editor may contribute to either section or both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• Support Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nominator: My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose check the talk page completely, Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Wikipedia, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.KoshVorlon 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not a vandal and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the only time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about Ragnarok into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Wikipedia. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy again and again and again (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at Odinism), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained how and why this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "Wikipedia jargon does not interest me." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Wikipedia operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. Stormkith (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----Snowded ^TALK 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as exceedingly bad form and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal to get the point and abuse of Wikipedia processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Wikipedia, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Wikipedia policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Wikipedia is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator Midnightblueowl, whom I have worked with off an on here on Wikipedia over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been four days since this debate opened (and two since anyone new cast a vote), and we now have eight votes in support of a topic ban and one in opposition. That seems pretty conclusive, and accordingly I think that we should administer a topic ban on ThorLives, preventing him from editing articles on Heathenry and broadly related topics (which would include articles on contemporary Paganism, related forms of religion, and Germanic society more widely). As I understand it, that would include banning him from changing redirects or posting on talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs related to those subjects (particularly as ThorLives has used GANs and talk pages as a place to edit disruptively). However, is it premature to bring this to an end and enforce the sanction after so few days? If not, it there an administrator who might bring this about (or can any editor do it)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You could request a closure here, perhaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have just done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose/Alternate restriction The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from Heathenry (new religious movement) but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect Rhoark, what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. Capeo (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Update as of 18 November: A week has now passed, and we now have nine votes in support of a topic ban and two in opposition. At the risk of being accused of launching an ad hominem attack, it may be pertinent and of interest to users here that ThorLives is also currently being investigated for sock puppetry here, including the use of a sock puppet to continue their edits to Odinism and thus avoid further scrutiny of the ThorLives account. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Holtj has been dormant since 2008, magically reappears the day after ThorLives' last edit, and carries on right where ThorLives left off, even mentioning him by name on the talkpage: "CHECK THE EDITS OF THORLIVES. HE IS A PHD WHO LEFT WIKIPEDIA BECUASE OF THE ENDLESS ATTACKS OF THE PERSON ABOVE".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' response

If I am violating some wikipdia policy, I send my regrets. Frankly, as a sixty-five year university professor, I am rather confused by all of the various rules and regulations.

I do know academic content, however, and at various times I have tried to prevent wholesale changes that one person was making to articles connected to Germanic neopaganism. All of my attempted edits to Germanic neopaganism have been reversed by (talk) Midnightblueowl. Also, when I attempt to act in defense, he repeatedly tries to have me banned or blocked. (I believe this is the fourth time he has attacked me. )

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article."

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) I have also complained when the article was renamed Heathenry. The neutral term is Germanic neopaganism. Stephen McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257.

Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, [25] made this observation: "I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none."

Regarding banning me from the topic, I am a professor who lectures and writes on the topic. Indeed, Midnightblueowl even uses me as a source in her edits! I would identify myself, but Midnightblueowl seems to be a belligerent person.

For the record, I have never tried to block or ban him. --ThorLives (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--ThorLives (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have.

As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox here, cast strong doubt as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Wikipedia in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "When studying a religion... an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia" (ever heard of the anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, or psychology of religion?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing".

All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited any trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the "I'm an older university professor with a PhD" claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Wikipedia editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a comment that they made on my talk page in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick[s]" on Wikipedia. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "Trust me. I am a published academic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, every edit that I ever made to Heathenry (new religious movement) was deleted by Midnightblueowl. Usually, the deletions were immediate. (Normally, I was simply adding references.) Because I had no edits to the page, I thought I could comment on his nomination of the article as a "good article." --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: So a person (Midnightblueowl) can hijack and article, rename it (the neutral term is Germanic Neopaganism, not heathenry), delete the edits of everyone else, and nominate his own article as a good article, and then ban someone who complains about the quality of the article?

If that is the rule, I can respect it, but it looks rather unfair. --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him.

Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain[ing] about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Several new points (before I leave.)

This is quickly becoming a wiki version of "Gresham's Law," that the bad will always drive out the good. (In other words, it appears I will be forced out.)

After Midnightblueowl hijacked Germanic Neopaganism, I started to make extensive edits on Odinism. Notice the wide variety of sources used. Notice also the neutrality of the aricle. Midnightblueowl in his Heathenry article mentions Odinists only to discredit them as "racists,"(the word Americans use), but not all Odinists are white separatists.

Midnightblueowl claims he used neutral academic sources only. Again, because he is not widely read in the field, he seems not to know that virtually ALL of his sources are pagan professors (including me.) Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, Blain, and so forth are pagans. Because professors tend to be liberal, they are all leftist. For proper balance, he must use other sources.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false.

Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on Heathenry (new religious movement) and Odinism for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl wrote: As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one

Trying to "out me" here? Is that not a violation of the wiki rules you are always citing?

As for the "65-year old [sic] male Odinist who works as a university professor," I confess I altered some details to protect myself. (Age, gender, or both?) Midnightblueowl has engaged in threatening behavior, so I cannot chance that he would use information about my identity to attack my books or my reputation.

I have never tried to have him banned. I have never threatened him. His behavior (as this banning attempt demonstrates) has been belligerent.

Indeed, perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave wikipedia.

Cheers! --ThorLives (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm... no, I'm not trying to out you nor threaten you. At no point did I state that "You are Mr X", "I think that you are Mrs Y", or "all signs point to you being Mr P" and I most certainly didn't say that "I'm going to find you off-Wikipedia and harass you there by tarnishing your reputation". All I stated was that the claims that you made – that you were a 65 year old university professor with a PhD whose publications were cited in the Heathenry article – were demonstrably not true because none of the cited authors fitted that description, and that moreover your wider actions have cast strong doubt on your claims to having any substantial academic background at all. In effect, you were making false claims in order to bolster your credibility in the eyes of other Wikipedia editors, and I called you out on it. That's not outing. Maybe in the 'real world' you really are an author, perhaps writing Odinist books and articles in non-academic contexts, and perhaps even being something of a notable within the Odinist community. If so, good for you. I have absolutely no interest in harassing or upsetting you as a fellow human being in any way, shape or form; my sole focus has been in preventing you from disruptive editing here at Wikipedia so that the encyclopedia can progress and improve under the care of constructive contributors. Outside of the encyclopedia, it's a different ballpark, and a different game. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit request backlog

The list of conflict-of-interest requested edits is at an all-time high of 130 requests; also, the list of semi-protected edit requests is also abnormally high, currently at 101. Any assistance in clearing the backlog is highly appreciated. There's another reason for urgency: while some PR editors initially comply with Wikipedia's COI editing protocol by making a talk page request, after weeks of silence they assume that their edits must meet our guidelines owing to the lack of objections, and make the edit themselves. Closer scrutiny by the community would probably have disallowed such changes. Many of the articles with pending COI edit requests are already littered with promotional material, and in the wake of the Orangemoody scandal, we should be doing all we can to clean up. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenging ISIL community sanction

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 motion to challenge WP:GS/SCW&ISIL with respect to ISIL in general, and the November 2015 Paris attacks article and directly related articles in particular. These community-imposed sanctions were progressively expanded starting from, if I understand things correctly, arguably-related ArbCom-imposed Israel-Palestinian sanctions, first [Syria] and then to ISIL, by allowing the "broadly construed" specification to let discussions with little participation ratify the broadening of scope.

I am not sure this really qualifies as "community consensus" for community-authorized sanctions, or even if community-authorized discretionary sanctions are a reasonable thing, but even if it does and they are, I believe this claimed consensus can be challenged on the grounds that less than a dozen editors formed it, while on Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks a comparable number of editors impugned it or objected to the application of the sanctions.

In fact, this sequence of events happened on the article's talk page:

• the original proponent of the Syria sanctions placed a notice that they were in effect
• I objected on the ground that keeping the recent high-traffic article under a strict WP:1RR policy would discourage editors such as myself
• An administrator removed the sanctions template under a multi-facted rationale
• There was support for this action, as well denouncing that the "broad construction" of these sanctions makes their scope indefinite
• I complained about receiving an 1RR warning notice shortly after I had newly objected to the sanctions, as a perceived act of intimidation fro mediting (the sender later assured me it was not, but I still think that's the practical effect, especially given the notice allows subsequent blocking without further warning)
• Proponents of the sanctions pointed out they still applied, regardless of the presence or absence of any template
• Fuzheado again removed the sanctions template with an explanation, although it was again pointed out that sanctions would apply anyway; but Fuzheado explained that the most important immediate outcome was to stop scaring editors away

Although the various points against the sanctions (at least on the particular article) were repeatedly stated in some of the above-linked diffs, I will make a summary:

• The community had created a decent working dynamic on the article without 1RR enforcement
• This is a current-events article with issues that are not primarily Syria and ISIL-related
• The potential for block with two reverts may have a chilling effect, when it's hard to follow the fast and often spurious edits
• Almost all editors involved at this point would be unable to revert without risking an immediate block, except for drive-by editors
• It's not an article among the ones in contention from the original and subsequently widely expanded ArbCom case

It is certainly due to my bias, but the points for the sanctions I could read basically amounted to:

• They were approved before

Therefore, I ask you to consider the following two questions:

1. Shall WP:GS/SCW&ISIL continue to apply unchanged on articles like November 2015 Paris attacks where there are arguably exceptional circumstances and a locally shared opposition to actively applying them?
2. Shall the current "broadly constructed" scope of these sanctions undergo new scrutiny and possible narrowing, considering it was previously expanded with little community input?
3. Shall the sanctions continue to exist at all?

My use of emphasis above is to underline the salient points of this motion as I recognize it is a relatively long read. LjL (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions ARE NOT related with WP:ARBPIA. There is similarity in concept, but that is it.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought, by reading the archived discussion, that the Syrian sanctions were created because there was uncertainty as to whether the ARBPIA sanctions applied to the Syrian war (they were applied in that way, but then successfully challenged). If I'm mistaken, can you clarify? LjL (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that to be correct. What it seems happened was gradual de facto broadening of scope, caused by the slippery "broadly construed"-type language that is often used. Some administrators originally applied the ARBPIA sanctions to Syrian Civil War stuff, thinking that stuff related in a "broadly construed" manner. This became confusing, so ArbCom established a temporary 30 day sanctions regime specifically for the Syrian Civil War, which was then replaced with community sanctions that mirrored the ARBPIA remedy. Following this, with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and their entry into other fields, administrators began applying the SCW community sanctions to all ISIL-related articles, on the basis of a "broadly construed" connection to the Syrian Civil War. For this reason, I requested a clarification at AN, whereby the relevant administrators confirmed that they believed that this linkage was correct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That is my understanding, too. I read that the first community discussion was started "to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions", the restrictions in effect being the impromptu 30-day ones made by ArbCom after the ARBPIA sanctions were deemed to have been incorrectly applied as the disputes did not "fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes", so it seems to me the restrictions are very directly related. LjL (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of the people behind the installations of Syrian Civil War sanctions. Originally, the community demanded a sanctioned regime for Syrian Civil War articles and some administrator incorrectly applied ARBPIA, even though there is no direct relation. Then i asked to clarify this and answer the demand of the community by creating SCW sanctions and not trying to bend other sanctions. Syrian Civil War sanctions were then initiated following a community motion, with a wide consensus. Later, without my involvement another group of users expanded the SCW sanctions also to ISIL with the intervention of ArbCom. This is how SCW&ISIL sanction regime was created. If you ask me - it works great: much less edit-warring as a result.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But possibly also much less editing, at least on articles like the one in question where sanctions can have a chilling effect. This is my greatest concern. LjL (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A similar problem is happening on Metrojet_Flight_9268. There is less and less controversy over ISIL, with pretty much everyone saying they are bad. The exceptions are punk trouble maker editors and/or johadists who come along and put pro-ISIL propaganda in. Any post I've made saying the sanctions apply should only be interpreted as affirming their existence, not as necessarily my support for them continuing. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support pulling back on over-application of the "discretionary sanctions" that are "broadly constructed," as prescribed in the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL guidelines. With no disrespect to the original folks who implemented them – the fact that we cannot even agree on whether it is an Arbcom or WP:AN edict should give us a clue that the entire situation is not very well understood or constructed. Also, only a small number of users were involved with that discussion that has massive impact across EN.WP's 5 million articles. We should open up the discussion for better context.

A summary of the main conflict as described above:

• For breaking news articles, it is extremely problematic to have the pall of the discretionary sanctions hanging over the page, which amounts to a one revert rule (1RR) being imposed on an article in flux. Whether it is intended or not, it creates a low tolerance, "assume bad faith" climate where it is very easy to accidentally run afoul of the guidelines, and wind up as a user block.
• If we consider the November 2015 Paris attacks page, which was the #2 most visited page last week, you get lots of visitors and even returning editors. You also have a number of admins monitoring the page. The vast majority of the article is not about the Islamic State per se, and instead hosts a lot of experienced Wikipedians trying to sift fact from fiction in the news cycle. Things were going fine, until the discretionary sanctions template was put at the top, and then a flurry of accusations about 1RR started to fly. It turned into a wiki circular firing squad.
• Out of WP:COMMONSENSE, I removed the template and proposed that we do away with the hair-trigger application of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. There was generally positive response from the editors on that page that it was removed. There was another exchange of adding the template to Talk, and subsequent removal by me.
• That's we are now. I offer that it's a very bad mismatch to try to impose remedies suited for long form historical articles onto fast-moving, obliquely-related current events articles. I'm assuming good faith by believing that there was a decent rationale (with limited scope) for the discretionary sanctions, but I think this is a classic example of Hard cases make bad law, and we should have a chance to fix the overly broad application of this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First of all, there is no question of "agreement". These are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions, even though ArbCom was briefly involved at the start. That's crystal clear. Secondly, you must understand that we are not a newspaper. Our job here is not to write articles as if we were covering breaking news. All of our articles should be in a "long form historical" style. Slowing down editing on a controversial current events article is something to be applauded, not rejected. Finally, I wonder whether you oppose the 1RR or the discretionary sanctions, or both? Perhaps the 1RR could be pulled back, whilst maintaining the discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It's broadly construed, not constructed. That's the extent of my competence in this area, and of my contribution to this discussion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removing the sanctions. Yes, the presence of discretionary sanctions and the 1RR restriction might slow down editing. That's a good thing. Per RGloucester's comment we are not a news wire service, we're an encyclopedia. We can approach the subject calmly and thoughtfully. And the restrictions will prevent the usual nonsense that occurs with high traffic, current event articles. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, to try and argue that this article is NOT Syria or ISIS related is... um.... disingenuous, to put it nicely. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As per VM. The argument that it is preventing rapid updates on current events is not a bad thing. Likewise arguing that this is not Syria/ISIS related is... interesting to say the least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Having thought about it more, I have to oppose any proposal to pull back the community sanctions (1RR and DS) in this area. Frankly, this topic area is one of the most fraught on Wikipedia. The sanctions have shown to be effective in preventing disruption across SCW and ISIL articles for years. We should thank the administrators who have worked to quicly enforce these sanctions, as well. There is no reason to provide an exception for this one article, which is ISIL-related, and attracts the same kind of controversy as at all the SCW & ISIL pages. Pulling back the sanctions across all SCW and ISIL pages would undoubtedly be detrimental. I imagine that if the sanctions were pulled back, we'd end up with an ArbCom case for this topic area in future, and that's something we want to avoid, no? I have worked on plenty of articles under DS and 1RR, and have never had any problems contributing. As I said above, we are not a newspaper, and have no need to be rapidly updating content as if we were. Encouraging talk page discussion, encouraging editors to think about what they add to such an article, that's a good thing. We want verifiable historical analysis, not every little bit of yellow press. For all these reasons, I must certainly oppose any revocation of the authorisation of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – it's been working fine as-is. Don't reinvent the wheel. 98.67.1.155 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: here are a couple of examples of these sanctions being directly used to have a chilling effect: "I will report anyone that exceeds 1RR", "In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions". These imply that there won't be, at least from the part of those editors, any discerning on whether there is an actual edit war in progress or just any technical violation of 1RR (coming from partial or unrelated reverts, for example), something which had been used as "common sense" explanation that the sanctions would only be applied when really deserved. I'm not sure I want to risk my editing privileges over people trying to make a WP:POINT by reporting every possible thing... LjL (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

These can't be "chilling effects" since "chilling effects" refer to ... effects. What you are linking to is just reminders to editors not to edit war. Since you've been reverting and edit warring on that article like crazy I can see how you'd find that objectionable. Volunteer Marek  07:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Report me then. I am the third most prolific contributor to the article and I strongly suspect most editors respect the work I have done there. I'm not sure the same can be said about you, sending people more chilling notices because (sorry, I mean "shortly after", who am I to imply causal links?) they removed the sanctions template again with the agreement of many other editors (even though you promptly re-added it). You have previously accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, but I'm not entirely sure how you can affirm that while keeping a straight face. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Fuzheado and User:LjL. There is no evidence that these sanctions are needed or have any beneficial effect. Considering the emotive nature of the subject, editing there has been remarkably collegial over the past week. On general principles, the idea of accepting this sort of mission creep from a body with such a poor reputation as ArbCom has, is a terrible one. Wikipedia is not a police state, and should not be encouraged to become one. --John (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the motion. The SCW&ISIL sanctions are an excellent tool to reduce edit-warring and stabilize articles, as already proven in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Stale request to help with related matter concerning myself

Requesting help with this matter, as User:Volunteer Marek is "totally not causing chilling effects" on me by sending me this sort of notice about an article that didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere, in a totally WP:POINTY fashion (I did self-revert as requested, by the way, but I cannot accept this bullying - I'm doing nothing wrong). Further explanation at this talk page section. LjL (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) What exactly is anyone suppose to "help" you with? The fact that I'm warning you - which is doing you a favor because I could just report you - again for reverting repeatedly on the article? On both the Paris-attacks related articles you have been reverting people left and right, in flagrant breach of 1RR in order to basically enforce your WP:OWN version. Also saying that the article "didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere" is disingenuous (i.e. its an attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAME, almost as silly as the claims that these articles have nothing to do with Syria and ISIS (when the text under dispute is specifically about Syrian refugees) - you are perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on these articles because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: You filed this freakin' motion!. Are you really trying to pretend that you did not know that 1RR applies to an article for which you're challenging the existence of the 1RR restriction? Seriously?  Volunteer Marek  21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Marek, in that particular instance you are most definitely gaming the system. Drop it, please: consensus was well against you for inclusion of that material before you began lawyering to get your way. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) What are you talking about? How am I "gaming the system"? I am disagreeing with LjL. Disagreeing with someone is NOT "gaming the system". Volunteer Marek  22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Umpteen people have disagreed with you about the Polish issue in umpteen threads. Certainly, it is true that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it seems to me that after several "losses", you then opted to lawyer towards your goal. The thread here appears to be the pertinent one. Dammit, even you acknowledge that you got the articles mixed up - many of us have done that, no problem, but to then lawyer about it as a means to remove the material just seems weird. You said initially that the material was more useful in the very article where you have subsequently invoked these sanctions to remove it after failing to achieve that aim by other means. I can understand you getting the two mixed up, and you acknowledged it, but to then try to lawyer it in your favour just seems like gaming to me. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC) I did not "invoke the sanction" to remove it. The presence of the sanction and my opinions about the content are not related. Also, if by "umpteen" you mean ONE then yes. And obviously the issue here is that this is a recent events article which means that what was relevant at one point in time may not be relevant a few days later. But really, content issues are not the topic here. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) You have been doing this removal at two articles, even though you thought it was valid at one per my diff. Numerous people have opposed you, which means more than ONE. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This is what the consensus actually looks like (though I've selected some statements by the people involved but there were many more, as this has spanned several sections). Not wanting to bring the content dispute here, but third parties looking at this need to know how things stand in term of WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:GAMING: Volunteer Marek removes statements against staggering consensus, and when I reinstate them (without even removing his further integrations at all), he asks me to self-revert because of claimed 1RR violation. LjL (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC) You filed this motion to remove the 1RR restriction on the article. You then hijacked your own thread by asking for "help" (not sure what that is, looks like either a canvassing for reverts or a request for a spurious block) in a specific situation. This sort of makes it clear that you really don't care about the 1RR restriction per se but are rather trying to find a way to circumvent it in this particular instance so that you can enforce your WP:OWN version of the article through edit warring. Which makes this motion a textbook example in making proposals in bad faith. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 1) No, the motion was about the other article, not the "Reactions" article, which is even less tied to ISIL 2) WP:CANVASSING isn't a thing when reporting thing on the general forum for the relevant topic 3) I made it already clear in this motion that application of the sanctions on the particular article is in contention, so you're not discovering anything new 4) as to WP:OWN, you're the one still insisting to have it your way against clear consensus against you 5) I'm at my wits' end with you because you seem like a textbook example of hard-to-deal-with bad faith. LjL (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. If edit warring is still going on, then it is way too early to vacate these sanctions. The MMA topics are an excellent example of how sanctions can quiet down editors and really push them to discuss. There wasn't a time back in 2012-13 where not a week went by without a MMA complaing on AN or ANI. Regulars at those boards have barely heard a peep from them once sanctions were enforced. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note - I don't know why I have made this motion given most of the people who were of the same opinion as me (and I know there were several) have steered very clear of it, but, for the record, this report is an example of the sort of non-constructive application of these overly strict rules that I'm worried about. The editor being reported is, quite obviously to anybody who has followed the evolution of the article involved, one of the top contributors and most constructive editors on it. Now he risks a block for reverting three unrelated, stupid edits. LjL (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP of an article does not provide exemption from 1RR, and is in fact harmful to the development of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of WP:OWNERSHIP is completely unsubstantiated, unless by "ownership" you mean "having made many positive contribution to an article". LjL (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support = Revoke an overreach of the sanction system and restore commonsense because a few editors have used this to push their own agendas. Bod (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I object to the imposition of the 1RR at November 2015 Paris attacks. In the talk page discussion about this, we had been assured by RGloucester, who I foolishly thought was an administrator (it turns out he's just an editor who has been blocked seven times) that, "Administrators are not stupid. Common sense applies, as always, in the application of any policy", implying there was nothing to worry about as long as we didn't edit war over ISIL or the Syrian Civil War. In practice, I received a warning for three unrelated non-SCW/ISIL good faith reverts. I feel that the policy has been abused and therefore support LjL's motion. Firebrace (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd read the sanctions page, you'd understand that 1RR is not on imposed on the basis of the content of edits, but on the basis of whether the page is related to the topic under sanctions, broadly construed. You received a notice of the existence of the sanctions some days before that explained this, and yet broke 1RR. 1RR is a bright line, and you should not've made more than one revert in twenty-four hours on that page. That's on you. I never claimed to be administrator. Anyone can issue the DS notices, as I mentioned on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There needs to be clarity on when a page is under the restrictions. When you have a "Syrian Civil War" sanction that can kick in on any shooting, anywhere in the world, the moment information starts coming back the shooter was linked with ISIS, there is going to be a long period for each of those highly controversial articles when people are debating whether the restrictions apply or not. That is a sabotage we shouldn't put up with. Either roll back the restriction to include only articles about ISIS itself and battles in Syria, not articles about ISIS actions outside Syria, or else figure out a mechanism by which there is clear and undisputed guidance about whether an article is subject to the restrictions or not. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. However, I think that there is clarity on the scope of the sanctions. The sanctions page says: "All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed". That makes it clear that any page that has some relation to ISIL is under sanctions. There isn't any room for argument on that matter. The real question, here, is whether the community wants that to be the scope. Does the community want to limit the scope to ISIL actions in the Near East? That would seem absurd, in many respects. Does the community want to limit the scope to matters directly carried out by or involving the organisation of ISIL, as opposed to things inspired by it? It isn't clear. I tend to think that, given the nature of the topic, the GS scope should remain. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: There is clarity now, more or less, at 2015 San Bernardino shooting, after multiple sources published about an oath of fealty to ISIS. However, for several days the issue was in doubt; as the evidence started coming in, some editors were extremely resistant to even allow the religion of the shooters to be mentioned, let alone to permit discussion of motive. Even recently there was still debate going on whether the shooting is "really" ISIS related rather than a "lone wolf" admiring ISIS. I still think some of the obvious categories are being kept off. So the classification of the article can end up as a political football. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wnt is correct. If there is this much disagreement and conflict, the guidance is unclear by definition. "Broadly construed" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and is. This situation was entirely predictable; if you give vague guidance, you simply create new battleground, something Wikipedia has yet to learn in general. But, even if this guidance were crystal clear, the problem would still exist that bright lines (1RR) don't work, as I said in my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The 2015 San Bernardino shooting article has been tagged as falling within these discretionary sanctions [26], on the basis of a Facebook post reportedly made by one of the perpetrators, in which she pledged allegiance to the caliph of ISIS. The relation to ISIS is as tenuous as that Facebook post. Note that the article is already covered by general sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Oppose - the 1RR restriction is actually helping a lot by slowing down edits, and encouraging discussions. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - For same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any easing or weakening of the sanctions, if that is the purpose of this proposal. The sanctions are a necessary tool to deal with disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As well as to issue edit warring reports over non-disruptive (and actually useful) edits, like User:Firebrace had to experience from User:RGloucester who (see above) appears to believe that just because someone is a "broadly construed" "bright line", you seemingly have a moral duty to report the perpetrator of the heinous crime against humanity of improving the encyclopedia, regardless of any WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:NOTBURO. LjL (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Bright lines work about as well as mandatory sentencing laws. Actually not that well, when there is no clear statement of where the bright line is (see Potter Stewart; how do you define obscenity?). Any such simplistic lazy thinking should be abandoned and replaced by these questions: Who is collaborating? Who is discussing? Who is respecting consensus? And who is not? It's not hard at all to discern the difference. These sanctions hinder at least as much as they help. Full disclosure: I commented previously in this discussion, as 72.198.26.61, without !voting. I am now editing logged in again. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The template is being arbitrarily applied by lone editors to articles that merely mention ISIL, who then expect contributors to adhere to 1RR. There must be better guidelines developed that clearly differentiate those article types that require the sanction. WWGB (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and "lone editors" are not imposing the sanctions, they automatically flow to articles - especially ones that cover an event where POTUS goes on TV and links to ISIL, a perp pledges to ISIL and the father of the other one says he was into supporting ISIL. ISIL is an evolving topic and keeps generating new articles. Some of the people voting Support here are the ones edit warring to keep out Muslim or ISIL from the article. It's a little cute. Legacypac (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Complete non-starter. If the organization that caused the expansion of the GS is called out in the lead paragraph, it's no stretch of the imagination that the sanctions with respect to the organization should apply under the widely construed argument. It appears the main complaint is that the 1RR is slowing down getting to a consensus version (by restricting reverts). I don't consider that a hinderance but a feature of the GS. If you have already used your freebie permitted revert and you think that something is wrong, you open a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus for it's removal. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please close the TP discussion

Much of the above results from Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Consensus_about_Polish_reactions and a similar discussion elsewhere. Volunteer Marek is still reinstating the POV tag. I have just reverted. Can someone please review that talk page section and close as they see fit, otherwise this could ping-pong in perpetuity. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? RGloucester — ☎ 03:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit filter RfC

Just a heads up that an RfC is now underway regarding an addition to the edit filter guideline, taking on board some feedback from the RfC for the recently updated page. Opinions welcomed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Resolved by motion of the Arbitration Committee, that: Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Google Relying on Wikipedia

Google has, for the first time in two years, published their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/11/updating-our-search-quality-rating.html

The guidelines mention Wikipedia repeatedly (52 times) as a source of useful information. Those trying to maneuver to the top of Google will be here trying to engineer the right kind of content. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the above document, and watching for such activity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This document talks about Wikipedia being used to help determine the reputation of websites and companies. It also talks about assessment of authority of Wikipedia articles based on the number of references included. Updated Wikipedia articles are more likely to have a better reputation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

New essay

Wikipedia:Administrators' best practices.

I wrote this essay with hopes in exploring in essay-form how certain admin practices look and feel to non-admins with advice offered to admins on how to handle certain controversial interactions.

jps (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it had occurred to you that administrators edited here without the tools before they became administrators? Tiderolls 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Not all experience the full range of possibilities of what it's like to interact with an administrator as a non-administrator, though. Many administrators have never experienced what it's like to be blocked, for example. And many after becoming administrators forget what it's like not to be an administrator. jps (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's generally because they haven't done something necessitating a block. It's amusing when these essays come up for two reasons. Firstly, blocks aren't common for regular editors, and it's hypothetically it's quite hard to get multiple blocks; getting more than 10 blocks is a pretty major feat which, I'd say, demonstrates more about the editor in question than the trail of admins. The second point is, yes, blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It does seem to be rather WP:PUNISHing, I'd argue. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. The point isn't to make you feel bad because you made a mistake. The point is to put an effective barrier in the way to stop whatever problematic activity is happening. The fact that that barrier is unpleasant has no bearing on whether it is punishment or not (real world example; mother tells daughter she must stop editing wikipedia until she finishes her homework (unpleasant, preventative). After finishing homework daughter is still barred from editing because she didn't do her homework first. (unpleasant, punitive). To cast it in like-for-like; someone causing disruption on Wikipedia is being unpleasant and will not stop, they are served with an unpleasant situation which forces them to stop. Of course, it should be used in modicum, but then it most always is.... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The point of the block is then not to be unpleasant to the blocked user but rather the unpleasantness is a side-effect which cannot be avoided. That's rather a different sense than saying: "blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point". One could imagine a hypothetical utopian sci-fi vision of a wiki-based encyclopedia where instead of blocking problematic users administrators were somehow able to refer the problematic useraccounts to a simulacrum where the problematic behaviors would only be acted out against a simulated community and the "blocked" user would never realize their isolation from the actual encyclopedia. In such an example, the "blocked" user would not feel unpleasantness but the point of the block would still be achieved. jps (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The essay presumes (accurately) that any action an administrator does will be perceived wrongly (which is accurate, just not the way intended I'm certain) so I'm not sure what the lesson there is. The issue is WP:INVOLVED actions, not all actions (unless you're dealing with jerks). For example, page protection will result in a WP:WRONGVERSION complaining only if the editors involved want it to be that way. Else, most editors with sense may not agree with the version protected but will actually then focus on the talk page discussion rather than fighting with the admin who protected the page as if the admin did it out of personal spite or whatever. It's nice but I'm not sure what's new with it. The bigger problem we have is with admins who shy away from doing anything (and I've fallen into that habit) due to the absolute antagonism you get no matter what you do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ADMINANTAGONISM might be another useful essay. I think that this one speaks at least a little bit to why such things occur. The most adroit administrators might find ways around being viewed that way while still helping to solve problems. I don't know, I don't have the bit. I am attempting to describe how certain admin actions may be negatively perceived by those who don't have the bit and are on the receiving end of such actions. It isn't really meant to be an admonition not to do such actions (the whole point of becoming an admin is that you are trusted to do such actions, after all). It's merely to explain how doing certain actions in certain ways can lead to certain problems and to offer certain alternatives that I've seen work. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that most admin actions are not based on some prior interactions with the editors. While there is a drop in admins, there are still far many admins than regular editors here (especially since admins aren't supposed to be using their tools when involved). For example, if I review WP:RFPP, there's a request for page protection. As I said above, no matter what version I chose to protect, someone could be angry about that. If your solution is that admins should, instead of actually using the tools, try to "help solve the problem" without it, you're suggesting what, I post on the talk page that the people there shouldn't edit war? If I don't use the tools, all I've done is remove the report, post (possibly again) on the talk page and then we'll wait and see what happens. The person who reported it to RFPP is now angry at the admin for not acting. If they stop, no one really needed an admin in the first place. If they don't, there really may be no solution other than protecting the page and forcing them to discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There may be no solution to the problem you describe, and the essay does not say, "don't use page protection tools". Instead, the essay tries to describe the very problem you are outlining. It tries to identify, as you are doing, what the consequences are and how page protection can set up a kind of power dynamic for better or worse. We can all name examples where administrators protected pages after editing the pages and the edge cases of what makes someone "involved" or not constitute megabytes worth of textual analysis on this site. This history necessarily causes problems between administrators and non-administrators. Who knows? Maybe someone smarter than you or I will come up with solutions to the problems, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as a place where these problems are described in clear terms. jps (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Like teachers who are branded as villains by the errant school children they are obliged to admonish, admins invariably come under attack from editors they warn or block - and then also from some they don't (loosely described as the uncoordinated and non cohesive architypes of the anti-admin brigade - only those who self-identify with this group need to feel addressed). I'm not so enthralled by the bit about handing out punishments. All sanctions are supposed to be preventative and this rule is respected by most admins although the very reason I became interested in what adminship is all about all those years ago is because I was team bullied by two teenage admins (since fortunately either desysoped or grown up and found a new hobby away from the Wiki).

Written by a non-admin, and as such by an editor who cannot possibly know what it is like to be a sysop, this essay has a very clear spin against admins and comes across as a patronising piece of finger wagging by someone who has an axe to grind; it will be taken with a pinch of cynicism by its target audience even if they bother to read it.

I will add a link to it on WP:RFAADVICE but even there, I think it will be regarded with a certain scepsis by most of the mature candidates. My advice to the author is to run for adminship; if he fails it would be no big deal, if he suceeds it would be no big deal either, but unlike a leopard, he would almost certainly change his spots. The essay is TL;DR anyway and really belongs in user space; kudos nevertheless for its excellent style and use of English - something that is sadly generally lacking on the en.Wiki.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This response seems rather ironic. You accuse someone who is not an administrator of talking down to administrators? Odd thing to do. There are many documented instances of administrators talking down to users. For example, some administrators compare themselves to "teachers who are branded as villains by the errant school children they are obliged to admonish." Am I like an errant schoolchild? jps (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: This is only my view, but the only time this essay is going to be linked to is by an admin (or one who agrees with an admin) to an editor who is making the same arguments of the essay in a bitter rebuke/satire. I strongly suggest you add the Humorous tag or take it out of project space. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this is true, but only time will tell, of course. The essay, sadly, is not humorous for those of us who have experienced problems with administrators. jps (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, as you can see, I'm capable of exercising enormous restraint at times. I didn't suggest for a moment that you were an errant schoolboy, but if the cap fits, by all means wear it. All your comments here seem to demonstrate is that you do indeed have an axe to grind. Thus your essay is inappropriate for project space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And you continue to be condescending. Here's the thing, we are interacting on the internet so interpretations can be difficult to understand. What I see coming from you is an arrogance, a type of pontification that assumes that I must have a certain amount of problems which would disqualify me from putting together an essay about what I would like to see administrators do. Never mind that the essay is editable by anyone (including yourself) and is subject to community consensus like all else. You insist that your lead off was not meant to suggest that your analogy applied to me, but then go on to imply that it does. See the issue? I am also keenly aware that you have tools that have the potential to prevent me from editing Wikipedia, so any dispute we get into is pregnant with that possibility in my mind, whether you are excellent at restraint or not! Best practices is really just a matter of locking down what excellence at restraint might look like (and I have encountered plenty of administrators who have not had such excellence of restraint). jps (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Patronising perhaps, but condescending definitely not (check in a dico). But there you go again, immediately on the attack at admins, and personal attacks at me, and assuming that because I have a bunch of janitor's keys I'm going to block you or delete your page. Hey, we're 1,333 admins here with fewer rotten apples in the barrel than the UK CID. My, you have a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Fallacy of composition much? I'm not immediately on the attack "at admins". I am criticizing you specifically here. And "condescension" does fit the characteristics of your interactions towards me. I'm not sure how you measured how many "rotten apples" are in the barrel. If you'd like to offer your means of estimation, that'd me nice. I don't assume that you are going to use the tools against me -- I'm merely pointing out that you could if you wanted to and I really only have the recourse of asking for help from others if that would be your desire. That's the concern. It's not the be-all and end-all of the project, it's just one thing to keep in mind, is all. jps (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This section, no doubt, is what the above Admin. means when he refers to "plebeian drama boards". [27] Sigh. Leaky Caldron 15:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Request topic ban for CheckersBoard

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.

---

CheckersBoard has combined agenda-based editing along with making inept edits on André Marin. Request that any topic ban include Ontario Ombudsman. Highlights from this post:

• In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules.
• article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing
• Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry
• topic might be better as a blog elsewhere

All this about a version far from flattering. [28]

Editing ineptness: [29], [30], [31] (note edit summaries) [32], [33] (caused by own doing)

Content ineptness: [34], [35], [36] (material is already in relatively short article)

Lack of awareness of good content practices despite discussion: [37], [38], [39]

Agenda based editing: [40], [41], [42], [43] Note the wiping out of Marin's name. This series of edits is like removing all the policy content from Presidency of Barack Obama (leaving the criticism), moving it to President of the United States, and wiping Obama's name.

Plenty of warnings on user's talk page [44] including a block from me before I got involved with trying to prevent content damage. Edit summaries here are indicative of responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support I first became involved on the Marin page last month when I expanded the article with sourcing and better layout. It looks like CheckersBoard has been involved with the page for around a year, and there has been some suggestion about CB having a COI on the topic: [45]. A look at the page history for Andre Marin shows the repeated COI/unproductive editing, and frequent reverts by a number of different editors. CB has received over a dozen warnings on his talk page about editing on Marin and Ontario Ombudsman and has made no efforts to improve his edits or try to discuss these issues on the talk page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support based on apparent lack of reading comprehension alone. After being reverted by NeilN, CheckersBoard posted about it on the talk page, apparently under the impression that the information was being removed for being undue. I replied that the information was already present, yet minutes later, they re-added the information to the article without any acknowledgement of the talk page discussion. The agenda-based edits posted by NeilN are also quite concerning. Unless CheckersBoard acknowledges that they are causing problems with this sort of editing, they should stay away from the topic entirely. clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is a long-term problem, and multiple editors (including myself) have tried in vain to get Checkersboard to understand (and edit within) wikipedia guidelines. It's unfortunate, but there has just been too much disruption caused by this editor. Reluctantly support the proposed topic ban. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Policy question: is it permissible to edit for pay from an IP address?

WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY says "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries." IP editors usually don't have a user page, and if they have a shared IP address, it's not really meaningful to have one. So what's policy when an paid editor edits from an IP address, and discloses their affiliation in edit comments or the article talk page?

This has come up twice recently in two independent cases, WP:COIN#William_Morris_IP_editor_or_editors and WP:AN/I#PAYTALK. It's thus a real policy question. In both cases, paid editing was disclosed on talk pages or edit summaries, but multiple IP addresses were involved.

On the one hand, Wikipedia does try to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and while IP editors do face some restrictions, they're allowed to do most things. On the other hand, paid editing from IP addresses is hard to monitor, and makes checking for COI problems more difficult. It is to some extent gaming the system in the WP:GAME sense.

So, what's the consensus on this? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the practicality of enforcing this, the wording is "editors who..." not "accounts who...", so I don't see why this wouldn't apply. Sam Walton (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If the policy explicitly states that disclosure in edit summaries is appropriate when other systems fail (which they easily do for changing/shared IP addresses), then what's wrong with doing exactly that? LjL (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My feeling would be "Yes, provided they disclose in their edit summary or on any relevant talk pages". I only really see a problem if the editing is being done through an IP in an attempt to deceive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Balkans issue

The Boka Star article was recently nominated for deletion by Loesorion with the rationale This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk. I'm not interested in the original shape of the article or any dispute that there may be between Loesorion and Bobrayner. The article has been improved by a number of editors (including myself) and the fact that the ship was involved in arms running is borne out by sources. With this edit, Loesorion claimed he had Deleted and corrected false information from article. This is not the case. The reference "nca" does indeed verify fuel for SCUDS and also parts for the Orkan rocket. The seebiz webpage that was deleted as a reference verifies the sale of the ship to Splitska Plovibda. I reverted the edit and raised the issue on the article's talk page. It seems to me that Loesorion is trying to push his particular POV in this dispute, despite sources verifying a situation opposite to his view. I have warned him via the article's talk page not to do so. As the vessel served with Balkan countries, are there any discretionary sanctions that can be applied to the article? Advice would be appreciated please. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For inof, Loesorion has reverted me. I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over this, but have explained my position at talk:Boka Star. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor vandalism on webisode episode listings

We seem to have a problem with very minor vandalism. Over the last few years, I seem to be in a constant struggle with someone with a changing IP address. This person seems to have a particular pleasure in changing the release date for the episodes of webseries a few days different here and there. The vandalism is small enough some of these changes have taken years, if ever to fix all of the damage. Yes, as seen in my recent edits of List of The Guild episodes and List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, the vandal didn't even take the time to change the List of seasons section dates. Here are a few of the IP addresses that have made these changes.

• 2602:306:CD51:9170:8419:466:565C:544C
• 2602:306:CD8F:9060:54B3:E942:F8E6:9AF0
• 2602:306:cd51:ab70:e944:9afb:5cb9:4142
• 2602:306:CD8F:8C70:14BE:366D:EA26:EA36
• 2602:306:cd51:8c10:3581:95e1:da38:5b65
• 2602:306:cdc2:3930:51c4:5933:e564:919a

Most of the edits seem to be coming from Raleigh, North Carolina. I don't know if we can shut this person down. This person seems patient enough to wait editors out on these backwater pages. In the end, I know there used to be some sort of verify edit type of system that used to be on wikipedia. Maybe pages like these need to be under that banner. I am not as active as I used to be. It is just sad to see factual errors on wikipedia that aren't fixed for several years. Oldag07 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the addresses you've provided above the CIDR range seems to be 2602:0306:CD00/40. We could consider blocking this range if it is a big problem. Have you any examples of recent vandalism from these addresses? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Here are a few more.

• 2602:306:c59c:5f80:ecad:897b:5c44:b306
• 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:E436:3CD0:6759:2A34
• 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:FC78:2634:D91C:D34F
• 2602:306:CD51:BDA0:75C2:A162:1855:123D
• 2602:306:c59c:5080:f1df:cb9b:c34a:470f
• 2602:306:CD51:A100:614D:A52:CF31:B105

• 2602:306:35FB:2EC0:584A:8ECE:39AF:E2FC - seems to be non vandalism address

Maybe the right answer is to just ignore it. There has just got to be a better way to catch vandalism like that. Oldag07 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Added bullet points for ease of readingOldag07 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't block such a large range unless there is significant ongoing vandalism from these addresses. If it is specific articles that are targeted then we could look at semi-protection or pending changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the "non-vandalism address" is unrelated, these are all within the equivalent of 3,072 IPv4 addresses (in between /20 and /21): 108.89.196.0/23, 108.213.24.0/22, 108.216.248.0/22 and 108.220.34.0/23. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume pending changes are for the very minor articles. Yes, I would prefer that we use pending changes for the webisode episode pages. Oldag07 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I put PC protection on List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, but not the other article. I was having a hard time justifying it because the vandalism was so old and there appeared to be an IP that was making productive edits. Blocking the IPs won't do anything because the person behind them has probably moved on to (hopefully) more productive pursuits. I think WP:Huggle and WP:STiki are supposed to catch subtle stuff like this, but it's certainly not a perfect system. ~Awilley (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Oldag07: - You may be interested in this. What you are describing in this thread is sadly textbook behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom remedies.

Where's the proper place to go, to have a Arbcom case's remedy revoked? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, is thanking someone for their edit or post (via the 'thank' button), considered a breach of one's Arb restricton, if it's a edit or post related to that restricted topic? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Case remedies can be revoked at WP:ARCA. And it depends re "thanking" - might be a technical violation, but as a one-off it might also be too trivial to worry about. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do want to point out -- without implying that it's the case here -- that there have been incidents where using the "thanks" button excessively to an editor one is in a dispute with or whom one is under an IBAN with or who has claimed harassment, etc. has led to a block of the "thanking" editor, as the excessive use was determined to be a means of annoyance. So while a quick "thanks" may slip by (which depends to a certain extent on the reaction of the other editor), I wouldn't make a habit of it. BMK (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As long editor-A is allowed to 'thank' editor-B for making an edit or post in a area that editor-A is restricted from, there shouldn't be any problems. Certaintly know way that editor-A could be accused of influencing editor-B. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about "influencing"? If there's an interaction ban, for instance, then the "thank you" is, as Euryalus mentioned, a technical violation of it, albeit (perhaps) a trivial one. The ban is not on "influencing" the other editor, it's on "interacting" with them.

But, now that you mention it, when Editor-A thanks Editor-B for something done in a subject that Editor-A is restricted from, I think that could easily be considered as trying to influence Editor-B, and by doing so being involved in the restricted subject. It's generally best not to test the boundaries of one's sanction, admins and arbitrators tend to look on it with disfavor - so I wouldn't do it, especially since you've now brought it up. BMK (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure. I'm under a 3+ year restriction, which was (of course) put in place before the 'Thank' option was added :) GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN, which specifically mentions the Thank extension, although the WP:TBAN section (immediately above it) doesn't make any references to it. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I was the one that added this mention to the IBAN section, and remember clearly the discussion that led up to it -- everyone agreed it should already have been covered under the umbrella of "interaction" but since at least one person had abused it, there was no harm in clarifying explicitly that the "thanks" extension was included in a standard IBAN. See my diff and the discussion diff'ed in the edit summary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on possible change to administrative policy

Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Some SPI cases which are CU completed and CU declined (An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behaviour investigation.) needs attention of administrators. --The Avengers 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A request to review the close at Talk:Allegiance (musical)

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Allegiance (musical) to determine if the discussion was closed appropriately. The heading of the particular section originally was “Should all content be sourced?”, but after it was closed, an editor changed the heading to “Should plot summaries be sourced … ?” I discussed this close with the closer on his talk page, User talk:SchroCat. I believe the close was inappropriate because the closer was not an uninvolved editor, instead he was a part of the discussion. This is in spite of the fact that the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page indicate that the closing editor should be someone who is “uninvolved”. There are important reasons it should be someone who is not involved, for example: so that it won’t seem as if the discussion was closed only in order to get the last word, or to limit the ability of an opposing view to be expressed, etc. The discussion had been a good exchange of ideas between very active editors about “verifiability” and what the guidelines say about handing citations in articles. I think discussions on talk pages have value, and should be respected. Editors should indeed ask each other questions, and discuss Wikipedia policy, and discuss how it should be edited. Discussions should not be closed unnaturally by an editor who is involved and might want to make a point. It violates the WP policy (cited above). I think it’s important, and the discussion should reopen, and hopefully come to a conclusion, or fall silent, or what ever it might naturally do. Thanks. DagTruffle (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes. And likely for your own good as SchroCat stated due to you heading nose down into IDHT territory. You opened a discussion with a non-neutral heading to start with and informal discussions rarely require a formal closure by an uninvolved party unless it is a formal advertised RFC or consensus is not clear. The discussion was very clear, and without rehashing it here, you are unlikely to find many (if any) who disagree. Secondly - this was explained to you repeatedly by multiple editors. You continued to argue, but you need to learn that there comes a point in a discussion like that where you either accept you are wrong, or that the other participants just dont agree with you. As wikipedia works by consensus, either option almost always means you should drop it or end up at a drama board. I suggest Dropping it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

As has been pointed out numerous times in many places, current guidance states that discussions can be closed by the participants where consensus is clear. As this was essentially DagTruffle not listening to everyone else, demanding an uninvolved person to close (what barely qualifies as) a discussion is just buro-wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

If an outside view is wanted, I have to say that I am in agreement with Caden. DagTruffle appeared to be making some quite reasonable points about referencing (with examples), and the insistence that the references should be removed seems very strange and contrary to most Wikipedia principles. They are certainly doing no harm, and are actually adding to the veracity of the text. If IDHT applied in that discussion, it looks more like it was those opposing DagTruffle who were guilty of failing to listen. The attempt at pulling rank was really rather depressing to see. I would recommend that the RFC is reopened, allowed to run for longer, and not closed by an involved party. Number 57 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What RfC? - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I assumed this had been an RfC. Nevertheless, I would still recommend that the closure is reversed, and hopefully some more consideration is given to the valid points raised, rather than a new editor being brushed off. Number 57 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Equally or more valid points have been put in opposition; there is no consensus and it's a fairly pointless argument to drag on any further. I'm also not sure this is a new user. (Not necessarily accusing anyone of underhand behaviour with that). There is too much knowledge of procedures, wikilawyering to class them as "new". - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The most serious problem, as I see it, is that some editors think it is justified to strip entire article sections of inline citations. And citations are the way content can be verified. The best argument they give for for removing citations, is that something similar is done in articles on movies. But Broadway musicals and movies are different. For example, the only way an editor can use a “primary source” to verify the plot summary for the musical Allegiance, would be to travel to New York City, buy a ticket for $306.00 or less, and report back. That is until the script is published, if that happens. But since plots of musicals are often described in books and articles why not cite them? Especially since verification is one of the Seven Pillars of Wikipedia. (By the way, I did indeed have a previous Wikipedia account — Dagtorfleson — until my computer died, and took some passwords to the grave with it.) DagTruffle (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is rather disappointing. On the relevant page I congratulated both the protagonists on their courtesy and consensual approach, but I seem have been premature in that judgement so far as Dag Truffle is concerned. Whatever the merits of the arguments (rather caricatured here by Mr/Ms Truffle, in my view, as neither the Carmen, Carousel nor Romeo and Juliet articles refer to films) there was only one editor urging the Truffle line, viz Mr/Ms Truffle. There being no consensus for his/her point of view it was entirely within the normal WP rules to bring the one-sided debate to a conclusion. I am glad to note Dag Truffle's statement that he/she is not a new editor: not only was I too a touch surprised at such slickness in Wiki procedural lore but I feel that an experienced editor, albeit under earlier names, should recognise the need for consensus. Unhelpful comment removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC). Tim riley talk 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

• Next revert in this section gets a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure should definitely not have been closed by an involved user. DagTruffle had understandable concerns, even if others disagree with his views. I would have waited for an uninvolved user to close the discussion regardless of the overall consensus (or lack thereof). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know that there's much to be done here about the close. It wasn't a formal process discussion but let's take on that the fact that involved people closing discussions is poor form; an appearance of bias; a drama magnet. I do not have the time to start an RfC but the "three experienced editors" here got it very wrong in my opinion; a basic failure of logic. The fact that plots don't require sources does not imply that plots should not have sources, nor that it is okay to remove reliable sources once added where they weren't mandated. To be fair, the original post may have started with the notion that plots do require sources, which is incorrect by current policy and guidelines, but the underlying issue was removal of sources, and the very clear notion expressed by the opposition was that because sources weren't required, that warranted their removal. I would go to bat against that notion—one I think of as pernicious. DagTruffle was later arguing that much more fundamental issue, and the idea this was just a new user with some zany notion clearly on the other side of policy and guideline to be brushed off as an IDHT malcontent is troubling. Had I come upon that discussion in the ordinary course, I would have attempted to shift the focus to what I see as the real issue. This is all to highlight that, yes, I don't think the close directly violated any policy, but that nevertheless it was a very bad idea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to move archives of Talk:List of YouTubers

A few months ago, the page at List of YouTube personalities was moved to List of YouTubers; the main talk page was moved along with the article, but its archives stayed at their original titles, and they can all be accessed from here. Could an admin move all the archives and the archive index to the new title? I could technically do this myself, but since I can't move more than one page at a time nor suppress any redirects, it would make for a messy process. I originally posted this request at WP:Editor assistance/Requests but it hasn't gotten any attention. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

All done. I didn't see the point of suppressing any redirects, so I didn't. Graham87 07:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Too be fair, there's nothing non-admins from mass moving pages via a script, just as admins do. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't have any mass-move scripts granted as part of the admin package. It's just that we get an additional check box when moving pages: "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable". That's the only reason (as far as I can imagine) why this request makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC

Anyone have a mop and bucket for the backlog there? Several discussions are over a month old. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser data followup

In reference to a recent discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive276#Awaiting_statement involving apparent retention of checkuser beyond WMF guidelines, as written at the time, I asked WMF about it and they've clarified the guidelines [46] to make it explicit CU data may be retained long term. NE Ent 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It really wasn't necessary to inquire, a straight-forward reading of the policy shows that to be the case, as I pointed out at the time. BMK (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, I am glad that WMF stepped up and clarified the that usage of CUWiki to retain CU data of LTAers is permitted by policy. Props to NE Ent for making this happen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of topic ban - Armenian genocide denial

I issued a topic ban earlier and logged it here. As I have never placed a topic ban before, I would like to make sure that I have done this properly.

Background: I became aware of frequent problems with sockpuppets and paid meatpuppets in relation to trying to deny the Armenian genocide after working numerous related SPI cases this year. There is a concerted effort by PR firms hired by the nation of Turkey to promote the denial. There are actually more PR firms than mentioned there being paid whopping sums of money to conduct this campaign. See this web search. I blocked numerous socks/meats and had to protect pages including talk pages due to the disruption of these meats which took to IP hopping (see this history as an example). After suppressing puppet activity the disruption subsided for the last few months. The editor above is attempting to take up their baton and run with it. Quite frankly, I see the patience of the Wikipedia community growing thin on this perennial issue. Because that editor has constructive edits in other areas, I chose to place a topic ban in order to prevent further disruption when he filed a DR case earlier today. His bias is clear in this edit where he changes the wikilink to deny the title of our stable article. He has clarified that he is Turkish-American.

Named parties to that DR filing were EtienneDolet, Tiptoethrutheminefield and Dr.K.. I have not notified the above user because his involvement here would be against the topic ban and I want to deescalate the disruption not encourage it.

In addition to making sure that I have done this correctly, I would like to know if the community supports or opposes this TBAN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I responded to a query made by the user here. My comment was restrained—what I actually saw was that the user was enthusiastically pushing a fringe view. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Give the guy another chance Changed to Neutral please see my comment below I already talked to Berean about this. I think Dominator is not as bad as the typical POV-pusher in this area. I am not going to second-guess Berean's admin discretion but I think he should have been warned more strongly under AA2 before the topic ban was enacted. Dr. K. 04:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose Don't get me wrong, I vehemently oppose the fringe POV Dominator1453 is trying to push. However, intellectual honesty and fair play compel me to oppose a ban at this stage. First, instead of edit-warring over the content, he sought WP:DR. We are sending the wrong message if we ban people who seek DR instead of edit-warring. Second, in order for such a ban to be applied, Dominator would have to have been formally warned of WP:AA2 sanctions. To my knowledge this is not the case, so the ban is premature on procedural grounds. And lastly, being biased is not enough to warrant a ban. We all have out biases. It is when an editor causes disruption as a result of these biases that a ban is warranted. In my opinion, the disruption caused by Dominator at this stage is minimal. That may of course change in the future, but at this stage, I feel a ban is premature. Athenean (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Following the further clarification by Berean Hunter below, I have reconsidered. It seems he was warned, and I find the canvassing attempts particularly disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dr.K. has asked politely on my talk page if I would reconsider the TBAN. In my eyes that is what this thread is trying to gauge and yes, I put this here for reconsideration by the community. So I am open to the idea of lifting it if that is the outcome here. Because it is here, I would ask for about three days to allow for more input before making the decision. For some reason though, Dr. K. and Athenean seem to think that he had not been warned about WP:AA2 and that is not correct. He was warned right here on his talk page on Nov. 13. I should also point out that yesterday he tried to canvass another editor that appears to be Turkish with "Hello, I am trying to add the fact that some scholars and historians deny the alleged Armenian Genocide but fear that too many aggressive users of Armenian and Greek origin are reverting my edits. Please have a look." and I see that as escalation of disruption especially in view of the fact that he filed a DR as well before that. Unlike his adversaries above, he doesn't seem to have a problem trying to have WP:AA2 enforced on others in the conflict as he also tried to file for Arbcom enforcement after filing the DR and trying to canvass. This may be taken as a given that he understood AA2 and didn't need more warnings about it. I have serious doubts that anything fruitful will result if the TBAN is lifted as it looks like he is trying to beat a dead horse. I also do believe that since his non-neutral POV and bias has been revealed that he has compromised his position and shouldn't be editing there.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification After Berean Hunter's explanation just above, I can see that the usual signs of disruptive editing in this area clearly exist. My comments above were based mainly on my personal interactions with this user, a few times on my talkpage, where he was unfailingly polite and even friendly. The one time s/he got me worried was when he mentioned the ethnicity of his opponents at the talkpage of Turkey. But I see now that he used the ethnicity of his opponents during the canvassing incident of which I was unaware. My mention of "adequate warning under AA2" simply meant that I thought the user should have been given a topic ban perhaps as part of an AE report or a final warning before any topic ban was enacted if an AE report were not filed against him/her. But I realise that Berian Hunter did his/her due diligence and the matter falls squarely under his/her admin discretion, which I respect. Again, although this user seems to be following the exact same path as previous users in this area, there was a certain respect shown to me during our interactions which caused me to extend AGF and stretch it to its breaking point. Given Berean's additional comments, I can see that he exercised his admin discretion well. Does that change my mind? I have to investigate a little bit more. Thank you all. Dr. K. 16:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I find articles where nationalist disruption persists need to be dealt with swiftly and decisively without wiggle room or mercy. When nationalism starts to come into play, AGF goes out the window. Nationalist disruption is like a spark in dry bush. If ignored, it becomes a bushfire that sucks in vast amounts of editor time and resources to deal with it. I mean, there have been 3(!) arbcom cases involving the Israeli Palestine articles and 2 involveing Azerbaijain / Armenia articles. Stamp it out, douse it and suffocate it with sand before it spreads. Endorse the topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Looked this over yesterday but didn't have time to respond here. Not being as bad as the typical POV-pusher still leaves him as a POV-pusher. I'm losing all kinds of patience with ARBPIA/ARBEURO/ARBAA stuff lately. Katie^talk 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Upon further investigation, I note these edits replacing the memorial of the victims of the Armenian genocide with another of a Muslim massacre and this edit calling the subsequent revert of his/her edit vandalism. In addition to the other incidents such as the canvassing and the attempt at reporting Tiptoe at AE, a rather clear pattern of disruption emerges. The only remaining question, at least for me, is if Dominator can improve his/her editing behaviour. Realistically, the chances for that to happen appear slim. But I will stretch AGF to its ultimate tensile strength and I will remain neutral. Dr. K. 03:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I am still astounded how a country can have any historical integrity and deny the Armenian Genocide, even with blatant political motives. If an organization such as Wikipedia which aspires to be an encyclopedia even entertains such a notion, it would lose credibility on all topics and open itself up to further (undeniable) charges of historical revisionism. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely for violation of his topic ban. With this, he precisely showed his colors. "...you cannot judge me on my convictions on the lie called the "Armenian Genocide"."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Block review

As I have stated on his talk page, this is now a block review for the community to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else here aware that this user's name is referencing the fall of Constantinople at the hand of the Turks? I feel like we're staring at the face of evil here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How so? Dr. K. 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the user references the singular date in which an entire civilization was destroyed in his tag line, coupled with his denial of a genocide and hostility towards the victims/those who favor rightfully remembering it as such makes ME "feel like we're staring at the face of evil here". Trinacrialucente (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Constantinople fell in 1453. Not sure I'd go so far as to say we're staring at the face of evil, though. Katie^talk 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you KrakatoaKatie. Believe it or not I am aware of the fact that Constantinople fell in 1453. However I am at a loss understanding how looking at a username making that connection is "staring at the face of evil". Dr. K. 02:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While it might not be the face of evil, a triumphalist sig like that does not announce an intent to edit neutrally or dispassionately, it suggests the exact opposite. The suggestion becomes a clear announcement on his user page: "Once again, an age will end and a new age will begin after 570 years"; he has also said that he "loves Erdogan". However, I think it is unlikely that such a wide remit of a topic ban, extending it to an editor's own talk page, would have been envisaged by Dominator1453 - so I think, in the absence of an explicit warning in advance, it is a bit too harsh to extend a topic ban to an indef site ban because of his "the lie called the Armenian Genocide" comment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that I explained to him why he got indef blocked. I explained how he was not supposed to even mention a topic that he was banned from, and the most likely path back. His response was to again engage in the same arguments covered by the topic ban. It is at that point I removed talk page access. I don't think a lack of warning is the issue here. HighInBC 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed - but it was an after the event explanation, he had already been blocked as a result of mentioning the subject on his talk page. I am not at all defending Dominator1453's edits or comments, and the topic ban seems appropriate, but I think there is something disturbing about the process that led to the permanent site ban. His "the lie called the Armenian Genocide" comment could have been enough to get the topic ban expanded to a block, but he was not actually permanently blocked because of the content of that comment - he was blocked for mentioning the AG on his talk page. Even if he had said something neutral, or even conciliatory, or nothing at all that mentioned the AG beyond mentioning his topic ban, he would have still been blocked under the remit of that topic ban. It seems overly extreme to me that an editor being topic banned should be forbidden (with the severest of punishment) from making any comment about that ban on his/her talk page. If such a broad interdict is going to be in place I think it needs to be clearly stated in advance that the topic ban includes even a mention of the topic on the topic-banned editor's own user page, since an affected editor might not realize the full extent of what a topic ban entails. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The T-ban was appropriate and so was the indeff. I can't see any need for a community block review here. Why not just put a blocking template on the use's tp and let them make a block appeal in the usual way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Their talk page access has been revoked and they have been given UTRS as a means to appeal. Here's an interesting new account where I've semi-protected an article in the area of interests as our fellow above:
• Soloturk1453 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Interesting coincidence worth watching.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times

Back in May I nominated Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times for deletion, and it was kept. While I don't have a problem with that, the issue is the category is not removed when the AfD is closed, there was some talk of close AfD scripts doing it, although I don't think that is always the case. I was going through the category using AWB for a while, and removing it from the discussions manually, but I haven't done that since mid October (you can see that it is still in this now closed discussion from 21 October). So my request is that when people are closing AfDs that have been relisted 3+ times, they check to make sure the category is removed, and if not remove it manually. Much thanks, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Was there a bot that used to do this? I'm sure there was a bot that used to remove Category:Relisted AfD debates from closed AfDs, but it doesn't seem like that happens anymore. Assuming this wasn't deliberately stopped, might be worth cross-posting at WP:BOTREQ to see if anyone is interested in taking it on again. Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an AFD closer I simply go through the log and close them so with the greatest of respect I'm not going to flaff about manually removing categories and potentially screwing something else up in the process, If we delete the (IMHO useless) category then we won't have a backlog. –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there was a bot that used to do it, there was talk of getting one to do it, but at least one that I checked yesterday was from late October. Jenks24, I will swing by BOTREQ and check, thank you. Davey2010, I get where you are coming from regarding not wanting to put another step into closing discussions, and I agree that the category is largely useless, which is why I had nominated it for deletion. Originally it was set up to appear in the backlog when 3 or more items were listed, but that meant a perpetual backlog (I have since arbitrarily increased it to 20), as the category also includes every page the discussion was transcluded on (including delsort pages). There is (to my knowledge) no way to suppress the category on transcluded pages as well, which would at least be helpful. As a bit of background as to how this category came to be, it was created (and added to the Admin Backlog) by Technical 13, he added to the relist script a function that checks to see how many relists the discussion has, and if it was two times, the category was added by the script. The category can be removed using HotCat, so it's not like one has to search for it. More just remembering to do it (or knowing to do it, I am sure that most people don't even know this category exists). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think we can add it to the AFD closing instructions to review the page and if they have hotcat, to remove it. Otherwise, we can have a bot request to make a table of all pages in those categories that include both the Afd closing template and the category if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• This is a great task for a bot. Should be very simple. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• For those of you interested, a BRFA has been filed. Also, it seems some of the pages within the category are actually listed as a result of the AfD being included, so the backlog isn't as bad as it seems (only 7 pages currently, if I accounted for all possibilities at least).  Hazard SJ  06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ... and it's been approved, so I'll set it up for a daily run (maybe that's overkill?).  Hazard SJ  06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Much thanks. Once a day is probably overkill. Once or twice a week would probably be sufficient. The multiple inclusion of the same discussion is a categorization issue, I don't know the solution to that. Thanks again. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @Kelapstick: Shouldn't it be <noinclude>d on the main AfD pages? — Earwig ^talk 18:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Would that fix the issue with all the delsort and individual day AfDs showing up in the category? I am not familiar with how the <include> tags work. If so that should be added to the relist script(s). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think so. It would prevent the category from showing up in any page that transcludes the AfD, but the category would still be included in the main AfD itself. No script change should be required, as the cat is added by {{relist}} directly. — Earwig ^talk 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. This should work. — Earwig ^talk 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Earwig, I will check back on it once the existing discussions are closed (since {{relist}} is substituted, it won't have any effect on the existing pages). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, <noinclude>...</noinclude> should be the solution. I'm going to update my source code to remove that tag if it's present (via regular expressions), so that we don't have empty tags lying around.  Hazard SJ  02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Relisted AfD debates

It was brought to my attention by Ricky81682 that Category:Relisted AfD debates, which is actually a parent category of Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, also exists, and is pretty crowded. I'd just like to get confirmation that this category should also be removed as well before I file a BRFA for that (there would be a total of 8848 removals initially, so I definitely want to make sure first).  Hazard SJ  02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on if that category is supposed to track active relisted AfDs, or all relisted AfDs. I would think that there would be more than 8800 since 2009 (when the category was created) if it were all relisted AfDs, so it's probably only for the active ones, just the category never gets removed. The CFD discussion suggests that as well (I think). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would care for a list of all AFDs that were relisted. You could get that from following the template or other ways. A list of active AFDs makes sense as a way to see which discussions could use more votes of any type and then 3 times makes even more sense from there. I've manually removed a number and I don't see how anyone would be hindered by that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering it's a subcat of Category:AfD debates, which is "unclosed AfDs", I'd be inclined to believe it should be active relisted AfDs. I suspect it's simply been ignored. Don't see the use of having a category for closed relisted AfDs. — Earwig ^talk 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that decision. There could definitely be someone looking for a list of relisted AFDs (we sometimes see PhD dissertations about Wikipedia, and I can imagine one studying article deletions, with plenty of emphasis on relistings), but as noted, that can come from WhatLinksHere for the template. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

All this energy going into deletion, while adding/fixing content is suffering? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Would you rather no energy go into deletion? clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is triage though. If we can get a proper handle on only the outstanding relisted AFD discussions, it'll make it easier to see which discussions aren't settled and which can be tipped over with some work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Experienced LTA clerk needed

There's about a dozen proposed LTA (Long Term Abuse) cases pending approval at Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval. If there is any admin who is experienced with working with LTA cases, and could either approve or decline these, it'd really help clear a backlog which is pretty short on numbers (only 12) and pretty long on time (many of these have been awaiting approval for months). Thanks! --Jayron32 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I nominated two of them for speedy deletion, as they are misplaced vandalism reports that should have gone to AIV. I've left the others alone, as I'm not an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Query new method of adding spam links

In the last couple of days I have come across two users adding spam links in a similar fashion:

• User:Obalabi adds a .gov ref followed by the same link here [47] and [48] etc

• User:Alvb adds a American Academy of Dermatology ref followed by a ref to spam [49]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Albv because it looks highly likely she is engaging in undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

There's a backlog (54 subcategories and 124 pages) at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion if anyone is awake and bored. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 10:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Delisting of skyscrapercity

Per the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and elsewhere, including this noticeboard, as of late last month there were over 1,900 links referring back to the internet forums at SKYSCRAPERCITY{{.}}COM. When these links appear in the main article space, they are most-often presented in the form of an embedded reference, meaning that there are upwards of over 1,000 links in Wikipedia articles where an internet discussion board is presented as a cited source.

With the assistance of other editors, this has since been pruned back by approximately 20% but there is still much work left to be done. Removing these links from the affected articles requires identifying the links as well as the arbitrary referenced tags attributed to them. It is my understanding that these links need to be removed from all talk pages as well, as our bots are unable to process talk pages containing links which have been blacklisted.

To facilitate this removal I am requesting the assistance of the community to review and remove these remaining links. Please let me know if there are any other considerations that we should be aware of going forward with this process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• ({{spam interlink}} removed to archive thread)

• The above link will help.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently there is a bot reverting the removal of (some of) these: see diff. - Nabla (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) PS: calling the bot owner: @Anomie: - Nabla (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• No what happened is the bot reinserted the reference into the article! This is because the "ref name='"Opens Today"'" is spammed multiple times in the article, so when that ref was deleted it left lots of orphaned entries. So the bot repaired this by reinserting the reference. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• I have now removed all references to skyscrapercity{{.}}com from that article. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• That bot won't be able to revert them again because I have added the link to the blacklist. This does now mean that talk page archive bots won't be able to archive the specific threads that contain that link until they are removed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not particularly relevant but this will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (4th nomination) more interesting at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mainspace should be clean now. Should all namespaces have links removed? — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't. There's no reason to cut the links from talk pages and their archives, for example. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• You should deactivate the links on talk pages where necessary to prevent problems with archiving (nowiki is fine). Otherwise you should leave them alone. MER-C 13:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a good point; make as few changes as necessary (and don't make any when possible), but workarounds like MER-C suggests are necessary, of course. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Removed was a poor word choice. <nowiki> tags would be applied to unarchived pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Will all forums and links to them be purged from Wikipedia? Buffaboy ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just almost all of them; see the tenth point of WP:ELNO. But it's not as big of an issue as it was when I first became really active here, eight or nine years ago; the rise of Facebook and other Web 2.0 sites has really caused a big decline in significance for traditional forum sites. At one time, I was routinely removing forum links from EL sections, and it's been quite a while since I saw any. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

3RR backlog

Would any Admin like to action the WP:AN3 backlog? :) JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo lovin' troll

I'm not familiar with range blocks, but if it applies in this situation, will someone take a look at 182.239.98.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 182.239.98.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 182.239.66.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 15:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw one of these at AIV this morning. It's 182.239.64.0/18, more than 16K IP addresses. Since December 3 there's been no non-vandal activity from that range, and given the extent of the disruption, I've rangeblocked for 72 hours. Katie^talk 16:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 16:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, I'm not sure if another range block is in order, but I thought I'd let you know the same person is back: 182.239.71.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 182.239.103.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 182.239.66.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). APK whisper in my ear 19:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the same range from a Hong Kong ISP - the block simply expired. NeilN rangeblocked again for two weeks. Again, no non-vandal contributions from that range since mid-November, so I think we're good. Katie^talk 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 20:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Segregationist

User:166.175.56.39 had made an edit calling Harry "Curley" Byrd a segregationist on the page Byrd Stadium and I reverted it. He sent me a link trying to prove that he is a segregationist, and I told him that it doesn't matter if he is because it is still inappropriate, but he is still yelling at me at the articles talk page accusing me of being a racist. CLCStudent (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've explained on CLCStudent's talk page, hopefully that is all that is needed. Will watch a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I sense dispute resolution had not run it's course before posting here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    • You are correct, which is why I'm taking it off-board :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    • This IP editor may be part of the same 166.17x.x.x range that has been quite prominent for the last few months. There was evidence that the banned user Ararat arev uses this range, but in this case it is likely to be the IP editor who was topic banned from World's oldest people articles. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor is right, it actually says as much in the Harry C. Byrd article itself, cited to the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, so there's no issue. KoshVorlon 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please put this in Template:In the news

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 Japanese space probe Akatsuki successfully enters orbit around Venus, using only its attitude control thrusters.--LL221W (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • LL221W, the place to nominate items for In the News is WP:ITN/C. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Discussion at CIVILITY

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.

---

Per the recommendations at WP:SQS, I would like to request an uninvolved admin refactor any disruptive and stonewalling comments at WT:CIVILITY#Link to workplace bullying article. I would also appreciate any advice on what to do next. Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Industrial copyright violation of Wikipedia information

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 website www.callrecorded.com is reusing Wikipedia content on a series of pages, including for example http://callrecorded.com/london-underground-contact-number/ which copies London Underground. It does not include any license or attribution. Therefore it is a copyright violation of Wikipedia and someone with appropriate authority should seek to have it taken down.

It is an odious site which uses premium rate telephone numbers that redirect to the genuine (and cheaper) customer service telephone numbers of other organizations, which is legal, if a bit tawdry.

Who is in a position to raise this with the site? Stifle (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is attributed, in large letters at the bottom of the material copied from Wikipedia—they should technically be linking to the history page rather than the article page, but that's a minor point. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone means "by anyone", not "by people you approve of". ‑ Iridescent 10:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The CC BY-SA license requires that the license be quoted or linked to, and the authors attributed, neither of which has been done. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually it doesnt. It requres attribution. Its good if it is done comprehensively, but it is not legally required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

From the license: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." That is from section 4a which does not include the "reasonable to the medium" clause of section 4c. BethNaught (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The official stance (in the form of a crafted template) that OTRS agents are directed to reply to tickets about reuse of Wikimedia content:

"Dear Stifle,

Thank you for bringing the reuse of Wikipedia content to our attention.

As you may be aware, we encourage other sites to reuse our content. Wikipedia contributors license their content using a license called the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), which allows reuse of text either in its original form or with modifications provided that certain conditions are met. There are hundreds of web sites that do this. A list of some of them is available here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:FORK

While we encourage all reusers to comply with the requirements of CC-BY-SA, including proper attribution for authors, we are aware of the fact that many web sites do not do so correctly. Thank you again for bringing this site to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Landry"

Just FYI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

What to do with User:JackTheVicar's content

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 all -

Some time ago JacktheVicar was accused of being a sock of Colonel Henry. Via email and other means, he has since convinced me that the person behind the account is not the person who was behind Colonel Henry's account. Arbcom is still reviewing his ban, but in the meantime I wanted to discuss what to do what his content - some of it is quite good, including 3 GA's, and every article that has had it's references checked (including one where I tracked down obscure physical references) has not seen the same kind of fraudulent claims that characterized CH's work. JtV's GA's had already been restored on the basis of WP:BANREVERT and the fact that an article that other users had already given significant input to shouldn't be G5'ed. However, I'm proposing restoring all of his content - it's good, it's sourced, it doesn't as far as I can tell contain fraudulent claims, and it's about topics we were missing. If the discussion goes the other way, I'd be okay with personally redeleting the articles in question (except for the GA's,) but for the purposes of this discussion, I've restored all of the content he's created so that non-admins can view it - you can view it here, on his old userpage. I think the content is worth keeping, since it's good content (and the fact that I suspect it's not really G5able has something to do with my feeling as well,) but figured I'd start a further discussion here about what to do with it. Shall we keep it? Yay? Nay? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should treat its deletion and restoration like any other content deleted via speedy deletion. The content can be deleted by an admin as a G5 (and it looks like a lot had) and any discussion about restoring particular content should be done at WP:DRV on a page-by-page basis. Prior discussions have been at ANI I believe and I think that's a poor way to do it because we're looking at it as an editor problem when we should be evaluating each page and the contributions within each page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So wait, not only it seems this user is now blocked out of an incorrect belief they were a sock; not only is an admin who previously unblocked this user under gunfire in the section just above this one; but the good content that this user has added has been deleted, and just above my comment, it is being proposed that it should only be restored by a lengthy page-by-page process? Wow, I'm for sure starting to understand why some people think there is a process/admin cabal in this place. LjL (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, there has been no final determination posted on-wiki regarding the sock claim; I think this is the most recent relevant thread. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So while a final determination is being determined and it's far from clear that socking has occurred, admittedly "good" content is being (or has already been) liberally deleted? LjL (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No final determination has been posted on-wiki regarding the sock claim, but in light of the evidence I have I think he's either not a sock or this was part of a malicious plan to edit Wikipedia hatched fifteen years ago. I'm aware of WP:DRV, but when we're dealing with a batch of articles that are all reversed G5's, I think it may be excessive to put this many articles on DRV that require significant backstory to understand. I had already restored the GA's myself during the initial discussion, and decided to restore the rest of the content today for debate, because quite frankly most of it is pretty good content that we're not going to get written otherwise. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's a suggestion. The other discussion occurred at WT:CSD which I find even odder. The prior practice has been (a) deletion via G5; (b) restoration under an argument for IAR; and (c) an ANI discussion on whether it's an appropriate IAR use. I'm offering a suggestion for a more systematic way of dealing with these problems as they pop up again and again. If you want to unilaterally restore all of them, that's up to you and then we should just close this discussion and move on since I don't find that an abuse of IAR. Else I don't see why G5 restorations are argued here or at WT:CSD. I'd say we have a discussion that says whether or not it was socking, it is the content good enough to keep because other people have checked it and frankly I don't think this board is conducive to a serious discussion like that but in this case, if Kevin says it's good, I think we can close this as the G5 are all overturned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we can't have a discussion on-wiki about whether or not it was socking due to the nature of the matter involved if it wasn't. WMF, the functionary team, and myself concur on that point. I brought this up here for discussion just because many of my decisions are widely criticized, and I wanted basically a reflexed review of my exercise of IAR/not thinking G5 applies in the first place before I ended up at ANI myself :). I don't want to overload DRV with a bunch of articles that require backstory to understand why they were G5'ed that cannot be provided on-wiki, but wanted to have other eyes on the fact that I was restoring the content to begin with. Amusingly? One of the only places where I thought I had found a hoaxed sourced turned out to be hosted online and just super obscure, with the relevant information so faded that Adobe OCR couldn't pick it up (even though it could OCR the other 59 pages of a 60 page document...) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that. A single DRV titled "User:JackTheVicar's pages" and mass list them would suffice. State that you've reviewed it and if people want to expand on that with you they can follow up. It's a weak case about socking versus good checked content. I would be shocked if a single person objected but if they did or it's some oddball split on which articles or whatever, at least it'll be done in a fashion that has some real community discussion (or SNOW-kept within a day) rather than an quick ANI discussion down here. There's not even a single notice on the pages for each of the articles, no notice to any of the relevant WikiProjects, nothing, nowhere. Here, we're arguing about whether the G5 reversal was wrong, but no one is looking at the content of the edits which is what should be the concern precisely because this place doesn't really operate for that. It's a minority position and it's not going to win me any favors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I used to be much more of a hardass about deleting this stuff, but if it is arguably helping Wikipedia (ie: useful, would pass AFD, meets criteria, etc) I'm less hawkish about deleting just to make a point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, not deleting content that is in every way encyclopedic seems like a good policy, no matter who wrote it. Doing otherwise would be taking WP:PUNITIVE to a whole new level: you don't even punish editors for they misdeeds any longer, you actually punish the entire encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell everything meets the GNG. I painstakingly factchecked one of the GA's and another editor separately factchecked one of the GA's (as in, separate from the normal GA process,) and I've also spotchecked quite a few of the articles I restored. None of them appear to lack notability or to have the factual deception that Colonel Henry article's did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if there was socking, it's not punished and the next puppetmaster will be encouraged. I think G5 is absurdly strict as it is but it's a bright-line at the moment. As I said above, if Kevin's reviewed it all, then fine with me. I just expect that we will find someone with a more complicated situation where AN or ANI will not be the way to solve and I'd prefer we resolve it rather than have sporadic discussions everywhere every time this comes up. Does someone want to suggest wording to WP:G5 itself about restoration? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a bright line authority, but it doesn't force us to delete. No policy can force admin action and we can always ask the community. This is kind of classic WP:IAR territory, the question is how the community feels about it. I'm fine either way, but it seems a shame to lose good articles. There are plenty more articles that deserve deleting, like PR spam... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Bright line authority to be able to delete which one admin did do. Kevin reversed that under IAR. Great, so this is IAR and not wheel-warring. As I said, I'm fine with it as an IAR situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If an admin, or the admin community, or the entire community deems an article good and appropriate and at the same time they deem it should be deleted for reasons not to do with building an encyclopedia (such as that the main contributor is a sockpuppet/sockmaster), that has nothing to do with "bright-line rules" (aka WP:BURO in cases like this), but in fact, it would be outright irresponsible. LjL (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And if it was a copyright problem? It depends on why the person was blocked, which is precisely why G5 says that it has to be created "in violation of their ban or block". Warden's problem was lying about citations, these pages don't have that, it's not the same. And frankly I don't care about the GAs or FAs as those are the easy cases where I doubt you'll find a lot of dispute because those articles get a lot of eyes and are review extensively. Jumping up and down yelling that someone is an idiot for deleting a FA created by a sock under G5 is low hanging fruit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If it was a copyright problem, then the article was not "appropriate" as I posited in the first place. What is worrying me about this is the transpiring idea that content might correctly be, and stay, deleted just because a blocked/sock user created it, even if any problem with the content itself is ruled out. You put forward that idea yourself above by suggesting that "it's not punished and the next puppetmaster will be encouraged" (punished? WP:PUNITIVE?). earlier, Dennis Brown admitted that he used (whew) to lean for deletion "just to make a point" (point? WP:POINT?). These ideas are not good for the encyclopedia, that's all, and we even have "WP:"s explaining why. LjL (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• One revert doesn't make a wheel war. I would guess you both represent a sizeable portion of the community in your opinions, both equally valid. You could raise it to a vote for KEEP, DELETE, or KEEP MOST and just delete anything there is any question on or that requires entirely too much checking on. I would assume GA and FA stuff would be ok, for example, as they (theoretically) have some peer review. WP:AN would be a reasonable place to open it up for a day or two. Or don't, just an idea. What we don't want is a dead lock that forces them to keep due to wheel concerns, however, so better to vote. And the "point" is to discourage socking by not rewarding them, which sounds fine in theory, but isn't effective for cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As to LjL's concern, then get G5 repealed. I don't care. It is to make a point, namely to the idiot socking to go back to your main and admit all your socks. That's been done before and then the content is all restored and no one cares. Else, we get rounds of fighting with editors who repeatedly sock for years arguing that they should be allowed to go at it because the content is good, even if they been topic banned from the area or outright banned or driven off other editors or done legal threats or outside harassment or whatever else they've done. If your view is that literally no conduct at all matters as long as the person produces good content, then fine, there's plenty of people who support that view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The conduct matters, you just don't react to it by removing the existing admittedly good content. I have difficulty not seeing that as obvious. LjL (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If a child steals a candy bar, you don't simply tell them to never steal again, you take that candy bar away. At least that is the principle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Really, Dennis? How can you get it backwards so blatantly? The correct comparison is: "If you told a child to go to their room, and she instead went to the kitchen to bake cookies for hungry people in your neighborhood, you then throw the cookies away to punish her." — Sebastian 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I must be in less good company than I hoped thinking that this was, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, where the ultimate goal was to have (and WP:PRESERVE) good encyclopedic content, and everything else came after that. LjL (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And telling users who have been banned and are not permitted to edit here (for whatever reason) that if they try to sneakily come back and pull the same stunts (by possibly deleting their content), we do just that. If the goal is to have as much content long-term then we may have some short-term pain to suffer. It's no different than the fact that we do actually have to delete some things so it's easier to organize and manage the rest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I suggest that this be closed as it looks like the G5 restoration under IAR has been approved or at least isn't objected. At to the greater policy implications behind G5, that's for WT:CSD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Is Wayback Machine down?

I've noticed that Archive.org / Wayback Machine has been fundraising, and now I'm finding I can't call up any content past the opening page. For example this archived link from November which used to show up fine is now only showing a blank white page. This happens with every URL I try. Is anyone else experiencing this? Is the site down?

I've cleared my cache and done all the other usual things. I have an ad blocker, but it's been in place for two months without any effect on Archive.org / Wayback Machine.

That archive being such an important resource to us in order to avoid link rot, I thought it would be OK to bring up the question here since admins may have more direct knowledge of this critical component than a general editor might. If there is a project page for Wayback Machine on Wikipedia, I couldn't find it, though, of course, I'd be happy to move this query to whatever page is appropriate if not this one.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your link loads for me. It just loads a bit slowly, something that has always been the case in my experience with the Wayback Machine. It's far from the fastest site in the world. LjL (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Same. Works but slow, slower than usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. It's good to know. Whew! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Spoke too soon. I let that archived link from November sit for 12 minutes and nothing came up but a blank page. I guess I'll try writing the Wayback people and report back. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Mathematical constant

Please delete this revision of Mathematical constant. I was looking at my contributions, and it looked like I moved the page Mathematical constant twice in 2006. However, I only moved it once, and it was moved back. Normally, when a page is moved, this does not happen. Please delete this edit to make things less confusing. Timo3 14:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Such a rev-deletion wouldn't fall under any of the grounds listed at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction. Your move log is correct so far as I can see. In my opinion, there is no problem that needs fixing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like you first moved the article, and then upon finding the redirect that was sitting there, you moved the redirect as well. Note that the article has previously been subject to a history merge, so probably the redirect-moving got undeleted by accident. I decided to un-confuse things by hiding the redirect-move, but while I've tried twice, it still won't work; I checked the box to restore the edit in question, clicked "Invert" (i.e. everything was checked except that edit), and restored, and it restored that edit too; and then I restored the edits in chunks, concluding with clicking two boxes out of the three that hadn't yet been undeleted, and yet it restored this one with the other two. I don't know what else to do; I guess we're just stuck with it. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yes, this is bug T20104. Graham87 13:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom election results live

Hi all,

Just a note to say the ArbCom election have now concluded, and results have been posted. 9 Arbs have been elected in total, 8 on two-year terms and 1 on a one-year term. You can review the results in full here.

For the Election Commission, Mdann52 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Probably massively stupid question here, but: is there a way to go back and review your own vote? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: I don't believe so unfortunately. I'll see what I can do however. Mdann52 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I have a dump of all the votes. However, these are not linked to anything to identify the user, so unfortunately, it is impossible now. Mdann52 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Bummer... I'm pretty sure I know how I voted, but I just wanted to double-check a couple of them. Anyway, it would be great if they could figure out a way to allow users to review their own votes in the future. But, thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi IJBall - There might be a way. If you know what date you voted, you could track it down in your own contributions page. Just a thought. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: AFAIK, votes are not recorded in contributions. Mdann52 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In the past I've always written down my votes, but this year I took a screen shot. Easy peasy. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I need help with the page on Venezuelan politician Leopoldo López, which looks like a political ad

Before my edits on Leopoldo López, the entire article was written like a terrible political tract from the 19th century. For example, on a claim that Lopez left his office as mayor of Chacao with a 92% approval rating, a press release from the Harvard Alumni Association, not a citable news source, in the process of giving one of their own (López) a lifetime achievement award (the same press release characterises the Venezuelan government as "hating freedom") is the only source cited, with the other source just mirroring the statement on the Harvard Alumnis press release.

Entire quotes of glowing, showering praise (as well as Lopez' own personal aphorisms) litter the page, sometimes, with the only sources being a newspaper in Venezuela with a particularly pro-Lopez editorial stance, or even an undergrad student from Penn State University.

Weasel-words like "Greatly" as in "greatly improved public transportation", abound the page.

Even the "Controversy" section originally only contained criticism of the Venezuelan government! This entire page was written like a political ad, attempting to compare Leopoldo López with Nelson Mandela, and there are a patrol of users who constantly come by to scrub it of any criticism, including any mention of Lopez' active role in the 2002 Venezuelan coup.

Personally, I'm far from a fan of Hugo Chavez or Bolivarian Socialism (and personally, my opinion is irrespective of the facts), but this page is written like it was made by a bunch of political spin doctors right out of the office of Leopoldo Lopez.

Please help. I wouldn't want all the edits to simply come from me; I need more collaborative help in making this article better, and have it read less like a campaign ad or an editorial Solntsa90 (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have some experience with getting articles on controversial political figures to GA, so I'll come and take a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Any administrator who had interaction with CosmicEmperor, should comment on this SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor. --The Avengers 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Needing Some Help

Not really sure where else to ask this, but is there an admin or a non-admin editor who could answer some questions on Featured Lists. I've read the criteria, but the kind list I want to take to FL status has never been on FL, so I have nothing to go by. Hence the need to ask questions. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would try asking at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates or Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it List of lists of lists? Bonus internet points if it is. :) Reyk _YO! 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: is the first person that comes to mind when Featured lists are mentioned. Two points I would make is that the writing standards are not on a par with FAs, and that unless you publicise your FL nomination it does run the risk of suffering death by silence (and hence a non-promotion) if it's on a bit of an out of the way topic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reyk: Nope, it isn't. :) But I bet I could create one. :)

Ritchie333: What do you mean the writing standards aren't on par? Like they are lower, less stringent? Publicizing how? Like on the front page, the WikiProject talk page?

I would say the prose quality is similar to GAs, it has to be readable and informative, but it doesn't have to be on a level that competes with critically acclaimed published works, which is what I would expect FAs to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is List of radio stations in Virginia. I am hoping to get each of the seperate radio stations up to at least GA status. I have 3 in Virginia (1 in West Virginia) so far and 1 at FA status. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333: OK, that I can do. As for the "publicizing", what do I do there? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit like "Make your own programming language and then make it popular", but one way is to see which projects the list article is on and drop a note on the talk page. Or see who else has edited the list, or similar lists, and if they do a lot of work and have a lot of featured list reviews under their belt, drop them a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333: OK, that makes sense. I thought there was something special I had to do. Wasn't sure since I haven't done one of these before. Would it be OK, while I am working on the FL, to message you with questions and the like? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While we're asking questions like this, is there the equivalent of a noticeboard or Help desk specifically devoted to AfD and article deletions? While either Random Page Patrolling or sometimes while Reviewing, I'll come across an article which I wonder if it should be AfD'ed (I came across another one like this just yesterday), but I'll never do it on my own without getting some feedback from folks around here with "more knowledge" about deletions first. So it would be really useful if there was forum or noticeboard that was a clearinghouse for questions like this... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably ask at the AfD Talk page. DonIago (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems

The assistance of knowledgeable administrators is requested at Wikipedia:Copyright problems which is currently experiencing an extensive backlog. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Some extra hands would be very welcome there – the backlog is slowly but surely becoming severe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone fix the edit history at Petite France?

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.

---

One of my students was supposed to create an article about Petite France, Gapyeong. He did, but he pasted his sandbox (User:HyunYang/PetitFrance) it on top of the Petite France disambig. Could an admin properly split the edit history, i.e. move the students edits to Petite France, Gapyeong /w correct attribution, and restore the disambig? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Terren Scott Peizer

Terren Peizer appears to be salted so the latest shill to advertise this individual created a page at Terren Scott Peizer. Page should be moved to the more common Terren Peizer. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 14:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Renzoy16, if I may ask, where does that article come from? Given your usual interest--Filipino entertainment topics--this seems a bit out of the ordinary. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, edit warring in Armenia area

• Felaket91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello all--

I need someone to look at the edits made by Felaket91, who's reverting without explanation on some Armenian topics. I think they're at 3RR already on some articles though I haven't checked (and I don't want to overburden poor EdJohnston and Bbb23 at their notice board). I pasted a DS warning on their talk page, after having left a few notes, yet they reverted again. Other editors involved to some extent are Ninetoyadome and Golbez; both have reverted Felaket's edits (though without much explanation). I think they're ready for a block, if only for being utterly incommunicado. Diplomacy and warnings don't seem to work. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like an Azerbaijani SPA regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to me, as most of their stuff is related to land areas that fall within the breakaway region which currently has parts occupied by the Armenian army (which disputes the territory). Oddly enough I think most of the edits are actually factually correctly from a brief skimming. Armenia does (or did) occupy parts of Nagorno-Karabakh region, Azer disputes it and I *believe* but would have to look into it, the UN supports the AZ position. But they are certainly edit warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I looked less at content than at behavior--but the sourcing is also a problem and, as I told the editor, the writing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I did actually explain my reason for reverting his edits: I stated how most of the articles he posted it on already stated that exact same thing so what was the point of mentioning it twice on a paragraph article. The user did not respond to my explanation and reverted it. I am not edit warring as i just reverted it once and stopped. The user does not seem to want to be constructive as if they did they would explain the additions. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Ninetoyadome, you did the first time. Take it easy--this isn't about you. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• I see Berean Hunter has acted. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to point out that I also explained my edits, so both instances where you said someone reverted without explanation was wrong. Thing is, I simply don't care anymore. I don't have the energy to deal with Armenian/Azeri vandals unless that "dealing" is through an instant, unexplained block. Since that's not allowed, I'm not going to put in the time necessary for pointless warnings and templates. I've already unwatched most of the articles in that area, because, eh, the jerks want them, the jerks can have them. ... On the other hand, maybe I should just start blocking them on sight, and wait until someone actually cares to bring me to some form of disciplinary action. Hm. Probably would work. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's usually not hard to get admin action in extremely blatant cases, regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan. This one was extremely blatant. Even AE, which is known for its slowness, can move quickly when it's a one-sided case. Thanks to Drmies for flagging this issue and User:Berean Hunter for doing the block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Golbez, I said "without much explanation"; italics mine. Zangilan District bears that out. But that wasn't the point--I said that because a. well, it's true and b. it means that I cannot easily make sweeping statements about what the now-blocked editor's work indicates, since y'all didn't help me much (understandable since you've been doing it for a while, but still). I brought it here rather than block on the spot because it's important to get it right, especially in such difficult topic areas, and I thank Berean Hunter (and Ed!) for looking into it as well. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible abuse of multiple accounts

1. MaudeG3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. KimberlySawchuk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Miami19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. SakuKuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. MyriamACT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. timeflieslike (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Edits by all these accounts are to the narrow topic area of aging. MaudeG3, a new user registered in February 2015, created Wikipedia:WikiProject Ageing and culture, but was advised by Jeraphine Gryphon that he shouldn't have created it outside of the WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals process. MaudeG3 replied that he was "recruiting" participants. The very first edit of each of the others (apart from KimberlySawchuk) were to add themselves as participants to the WikiProject. KimberleySawchuk's first edit was to an AFD related to aging and the remaining ones to MaudeG3's sandbox. None of the acconuts have been particularly active. To me, this looks like a clear case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Not to mention that even MaudeG3's first edits don't look like that of a typical new editor. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you should be taking this to WP:SPI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Hannaharlia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Still looking...an SPI report may still result but since he said "possible", this is perhaps better since an SPI may be taken as a full blown accusation of socking. This way, the IP editor can get assistance. I've added the above editor based on their contribs to Centre for Women, Ageing and Media which has been recreated multiple times and deleted multiple times.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

None of these accounts have edited in the last couple of months, I'm not sure what the problem is (or was, or could have been). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• 132.205.236.28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 132.205.236.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• The static IP, 132.205.236.66 from Concordia University pulled the AfD tag off of the article Kim Sawchuk and they all have something to do with Activist ageing as seen by this edit describing their workshop. Here the IP forms the ref, Sawchuk, K. (2013). Tactical mediatization and activist ageing: pressures, push-backs, and the story of RECAA. I guess labeling Billy Graham as a Conspiracy theorist must be one of their push-backs. Their group is:
• "Ageing + Communication + Technologies (ACT) brings together researchers and institutional and community partners to address the transformation of the experiences of ageing with the proliferation of new forms of mediated communications in networked societies. Together, we investigate the intersection of ageing and digital technologies. The world’s population is ageing and ‘the senior citizen’ is expected to become the largest demographic group in the Western World. At the same time, there has been a proliferation of digital devices, information technologies and mediated systems of communication that network populations globally. Our project addresses how those in later life are experiencing a world that is increasingly mediated."diff

Should they be guided towards the education project or closed down as meatpuppets?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

LMAO, the Raging Grannies are here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Mike V: Wanna take a look? 103.6.159.76 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi all, I am MaudeG3 and I use my account regularly. I don't have multiple accounts. Yes, I know most, but not all, people who added their name to the WikiProject. I also "recruited" by putting a banner on the discussion page of many articles related to the topic. Only one user has not contributed after putting their name on the list (SakuKuri). Another use added articles to revise but didn't put their name in the participants list. Some have contributed in other languages or contributed only minor edits in the last months. I read the guideline on meat puppetry and I don't know why you think I would have invited them to "sway consensus" (which articles?). Please let me know if I can help in answering other questions you may have. There are things in what you said that I simply don't understand. For example, I have nothing to do with the Billy Graham, I had no idea who the guy was before I clicked on your link. MaudeG3 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

Page creation for redirect for flag of Kosovo emoji request

🇽🇰

Thank you. Joshua Garner (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Created. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Judson High School

Admin action is required at WP:RFPP, Judson High School. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

There is a user who is hell-bent on deleting my articles. While none of us can expect to never have an article deleted, this case seems ill-motivated and spiteful. If you look at my talk page, his language is flippant and sarcastic. He has changed his user name from "user: ABriefPassing" to "ALongStay" back to "ABriefPassing." I suspect that there is sockpuppetry going on in addition to the harassment. I also mentioned these same concerns to Lfarone (I also notified Swarm). Lfarone recommended that I make a report. I am not familiar with this whole terrain--I've never before been harassed. Can anyone help me? Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with nominating the articles for deletion per se, they're raising an argument and it's a matter for consensus to decide. That being said, their unprovoked, incredibly spiteful and openly hostile communication is beyond anything that can be tolerated and borders on harassment, so I've blocked them until they familiarize themselves with our behavioral standards and can agree to abide by them. How long they stay blocked is entirely dependent on when they can act like a civil community member. I don't think this is personal hounding and they seem to have a policy-based concern, so you should just make your case at AfD and trust the process. Swarm ♠ 08:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It appears to be one user who is operating under at least different names. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to keep this dual-account user under permanent block, because the whole nature of his existence at Wikipedia is questionable as he (openly) operates simultaneously under two accounts, ABriefPassing and ALongStay and appears to have the intention of targeting me (as a sole basis of his reason for being here)? And, based on his comments, I don't think he has any intention of operating in good faith. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Galleries of personalities in the infoboxes

There was a discussion about the necessity of galleries of personalities in the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes.

Since there was not comment in the last days, can an administrator please close it and formulate the conclusion? 185.55.217.8 (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an admin to close what is basically a poll of editors who visit this WikiProject talk page. To be official, this issue has to be neutrally worded in an RfC that is publicized on Wikipedia in a variety of areas since it is a request to remove galleries from ALL ethnic group articles. There need to be more editors involved in this discussion and the RfC needs to be open 30 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what Liz said. BMK (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of change to edit filter guideline

Just to note that as a result of this RfC, all edit filter managers are requested to post at the edit filter noticeboard prior to setting an edit filter to the 'disallow' setting unless in an emergency, in which case the notification should be made after changing the setting. Sam Walton (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Password security RfC at meta

There is currently an RfC at meta to increase password length to 8 characters and prevent common passwords being used for accounts which can edit the MediaWiki: namespace and who are covered by the nonpublic information policy (CheckUsers and Oversighters) - meta:Requests for comment/Password policy for users with certain advanced permissions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Iranian people by net worth

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,

This article above has been vandalized numerous time. Yet, no admin seems ready to protect this article. Wrong information has been sitting there for more than one month now. I did the rv but I would like to inform you in a friendly manner that this compromises the reliability of Wikipedia in general.

Best,

Duvalier123 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you first requested protection at WP:RFPP? 103.6.159.76 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Duvalier123 No admin can read the minds of every page. If you think protection is needed, then WP:RFPP is the proper place but it's basically a single editor doing this at various times to me. I've been editing there so I probably shouldn't do it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Semiprotected by Ks0stm. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Please delete and hide these diffs and edit summaries

Vandal-only edits and inappropriate edit summaries [50], [51], [52], [53]. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The fourth edit has a blank edit summary, so there's no need to hide it. I don't think that the third edit is bad enough to hide, but if an other admin thinks otherwise, feel free to do it. I did redact the first 2 edits as requested, as well as the content of the fourth. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts and archiving

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 multiple archiving of comments on a Talk page under 1RR considered the same as multiple reverts?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The greater question is intent: Are you trying to force others to accept something by repeating the same action over and over? If yes, then you are edit warring and should stop immediately, and if you persist in that action, you may be blocked. It is neither helpful nor possible to list every possible manner in which a person may be disruptive at Wikipedia. If you have a specific question about specific actions of a specific user, please post diffs here and explain; do not feel justified in assuming anything by asking general questions about a situation which you want specific resolution. --Jayron32 13:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

When someone asks a general question at AN, one is always curious what the specific circumstances are which led to that question. Here, you're asking us to make a policy determination (to judge whether or not a 1RR violation has occurred) without telling us where, when, or how—so that we can't determine whether or not one or more reasonable exceptions to a particular policy might apply, or indeed whether or not you've correctly identified something as a revert. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:...Ooooh, I see. You didn't name articles or editors because you were trying to be clever about your topic ban. Yeah...don't do that again. Admins tend not to be impressed with that sort of game-playing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So where should I post a "general" question such as this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're doing it because you're trying to get involved in a dispute that's covered by your topic ban—then you shouldn't. That's what a topic ban means. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not see your post before my previous posting. I am not being "clever" or "game-playing" as you say. I am simply avoiding breaching my topic ban while asking admins a question. There is nothing clever about that - it is simple common sense.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The only reason that you're here is because of your interest in an ongoing dispute on a page covered by your topic ban. If that dispute had not arisen, you would not have asked this question. And you know that you shouldn't be coming near this topic, which is why you tried to phrase your question without reference to the pages or editors involved. That's game-playing, and not cool—and will result in a block for violating your topic ban if you try something like it again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, DrChrissy, if hypothetically you see a violation on a page that has nothing to do with either of your topic bans or interaction ban, you are free to report it in the usual ways. But if there is a violation anywhere that a ban applies to you, you should not be commenting on it. You've been doing that, the last few days, on some user talk pages, and please listen to me: simple common sense dictates that you stop, entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Duplicate sockpuppet investigation page for the same user

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 seems to be two SI archive pages for User:Shulinjiang. It just seems to be a matter of case-sensitivity that slipped through the cracks.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/shulinjiang

Should they be merged? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 10:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've sorted it. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've actually fixed it (histmerging report pages and tagging the redirect master appropriately). :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

IP used for vandalism and personal 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.

---

66.87.114.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All or almost all of this IP's edits are vandalism, BLP violations and personal attacks. See [54], [55] (vandalism), [56] (unsourced BLP information), and [57] (personal attack). Could an admin deal with this please? 103.47.145.151 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent contributions dont look like vandalism. Cant see the personal attack, granted its not very civil but if we blocked everyone who said someone had pulled something out of an orifice wed be a few hundred editors down. Amortias (T)(C) 23:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

An underestimate, I'm sure. EEng (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a Sprint Corporation wireless address, so there's absolutely no guarantee the edits from this IP from earlier than this month were the same person. I don't think there's any mileage in this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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

An attempt to return to Wikipedia

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

---

Assuming that people have changed, I've decided to give Wikipedia one more chance. So i requested for a temporary unblock (depending on how things go). But, at this time, i would only come back if either the original ban of Japanese media was removed.

If you want the original Ghost in the Shell topic ban to remain, that is fine by me. I originally just casually requested it to be removed. In the time that i requested my own indefinite ban, and the time that I've returned, not much has changed. The only thing that changed is the articles that i was interested (and only me) are rotting away with deadlinks.

All i really want to do is just edit the articles i'm interested in, the ones i know i can fix and improve. Everything i do is to improve articles for the better, not hinder them and i don't want to argue with anyone. I especially don't want to distract anyone from working on other articles. I like to believe i changed. I have given olive branches out to those i can remember, the rest, will have to remind me. I do recognize that i was blunt, and didn't held my tongue. Heat of the moment. I will be very honest, i'm still not happy to how i was treated before. But i'm fully willing to forgive those because it wasn't completely their fault. I accept responsibility for that much. Lucia Black (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I was just browsing your profile the other day. I feel that at this point Lucia should be allowed to edit again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the underlying situation is, however I will say that your return should be based on a desire to return and not an expectation that the community has significantly changed. You will be less likely to be disappointed that way. HighInBC 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@@HighInBC: Its a long story, i don't want to bring up primarily because it brings up old wounds. I just want to say my expectation is the change for the better, not worst. But even if people haven't changed, i still would like to edit in Wikipedia. I just don't want the drama, mudslinging, or defaming.

@@Knowledgekid87: It is nice to know that people still come by profile every now and then. Back then i felt like none of my edits matter, i know they do now. Lucia Black (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC The last discussion on the topic ban of Lucia's was here, I believe, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support- I support shrinking the Japanese media ban down so that it only covers Ghost in the Shell. It should never have expanded beyond that in the first place. Approve also of Lucia Black's more mature attitude on returning. Reyk _YO! 16:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support- Per Reyk, the only issue was Ghost in the Shell other than that, the editors involved in that dispute have either moved on or were blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Welcome back, I don't know enough about the tban to comment so I will abstain. HighInBC 16:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It appears to me that you asked for this topic ban to be overturned in March, there was no consensus to do so, and you asked to be indef blocked right after that. Unlike site bans, usually topic bans require more than just time to elapse before they're overturned; they usually require evidence of unproblematic editing in other topics first. You haven't edited an article since the last topic ban appeal, so what about your case would make our normal approach unreasonable? Also, to be clear, you're not asking for the other editing restrictions (interaction ban, ban on filing reports on other editors at noticeboards, and "probation" on all pages in all namespaces) to be lifted, right? Just changing the topic ban on Japanese entertainment pages to one only about Ghost in the Shell? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Useful links:

Most recent AN topic ban review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Lucia Black Topic Ban Review

Current editing restrictions: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (then do a search for "Lucia Black" down the table)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this specific case, I do think time passing is a factor for tbans. At least when I give my opinion on such matters it is something I take into account. HighInBC 17:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Lucia should focus her attention to editing, the one t-ban that is effecting that is the one that should be of focus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd love to welcome back an editor who can make good and strong contributions and reintegrate into the community in a productive manner. But I'm afraid the attitude expressed in the opening statement here leaves me unable to have confidence that the latter, at least, is possible here yet. The opening "assuming that people have changed..." and "it wasn't completely their fault" statements show a very concerning WP:NOTTHEM-ish attitude that prevents me from being able to support at this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support lowering TBAN from "Japanese media" back to "Ghost in the Shell" - Second chances are often things I support, and this makes no exception. A pause of several months is sure to have been helpful, and Lucia has shown in the past that she is perfectly able to be a productive contributor. The TBAN from Japanese media was, both in intention and in effect, practically equivalent to a community ban; it's pointless to try to "force" someone to edit things they have no interest in working on. The consensus for upping from GitS to Japanese media was controversial and divided at at best. Let's leave the past in the past and look forward towards sunnier ways. And if things don't work out... no decision is irreversible. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:The probation, interaction ban, and even ANI bans is perfectly fine with me. i dont intend to report anyone, i dont intend to break an interaction ban, and i dont mind that there is probation. I just want to work, and i dont intend on getting on anyone's way.

@The Bushranger: I understand what you mean. But to me its semantics. What i intended to explain to Floquenbeam, assuming people have changed, is more like "I believe people have changed, because i feel like i've changed". And i've done plenty of talk about myself, and i'm trying my best not to even refer anyone else. When i mentioned that it wasn't completely their fault, what i'm trying to say is "i hold the blame anyways". And i think thats important. Lets not concentrate on the minor issues. I am not blaming anyone here for anything. I fully want a fresh start.

Its just a little hard to make my comments absolutely perfect. So i apologize for my bad word choice. Lucia Black (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any change to or lifting of the topic ban. Lucia Black's problems were not just confined to Ghost in the Shell. The point of a topic ban is to show the editor can edit in a collegial manner elsewhere before requesting a lift or easing of restrictions. In this case Lucia Black was topic banned, voluntarily went away, and now wants the topic ban eased. If Lucia wants to return to editing in the Japanese media genre, let her demonstrate being able to get on well with others first. "Im only going to come back if you lift the ban" is not the right attitude. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have never had issue with Lucia here, while I know she has made some poor choices I still do not see why there is a blanket t-ban in place for Japanese media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, start here. Followed by this and this, and finally this. Essentially Lucia's appeals follow the same pattern. Do nothing to show she knows why she is restricted, go away for a while, come back and ask for lifting of restrictions. Absolutely nothing has changed and I have zero confidence the same pattern of editing will not resume. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also point out, her bans were actually lower in scope originally. They became more wide-ranging over time as the disruption continued. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Although if you wanted more info on her combativeness outside of anime, @@Sergecross73: is probably the best person to ask as he dealt with her RE videogames (where she concentrated on Japanese ones, hence the ban from Japanese Media). Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support reduction of ban. Would now even support elimination of ban on Ghost in the Shell. I was one of the original proponents of the ban, because of her combative style and her personalization of all disputes, focusing the discussion on her and not on the encyclopedia. It appears that she now acknowledges that the disputes were largely her fault, and they were not entirely her fault. She just created too much drama. As for people having changed, I will note that she tended to have disputes with particular editors, one of whom has been site-banned, so people have changed, and it appears that she has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Robert McClenon: reply, yes i formally apologize for such behavior. I apologize for not remembering you specifically, (although it might be a goood thing) I was just about to comment on Only in Death. But its important that i just let it be said. I don't want to revert to my old self where i needed to defend my name. I have a history, that much is true. But i really don't want to repeat it. I will do my best. I just need "some room" to work with. Lucia Black (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - No apology required. I am just one of several editors who thought that Lucia Black was a difficult editor, and am willing to assume good faith that she has changed and is willing to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment) per the terms at WP:STANDARDOFFER and considering that this was a self-requested block, and support reducing the topic ban, because it sounds like it was not well supported to begin with, and everyone should get a second chance. I'm also concerned that Lucia is still holding on to a "me vs. the world" attitude - it's not the community that needs to change, it's you - but I would like to assume that she would not be here if she was not interested in working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes for a productive return. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support The original topic ban was vindictive and was used to punish Lucia for appealing a unilateral topic ban on Ghost in the Shell by a single administrator. Many of the editors who supported the expanded topic ban actually wanted to see her site banned instead, but could not get the support. —Farix (t | c) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Lucia appears not to have changed one whit, as @Only in death: aptly demonstrates above. Lucia's last excuse was that she was incapable of editing outside the scope of her topic ban, because she had no interest in editing anything else. I'm sorry, but all that Lucia has done here is waited and stayed away. That doesn't really jibe with the spirit of WP:SO, which is geared more towards sitebanned users... the vast majority of whom have engaged in sockpuppetry of some kind. We need to see some evidence, any evidence that Lucia is capable of editing constructively. Lucia's continued refusal to edit outside the scope of her topic ban, respectfully, suggests that Lucia does not wish to participate in a collaborative environment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no evidence that Lucia has improved, just the fact that Lucia hasn't edited at all. The absence of any editing isn't evidence that the editing issues have been resolved. If someone's response to a topic ban is that they won't bother to touch the possibly 4.9 million or so other articles here and throw a tantrum to be blocked and now returns, what's to stop the next issue? Lucia's involvement here isn't so necessary that her lack of presence for six months from the non-Ghost in the Shell Japanese entertainment articles require her involvement again. If Lucia doesn't edit for another six months, do we remove the entire topic ban? And then what? We start over again with a smaller topic ban and expanding if it's problematic? If Lucia wanted to avoid the topic ban expansion, then evidence that the prior topic ban would have done the job is required, evidence such as editing in some place that perhaps Lucia isn't so crazy about but evidence that shows that Lucia has an actual interest in recognizing the problems with her editing and is working on fixing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Very weak Support But i'm fully willing to forgive those because it wasn't completely their fault This makes me a bit apprehensive as it sounds like Lucia still feels that she was not at fault. Not to mention the fact that all those months of not editing does not really give one any insight into her editing patterns elsewhere. It also means there's no one to vouch for her, which would really strengthen my support. That being said, I feel some good faith should be extended. If I remember correctly, I was among 2 other editors to propose a tban from Japanese culture, which in hindsight was probably a bit much. So with that in mind, I think a relaxation would be fair. Blackmane (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply@Mendaliv: and @Ricky81682: when i requested a indefinite ban on my own accord, it was for me to move on from Wikipedia. I didn't want to be part of it anymore. There's was lot of bad-faith. There is still some bad-faith now. I'm not here because i was waiting around until it was the right time. I intended to leave "forever" the site ban was there to help me move on. But in all that time, nothing really changed in terms of interests. I just want to say, that i think we all "know" i'm a good editor, and i think we all "know" i'm a good contributor. Editing elsewhere isn't going to prove i'm a good editor, its just a system that we all want to rely on. But i know now that my Ban was more of how i acted "here" then it was out there. My editing has always been rooted to Japanese related media. I've attempted to branch out to other interests long before. But we have to be honest, just because there's 4.9 million articles, doesn't mean that all of them appeal to me. i don't believe that 5% of those articles are done by just one user. I just need "some" room. And i fully believe that if the TBAN was reduced to Ghost in the Shell, you will see how i've changed. I don't want to get defensive here. I still trying to say that i take responsibility for it. I know why i got banned. And even with the way i'm portrayed, the old me would have been furious. Back then i never saw the light at the end of the tunnel, no matter what i did. I would always be seen bad. And i come to realize that even if people still see me that way. I don't want to get in their way, or be confrontational. I just need some room to work with. So if not that, then could we at least compromise something that gives me room? Japanese media is the sole reason why i joined Wikipedia in the first place. Lucia Black (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What bad faith? You've been saying there's been bad faith since the original block. It's not bad faith for people who don't know you to not care about why you don't think you're disruptive. You have been disruptive or else you wouldn't have been topic banned. I have no idea why we should compromise when you've shown zero interest in compromising, let alone any evidence of good faith here. If you don't want to edit here unless you're allowed to edit on a topic that causes disruption to every one, then I don't see why it should be everyone's obligation to make your life easier. Go to Wikia and edit on Ghost in the Shell if that's the only thing you'll work on. Else, I honestly don't care. You aren't so special that we need to allow for another round of possible disruption and repeated topic ban disputes again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky raises a valid point here. Compromise means that we come together and reach a mutually agreeable outcome. It does not mean that Lucia states terms and the community lets her do whatever. In fact, the offer that has repeatedly been given to Lucia—that she do something like successfully edit outside the scope of her topic ban for a period, after which her topic ban may be reconsidered—is the compromise. The non-compromise position is that the topic ban stands. If there's some compelling reason to compromise on the compromise, then perhaps that could be discussed... but mere disinterest or apathy on Lucia's part is unconvincing, and frankly gives a bad impression. It does not lead me to believe Lucia can participate in a cordial, let alone a collegial, way to write encyclopedia articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment as an absolutely uninvolved observer. I am generally opposed to community bans and almost never comment on these topics. I never consciously edited any anime-related articles (or, generally, any Japan-related articles outside of a couple of very narrow topics). Here, my only association with the bit sequence "Lucia Black" is regular appearance of a new topic on AN/ANI with giant walls of text. Here, I see the starting post saying "I decided to give Wikipedia another chance" and subsequent walls of text commenting any dissenting vote. I do not particularly care what is happening in anime topics; it there is amth disruptive there take it to ArbCom and have disruptive editors site-banned. However, I still have AN and occasionally ANI on my watchlist, and I absolutely do not want any extra walls of text which I will have to deal with, or at least to check that I can safely skip them. We can survive without another chance. Therefore I strongly oppose any unconditional lifting of the topic-ban. If it is lifted, and there seems to be a relatively strong support of this (judging on the bold headers, I have no time to read all of this topic), there should be a condition attached of the type "easy in, easy out". Like, for example, two more topics like this here, and any uninvolved admin can block Lucia Black say for a year. No "defence of herself", no lengthy replies, nothing. I am fine with different possible conditions, but I am absolutely not fine with a sudden doubling of the amount of replies on my watchlist. We have enough drama all over the place.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Reply I apologize for my "lengthy" replies. Its hard to shorten it without trying to hit the point, because when i do shorten it, it ends up being misread. Its really difficult to be "short" when no matter what you say, it will be misinterpretted. But i do want to say that this isn't complete redemption. All the other previous bans still apply. I don't want to cause anyone any trouble or argue with anyone. I want others to edit their articles and if our paths cross, i could help them with theirs. I just want to say, in the past, i was subject to wiki-stalking by an unknown IP back who made false accounts back when things were heated. This isn't exactly an easy in-easy out. There is still probation, there is still interaction bans, and most importantly, i'm still banned from reporting other members. And i am still dealing with how i'm perceived. But i am confident i can change that, if i have room to edit. Again, i'm perfectly willing to compromise or discuss the best approach. Lucia Black (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Only in Death, Medaliv, and Ricky. There's so many tangent areas Lucia could have chosen to edit in that are similar, but ultimately unrelated, to the Japanese media she focused on. Any non-Japanese video game (But maybe specific to genres often seen from Japanese developers, such as RPGs), American based manga/anime styled media, Japanese history (I do not believe this would be covered under the Media ban), as just quick examples. I won't claim she should enjoy it or have fervent interest, but she could have tried. Secondly, this AN posting itself is a violation of her topic bans in my eyes. Her original AN topic ban is worded as "Filing a report to any Administrator noticeboard", not "Filing a report about another user to AN", which may be a technical nitpick on my part.... But in the closing of her Japanese media topic ban, it was explicitly noted that Lucia needed to approach an administrator before posting to AN requesting a topic ban lift, and she did not do so. Even if I'm reading that too strictly, she had previously approached an administrator when requesting her Ghost in the Shell topic ban be lifted, so had an understanding of what was expected. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • reply I've attempted to respond, but it gets far too lengthy. I mentioned why this isn't giving me a lot of room to work with here. I do want to note however that TBANs is to show if someone has made disruption in a specific topic to merit the ban. Now, shouldn't that mean that the community involved in that topic should hold a bigger weight in the vote? Here's how i see it (and correct me if i'm wrong), but wasn't this problem because disruption mostly in WP:AN, not Japanese related media? I'm asking for a compromise. Can we work something out? Lucia Black (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I've read your post, and feel I understand your position. I simply disagree with it. You even state that you have no issue editing video game articles without a Japanese connection, but found a way to justify not doing so. You could have, as an example, aided with the constant requests for GA/FC assessments at WP:VG, which is always in need of more help. The current thread has several topics that were not Japanese in subject and your involvement here could be a great help to the project while simultaneously demonstrating an ability to work with other project editors without disruption. Considering that a fair amount of your previous disruptions occurred within WP:VG, I would view editing in this area as a major step towards getting the TBAN lowered in scope. You ask if we can work something out or reach a compromise. That's my offer, as far as my !vote goes. Jump back into the project and help out. -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
      • The reason why is because last time i helped out someone else with GANs and it wasn't enough. If this is a matter of working with others, i can just "make more consensus" and not make a single edit, right? Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I can only speak for myself, and can't comment on what others want to see. For me personally, if you want to work through GANs and other project tasks, while avoiding main space edits, that's fine. I'd love to see main space edits as well, but mostly want to see you helping the project and interacting with other editors without disruption. I can't attest to that currently, because you essentially stopped editing entirely since May 2015, and before that, had not edited outside of seeking relief from your topic ban since September 2014, which was a GAN review, and that was your only editing post-TBAN. Get involved. Wet your feet again. There's plenty to do. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
          • I think we are in two different states of thinking. But i don't want to argue. I'm dead honest, that i just want to edit. i also want to note: if this is a matter of working well with other members, then i dont think you need to worry regardless. My history regarding working with others in article-space looks really good. I have not made any edit-wars with any member other than the ones already banned. The TBAN was subject of AN discussions more than it was to work with others. If we see why the TBAN was made, its more of that. That's why when opposers are bringing up the past, they bring up the ANI discussions, and rarely is it ever referenced with VG/ANIME/JAPAN related discussions. Doesn't that tell us something? Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Support reduction of topic ban to only GITS-related articles and after probationary period, lift GITS topic ban. That should give Lucia Black plenty of articles to edit that is of interest and would help the WP:ANIME, WP:JAPAN and WP:VG communities. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a two-part response. First, there is some criticism to the effect that Lucia Black should have edited outside the area of Japanese animation while she was topic-banned. I disagree; she had no obligation to edit outside her area of interest. We knew that her area of interest was Japanese animation, so we did know that by banning her from it, she would not be taking part in the encyclopedia until the ban was lifted. The fact that she didn't edit in areas that don't interest her should not be held against her. The only real question is whether she has exhibited a change in attitude and should be given another chance. I was one of the harshest editors in coming down on her earlier, and I think that she has exhibited a change in attitude and deserves another chance (and I seldom think that long-term problem editors should be given another chance, but she should). Second, however, I do agree with the comments that her re-instatement should be conditioned on her actually improving her attitude. That is, if she resumes combative behavior or the creating of drama, I agree that she should be given a very long block without any long defenses of her behavior. Let's let her easy in knowing that we can send her easy out if she really hasn't learned. She didn't need to edit in other areas during the ban. Let's let her back, by assuming good faith for now, knowing that we aren't wiping the slate clean, just giving her the second chance she has requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nobody is holding it against Lucia that she has been incapable of editing outside the scope of her topic ban. The fact of the matter is that the onus is on Lucia to give some shred of credible evidence that the conduct she engaged in will not return (edit: And this just happens to be the most common, and from most users' perspectives, easiest means of meeting this onus). Lucia has made vague promises in the past, but in the face of even the slightest adversity... such as the entirely understandable resistance to this request... she falls into much the same wall-of-text "you're all just assuming bad faith" response. AGF is not a suicide pact: Lucia has to give us something upon which to hang our hats. And, respectfully, while reblocks are easy, rebans surely are not, especially not in this case. And the potential for damage is massive... and unfortunately difficult to measure. Japanese media is a tremendously popular topic for younger editors to cut their teeth on. Let's not take this acid test. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Well this discussion has been open for 24 hours now, I feel that most who have followed Lucia's edits in the past have commented here. This being said is there an uninvolved admin that can close this or should this stay open for a few more days to generate more of an outside consensus? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• 24 hours isn't all that long for this type of thing, nor have comments slowed down especially recently, nor is 9-5 (that's 64%) all that strong of a consensus... Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Serge. Let's not stifle participation. Given the long-running ridiculousness surrounding this case, and the holiday timing of this request, I think this should be left open until the first of the year at a minimum. Edit to add: Though by all means, I'd be fine with a no consensus outcome to the request to lift the topic ban, which is where the discussion stands right now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fine to close such discussions after 24 hours if the outcome is clear, but in this case I think more time is needed. There are people on both sides of the issue with strong points that need further discussion. (IMHO) HighInBC 00:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as an uninvolved editor. Per Bushranger and Only in death, I see no reason to not follow the usual procedure i/r/t topic bans. Additionally, an editor attempting to set preconditions for having their own ban lifted is concerning. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 01:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support reduced area of topic ban: Robert McClenon says it well. Previous ban discussions may have had some consensus, but I don't think they were overwhelmingly in support of the bans. When behavior becomes unproductive, and discussions of sanctions are at hand, it's very easy to feel "ganged up on"; and in the most previous discussion, Lucia decided to request her own block rather than to continue with a process that could be viewed as disruptive. After time away, she has now addressed these concerns with honesty and calmness. For those reasons I think she should be given the opportunity to edit in an effort to rejoin our community. — Ched :  ?  02:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Keep in mind, it took a lot and i mean "a lot" to come back. Like i said before, i originally planned for an indefinite leave. The ban was suppose to help me move on from it all. So trust me, that this took a lot of thought. I had to put some issues aside.For example: I saw articles i worked on rot away with deadlinks, at the time, i blamed a lot of people for it (at the time). So making the article into GA is even harder now. I truly did push all of it aside to come back and just do good contributions (not minor). And i normally don't celebrate holidays (you can quote me on that) so i wouldn't dare take advantage of the holidays for more appeal. So with that said i apologize i brought this up now during the most festive time for some members. But again, I'm taking responsibility for it. Before i logged on, i did some searching seeing areas i can work on. Trust me when i say, the one place that was working so well, and suddenly banned from it, is not an easy thing. I'm working on Assassin's Creed Chronicles right now. A video game that has plenty of coverage and isn't Japanese. It doesn't necessarily have to be removing Japanese media TBan completely, but again, i'm still looking for compromise @Mendaliv: does this count as a "shred"? I would like to think it is at least that. Lucia Black (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Actions speak louder than words, Lucia. That said, I am happy to hear that you're working on an article in another topic area. I would happily support a reduction or elimination of your topic ban once I see you can handle on-wiki strife without the sort of problems we saw before. But, as BMK correctly argues below, your responses just within this thread to the opposition will not fill readers with confidence that you have changed your ways. Honestly, put in some work. If not here, then on some other project, whether Wikimedia or otherwise. We need to see that you can work with others without the same problems, not merely hear it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Whatever happens happens. But having to constantly hear others spread certain ideas about me, isn't good for my mental health. I recognized it then, which is why i left WP in the first place. Its exausting. And you all have better things to do, so i officially give up on the idea that i'll ever work on Japanese-media related content. i'll do what i can here and there. and see where it takes me. But i cannot deal with the claims people have of me. I just can't. Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you perceive as being "spread" about you, but everything I've said in this thread about your conduct is pretty patently obvious in review of the prior threads. If I'm incorrect in any regard, please do correct me. I'm certainly not lying about you, if that's what you're suggesting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't see it so black and white. And i'm sure others don't either. Like i said, it took a lot of guts to come back. Regardless if i accomplished anything in this discussion. I at least sent out my olive branches to those i specifically remember i confronted. I don't want to be confrontational with you. So if you really want to know my thoughts, you may ask me on my talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lucia Black's commentary throughout this request discussion is just oozing with her disdain for the people who edit Wikipedia, while at the same time subtly extolling her own virtues. I do not see this person as being successful at "just editing", and would not support any reduction in her sanctions without some concrete evidence to back up her promises. BMK (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mendaliv best explains why, and I see no need to repeat their comments. The tone of the request is telling, and the long, argumentative responses to every objection, along with the implication that Lucia is doing wikipedia some sort of favour by considering a return, if, and only if, wikipedia agrees to her terms, shows that nothing has changed. No reason this topic ban should be vacated without the usual expectations of non-problematic edits elsewhere being met. Begoon ^talk 03:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I really feel like all hell is set loose whenever my name comes up (pardon my choice of words). But i'm seen as the worst thing possible. I've seen editors who were far worst get treated far better. Who have been exempt and given far more warnings. Things such as 1-revert restriction. If you oppose, you oppose. I can't changed that. However, I just very concerned with how i'm portrayed and how it comes across. Its almost like spreading propaganda. But fair enough. if responding is a bad sign, then i wont respond any further. No matter how untrue it seems to me. Lucia Black (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Actions should speak louder than words so if you do get your topic ban reduced it can be shown but you can still say too much and hang yourself as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support reduced area of topic ban per Ched and Robert McClenon. We do have issues of editor retention and we do need to encourage editors who have changed their ways to come back and edit constructively. Blocks and bans are cheap, but editors are not. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Editor retention is a problem, but not in the way you may be thinking. Users that engage in the sort of wall-of-text debating and casting of aspersions that we've seen in this very discussion are what drive away new editors... the very people we need to keep Wikipedia going in the long run, especially in the manga and anime topic. We cannot let the project (or any WikiProject for that matter) turn into a walled garden. Without some demonstration of reform on Lucia's part beyond words, narrowing the topic ban is a bad move. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Mendaliv: that's not a real reason to have someone Topic-banned. There are lengthy discussions everywhere. You among other members here, including myself. But WP:AN is a special situation. Its not like the other talkpages. No one is referencing policies, or guidelines. And to me its not worth it. I rather never make significant, heart-felt contributions than to be subject to all this negativity. Lucia Black (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      • If you want to have people be strict on referencing policy, you need to immediately stop making new edits about Japanese media on your user page and the querying other user talks to take a look, per WP:TBAN. Simply put, you've already violated your topic ban. (And as I noted before, even posting to AN in the first place was a violation). -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I want an honest discussion, based on real merits. "real" reasons to block someone or keep a block. That's all i'm saying. I'm sorry if its bordering against the rules. But i'm really concerned with those articles per WP:DEADLINE. Originally it was implied with me and Ched. I didn't ask him directly. But most of the admins thought it was perfectly fine anyways. Regardless, we're talking about things that hurt no one in the process. Lucia Black (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
          • DEADLINE is an essay, not even a guideline, so it hardly trumps TBAN, a policy. So it's not bordering against the rules... It is. I appreciate your concern for the articles, but please do not violate the Japanese media TBAN further while the discussion continues.. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't use DEADLINE as a policy/guideline. i linked it for a specific reasons that are "very" real in the situation that we are talking about (take a look if you want). I wont do it again, but i would appreciate an easier tone. I'm trying my best not to argue with anyone, all i want to do is clarify. Anything that i find absolutely false, i will mention. this may cause back-and-forth. But i dont think if anyone was in my situation, they wouldn't see it differently.

I dont even know why this discussion is still open. Every time i'm here, people have large, "Radical" ideas about me. Yes, in the past i had issues. I don't plan on going back to them. In fact, i rather just not pursue this anymore. There's a large group of people who have large radical ideas about me. And i know why they have those ideas. And i'm sorry if this sounds like bad-faith, but i dont believe everyone who has opposed actually knows why "objectively". They have objective points, but maybe not the most objective reasons. And if you are curious enough to know what i mean by that, i can elaborate in a lengthy post (most likely in my talkpage to make room). Lucia Black (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not yet I really wanted to vote support. Halfway down the thread I was ready to. But the longer it goes on, the more apparent it is that, although Lucia has clearly improved a lot, "Anything that i find absolutely false, i will mention. this may cause back-and-forth." indicates they are not quite ready. This request began "Assuming that people have changed..." Collectively, they never do. To participate in Wikipedia is to interact with people saying and doing stupid stuff; this is far less important than all the awesome stuff people do (write articles, compromise, et. al.). If Lucia (or anyone else) is unable to learn to ignore stupid stuff and focus on good stuff, they will not be happy here and should find other hobbies. NE Ent 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

reply It would be one thing to ignore what you call "stupid stuff" when doing the general editing on Wikipedia. All i have to do is follow the guidelines, the policies, and make sure i get a consensus. And if they really break the rules and ignore repeatedly. All i need to do is bring it up with the Wikiproject/Admin. But its a completely different thing when people who say what you call "stupid stuff" control how you enjoy Wikipedia. And when i hear out there own personal beliefs. "Oh we shouldn't because she makes too many lengthy posts", "we need to see her edit elsewhere, but it doesn't matter what she edits, we need to see her in a questionable situation where she can edit" "No wait, for me, its just that she edits. Doesn't matter if she doesn't get into a specific situation" or "She responds to the stupid stuff people say about her despite being the controlling consensus" Its exhausting. Its so easy making these demands when you know you're the majority. Its easy to stretch the truth about me. And i honestly don't want to pursue this anymore. It has been proven in this discussion more than ever that you don't want me to just follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia, but you want me to change to your ideal editor. Lucia Black (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're wrong about your characterization of the community... and your persistence in the pursuit of that characterization is really hamstringing your efforts in returning. I really wish I could communicate it better to you, Lucia. I'm not saying that you have to let every bad thing just roll off your back and approach every situation from a third party perspective, but honestly... if you find this discussion exhausting, I don't think you're to the point where you can handle a full-blown content dispute. And that's where I want to see you before I can support. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. From what I see here it seems that Lucia has bit of a blind-spot regarding all of this. E.g., in her opening statement (what drew me in here) she says "I've decided to give Wikipedia one more chance." Oh? This is an odd inversion, and even a mischaracterization, of the situation. It does not bode well. Particularly when she puts a condition on her return (only if the original ban is removed). If she has reformed, and wants some opportunity to demonstrate better interactions, then perhaps she might be allowed to edit on some specific topics. But as her only intent is to return to a topic area where there has been, and likely will be, conflict, I wonder if WP really wants to take this proffered chance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose a literal reading of "I've decided to give Wikipedia one more chance." could give that interpretation, but in the spirit of fairness I feel that "I've decided to give Wikipedia one more shot" is a more liberal way of looking at it, but YMMV. An editor who has a very narrow range of interests and gets topic banned will most likely never return. Judging by past threads, Lucia struggles in these sort of arenas (considering NA and ANI can be like the Roman Coliseum at times) and had a tendency to go on the defensive resulting in a very large hole being excavated for and by herself. @Lucia Black: at this point, I really recommend that you just let this thread play out without responding to people unless they directly ping you or ask you a question. Responding to each and every comment that you feel is unfair or unjustified is what got you into a lot of hot water because of your defensiveness. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A chance at what? Reducing the topic ban? Is it Wikipedia's fault that no one wants to deal with her editing or more accurately no one wanted to deal with her coming to AN or ANI with complaints repeatedly in the topic area where she was editing? Besides, the other issue is "or else what?" If this is denied, then Lucia continues under a Japanese entertainment topic ban and is permitted to edit here as Lucia has been since the start and has been following since this discussion began. Is the issue again whether or not Wikipedia suffers because Lucia does not wish to edit anything non-Japanese entertainment? So? There are people who only come here to push a POV and if they get topic banned, they don't enjoy it here either. Someone people don't enjoy it here if they can't name-call others, others if they can't just put up copyrighted text, others if anyone else even touches "their" work. The response isn't "let's try getting rid of the topic bans and restrictions based on their refusal to edit anywhere or the way we expect them too and see if that helps". Further, Lucia's cross-posting these requests to the various WikiProject like here and here looks like forum shopping to me and shows an massively inflated sense of importance to those projects. I can't imagine the need for various projects to comment on whether or not particular editors should be permitted there but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I hadn't even seen those crossposts. That is troubling. As to Lucia's OP, I actually took it in the same way as Blackmane... like Lucia was more saying that she wanted to try Wikipedia again, see if it worked this time, something to that effect. That said, the issue isn't so much that what Lucia said can be read that way, but that the tenor of her responses leads good faith readers to that negative reading. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Precision of meaning is very important to an encyclopedia. How are we then to trust an editor who can't represent her own request with appropriate precision?

It's interesting, when this discussion began, I only very vaguely remembered Lucia Black, and it was just a name I recognized from the past, I had no memory of what kind of controversy or dispute was connected to her. But as this discussion has gone on, the tenor of those previous discussion has become clearer and clearer to me -- without my looking up anything in the archives. I recall now that this attitude of LB's is pretty much what did her in her before. And that's important, because it means she hasn't changed, and that was what needed to happen, not that the entire Wikipedia community would change, but that LB's attitude toward it, and her estimation of her place in it and importance to the project, would change, That quite obviously hasn't happened, she still has precisely the same misapprehensions as she did before.

It's clear to me that if her request is granted, the same problems that arose before will arise again. Absent any evidence that the sanctions are no longer required, the safest course is to turn down her request; she can continue to edit under the conditions that were set before her exit from editing. BMK (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Which notably are the conditions in which Lucia is currently editing and of which there are no issues I can see at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. BMK (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Break: I requested this to be closed

I don't want to pursue this anymore. I respectfully ask that this be close. I don't mind that people oppose (its their right to). I intended to do as much as i can regardless and come back another time (even if i don't enjoy it). But in the end, its just not working out. WP:AN is, and will forever be my weakness, no matter how much i change. However, Japanese-media related articles isn't my weakness and never was. In fact its my biggest strength, and I've gained a good amount of friends who actually see me as a vauable asset. But if the gatekeeper is WP:AN/ANI and everyone only judges me for WP:AN/ANI, then i'm doomed from the start. I'll never get there.

I repeat: I respectfully ask for this to be closed. If people don't want to believe i changed, asking for this to be closed then allowing it to drag on is the biggest change you'll ever see, regardless if i get what i need to enjoy Wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Interaction Ban Request between TheGracefulSlick and CrazyAces489

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 requesting an IBAN request between us 2. As I am simply tired of some of the rude comments made towards me by TheGracefulSlick, I am again requesting for an Wikipedia:IBAN . This is the second time I requested it on a noticeboard. [58] He is consistently rude to me and leaves comments on articles like this. [59] . He puts them up and later asks others if the article is noteworthy. [60] even though many others know it is noteworthy. [61]. I simply do NOT want him on my talkpage or to follow me around on wikipedia. Look at the editor utility report of articles he follows me around [62] This is very very annoying. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am perhaps more tired of having to clean up the messes you leave in articles CrazyAces. Many others know it is note worthy? Try the one person, Niteshift36, I asked knows. I apologize if I was skeptical, but you have a terrible track record for creating articles and protecting articles that are not noteworthy. Just from looking at your recent history, I see you have two additional articles up for deletion, which has become a regular thing for you. I placed the notability tag (and justly removed it when I got a reliable opinion) back on that basketball player's page simply because I do not think you understand what notability is at this point. Again, your track record and the pleas by editors for you to improve your content and subjects for creation shows this. I have not been on your talk page for the longest of times, you actually were the last person to contact me, to which I replied on my page, on my talk page so maybe you should stop contacting me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If the longest of times is [63] Nov 16, 2015. Skeptical and a rude comment are 2 different things. The other person I asked for an IBAN for in a previous attempt was Niteshift36 along with TheGracefulSlick. As I have tried to stay away from him and he finds his way to many articles I go to. I am simply asking for a more permanent ban. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• And when did you make a formal request for an interaction ban? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a formal request here [64] CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, the one you buried in the middle of your creation ban? Yeah, that's a formal request....in your mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to leave you to your work if you showed any improvement. You haven't, which is proven from being denied from your article creation ban being lifted. When I go to articles you edit, I simply fix the constant errors you make, which is allowed, and actually encouraged, by the wiki guidelines. The way you can improve is very simple too, and I would be happy to help you since you have supposedly asked for mentoring before. However, since you will decline any aid, I need to continue to address your errors. Any sensible admin will realize I am only doing what is best for the articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick Why not simply leave me alone? You are constantly annoying me. I simply don't like you and would like you hanging around me to be over. Thanks! CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before CrazyAces489 show some actual improvement in your editing and stop making the same mistakes people have constantly made you aware of, then you won't hear from me. I don't enjoy having to clean-up after you, it's the most annoying activity I have to do, it gets in the way of my editing. Plus, I have a genuine interest in sports figures, and martial arts, so it bugs me when they are not represented properly. I would write more on those topics, but first I want to settle my musical plans before anything else.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing notability tags is an improvement. Again I am asking an Admin to stop his stalking me and passive agressive behavior. This is a personal vendetta since he was blocked and one of his articles was nominated for deletion. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

How is removing a tag an improvement? You did nothing to improve the article by removing a tag. If you made even a medium-scaled edit with reliable sources, I'd be impressed. I have long gotten over what you did months ago. All it did was reveal you have no credibility in determining notability, and that someone needs to clean-up your messes around here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not commenting one way or another on the underlying dispute here, not having the time to dig into it, but the comment made here does bear addressing. "Removing notability tags" is not an improvement unless the reason the tag was placed on the article is addressed. Simply removing the tag, and nothing else, is not an improvement - in fact, it can be considered disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• This whole thing again? Crazy Aces churns out sub-standard articles at a considerable rate. Attempts have been made to help him improve his "contributions" but he has refused them. His attitude has always been "I create so others can work" (I'll dig up the diff if the quote is actually disputed) and I've seen no change from that. His fall back is always bringing up race and "institutional racism", implying that editors are acting out of race based reasons or something similar. Every discussion ends up being essentially a copy and paste of previous ones, complete with a ridiculous amount of diffs of things people said months ago. He's been caught socking and most recently violating his article creation ban. If Crazy Aces spent half the time improving his creations (actually improving them, not just removing tags) as he did complaining about TGS, his articles would not be poorly written, poorly referenced and often deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

^^This. I'm not trawling for diffs for the same reason, but I recall the last couple of discussions, and Niteshift36 sums it up perfectly, and eloquently, to my mind. It's Groundhog Day (again), and eventually the loop needs to be broken, by CA changing their approach, or, regrettably, by effective sanctions. Begoon ^talk 13:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, you stated that I have been churning out articles at a considerable rate? The last article outside of my mistaken article (that was supposed to be in userspace) and redirects of variations in name was on July 8, 2015. This was over 5 months ago. [65] So the I create so others can work, hasn't been done in over 5 months! I don't create, I simply do minor fixes! With the "socking" I am actually going to have a checkuser done on my account to prove that I didn't sock! These were random IP's editing and made to seem like it was associated with me! The tag I removed was a notability tag for Pee Wee Kirkland who I said in my comment "easily passes gng" had numerous articles written about him including The Daily News [66], ESPN [67], TV Spots [68] , Sherdog which is known for MMA [69], the Village Voice [70], Sports Illustrated [71] and the New York Times [72]. Even you said that Pee Wee Kirkland passes GNG [73] . So why are you now saying that it was a problem to remove the notability tag? Lastly referring to me as "Crazy Aces" is quite similar to referring to me as CrazyAces for which you were warned about in the Admin Noticeboard 881 [74] by Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC) who stated "Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying." CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• See my response above where I predicted this response. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bushranger I didn't just remove the tag, I left a comment of "(easily passes gng)" [75] to which TheGracefulSlick replies "(Street basketball player...thousands of those. Please learn about notability so I do not need to keep doing this. Thank you)" Pee Wee Kirkland has had dozens of articles written about him even the New York Times (which was in the article). I have heard many times that having a New York Times article or obituary shows notability. I even challenged TheGracefulSlick to put up the article for an AFD if he feels the subject isn't notable. I knew by the sheer number of independent articles The Daily News [76], ESPN [77], TV Spots [78] , Sherdog which is known for MMA [79], the Village Voice [80], Sports Illustrated [81] and the New York Times [82]that the subject would pass, so his comment of "Please learn about notability" [83] was unnecessary. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Removing a tag and making an edit summary isn't "improving" an article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Since TheGracefulSlick brought in Niteshift, which I believe is Canvassing. I will ask a friend of TheGracefulSlick to chime in Garagepunk66 . Even Garagepunk66, has stated " I respect your passion for black empowerment. I think that many well-meaning white people have a blind spot about race--even well meaning liberals. I don't think that most whites appreciate the degree to which practically every single black person in this country is constantly subjected to racism, slights, and humiliations, whether overt, covert, personal, or systematic on a daily basis. I realize that black people have to live the daily curse of having people look at them strangely, cops stopping them, even when they may be educated and affluent, people not wanting to hire them, along with all of the other economic inequalities." I added a good number of strong black subjects including Atrocities in the Congo Free State, Marilyn Mosby, at least 15 Negro League Baseball player articles, 2 defunct black colleges Natchez Junior College / Avery College , Discrimination in bar exam, 1972 Olympics Black Power salute , Racial bias on Wikipedia, and Racism in martial arts. Wikipedia is documented to suffer from sexism [84] and racism [85] it's userbase CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Um, wrong. Let's address your false allegation of canvassing (which wouldn't even apply here). You won't find any notification or invitation from TGS to get me here. I only found out about this discussion when YOU solicited GaragePunk to come and support this [86]. Kind of ironic, isn't it that if canvassing brought me here, it was your canvassing that did it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban IBANs are not to avoid legitimate criticism. This is a collaborative environment and people are going to look over and fix up your work. They may even point out faults in your work. This is not harassment, it is collaborative editing. If people are telling you that your editing has problems then try to improve your editing rather than trying to stop people from telling you that. HighInBC 17:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC I am ok with criticism, but both of these individuals have been quite harsh in their conversation with me to which I have reported. [87]Also, I speak in African American Vernacular English and have been mocked repeatedly by Niteshift36 in my use of it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop with that lie. Nobody has "mocked" you. You've been (correctly) told that we use standard English here and that editing should be done using it. You were told that if you wanted to edit using Ebonics, that one option was to start an Ebonics Wikipedia. That's not mocking, it's a suggestion. Additionally, much of your editing problems has nothing to do with Ebonics. Yes, you did "report" me and the end result was 2 admins telling you that you weren't being stalked, that your "I create so others can work" position was the wrong one to take, that a Boomerang was a real possibility and oh yea, that it was rude of me to call bold the first half of your name. I corrected the bolding, but your editing hasn't changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What about my editing has stayed the same? I don't create articles anymore! I mostly only do minor edits now! So where do you see the same things from 5 months ago? CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Only minor edits? Like this edit 9 days ago? [88]? Whatever dude. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Standard offer unblock request from Dicklyon

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.

---

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

In April 2015, Dicklyon was blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. Recently, he has requested an unblock under the standard offer. After performing a checkuser, it appears there were a few IP edits made during the block. A couple of edits involved general wiki-gnoming and another edit involved contributing to a community discussion. To my knowledge, no additional accounts were created. After some discussion on the functionary email list it was suggested to bring this forth to the community for review. Mike V • Talk 03:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What was the reason for running the CU? NE Ent 10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Checkusering is used to verify sockpuppetry before blocking. What evidence / suspicion was there the IPs edits were Dicklyon? NE Ent 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

When someone is requesting a standard offer unblock after a sockpuppetry block, it is standard procedure to run checks to verify their compliance with the terms of the offer. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Does not the standard offer require no socking edits at all? Regardless of the number, or no accounts being created, the IP edits would seem to invalidate the request. BMK (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned that Dicklyon, who has been a productive if sometimes single-minded contributor, doesn't yet qualify for the standard offer, if IP edits count as block evasion, and IMHO they do. I'd be cool with granting the standard offer once six months have gone by without any edits to pagespace using any account or address (requesting unblock edits notwithstanding). Allowing the editor to come back without honoring the standard offer sends the wrong message both to Dicklyon and other indef blocked editors who may come to view the six month period as a "just don't get caught" situation. BusterD (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock I forget the reason for the meltdown but it was one of those things that could happen to anyone who had allowed themselves to get too caught up in a wiki-conflict. Dicklyon is a great asset to the encyclopedia particularly when he works in some of the more technical areas (articles on electronics and so on). Let's hope Dicklyon avoids issues relating to dashes in article titles (or whatever trivia was at the core of the conflict), but any problems can be quickly handled. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• support unblock I consider him fundamentally reliable. That's more important then technicalities. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock He has given me trouble in the past, but I think overall he is useful to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. He was a good contributor to the project for a very long time. He also did some very stupid things that led to the indef block, but I think he can redeem himself. Perhaps an agreement or topic ban to stay away from whatever area it was caused all the issues back then (can't remember exactly what it was, something MoS-related?) would be beneficial both for Dicklyon and for anyone who has doubts about his return. I'd also be interested to hear why Xaosflux chose now to remove the autopatrolled/rollbacker permissions from Dicklyon's account. It looks like there is a fair chance he will return so to do it now, rather than when he was indef'd however many months ago, seems a bit petty. Jenks24 (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Jenks24: I've reverted this for now, prior note was that editors should only have standard extra flags on their primary account - and it was unclear which would be the primary. I have not touched the block itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Thanks. I can understand that it wasn't completely clear in his request, but I think there is little doubt Dicklyon will be the account he uses if the consensus is to unblock. It's the name everyone knows him by and he has made ~88,000 edits with that account. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of how good an editor is, socking to contribute to a community discussion while banned is not acceptable. The standard offer requires 6 months without editing for a good reason, specifically demonstrating that an editor is able to exercise restraint and follow simple policies. If he appeals when he is eligible for the standard offer I will likely accept, but not now. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock per DGG. --Begoon ^talk 10:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor states "I have been over 7 months without editing." But if Mike V is correct then this represents another attempt "to deceive or mislead other editors, ... distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Keri (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Sure, let's give him another chance. None of his sins are so great that they would preclude that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Don't make socks again, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock Per all above. Brustopher (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock I'm generally one for second chances. A handful of edits in 6 months from someone who has 80k edits to their name is effectively zero. Worm^TT(talk) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock but endorse extension of 6-month move ban per this thread. Dicklyon was banned from performing any page moves except for proposing a move via the requested move process, and there seems to be consensus from that discussion that disruptive moves were an ongoing issue prior to the sockpuppetry coming to light. I think the intent of that ban is for Dicklyon to participate constructively for six months before that ban is lifted, not just sit out for six months. But otherwise, welcome back. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock with continued pagemove ban. bd2412 T 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Provisional support of unblock while maintaining a 6-months pagemove ban - In theory this is something I certainly support, but we don't have all the facts -- the wikignoming is a total non-issue for me, but the IP edit to a community discussion certainly raises some concerns. While I understand that CU policy forbids Mike from pointing out these edits, I wonder if @Dicklyon: might be willing to divulge what community discussion he saw fit to participate in as an IP while his account was blocked. (Dicklyon, if you reply on your talk page and not via e-mail, please ping me). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support an unblock, on the condition that he ceases to continue the same disruptive activity that led to his block. Dicklyon is a pretty good editor, but I think it was his imprudent page moves that got him blocked in the first place. epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock per DGG. I had very positive experience with his edits, although we sometimes disagreed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf, until we get clarity on recent socking. If he is permitted to come back, the ban on page moves should remain in plance. Jonathunder (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comments from blocking admin: I was very much ready to support Dicklyon's standard offer request. After learning that he had done some logged-out wikignoming, I was ready to overlook that minor violation of the terms and was still in support of an unblock. However, editing Wikipedia space to contribute to a community discussion changes the equation. I can't say that I'm particularly opposed to an unblock, but I am no longer able to support it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Please unblock Penyulap

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 admins please unblock User:Penyulap. (WHY is he blocked? Can anyone provide specificity? [He might be a genius! Whatever, he owns an undeniable sense of humor [89] and undeniable commitment/contribution re building WP [90].]) Thanks for consideration. IHTS (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

He sounds like a great guy, but without knowing why he was blocked in the first place I cant really say much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So...you're asking for an unblock when you don't know why the editor was blocked, on the grounds that the editor might be a genius and has a great sense of humor? I think that it's you that has the undeniable sense of humor. BMK (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you even look at the block log? The information you seek can be found there. It was a {{checkuserblock}} and it happened three years ago. No admin is just going to overturn a checkuser block without talking with them first. If Penyulap wants to ask for an unblock they can do so themselves. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm yeah it does look pretty extensive, I would agree at this point that it would be best if Penyulap asked for an unblock request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It was not a checkuser block. The relevant entry is:

• 19:28, 30 July 2012 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked Penyulap (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Editor not here to create an encyclopedia)

The rest of the entries after that are simply revoking or enabling talk page or e-mail access. The user and his friends have been pushing the "why was I blocked" meme ever since. BMK (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I saw the second entry down,

13:40, November 4, 2012 Courcelles (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Penyulap (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ({{checkuserblock}}: Nothing but trolling on user talk page; abusing multiple accounts)

and didn't read any further since it said checkuserblock. In any case, my statement that Penyulap should ask for an unblock themselves still stands and this section should probably be closed. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for slipping this in after the close: for those interested, the original block discussion is here.BMK (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Alternate Account Requested

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 getting myself a tablet for Christmas and I will, of course, be able to access Wikipedia on-the-go. As it is perfered with mobile devices, I will have an alternate account.

I am requesting one here on AN because a long, long, long, loooong time ago in a land far, far, far, faaaar away, I created some sockpuppetry accounts and was rightly blocked for it. I don't want to have that problem again. Hence, I am requesting the alternate account. I have one picked out, but not yet registered. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Register it and have a notice that it is your alt account. If you do not want other users to know this is your account, mail it to checkusers.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems with people knowing about this account, I just want the admins to know so I'm not accused of sockpuppetry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you use the alt account in a legitimate way (say do not vote from two accounts in the same discussion) and have it clearly marked as an alt account I see no way you could be accused in sockpuppetry.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to play it safe. The alternate account is User:Neutralhomer has Escaped. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The only edits I made with the account online were to update the preferences to the same as my main account and to copy all my .css and .js files from this account to that one. Essentially so everything looks and operates the same. I also created a signature...that looks the same, but with the correct username. :) I, of course, made mention of the alternate account on my main account userpages and mentioned my main account on the alternate user and talk pages.

Do I need to do anything else? Checkuser to confirm? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. You have disclosed the alternate account on both user pages. Checkusers do not need to be informed at this point. They will be concerned if there is another socking episode. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: OK, I wasn't sure what the process was. Thanks to both of you for your help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

R2me2

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.

---

R2me2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked a few weeks ago for suspected sockpuppetry, which appears to be based on him creating a sandbox with some fairly common band templates that happened to match another user, viz this and this. Aside from formatting, the actual content appears to be different and I can't find anywhere that says creating a bunch of test edits to use in a band article is against policy and requires a block. Despite an extended conversation with several administrators, I have gone round in circles and received nothing more than "he's socking" and my query of exactly what damage and disruption R2me2 has caused has been ignored. Therefore I'd like to gauge the community's consensus on whether we should unblock or not. On a related note, could admins review Xeno (album) and determine whether the speedy deletion via G5 is appropriate or whether something else should happen to it (it doesn't appear to meet any other speedy criteria, specifically A7, A9, G11 or G12). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The non-admin part of the community will need User:R2me2/sandbox undeleted to offer an opinion. NE Ent 12:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Format wise, User:R2me2/sandbox looks like User:TheUserOfWiki14Robbie/sandbox which looks like (e.g.) Van_Halen#Band_members looks like Foreigner_(band)#Members looks like Jefferson_Airplane#Members. Given the general community desire for standardization, as evidenced by WP:MOS, two editors utilizing a fairly standard format in their own userboxes is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Overlap , is hardly surprising for a couple editors interested in music, evaluating [91] indicates the editors were posting in different sections (and that Robbie is fairly incompent, sockwise, since they signed their own post [92] with PacoDaKing14Sportz). R2me2 should be unblocked soonest. NE Ent 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I admit that I did not realize that the timeline template was so standardized at the time. I may have made a mistake here when I declined the unblock request. I have no objection to another determination being made. HighInBC 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See also this edit. I support unblocking immediately. Prodego ^talk 16:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 8#Category:Blue-eyed soul singers

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.

---

Would an uninvolved admin please assess this? The discussion has been open since November 8. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits of articles related Bulgaria by socks of banned Jingiby

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 want to inform you that user StanProg and IP's 46.238.25.84 ; 46.16.193.70 are the same person as the banned user Jingiby - the edits are the same (disruptive), deleting of sourced information and foisting his personal views. He is consatntaly abusing articles about Bulgarian history also in Bulgarian Wikipedia.

Thank you 188.254.217.110 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the two users seem to be quite distinct from each other, judging from their edits elsewhere. You, on the other hands have made a ton of disruptive edits, accompanied by homophobic and racial slurs (such as thisthisthisthis and this among others).--Laveol ^T 09:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously spurious complaint. Reporting IP boomeranged for disruptive editing, edit-warring and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

IP

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.

---

Block this IP https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:BC89:8D20:E587:1C34:5523:79D9 Eden's Apple (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if you included some sort of rationale for said block. That being said, they appear to be a run of the mill vandal. 31 hour time-out applied. In the future, please use WP:AIV SQL^{Query me!} 10:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:AgentT1000

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

---

This user is being disruptive at Encyclopedia Dramatica.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to already be indef'ed... SQL^{Query me!} 10:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

AfD needs closing

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 AfD is starting to get a little heated. Nobody actually wants the page to be deleted, the nominator started the discussion to propose a merger and the dispute is between people supporting a merge and people who want the page to remain as a standalone list. I'd suggest a speedy close but as I've already commented someone else ought to do it. Hut 8.5 18:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV not backlogged

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 report that WP:AIV is not backlogged. Would some enterprising admin or admins please not take care of this? Thanks. BMK (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and merry Christmas Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support As a non-admin, I am highly interested in not taking care of this. Is there anything specific I need not to do? Isa (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• It's that time of year. Vandals aren't safe from me for a few days. SQL^{Query me!} 10:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  @SQL: :D Prodego ^talk 00:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Prodego:} Hey you! SQL^{Query me!} 06:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment We are also not backlogged at WP:COIN. The paid editors seem to be on holiday. John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Purchase orders probably aren't being processed in a timely fashion right now. BMK (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like most of the vandals are busy using their lump of coal to write the word poop on their parents fireplace. On a more serious note many special hoiday thanks to those who have dealt with AIV all year long. MarnetteD|Talk 23:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

RfA Policy RfC Closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please keep the discussion going over here so people don't have to bounce all over trying to keep track of it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

This RfC has been closed and the following changes will go into effect, effective immediately:

1. RfAs will now be advertised on watch list notices.
   • There will be a waiting period of 12-24 hours. Admin discretion may be exercised, before the 24 hour waiting period.
   • The usernames or the details of the RfA are not to be revealed. A short and simple one liner such as, "There are RfAs open for discussion."
2. RfAs will now be advertised on Template:CENT.
   • Some desire to use {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} on the template has been expressed, though it is not a requirement. Cyberpower678 is willing to make changes to the template as needed, if desired.
   • The advertisement on CENT does not carry the same restrictions that watch list notices have.
3. There is now a limit on the number of questions a specific user can ask a candidate.
   • The limit is 2 questions.
   • Appropriate relevant follow-up questions are allowed.
   • Obvious gaming should be dealt with accordingly.
4. The discretionary range is now 65-75%.

If there is a problem with my close, please let me know.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 08:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, RFC is reopened for about another 2 weeks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask how or why or who was chosen to officially close the RfA, and under what circumstances and under whose aegis? Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay we've now reached the 30 day point. Any takers? - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

See #Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC above. Thankyou. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Validity of the RfA Reform RfC and close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please don't forum-shop. You already have a discussion going over here. Please keep discussion there so people don't have to bounce all over trying to keep track of the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion reclosed. Please do not reopen this one, Softlavender. This is not how you discuss things. Participate over here as previously requested. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I question the binding validity of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC.

1. Do we make sweeping binding changes to RfA policies and procedures based on a 30-day RfC in which only barely 100 people participated (or even knew about)?
2. The RfC violated the principle of RfCs, which is: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Instead, this so-called RfC posed twenty-one different questions and issues. It was therefore out-of-process for RfCs. And moreover only those with the time and patience to read and digest and consider all of the overwhelming 21 questions and issues responded.
3. The RfC was immediately closed and pronounced binding by a non-admin who has had a failed RfA. Even if the so-called RfC is to be re-closed by someone else (which it now has been), it should not be binding, per items #1 and #2.

Contrast this to the simple, straightforward, and much less important case of the RM (not even an RfC) of Hillary Rodham Clinton:

1. It ran for twice as long as a normal RM.
2. Over 150 people participated, even though it was only a simple and straightforward RM.
3. Long in advance of the opening of the RM, a panel of three expert editors (2 neutral admins and one very experienced non-admin) experienced in assessing consensus were chosen to close the RM.
4. It was thoroughly and exhaustively advertised, including on the talk page of every editor who had ever commented on the subject anywhere.
5. The closing team deliberated for over a month before making and posting their decision.
6. The parameters of the close, and how long it would be binding, were established long in advance of the RM being opened.

I find all of the above to be compelling reasons why this RfC is not, and cannot be considered, binding or valid. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Close review 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 request a close review of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC.

It was first closed by Cyberpower678 [93], a non-admin who has had a failed RfA this year, with this result: [94]. A request for a close review was made by Wbm1058 at BN [95], asking that a team of two admins and one bureaucrat close it instead. A discussion ensued about gathering a team and who should be on it: [96]. Instead, while that discussion was still ongoing, it was closed by Nihonjoe [97] with the same result as Cyberpower678's close.

I would like to question this close for the following reasons:

1. Do we make sweeping binding changes to RfA policies and procedures based on a 30-day RfC in which only barely 100 people participated (or even knew about)?
2. The RfC violated the principle of RfCs, which is: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Instead, this so-called RfC posed twenty-one different questions and issues. It was therefore out-of-process for RfCs. And moreover only those with the time and patience to read and digest and consider all of the overwhelming 21 questions and issues responded.
3. The RfC was immediately closed and pronounced binding by a non-admin who has had a failed RfA. A request for review and for a joint team of admins and bureaucrats to close instead was requested, but a single bureaucrat closed it instead.
4. It should not be binding, per items #1, #2, and #3.

Contrast this to the simple, straightforward, and much less important case of the RM (not even an RfC) of Hillary Rodham Clinton, which, albeit controversial at the time, had no bearing on changing Wikipedia policy:

1. It ran for twice as long as a normal RM.
2. Over 150 people participated, even though it was only a simple and straightforward RM.
3. Long in advance of the opening of the RM, a panel of three expert editors (2 neutral admins and one very experienced non-admin) experienced in assessing consensus were chosen to close the RM.
4. It was thoroughly and exhaustively advertised, including on the talk page of every editor who had ever commented on the subject anywhere.
5. The closing team deliberated for over a month before making and posting their decision.
6. The parameters of the close, and how long it would be binding, were established long in advance of the RM being opened.

I find all of the above to be compelling reasons why I personally consider that this RfC is not, and cannot be considered, binding or valid, and I would like to request a close review (nothing personal about Nihonjoe, who I'm sure felt he was simply doing his job). By the way, I did initially open discussions of my concerns (not close-review requests) in other venues relating to the RfC, and I have been warned by Nihonjoe about forum-shopping [98]. I do see now that those discussions could be considered forum-shopping. If desired or deemed necessary, I'm fine if any or all of them except this close-review be closed. However, I would like this close review to remain open here on AN, because AN is the standard venue for close reviews, and because BN is (obviously) a board only for bureaucrats, which number only a handful. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC); edited 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why am I being dragged into this, and why are you mentioning my failed RfA? I've long detached myself from this after it was agreed I was in the wrong. I'm starting to get annoyed that people keep bringing up my failed RfA about this and insinuating that I considered my failed RfA when closing this early to benefit my next RfA. My close was done in good faith and never even factored in my RfA. It wasn't even on my mind, which is why I failed to consider myself involved in the matter. I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong and made a mistake, but please stop claiming I did it to benefit me.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not being dragged into this; you were part of the history of the close and thus your close needed to be mentioned. I notified you per policy because I mentioned you. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The way you worded it made it sound like I did it to personally benefit me.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good close. At this point, this just amounts to desperate forum shopping. I'll provide a point-by-point rebuttal of the purely inaccurate reasons given to justify the reversal of this close. First of all, almost all RfCs run for only 30 days, so that is perfectly in line with previous practice. Also, the RfC was advertised on WT:RFA, WP:AN, WP:VPPR, WP:VPP, WP:CENT, and on the watchlist notices (perhaps I've even forgotten a few other places where I advertised it). Very few RfCs are as well advertised as this one was. The allegation that it was poorly advertised and that editors did not know about the RfC is a lie, plain and simple. Secondly, the RfC comprised different proposals that included a brief statement for each proposals. The statements were also perfectly neutral, almost always along the lines of "We could do [x]." There was nothing out of process about its format. A similar format was used in WP:RFA2013, and there have been many other long RfCs. Some RfCs even let editors write out their own view of the issue, and others endorse the views they agree with. Those RfCs are often very long. Thirdly, the non-admin close was reviewed, reverted, and is now completely irrelevant to this discussion. Also, there is nothing in policy which requires that multiple users close an RfC. Some RfCs are closed that way, but there is absolutely nothing in policy that justifies the reversal of a closure just because it was done by one user. Furthermore, that user was a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are one of the most trusted users on the site, and are specifically trusted to close difficult discussions. All in all, the position that the RfC is invalid is just indefensible, and we shouldn't even be wasting our time on it. It's worth noting that this user opposed all the proposals, forum shopped, and the last time I checked had opposed about 90% of RfAs they voted in. In summary, it would be totally ridiculous to overturn the RfC because one clearly editor who strongly opposes change (in clear disagreement with the larger community) wants it reversed for easily rebutted reasons. Also, this discussion should not turn into a continuation of the RfC itself, where all the opposers gang up and vote against the closure. Just move on and accept the results; they were concluded upon as fairly as fair can be. Biblioworm 03:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Excellent close, and close review as filibustering. All that needs to be said has already been said. Is there any premise behind this close's invalidity other than comparing an one-question controversial RM to this RfC, which was composed of questions less controversial than that one question; and that the outcome was affirmed by a non-admin, a genetic fallacy. Esquivalience ^t 03:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• It should be mentioned that if the closers of the requested move of Hillary Clinton took over a month to discuss the issue before coming to a decision, they were just slow. No discussion (outside of perhaps a really, really tricky ArbCom case) should take a month for a decision. That's just ridiculous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• I endorse closure as stands. (NB I participated in the RfC, and some, but not all, of my positions are in line with the outcome). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• For crying out loud can we stop playing the "How much time can we sink on a single RfC" game? Endorse. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close. None of those arguments are the kind of arguments that override community discussion. They could have been made during the RfC, and then the voters could have chosen to agree or disagree. No one is entitled to a supervote that overrides what was discussed during the RfC. For better or worse, you have 30 days (usually) to make arguments, no more ... that's how RfCs work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Large-scale RfCs are not unheard of. Imagine if, instead of a 21-question RfC lasting 30 days, there were 21 single-question RfCs lasting 30 days each. That's completely unreasonable. They're all related questions (and some incompatible with others) so I don't see why they shouldn't have been asked all at once and why doing so makes the RfC invalid. clpo13_(talk) 04:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse close Given the importance of this RFC and the impact it will have, cyberpower may have best left it to an admin or bureaucrat to close it, but that's by the by. I find it somewhat low and marginally offensive that cyberpower's unsuccessful RFA be held against them as if it was some sort of black mark and suggest that Softlavender strike it. Although not necessarily formatted in an orthodox way, my opinion is that Biblioworm did a sterling job in structuring the RFC. There are 4 areas that have historically been viewed as problem areas and these were addressed briefly. Each area is complex and the further break down was organised and addressed. It was far better to condense all 4 into one overall RFC rather than holding 4 separate RFC's. Far better still than conducting 21 separate RFC's simply to appease process. perhaps an RFC needs to be conducted to separate out the expectations of an article RFC vs a policy RFC. Blackmane (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• While we like to say that RFCs aren't votes, for something like this, where we are trying to improve a process, there wont be a lot of policy based reasons to do one thing or another, and so it does to a significant extent come down to vote counting. There is no way any of the reject closes could have had any other result. No amount of additional time would have changed that. The 3 with 79% or higher support are pretty solid passes as well, more time wasn't going to change the outcome on them. That leaves the last proposal, of reducing the bottom of the discretionary range to 65%. 71% is still a pretty solid !vote in favor of it. Maybe additional time would have moved it closer to 50%, and a closer could have decided it wasn't sufficient support. But 30 days and 71% support seems plenty for a proposal that only shifts the discretionary range to give Crats a bit more discretion. I really don't see how different closers, or more time, would have changed much if anything. (Disclosure: I !voted in favor of the 60% threshold and didn't vote at all on 65% for what that is worth) Endorse close Monty₈₄₅ 04:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Reject review request on the grounds that the arguments being presented aren't sensible. Objection 1 As Biblioworm notes, this was heavily, heavily advertised. Lots of discussions that get comparatively little input can rightly be questioned when they claim to represent broad community consensus, but when you can hardly go anywhere without seeing a link to this discussion, we should interpret lack of input as lack of willingness to give input, not lack of ability to give input. I don't remember participating, but I do remember initially considering voting but deciding against it because it would be a waste of time, because attempts to restructure RFA always end as miserable failures; I wouldn't be surprised if such a perspective were shared by many other experienced editors who didn't participate. Objection 2 Nothing wrong with the setup; as Clpo13 notes, the alternative would have been to mount 21 separate discussions, running the risk of conflicting outcomes and clearly forcing various people to participate in separate discussions if they felt like it, thus compounding the lack of participation mentioned in objection 1. Objection 3 If you're objecting to having a non-admin close it, what's wrong with a bureaucrat closing it? And remember that just about all discussions are eligible to be closed by non-admins, as admin rights are a collection of tools and not a big deal or something that ought to have an aura of authority. Final note I haven't checked the RFC itself, so I don't attempt to offer an opinion as to whether the closing statement reflected consensus accurately. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I looked over the RFC when it was running, but never voted. I would not be the only one to do so. Just because only 100 odd people participated does not mean many more did not look at it and decide for whatever reason not to participate. It was widely advertised so there should be no excuse for active interested editors not to know about it. The questions were fine, I read them at the time and there was no confusion. I actually thought the set up was better than a lot of other RFC's I have participated in. The comparisons to Hillary Clinton are misleading, that represents the exception rather than the rule. I too find the reference to Cyberpower678's RFC a little off. I just read through the closes now and see no problem with them. Time to move on. AIRcorn (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Festival-day

AFD closed at 05:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC) as delete, and article deleted. Mkdw^talk 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, This AFD has run its course and really needs a deletion. Basically, consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of deletion but one editor keeps hitting the dead horse and either changes the name of the article or most recently made up a new consensus and changed the name of the file. He has also engaged possibly in canvassing. It might be a difficult read to go through the AFD because the one KEEP vote was responding and arguing every single DELETE vote but the consensus has been all DELETES other than the one KEEP vote but all the claims of the KEEP have been answered and even some editing of existing articles already out there have been done to ease some concerns. What we need now is closure. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Festival-day

Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be done already, by Mkdw. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: AFD's sometimes take time to close, especially if they're long and complicated. If you check the WP:AFD main page, you will see about a dozen AFD's still awaiting a close, some even 5-7 days past their week run. Many are often relisted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival-day was a fairly lengthy discussion to be weighted but was reviewed and closed within a day of running its 7 day coarse. I would advise in the future to allow a bit more time and if you have any additional comments about the AFD, to leave them at the AFD. Otherwise it may be seen as canvassing for a sympathetic admin to close in favour of a supplementary argument outside that discussion and interfering with the standard procedural process. I don't believe this was the case but it could possibly provide the other side grounds for an appeal of the close. As the closing admin in this case, I will vouch that I had not previously seen this post to my close of the AFD and was only alerted to it when Nihonjoe pinged my username. Mkdw^talk 06:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, my concern wasn't the timing but that one of the editors was moving the article, and still contacting each editor individually and deciding that consensus was changing. I felt the sooner the close the better it will be.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Gabriel McQueen

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.

---

New article. WP:BLP issue. Unreferenced. Defamatory? WP:Speedy delete? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually none of the above. It's the stillborn child of a character on the British soap Hollyoaks. I redirected the page to the main character who was the mother of the child Mercedes McQueen. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And the page was deleted, so I guess we are done here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting community ban of User:CosmicEmperor

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.

---

@TopGun, Titodutta, GB fan, and Beeblebrox: CosmicEmperor was indefinitely blocked for socking, stalking and creating attack pages against GorillaWarfare. He has created sock accounts Rear2189, The Avengers, Galaxy Kid and Conan The Barbarian. It's about time he gets banned. He admitted on Mar4d's talk page that he is Maheshkumaryadav.

• Support as nominator. --95.141.31.22 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support the formality of a site-ban, although the individual is de facto banned in that it is unlikely any admin will unblock him. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

*Close. Already banned by the community. Support Multiple abusive sock accounts. --Müdigkeit (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support And to anyone who says 'it is unlikely any admin will unblock him' I am going to say 'Kumioko'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Might as well make it official to avoid future silliness. Jbh^Talk 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Quite honestly deserves a Site Global Ban but I guess Community Ban's better than nothing!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This community ban is a site ban.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Müdigkeit - Sorry I meant a ban from all of the Projects, A community ban is only a ban from the English WP. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @Davey2010: The term you're looking for is 'Global ban', then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
        • The Bushranger That's the one!, I had a feeling "Site ban" was incorrect.... Think I best go back to bed!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: without even weighing in the comment from the SPA IP / nominator that pinged me here, I support the site ban. I was the one who filed the recent SPI on him with a multitude of evidence & pointers which not only clearly indicated (even from his replies in the SPI itself) the WP:BATTLE & WP:WIN mentality but also the fact that CE waited for 3 months so that CU data was stale (this was clearly intentional) and then came back to sock again. I can not believe that he will make good use standard offer if left to it with a single reviewing admin or CU likely to miss alot of facts in the WP:SOUP his troll socks created all over the project. We should not have to deal with this drama and disruption again and it should be put back up with the community whether to allow someone with WP:NOTHERE issues to edit again in future as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog at Category:Expired proposed deletions

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'm not sure if backlogs are so commonplace that it's just assumed that someone will eventually get to it, and it doesn't need to be mentioned here, but when I went to check on the status of a PROD I filed, I realized that there were 39 still waiting to be close. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Frustrating lack of policy support

I reported a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motoe123 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ) which involved an inexperienced editor repeatedly replacing the data at Century break#Players with 100 century breaks with data from a fan blog, specifically the one at [99].

As I understand it, per WP:SPS personal blogs/fansites are not considered reliable sources. Despite offering an explanation in the edit summaries, on the article talk page and an editing note also included in the main article the editor in question has repeatedly restored this fan sourced content. Furthermore, the site being used for this data sources the data from another Fansite [100] which has been categorically ruled not reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#Snooker.info. I requested admin support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motoe123 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ), but the report has been simply ignored. Even the reports filed after mine have been dealt with.

Now, this is not a complicated case. It is my understanding that fansites are not acceptable for sourcing anything from Wikipedia, so am I being unreasonable to expert some admin support in enforcing this policy? I am finding the lack of response a frustrating experience. I could just restore the data yet again but that would put me on a collision course with 3RR, which seems to be the only policy that is effectively enforced these days. If the thinking on Wikipedia now is that RS is a policy that is not really aimed at articles containing sport statistics then I would appreciate it if somebody just closed my case on those grounds so I know here I stand. If that is the case however, I don't really see what distinguishes Wikipedia from other personal fansites that informally maintain stats.

It would be helpful if somebody could advise on what course of action I should follow in such situations. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, slow down, let the WP:WRONGVERSION be visible for the time being, and ask for other people to weigh in discussion. WP:RSN is as good a place as any, as is the article talk page. After others have been alerted to the issue, and have established consensus that the source is a bad one, you have the weight of consensus on your side. --Jayron32 16:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was more or less what I was going to say as well. It doesn't seem to be that high-profile of a page for the moment, and there seems to be a backlog of unanswered EW claims to be answered as well. As a side note though, I don't think things generally go over very well when you report someone for edit warring and you were the one who reverted them every single time, and neither party broke 3RR. That may not be helping your response time either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is a recurring problem on the snooker articles that has been raised several times before, even by admins such as by SilkTork (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Snooker sites – WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive). The problem that the snooker editors face is that it simply doesn't have the manpower to respond to policy violations: due to the low levels of participation then it is unlikely anybody else will "weigh in" on this issue for weeks, if not months, until someone else eventually comes along and cares enough to correct it and then runs into exactly the same problem that I have done. Despite being a red-link I am a fairly experienced editor and mainly edit snooker and film articles, and the film articles I participate on generally move in a positive direction because there is a big enough support network in the Film project to deal with any problems. It is a rewarding experience overall, and the main reason I give up my free time to contribute to Wikipedia. This is not the case on snooker articles, where I feel the articles generally stagnate or progressively get worse over time and I am finding it a dispiriting experience contributing to this set of articles. Having experience of a highly mobilised project with highly trafficked articles, and a low-participation one with low hits it is pretty obvious to me that solutions which work very well for one type of article don't work great for the other. I doubt the snooker project is the only low-participation project to face these issues. Maybe if each project was allocated a "resident" admin that could help alleviate the "wild west" mentality that has manifested in some areas of Wikipedia? I think ultimately a different approach is going to have to be adopted down the line to combat this. Anyway, thanks for your time. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Promotional Edits by new SPA

Could an Admin please have a look at the contributions of this user which appears to be a single purpose account engaged in undue promotion of a self-published work. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The core of this one seems to be Quantum money (Monetary system), which might qualify for speedy since it's not even a monetary system, just a proposal with no obvious notability. The editor has gone about adding this as a see also to several barely related articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for lack of references and for notability. Feel free to CSD away, if someone concurs that there's no notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The author added references. I removed the reference tag but will be AFD'ing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A question on RevDel

Over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, an IP user added a question and then signed it with their (apparent) real name; their next immediate edit was to remove the name. I would consider this accidental exposure of one's identity, and so I have for the moment revdel'd the addition to be cautious. (These are presently the two diffs before my diff here [101].) Checking the WP:REVDEL page, this suggests that I should report this to the Oversight committee to have the edits completely washed out, but at the same time the language of REVDEL make it sound like this should be done where the outing is malicious, etc. while here I'm not sure if this is meant to be the case. Should I still submit this to Oversight to review? --MASEM (t) 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just submit it to the OS mailing list, and they can make the call if it's a borderline case. That's why they get the big money. If there's specific language in WP:REVDEL that implies this should only be done if it's malicious (I don't see it offhand, but it's a lot of text), we should probably change that, but that might be more productively done at WT:REVDEL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sent, and I'll see if a discussion at WT:REVDEL might be needed. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Criteria 4 already covers this. If it is oversightable, it acceptable to revision delete it pending oversight. The only real question is whether revision deletion will draw attention to the very thing we are trying to hide before oversight gets to it, and thus be counter productive when the goal is to protect someone's privacy. But that is purely a judgement call, and imo, its usually better to revision delete promptly. Monty₈₄₅ 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sporting Clube de Portugal review requested

As of yesterday, I have semi-protected Sporting Clube de Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until 1 January 2016 due to persistent disruptive editing. There are still some outstanding issues and I am requesting assistance to help bring this article back in line with WP:NPOV policy, as the article in its current state is overly promotional. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012

Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were proposed for merge in December 2014. It is now December 2015, and the article have still not been merged. I do not have the skill set to trim the coding. May I remove the disposition tags, if no action has taken place up until now? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have time right this moment, but I will try to work on this in the next few days. An example of the table code trimming that is expected can be seen in this diff. I will do the trimming on each table, then they can be moved to the main article and redirected (Assuming no one beats me to it.) -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I found some time. :) All six tables have been trimmed of unnecessary formatting. I also did the table at the main article. This could be shrunk further by replacing the background style statements (For PaleGreen and Pink) with the Yes2 and No2 templates, which are a similar color. I decided not to do that because someone may view those templates are attributing a positive or negative view on the party/candidate being represented. But if no one has an objection, I can go ahead with it. Nevermind. It would shrink the article Wiki-side but those templates being sent to the client are a huge increase. Whoops. -- ferret (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Password strength policy for users with advanced permisssions

Following the Wikipedia:Security review RfC, new requirements are in place for administrators and other users with advanced permissions. You can view the new policy at Wikipedia:Password strength requirements. It';s somewhat incomplete at the moment, some fo the details involving the WMF have yet to be finalized. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad image list addition

Please add this image (warning: graphic nudity) and this image to the bad image list. The two photos were recently used to vandalize Talk:Donald Trump. Thank you. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@CatcherStorm: Um an edit like this: [102] should be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation. It may be harmless trolling but you never can tell. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Page has been protected, users blocked, and I emailed the emergency account. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be handled via range block. Unfortunately I can't get the range contribs tool to load, so I can't check the use, but it's not that big. No need to change the bad image list IMO. Prodego ^talk 06:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prodego: I think Legoktm beat you to it. They blocked 184.151.190.0/24 --Stabila711 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I did the /20 to catch the 178 address. Prodego ^talk 06:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerking RfC

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Please do not comment in this section, but rather make all comments in the appropriate place on the RfC. Thank you. Biblioworm 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm interested in being a closer on this one. If anyone else wants to close, please say something on the RfC's talk page before January 20, the 30-day point. I think it's a given that this one will be messy. I'm guessing it will be hard to assess consensus on one or more points, and if so, I intend to ask the voters for clarification (on just the hard-to-assess points). I've added a notice to that effect. Comments welcome, here or there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman Arbitration case suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Kevin Gorman Arbitration case suspended

Policy proposal re redirects

I've proposed clarifying policy on unnecessary redirects. See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal:_Extend_.22Wikipedia_is_not_a_Directory.22 to cover unnecessary redirects. There were four incidents in the last month involving the creation of massive numbers of redirects, and it became clear that no policy covered that. So I'm proposing one, as an addition to WP:NOT. The general idea is that if Wikipedia's search engine (which now handles spelling errors better) can find the article from the name of a redirect, the redirect is unnecessary. Please comment at the proposal. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Nadirali

By motion of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

Nadirali (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Nadirali

Persistent IP activity - not adhering to wp guidelines

IP activity from user that has likely used at least 10 different addresses. Doesn't act in good faith and often belittles other users, even when acting in good faith. This user has been encouraged on multiple occasions to register and obtain an appropriate login. The user has indicated that is the case because of a dynamic IP address, which constantly changes and the user indicates it can’t be helped. In edit summaries and when engaging on my talk page, there has been reference made to multiple accounts to try and help the user understand that guideline. The user has been unnecessarily caustic and not respectful to both other users and the WP process. The first time I’d been aware of editing from this user was here. One can see in the edit summaries from 17 October 2015 the condescending and rude approach taken when a more established editor simply tried to keep an article in what was felt to be appropriate context and word usage. On 22 December 2015, it can be seen that rather than simply making good faith edits, the summaries include references to “moronic errors” – as shown here. Each of these articles, along with a select few others engaged in, such as One Magnificent Morning, the user engages in edit warring and is unduly insistent that whatever that user has done must be retained and that somehow it’s an offense to have any changes made. Given the ever changing IP addresses, uncertain how to address the issue in a constructive manner. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick Geolocate search shows them as being in Salt Lake City Utah, and they're grumbling about Mormon related topics, they could , possibly have a conflict of interest. Just sayin' KoshVorlon 16:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Talk:Martin mcguiness

Could someone's please have a look at the Talk:Martin McGuiness page, I have provided evdiance that the 'monarch' field is not appropriate however users are simply ignoring my argumentsOuime23 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Ouime23 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Transferred from the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean Talk:Martin McGuinness? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the biggest load of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. Whatever all the other editors are saying seems to be flying over Ouime23's head. @Ouime23:, you've been repeatedly told that the monarch field has nothing to do with the appointer of any given position in the government. It's the fact that the monarch of the UK is the head of state. This has been said over and over and over again. Each time the other editors tell you this, you're the one not listening. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Webhost range block

Could someone please follow up on this for me? I'm on vacation, on my phone, and not familiar enough with webhost blocking policy. Here's the block being appealed: [103] ~Awilley (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Special:Block/31.6.0.0/18 is a hardblock and disables account creation. Perhaps if this is indeed used legitimately for people who need it, we might consider making it anon.only and allowing account creation through ACC? Or we might allow ACC and grant IPBE individually... personally I would prefer the former option but I understand some webhostblock hardliners might want to keep it a hardblock. From a technical viewpoint, 31.6.0.0/18 is operated by Powerhouse Management out of a Netherlands address. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure if there's a reason to treat public webhost's (be they paid or free) any different from the way we treat general open proxies. As the template says, they are basically proxies. And while our Wikipedia:Open proxies, doesn't quite mention paid proxies (unlike the Meta:No open proxies, if they are basically open to anyone willing to pay, I would suggest they are basically open proxies. In other words while editors are free to use them provided they aren't using them to evade a block, ban or sockpuppet (e.g. avoid scrutiny), we will block proxies if necessary. Any editors who need to use a proxy can and should request an IP block exemption. Amongst other things, it will ensure they can choose whatever proxy works for them rather than having to rely on looking for ones we aren't blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 15:12, December 25, 2015‎ (UTC)

There's both the case that a public webhost is logically equivalent to an open proxy, and the fact that Powerhouse supports piracy. I took both into account when I made the original block. There's no reason to permit access through this service. Can anyone suggest a reason that someone might need to use this where that someone would not qualify for IPBE in general?—Kww(talk) 23:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case amended

The committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case shall not apply in Rich Farmbrough's user space, his user talk space, or any subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports. Subject to the normal bot policy Rich Farmbrough may use automation in these exempted areas.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

New discussion regarding admin rights

Hey, I started a discussion on tweaking admin rights to reduce newbie-biting: WP:VPR#Allow admins to rename users?. Please have your say. Max Semenik (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year from administrator HighInBC

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 happy that my Ban request related to CosmicEmperor was successful. I want to ask a very simple question. When I started the ban request against CosmicEmperor, I got everyone's support. No administrator reverted my post, nobody blocked me. After that when I started another request against Xtremedood, it was reverted by HighInBC and he even blocked my IP. I even questioned his bias on my talk page, and he was quite adamant about his decision. I don't want to start the thread again, who knows He will block me again. 1, 2, 3. It's pointless to discuss this with him. I am allowed to start a ban request against one user, but I can't do that against another user. It's not that Xtremedood is a very very good faith editor. HighInBC is not able to explain why he supported my ban request against CosmicEmperor but is against my indefinite block request against Xtremedood.

I am supposed to notify HighInBC of this discussion, but I am scared to do it.--95.141.31.22 (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I've let HighInBC know. Although he was pretty clear as to why your request was reverted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 06:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Should I repeat again? I want to know why he opposed my request against Xtremedood but not against CosmicEmperor? I want equal policies for both editors. Why he is biased when I post against Xtremedood, but I got his support when I posted against CE. I hope I explained in English. How else am I going to raise my point? 95.141.31.22 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just want to note that the OP is block-evading. BMK (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but which blocked user are you accusing the OP of being? Seems to be the same account that posted the CE ban / etc. SQL^{Query me!} 08:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are indeed missing something, HighinBC blocked the IP 95.141.31.25, and the IP that filed this complaint was 95.141.31.22. That is block evasion, as the two IPs are quite obviously the same person (unless one is blinded by AGF disease). Of course, the block has elapsed now. BMK (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, but as below, one was blocked as Inappropriate use of alternate account, the other as block evasion. This indicates that both are suspected of being socks of some third account, which is why I'm asking. Also, I've been away a while - can you explain to me what AGF disease is? SQL^{Query me!} 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I will leave it to another admin to deal with the block evasion. As for the accusations I am pretty sure I never took any side regarding Xtremedood. Not sure that I supported anything the OP said either. HighInBC 07:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unable to find any excuse, they came with boomerang accusation of block evasion. HighInBC is still not able to explain why he did not revert Ban request my post against CE which is visible above? According to him I didn't have any previous interaction with Xtremedood, in that logic I didn't have any previous interaction with CE also. It would seem someone is trying to protect Xtremedood, even if they are not. 95.141.31.22 (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are complaining that I did not revert you? Not sure how to respond to that. I am going to bed now, if I fail to revert something of yours tonight don't take it personally. HighInBC 08:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite - what was your rationale for blocking these two IP's? You list one first as Inappropriate use of alternate account, then shortly after, the next is blocked as block evasion. What is the main account that you suspect these two are socks of? The IP explained elsewhere that he/she has a dynamic IP, and it changes when they are disconnected, or start a new session, so it isn't exactly surprising when they pop up on a new IP periodically. SQL^{Query me!} 08:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Our sock puppetry policy does not allow people to use alternate accounts to participate in project discussions. This includes logging out to suggests sanctions or bans about someone. When I asked the IP about this they insisted that they don't have an account and edit as an IP. I told them that they simply needed to provide a diff showing where they has interacted with the subject of the complaint as an IP. They never provided this, which leaves me to believe that they probably do have another account.

It is not reasonable to believe that someone is filing a ban request about someone they have no history with, nor is it reasonable to let them conceal that history.

Once again Mr IP if you simply demonstrate how you know the person you are trying to get banned then it will solve all of my concerns, until then it appears you are logging out to make complaints about people. I hope this explains things to SQL and others concerned. HighInBC 18:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that @Mike V: has given a checkuserblock for the range the IP uses. I am not sure who they were identified as(and the privacy policy will likely prevent us from knowing), however I am not surprised. The quacking was loud with this one. HighInBC 18:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree with this application of admin common sense. Anybody who turns up out of the blue to accuse some specific other editor, without visible prior interaction, is always, invariably, a sock. Especially of course in this topic area, India-Pakistan, which has been infested with several sock armies battling each other for years, and where pretty much every editor participating in these kinds of get-each-other-banned shenanigans can be assumed to be a sock as a matter of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 1 January 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.

Usernames for administrator attention

Usernames for administrator attention hasn't been looked at since 22 December 2015. Could somebody please review them. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved Admin please close this RFC before protection ends?

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_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? has been open for 58 days. There was edit warring on the page recently on the topic of this RFC that has the page protected. Would an uninvolved admin please close it before the protection ends? Thanks. AlbinoFerret 03:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been closed, Thanks Nyttend!. AlbinoFerret 15:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I too thank Nyttend for the close, but I will also remark that I was a tad irked by his statement saying that he gave less weight to !votes such as "per Doc James" etc. I posted one of those, and it was for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary clutter and for the ease of the closer -- there are, after all, not an infinity of possible views on most of these subjects, and if one comes in late, most of those views have already been expressed. I could have repeated what Doc James said, for instance, altering his words, but that seemed to me to be unnecessary wordage. From now on, though, to avoid having my !vote be under-weighed, I will do exactly that, cutting and pasting phrases from the comments of those editors I agreed with and tweaking them to make them my own. It will make the RfC longer, and somewhat more onerous to close, but that seems to be the only option available to avoid being undercounted if other closers also use Nyttend's methodology. BMK (talk) 01:15, 1 January 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.

Education online volunteer rights removal 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 admin change my right and remove "Education online volunteer" for now? I know that (most probably) I could do it myself, but WP:INVOLVED. Thanks in advance, and happy new year. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I think you would have been fine to do it yourself though. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:47, 1 January 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.

Slow motion Edit war and deleting the Citation needed request .

User Zirguezi , in answer of my demand for sources , insists on getting back sources that are neither Reliable , nor related to the matter 1 2. Talk page discussion failure and personal attacks [Flag of Iraqi Kurdistan is not the flag of all Kurdish groups] ( on section Flag of Iraqi Kurdistan is not the flag of all Kurdish groups) . Can an admin please help ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I too would like an opinion of this situation. User:Alborz Fallah requested a source, which I provided. In my opinion they are reliable, relevant and related to the matter. They prove exactly the point I was making. Alborz Fallah makes a claim that goes against what the sources I have provided say. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong but just as he has a right to ask for sources so do I ask him for sources that dispute the claim. If it turns out there is enough discussion about this in literature we should probably add both sides to the article. N.B.: the personal attack is indeed disruptive and did not come from me. ~ Zirguezi 19:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW shouldn't this request be filed at WP:DRN or any of the other boards at WP:SEEKHELP? ~ Zirguezi 19:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zirguezi : Edit Waring and deleting the request for citation ( more than one times) seems to be an administrative task rather than a problem that can be solved by discussion : do am i intended to prove the Wikipedian laws are right and useful to anyone that may be not familiar with them ? Reinventing wheel and fire will consume all of our time and power ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems nobody is interested !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's because you've filed this on the wrong venue. Please see WP:DISCUSSFAIL. You need to follow that, or follow one of the WP:DR processes. Or take it to one of the following: the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan; WP:ANI (be prepared for a WP:BOOMERANG though if you haven't used the other methods); WP:ANEW; WP:DRN; or WP:RSN. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Carnism

Can I get a few more eyes on this. Essentially, a one-source concept, with a lot of WP:SYNTH used to give the impression of other sources. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is a pretty dreadful state of affairs, what with all the OR, SYNTH, "Explanatory Notes", and sourcing that makes zero reference to the term. If the merge proposal doesn't pass, I'd say it needs another AfD so that uninvolved editors can closely examine all of the sourcing to see whether the term itself has received adequate significant coverage (other than in reviews of, or references to, the book) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There also seems to be a lot of agenda-pushing and (unpaid but connected) COI and vested interests in the promoters of the article. Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC); edited 06:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Essam Bakhashwein

Essam Bakhashwein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been extensively using his user page and user talk page for WP:NOTWEBHOST purposes. He has 13 live mainspace edits, out of which which 10 were reverted as vandalism/tests. Even the remaining are just addition of links to instagram and twitter. I'd suggest a WP:NOTHERE-block. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Essam Bakhashwein. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Current options for resolving CONDUCT disputes

Question, are there now any informal DR options for conduct disputes, outside of ANI/AE? I was going to propose a mutual self-submission to WP:RFC/U but it was closed down when I wasn't paying attention. If I should have asked elsewhere, my apologies and please point me in the right direction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. WQA (Wikiquette) was closed down, which meant anything that would have gone there (low level conduct/incivility disputes etc) now goes to AN/ANI. RFC/U was then also closed - so any longer/ongoing conduct issues also went to AN/ANI. Basically if you have a conduct problem with an editor its firstly their talkpage then AN/ANI (depending on urgency), then Arbcom. Given the decision to shut down WQA and RFC/U was in large part swung by adminstrators, their AN/ANI bed is of their own making. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for background. For the time being, the other ed has chosen to self impose a Tban, so it's resolved, though not in an ideal manner. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

2.1) Subject to the usual exceptions, Catflap08 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Catflap08's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

3) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

4) Hijiri88 is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

5) Subject to the usual exceptions, Hijiri88 is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 24-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except Hijiri88's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

6.1) TH1980 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

Soap desysopped and banned

For off-wiki harassment, the administrator permissions of Soap are revoked. Additionally, he is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

Support: Courcelles, DGG, Guerillero, Euryalus, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Seraphimblade

Oppose: DeltaQuad

Abstain: Thryduulf

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Procedural cross-post. For the Arbitration Committee: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Soap desysopped and banned

Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to User:DoRD

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that DoRD is regranted the checkuser and oversight permissions that he resigned earlier this year.

Support: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, Euryalus, Salvio giuliano, Guerillero, LFaraone.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Procedural cross-post. For the Arbitration Committee: Kharkiv07 (T) 02:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to User:DoRD

User:HoorayForAmerica

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.

---

Why is User:HoorayForAmerica still blocked? The SPI was rejected and the editor isn't related to the others. The sock master was even taunting him, he's the victim here. 166.170.48.174 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This user has been unblocked. The unblock request was put on hold while awaiting input from the blocking admin, who wasn't online. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to others' attention. I'd like to request a few more eyeballs on me. I take from the mention of ROPE that I am going to be banned if I make one mistake,[105][106] but I never did anything wrong in the first place, my block was wrong, and I ought be treated like someone who was never blocked. HoorayForAmerica (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk [107]. NE Ent 23:56, 2 January 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.

Stop the War Coalition article is a mess

The article on the Stop The War Coalition has degenerated into one user's pet project, and the bias is reflected throughout: For example, in clear violation of BLP, Agnes Mariam de la Croix is listed variously as an "Assad regime apologist" and other such epithets, in what clearly would constitute libel in the UK. Also, the entire article is being re-written to have a strong slant against the STW Coalition (not that I'm much a fan of them myself).

I've tried to undo some of the more troublesome edits, but please feel free to look at the article and see what I'm talking about. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am that "one user" and have worked on both the Mother Agnes and Stop the War articles. Solntsa90, while like you, I live in the UK, this website is bound by the law of libel in the United States. In many, many, articles in reliable sources published in Britain and the US, Mother Agnes has been accused of being an apologist for the Assad regime. Articles defending Stop the War in the mainstream UK media are scarce, and the article will inevitably reflect that slant. In any case, because online articles about Stop the War are rare in mainstream sources before about 2003, I am having to use the Socialist Worker website for factual information. It is the paper of the British Socialist Workers Party, a neo-Trotskyist organisation which was involved in setting up Stop the War. Any other positive pieces about Stop the War are likely to be contained in other WP:FRINGE and marginal, or at least alternative, sources. Philip Cross (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Phillip Cross has responded with a message on the talk page that casts doubt over his ability to edit Agnes Mariam de la croix, Stop the War Coalition, and other articles related to prominent British leftists without bias.

User:Solntsa90 is now clutching at straws to protect the dubious reputation of the wretched Mother Agnes. The Raya Jalabi article in The Guardian is clear on establishing a link between Jones and Scahill's threat and Mother Agnes withdrawal. In the quote I added to the citation it is clearly implied. That Raya Jalabi in her article does not use the word "because" is true, but it is ridiculous nit picking to remove this sentence for that reason. By the way, Wikipedia obeys the libel laws of the United States which don't allow such a dodgy individual as Mother Agnes as much protection as she would be allowed in the UK (my own country). Philip Cross (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly and frankly, there is no interest in making unbiased edits on the part of the editor here. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What users can type on a talk page is entirely different to what we can add to an article. Solntsa90, it is clear you cannot claim to be neutral in your talk page comments either. Contrary to multiple reliable sources, why are you so keen that Mother Agnes should be presented in a good light? Philip Cross (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is only a single sentence mention of Agnes at Stop_the_War_Coalition#Syrian_civil_war. Agnes Mariam de la Croix is another matter entirely. The article is sprinkled with clear unsourced personal commentary in the middle of factual statements though. It seems to have other editors involved at the momenet. Solntsa90, are you asking for a block? For a topic ban? For more eyes? Are the sources provided inaccurate? Is this something for BLP/N not here? There are lines between sources claiming that she is favored by the regime and personal commentary stating that she is an apologist for the regime. It may require a bit more nuance in the writing about her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• No-one should be editing on a matter they have strong views on; BLP definitely applies on talk pages. Tentatively endorse a topic ban on the basis of the talk page comment, this edit, and more especially on Philip Cross's apparent inability to see that comments and edits like this will be seen as problematic. --John (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In that edit is a citation to an article in The Daily Telegraph, a reliable source, and the article's author, Andrew Gilligan, is a reputable journalist. That it is Conservative newspaper, and Gilligan writes negatively about the far left quite often, does not mean the StWC article has a citation to an unsuitable source for a left-wing organisation. Stop the War has numerous people near its apex whose party and organisational affiliations are far from mainstream politics. In other words, in the UK context the mainstream parties* are the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Ukip (alas) and the Green Party (even if the BBC disagrees). The mostly fringe politics of StWC personnel has been an issue for a long time, and of the five mainstream parties, only the Corbyn faction of the Labour Party (a small minority of Labour MPs) and the Greens have had much time for it. Philip Cross (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[* Inadvertently excluded the Scottish National Party from this list, the third largest party in the current parliament.] Philip Cross (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article has contained a long list of people involved in Stop the War for years. The political affiliations to the British Socialist Workers Party of John Rees and Lindsey German, and Kate Hudson (formerly) and Andrew Murray to the Communist Party of Britain have been there all along. The CPB and the SWP are small parties of the British far left. I simply raised the profile of these connections. So what, in addition, does the Gilligan article contain which is so objectionable? Philip Cross (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So you maintain there is nothing even potentially problematic about your edits? The talk page comment and the edit I highlighted? And you intend to continue editing as you have been? --John (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes you mention here, one talk page comment you don't like about a controversial figure, and one edit you dislike. You are, of course, at liberty to do so. I might as well mention our disagreement earlier today over the Lord Janner article as well. Philip Cross (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As I am taking that as a "yes", with an ad hominem thrown in, count me as a support topic ban. --John (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well. Although I did add it, the fact that Philip Cross removed a citation needed tag from an alleged direct quote from a British politician (I was being nice rather than following BLP directly) without bothering to provide an actual citation is problematic enough. Tagging the organization based on its members and then tagging all the members together requires good sources and those statements have no sources at all, quite problematic when the claim is that they support the Assad regime. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also if I may, George Galloway's article. This edit was made to a random part of his biography, and while sourced, is completely out of context, and some of the sources don't even say anything about Galloway saying such a thing(Not to mention, a completely random part of his biography this edit was attached to, the only relation being it's connection to Stop The War Coalition. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For more eyes? Are the sources provided inaccurate? Is this something for BLP/N not here? Yes, the sources are rather inaccurate in how they are used (and you can review them in the history yourself), and often sometimes don't even contain any mention or reference to the content at all. Connections are drawn from insinuations, personal blogs and opinion columns that betray a nescience for accurate and non-hysterical writing. one in particular from a blogger James Bloodworth, where he compares Mother Agnes to Ernst Rohm, is particularily troubling.

In light of WP:BLP and the fact that Mother Agnes has never actually claimed to speak for the Assad government, I think such polemical sources are never appropriate. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You guys still there? The article on George Galloway is being bulldozed as we speak. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agnes Mariam de la Croix is in horrible shape --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban after this revert Philip Cross seems to be focused on coatracking as much negative information about Sr Mariam as possible into the article. BuzzFeed is entertaining but is not a WP:RS in nay way shape or form. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel that there is a consensus here if someone would like to close this, if not WP:ANI would be a good place to generate more feedback. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Attacks at ARE

(non-admin closure) DENY BMK (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone retract this personal attack from WP:ARE? There's nothing wrong with HughD doing a GAR and pointing out the idiocy of a climate change denial book. We need more editors who will be harsh and will fail those kinds of nonsense articles and aren't biased here. The discussion should be closed: no one found anything wrong with HughD's edits and the sniping afterwards by William Connolly and Ricky are inappropriate. 166.171.121.49 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC) I'm failing to see the personal attack from Ricky who, just as an FYI, is an administrator. Also, as you have failed to inform him since this involves him, I will be notifying him now. Amaury (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Ricky had second thoughts mere minutes after you posted this. Maybe if you weren't constantly stalking him, this wouldn't have even been an issue. Also, I trust that HughD won't fail a GA nominated article simply because it's about a fringe theory. clpo13(talk) 23:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC) no that's Ricky claim. That personal attack needs to be retracted. HughD has shown to be complete fair and neutral here, it's everyone else who's been biased against him. He'll make sure that the article fairly doesn't include any nonsense from deniers Everyone is just mad that HughD is the only person willing to remove nonsense and keep the Talk:ExxonMobil RFC running smoothly. At least someone has the guts to get rid of Springee's BS.

User:Discawe

This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tile join again. Please can someone block this account and protect my user page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. If I'm not around or don't remember you may need to ask for the semi on your talk page restored whent the full protection expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Range block urgently required

IP on a spree with multiple vandalism to admin talk pages. Please make a range block for about 31 hours to cover these IPs:

• 81.154.132.183 (talk · contribs)
• 81.154.132.180 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.98.166 (talk · contribs)
• 86.131.23.182 (talk · contribs)
• 81.154.132.198 (talk · contribs)

and if a CU is available, block any accounts registered to them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The ranges are way too big to rangeblock and are all public internet in the UK and a CheckUser would likely be ineffective and just give heaps of unrelated accounts. Given the size of the ranges it's just going to be whack-a-mole with individual IPs, however I've blocked 81.154.132.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 6 months as it's been used (almost exclusively) for this type of disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it's not jut admins being hit. And the reference is possibly to User:TheGracefulSlick, who, AFAIK, is a solid editor who is causing no problems of any kind... so no clue why their little poem references that person. I'm presuming we have a sock here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We can now add 78.145.96.44 (talk · contribs) to that list. The initial target was to edit war on any article I had patrolled in one pre Christmas period. Given the editing style and focus I suspect it is a sock of a banned editor from disputes on either Irish or British Right Wing party articles. The edit on the Rhodes statue (which appears OK) makes the former more likely and probably indicates this is a student home for the holiday period using any computer he can get his/her hands on for petty vandalism ----Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.96.44 (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock is probably still a good idea. As (as far as I know!) I haven't edited in Snowded's areas I'm flummoxed as to why this fellow decided to poke his nose up in my badness, but that's a question I probably don't really want an answer to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The above set all geo-locate to the same area of Scotland, but the possible link to similar vandalism from a range based in Gloucestershire is too strong to ignore. I've assumed this attack range was a follow up. Two locations one home, one university I suspect and someone with a grudge over many articles. The British-Irish stuff often overlaps into Military History which is where you may have been swept up. Either way hopefully it will go away but if not as Callanecc says it will be whack-a-mole time ----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the history of the case, I believe we are dealing with a severely autistic user who is addicted to dynamic IP addresses. 2.100.9.156 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We've got another 2.100.9.156 (talk · contribs) if someone could whack the latest mole it would be appreciated ----Snowded ^TALK 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think I can provide some insight into the poem referring to me Montanabw (sorry for being a little bit of an editing stalker, but I like to check on users I associated with). A few months ago, an IP began harassing me and kept switching IPs to continue their actions. It was mostly inappropriate reworkings of my user name or actual name. In the end, an admin had blocked any IP from editing my talk page (at least I think that's how it works) and I still believe it is in effect. From what I see, this may be the same individual. Hope this helps a little.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Another one has just popped up. 2.100.12.156 (talk · contribs) Same geographical area and IP range as 2.100.12.156 This time a range block? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And 81.170.10.11 (talk · contribs) for good measure, socks coming out with dusk :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And 92.28.195.140 (talk · contribs) I'm going for dinner, will check in later ----Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

78.145.108.214 (talk · contribs) in another IP range. They just keep on coming ----Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

All blocked (for now)... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that should take us past the holiday period! ----Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

81.170.29.21 (talk · contribs) Just came on the scene, single edit so for but another in the 81.170.xx.xx series to go withe the others ----Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) added to the list - can't we just range block this? Back to rollback until someone can pick up and block the latest two ----Snowded ^TALK 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

May or may not be related but we now have (from their comments) three pretty obvious sock puppets of EnglishPassport (talk · contribs) who was indefed for off wiki legal threats. Edit warring over a few articles and leaving abusive talk page commentaries. All of them can be found in recent edits to Paul Golding where they tag teamed. They are CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs), TonyDunkersANTIFA (talk · contribs) and PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs). Does this really need a SPI report? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

JonathanJoshy (talk · contribs) just added themselves to the list - previously active on Hope not Hate which the various IPs all attacked, now supporting CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs). All recently created accounts ----Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive may be relevant. We've got at least one of these at Talk:Atlantis repeating statements from JesusWater and SolontheAthenian earlier this year, both Anglo Pyramidologist/Goblinface socks. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I just stumbled on some of this. Yes, we need to get all the SPAs into a SPI report. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. There is an SPI report for all the IPs and one of this set (JonathanJoshy) active here ----Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just blocked a couple that I found at the top of the article histories. Probably merits some further CU, if that previous SPI is anything to go by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) clearly a sock of blocked 81.170.10.11 (talk · contribs) along with 81.170.29.21 (talk · contribs) and some of the others above has now moved on to reverting articles edited by The Vintage Feminist (talk · contribs) ----Snowded ^TALK 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, 81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) is just reverting stuff that is in my name without any edit summaries. I cleaned up some refs with tag names defined multiple times with different content, that was even reverted by he/she. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

...81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) and now everything I put back has been reverted again. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

92.26.215.24 (talk · contribs) another one in the 92. range arrived overnight, usual habits of reverts ----Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Given the overall mess and also the fact that some are indeed, some temporary (and returned to vandalism) I thought I would put them all together in one place - hope this helps. Each group has a different focus but ether hit the same articles, or individual editors.

81.15 sequence located in UK, only one specific to a town no current activity

• 81.154.132.183 (talk · contribs) Blocked 28 Dec for 6 months by Callanecc
• 81.154.132.180 (talk · contribs) ditto
• 81.154.132.198 (talk · contribs) ditto
• 81.158.98.166 (talk · contribs) links on page to the next one
• 86.131.23.182 (talk · contribs) initially blocked 28th December for 24 hours by Anna Frodesiak, then 31 hours by Kudpung

Anglo Pyramidologist socks some linkage to above looks to be silenced yesterday

JonathanJoshy (talk · contribs) CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs) TonyDunkersANTIFA (talk · contribs) PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs)

The Severn Valley Set STILL ACTIVE

Geo-locate in the main to Gloucester set plus a few in Worcester and Upton-on-Severn

• 78.145.96.44 (talk · contribs) initially blocked 28th Dec for 3 hours by Graeme Bartlett then later that dayfor a week by Bbb23
• 78.145.108.214 (talk · contribs) blocked 28 Dec for 1 week by The Bushranger
• 81.170.10.11 (talk · contribs) blocked 28 Dec for 1 week by The Bushranger
• 81.170.29.21 (talk · contribs) blocked 31st December for 1 week by Materialscientist
• 81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) blocked 31st December for 1 week by Materialscientist
• 92.28.195.140 (talk · contribs) blocked 28 Dec for 1 week by The Bushranger
• 2.100.9.156 (talk · contribs) blocked 28th Dec for a week by Bbb23
• 2.100.12.156 (talk · contribs) blocked 28 Dec for 1 week by The Bushranger
• 2.98.169.215 (talk · contribs) activated 31 December blocked 12 hours by Ponyo 31st Dec
• 92.26.215.24 (talk · contribs) initial edits early 31 Dec

Now blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• 2.98.175.149 (talk · contribs) Blocked 48 hours 2nd Jan

New entrants no action yet

• 86.149.35.180 (talk · contribs) just emerged, different geolocate but edit warring on one of the target articles

Request for moderation of acrimonious RfC

G'day, the RfC at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan)? has become rather heated and there is some incivility creeping in, which is threatening to derail the RfC and scare off any other contributors. It would be greatly appreciated if an admin could look in on it and straighten contributors out if that is considered appropriate. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharlesNew

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 have just blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew, who was unblocked by User:Salvidrim! a few hours ago. LouisPhilippeCharles is a persistent sockpuppeter, who has been indefinitely blocked for years. Since returning, he's carried on the same behaviour as his sockpuppets, including edit warring. As such, I've reinstated the indefinite block, and am bringing the whole case here for review. Worm^TT(talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban - As I've explained on his talk page and mine, LPC came around last summer asking about the standard offer, and I gave him the standard info: no interaction with Wikipedia whatsoever, and no earlier than December. I never expected him to stick it out this long, but he actually did, which gave me some hope of rehabilitation -- I've always been a strong proponent of rehabilitation. We discussed at length about what lead to the block and how to avoid it, and he made a committment to avoid the kind of discussionless big changes he had been fighting for since 2009, and also a voluntary but enforcable pagemove ban and one-account restriction. However, as soon as he was unblocked, he made a beeline for the kind of shit he had been up to earlier, and then ranted my ear off with an expletive-filled diatribe against WTT for reblocking him. I'm sad that my efforts were wasted, but I don't regret trying, and would try again -- nothing is unrevertable, and AGF'ing some ROPE either works or only cements the sanctions against them more strongly and indefinitely. Failed attempts at rehabilitation are unhappy outcomes, but still better IMO than no attempt at all. This one failed, and I now endorse a full legit community ban, per WP:CBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  You know how there was a bunch of argy-bargy awhile back about WP:ROPE being kind of overly violent as a metaphor? some ROPE...only tightens the noose even more strongly is a good example ;) Of course, the violent part only comes up about editors who are difficult to defend otherwise, so it tends to go without comment... Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looking back on it, I can certainly understand that sentiment. I've reworded my statement to avoid literal references to death by hanging. Thanks for calling me out on this! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Salvidrim. When you've been demonstrating this much bad behavior for several years, the only way you should be unblocked is if you give a solid commitment to improve, and you still should expect to be sanctioned for recidivism. If you do get unblocked, and then you immediately betray that trust and demonstrate that your commitment to improve was a lie, we have no reason to trust you, no reason to expect that you'll again become a solid member of the community. This I would say anyway, but the fact that the unblocking admin supports the ban makes the case even stronger. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support community ban. I've had several run-ins with LPC and his countless socks, and his behavior after being unblocked confirms my belief that he is incapable of editing constructively. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban This is well past the "enough is enough" stage. Kudos to Salvidrim! for giving LPC some ROPE. Blackmane (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban as I did back in June 2012. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as explained below. Peter James (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support The editor's behavior coming off a block, the blocks on other Wikis, and the global lock all say the same thing - and I'm completely unconvinced by the arguments in opposition. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. LouisPhilippeCharles has sent many requests for unblock to the arbitration committee and is regularly quite abusive when he's turned down. At the moment, he shouldn't be unblocked, he's made it perfectly clear that he cannot work in a collaborative environment. And he's a serial sockmaster, always carrying on the same behaviour. I don't believe this user should be unblocked by a single administrator, if he can drop the attitude and stay away for a more significant period (I'm talking years), I'll consider it again. Worm^TT(talk) 14:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

See:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#LouisPhilippeCharles
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#LouisPhilippeCharles ban

See this edit "moved Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti to Louise Henriette de Bourbon" by user:Tbharding 19 May 2009. Tbharding being a previous user name of LouisPhilippeCharles. One of the first edits LouisPhilippeCharlesNew made was this edit @ 20:24, 29 December 2015 where he changed the name to match that of the move back in 2009. It is interesting that the first edits he made even before editing article space was two templates, which of course affects far more articles than edits to any one article. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

See also edit history of Louise Élisabeth de Bourbon -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Salvidrim! I am not sure of the procedure of a global unblock, however back in 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles was globallly blocked by User:M7 and AFAICT has not been unblocked (see here). I am not sure that en.wikipedia ought to be creating a new account for the user of a global blocked account as this new account (user:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew) would also be able to edit other language wikis. I thought that if one was blocked globally one had to apply via meta:Steward requests/Global. While LouisPhilippeCharles may have forgotten his/her password it is also a convenient way to bypass the global block, and given this editor's history ought we to assume good faith and take this users word over this convenient forgetfulness? -- PBS (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The "edit warring" primarily consists of addition and removal of a category, Category:Princesses of the Blood by marriage. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew added it to several articles, then two editors removed it, either claiming it was not an improvement (despite not nominating the category for deletion) or was unsourced (despite the information already existing and being retained in the lead section after the categorisation was reverted). The category was then deleted, apparently out of process, by PBS. Was there a category creation ban? If there was not, who was being disruptive here? Peter James (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a globally blocked user who ought to have applied to have the global block lifted before applying for the block on this wiki being lifted. That this editor started to edit under a sanctioned sock puppet might have been tolerated if LouisPhilippeCharles had come clean about the global block to the unblocking admin or if they had edited without problems before this was pointed out. Given that the parent account (LouisPhilippeCharles) is globally blocked any reverts I made to the now blocked child account LouisPhilippeCharlesNew come under WP:BLOCKEVASION so the delete of categories was not out of process. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The account is not globally blocked - only IP addresses can be globally blocked. If this had been fixed, the account here could have been unblocked locally (as LouisPhilippeCharles is not globally banned), but because of this bug, accounts are locked instead and a new account would have been necessary even if the password had been remembered. Peter James (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction made (added with a strike through). The account is globally locked and the lock was applied with the message "cross-wiki abuse: Already blocked on three major wikies, huge moving pages abuse", so it is no bug that the account LouisPhilippeCharles is locked. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The account should be globally blocked (with the possibility of local exemption), but as that has not been implemented (it has been requested at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T17294) it is locked instead, so a new account has to be used if the decision is made to unblock locally. Peter James (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"The account should be globally blocked ... so a new account has to be used if the decision is made to unblock locally". That is your opinion Peter James, it is not policy. Your suggestion opens up the possibility of LouisPhilippeCharles disrupting other language wikis with the argument that the new account had been sanctioned on the English Wiki. To your knowledge is there a policy that would have prohibited him/her from making such edits? If not, was not the correct step for LouisPhilippeCharles to make, to ask for a global un[b]lock first and then apply to have this account unblocked once the global [b]lock was lifted? --PBS (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Salvidrim! did LouisPhilippeCharles mention to you that the account was globally [b]locked? -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I knew it was. Local projects can always choose to have users unblocked regardless of their global status. If LPC still had access to his first account (or ability to recover it), I would've had to get the global lock modified. In this case it wasn't necessary since the creation of a new account was required. Local projects' policies self-regulate -- if a user is globally locked but a specific project wants to continue allowing the editor to edit, its well within their remit. If LPC(new) went to edit other projects where he was blocked without first appealing successfully, it would've constitued block evasion regardless of his enwiki status, because projects are generally independent. We've had vanned enwiki users remaining active on Commons, SimpleEnWiki, and/or vice-versa, etc. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that a user can work on another foundation wiki when blocked or banned on another (I know of one works on Wikisource -- without problems), how many users who have a global lock are welcome to edit on en.Wikiepdia? I would have thought that the first thing to do would have been to request that the account was globally unlocked, before any access was given to this wiki. This has little to whether or not the editor had forgotten the password for the account, as that is not relevant when asking for an unlock. You say that you know that LPC could not access the account because (s)he told you so. Did LPC also inform you that the account was globally locked, or is that a detail (s)he forgot to mention? -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

He didn't need to inform me of anything because I actually investigate while responding to unblock requests. I'm not even sure if LPC himself is aware of a "global lock", although he knows he's blocked on multiple projects. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharlesNew has commented on the block and his conduct on his talk page, particularly here. Huon (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Which amounts to "I am not a bad person" and "People are out to get me." BMK (talk) 23:52, 3 January 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.

Needs a block

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.

---

Take a look at | this I.P's contributions, it's the same template each page, with a false signature attached to it as well. A block sounds like a good idea. KoshVorlon 15:22, 5 January 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.

Needs a block and a massive undo

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 went to WP:AIV. But this is dynamic and needs immediate attention. 52.88.156.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalizing large number of user talk pages. Needs QUICK WORK NOW7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:25, 5 January 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.

The Devil's Advocate banned

In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter.

Support: DGG, Courcelles, Guerillero, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kirill Lokshin

Recuse: GorillaWarfare, Gamaliel

For the Arbitration Committee,

Keilana (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Procedural cross-post. For the Arbitration Committee: Kharkiv07 (T) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned

WP:UTRS needs more admins

UTRS seems to have almost no active admins lately. I'm doing some of it but I'm at work right now and can't really dig into the more complicated appeals because I could be acalled away at any time.

Pretty much any admin in good standing can get a UTRS account and chip in. It's usually even simpler than reviewing on-wiki unblock requests because the process is semi-automated. If you already have a UTRS account now would be a great time to use it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As (probably) the most active tooladmin, I'll try to wander over there later tonight to approve any account requests admins make today. Generally, the community at large favors on-wiki appeals for transparency, so most of the time for non-simple appeals, referring to on-wiki is recommended (reactivating TPA as appropriate). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've cleared out most of the requests. Please let's add some more admins though! Nakon 07:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on Talk:Glyphosate

With Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms just closed, Glyphosate is one of the pages where discretionary sanctions and 1RR have been imposed. It's been getting rather heated there, and it would be good to have eyes on it from some uninvolved administrators. One additional aspect is that there are discussions on the talk page, including some RfCs, where there has been extensive commenting by some editors who have now been topic banned, so perhaps some curation of that is needed. No emergencies, no need for blocks, but just some need for some uninvolved folks to keep order. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That page has quieted down. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder which topic will be left without discretionary sanctions / 1RR at this pace. LjL (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Wanna start an office pool? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Nah let's calculate the Poisson de Trypto distribution of probability a topic will be DS'd. LjL (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC) @EEng: I think you've made me into a meme! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC) The possibilities are endless. Next you can be a poison poisson. EEng (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC) We will know the apocalypse is upon us when Wikipedia goes under DS. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Poisson de Trypto distribution - that is fabulous! Guy (Help!) 08:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Becoming more serious Seriously now, I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would take a look at Talk:Glyphosate#Editors flagged as topic banned: Why?. Please evaluate this edit that I made: [108]. If you think that this edit was a mistake, then please revert it (no need to ask me first). --Tryptofish (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC) This POINTy edit is worth considering too, IMO. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC) With thanks to EdChem, that behavior by Semitransgenic (whom I am about to formally notify) is continuing with this: [109], and in the context of DS, this is starting to rise to being something where administrator intervention may be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) posthumous execution?!--TMCk (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC) ?? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC) I decided to self-revert the edit that I asked about above, but I would still advise that uninvolved administrators should be looking in and evaluating whether editor conduct there is consistent with DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate has been nice and quiet for some time now, fortunately (and perhaps because editors knew of this posting here). Currently, the tensions have moved to Séralini affair and its talk page. Again, not anything urgent, but some uninvolved eyes would likely be beneficial. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious user suspected of being a sockpuppet not responding to questions

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.

---

Pereirawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a page in their sandbox User:Pereirawiki/sandbox that appears to have the full text of the deleted page Derwin Pereira. Oddly enough, they left the speedy deletion tags including WP:G5 on the page. This page has previously been created and edited by users confirmed or suspected as sockpuppets in this investigation. When I left the suspected sockpuppet warning on their talk page, they responded with this in 13 minutes:

I'm not even sure I know how to use this? This is my first account. I'm trying to figure out all the rules but I can't seem to even figure out how to respond to this message?

I left them 2 messages, one asking what the page they created in their sandbox was and the other that I had added them to the aforementioned sockpuppet investigation for Mamadoutadioukone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They have not responded. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock blocked by Vanjagenije. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 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 lifting of an image upload 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.

---

Original ban discussion, Nov. 4, 2014. The notice a few months ago about my violating the existing ban was explained as being a mistake, and was certainly not intentional.

I expect that all issues related to past image problems will not reoccur, and at the Commons, I now make every reasonable effort to find and upload only acceptable images. I have been complying with all of the prior issues for uploads: showing lack of notice, giving any publication details and dates, scanning both sides, doing copyright searches, etc. I realize that the ban is not supposed to be punitive, yet my direct request for exactly what other steps need to be done to upload acceptable images have met with near silence.

I don't upload porn, violent, or otherwise controversial images, but simply try to improve biographies of mostly deceased actors or other notables. Consideration to this request would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm convinced the previous issues won't reoccur since as recently as October, when you were briefly blocked for violating your upload ban as you mention, you were still not following proper procedure. It also concerns me that you didn't seem to understand the difference between being technically able to upload images and being allowed to upload images by the community, even if you simply didn't know that you can't be technically restricted from doing so I would have thought you would have - at the very least - sought clarification on the matter. Sam Walton (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Walton.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Light show and Blofeld. Asking for restoration of privileges so recently after you were sanctioned for it does not inspire competence. Also noting that you have been blocked at Commons before for the same issue I'd much rather prefer more time having elapsed between the October infraction of this year and the appeal of this ban. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

LS might not upload porn or violent images, he's just content to confine himself to copyvios. That might be acceptable to him. but he's way too liberally minded towards images for my liking to be trusted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not support the lifting of this ban because, like Dr. Blofeld and Samwalton9, I do not find myself convinced that the OP has actually reformed. BMK (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's particularly disturbing that Light show is falsely claiming that their October block was a mistake, since no such statement was made by the blocking/unblocking admin. Behavior like that, and the ongoing failure of Light show to even acknowledge that the copyright concerns that led o their topic ban were well-founded, tells us that the likely result of lifting the topic would juist be another round of NFCC violations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm assuming that Light show means that the uploads to enwiki in October were a mistake, not that the block was a mistake (that's still some ambiguous phrasing). Nonetheless, as someone only having come off a two-year indef at Commons, and then having made fewer than 150 edits/uploads to Commons since then, I think it's a little too soon. While Light show probably deserves credit for good behavior on enwiki since the November 2014 image upload ban (we're talking some 2400 edits in that time), the specific issue that led to the ban was copyright problems with image uploads. I would want to see evidence that there's no problem re: copyrights on Commons before I'd feel comfortable with this... and I'm kind of seeing the opposite over there. I see five Commons deletion requests listed at your user talk over there that resulted in deletion, all of which were for copyright reasons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-1950s.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-Caine-1982.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Falk - Gena Rowlands.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert De Niro - 1971.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert De Niro - 1976.jpg. With that in mind, I don't think I can support lifting this ban at this time. Maybe in six months with more positive indications. I don't personally need to see zero DRs/CSDs at Commons for copyright reasons in that time, but I think you'd maximize your chances by aiming for that number. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, perhaps someone in the know could answer this: How many images did Light show upload to enwiki in violation of the upload ban during the recent episode, and of those images, how many would otherwise have been deleted for NFCC violations? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:14, 5 January 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.

Range block needed

See the recent history of my talk page, and Floquenbeam's. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The page protection should work. The ranges are too disparate for blocking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP has engaged in the same vandalism on a number of other user talk pages, including mine and many others. Minor4th 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done a small rangeblock to cover most of the addresses used. Between that and liberal short-term protections, that should make it tiresome and un-fun . An edit filter would be a fine idea, and should be easy to implement. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The edits seemed to be automated, considering they were all made in a timespan of a few seconds. In other words, this probably needs to be brought to WMF asap. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suspect copy-and-paste with multiple tabs/windows open rather than actual automation. ansh666 03:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And another

Rangeblockers, please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bias_from_rape_supporters, for the 166 IP who keeps harassing Ricky81682. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2015 (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.

---

Ban time?

(The time may not be ripe, but it's probably as good as it is going to get) I've been having a look through active threads as well as archives of ANI and AN concerning the 166.x.x.x addresses. As far as I have been able to determine, there are 3 banned users who have been known to use these IPs, User:Ararat arev (a persistent Egyptian POV pusher), User:David Beals (the ceiling fan vandal) and User:Kochtruth (a Koch "truther"), as well as someone who frequented, and was subsequently topic banned from, the World's oldest people articles and associated AFDs. The latter has also developed a particular vendetta against Ricky81682, as Drmies notes, mainly because of his activity in raising AFD's on WOP articles. Given the persistent disruption from this IP range, I formally propose that the user(s) behind these IP edits be indefinitely site banned from Wikipedia. I feel that this is appropriate as 3 of the users known to use this range are site banned already and the IP only editor only posts to harass Ricky81682 or troll other threads. There is already a precedent for community banning an IP editor, see the "Best known for" IP editor. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Ban discussions are only prudent for situations where a user's ban may be contentious. For known trolls whose behavior has made it clear that they aren't here to contribute, and are only trolling use for the lulz, they effectively ban themselves, and we don't need "permission" to continue blocking them and cleaning up their messes. The language at WP:BAN has remained roughly unchanged for a decade: " In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." --Jayron32 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly true for edits that are obviously from Ararat arev, David Beals or Kochtruth. However, the 4th editor only edits via IP's that happens to be on the same range. As far as I know, there are no ties between this IP editor to any of the other three. Furthermore, the IP editor is only subject to a topic ban from World's oldest people articles. They took that topic ban badly and went over the deep end into trolling and harassment. As it stands now, the IP editor is no de facto banned. This is the point that is being addressed. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My observation has been that this winds up in a Catch 22. If somebody proposes a de jure ban, we get the "they're already de facto banned, don't waste our time" sort of arguments. But if it's assumed that they're de facto banned, and act accordingly, there are inevitably protests where "show us where we/they are banned" is raised. It may be a bit of bureaucracy but it crosses the t's and dots the i's to where even Ultra Magnus is satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support since we don't have an indefinitely blocked account to fall back on for G5 and reverting edits a siteban would make it easier to block (rather for block evasion while hoping that there is a currently blocked IP) and revert. That is, ban evasion rather than block evasion (while hoping that there actually is a currently blocked IP). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd been putting a more formal proposal together, but it's rather lengthy so I'll just link it here. There is a fairly long list of IP's that I've dug out of the archives plus some comments. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I take Jayron32's point, but the fact remains that there are editors here who will object to automatic deletion of the 166 troll's "contributions" because they are only de facto banned and not actually banned. It pretty much nappens regularly, leading to a discussion about how de facto banning really is banning, etc. That would be unnecessary if the community would simply formalize a ban. BMK (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Normally I would agree with Jayron32 and I'm sorry about the bureaucracy, but there are too many hatted sections at ANI for the 166 troll. It would be far better if the sections were removed with edit summary "WP:DENY". Leaving the trophy on ANI, or arguing with others about whether it is reasonable to remove a section, just encourages more and is irritating for those of us looking over the page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Not even a single ping here? Seriously? I think I deserve that. I'll support it since it's basically WP:RBI with this (or these) characters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons explained by BMK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And I think it's time for this to be closed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If this needs more consensus to be closed, then I'll add my support to it. The constant harassment, trolling, and block evasion more than warrant it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unarchived: The archive bot sent this to the archive; I've returned it to the main page as it was not closed. Can an uninvolved admin do so? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support In the rare case that an IP-using editor needs to be banned, we need to make it formal. The changing nature of IP addresses makes it impossible for the person to keep using the same address indefinitely, making it less likely that people familiar with the case (whether admins blocking addresses, or non-admins requesting blocks) will be aware of who's using what. As a result, it's a lot more likely that an admin would grant an unblock, not knowing that an IP was being used by a person who never would have been unblocked had he been using a series of accounts. With a formal ban, all blocks can be levied because the address is being used by someone who's been community banned, rather than merely because it's being used by someone who's a persistent troll. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Is the question to block the entire 166.x.x.x block of 214 million addresses? AlbinoFerret 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Good question, Ferret! Drmies (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • If I can add my own non-admin opinion here, I think that of course is highly impractical. However, I do like the idea that Johnuniq posed, where the comments by the IP are removed and the edit summary replace with WP:DENY. This is an odd case, since you can't nail down the user to a specific name or IP, but in essence, the user has been de facto banned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It's only a request to ban the individual. Also, blocking 166.x.x.x would have a significant amount of collateral, as well as the fact that it would require hundreds of /16 range blocks. Mike V • Talk 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As Mike V says, blocking isn't really an option with this many IP addresses. However, given the evidence that I've dug up so far has indicated that this range is largely used by 3 banned users in addition to the individual that I propose be banned, there should be no issue in just reverting / DENYing their posts as they appear. The proposal merely states in ink, as it were, that no editor would be sanctioned for mass reverting or edit warring with the banned user(s). That's not to say all posts from the 166.x.x.x range will be the banned users. Editors should use common sense when dealing with their posts. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, because looking at some of the addresses in that block[110] brings up that they are part of mycingular.net as in AT&T wireless. Thats a huge provider of internet access. AlbinoFerret 00:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, WP:CBANs apply to the individual, not the account or IP address. Indefinetly blocking an IP, even a single one, is done only in the most extreme of cases; I'm not sure an indef rangeblock has ever been done (and it certainly shouldn't). This, however, would make the "166* troll" a banned user, allowing for worry-free application of WP:RBI in the endless game of whac-a-mole whenever he pops up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That deserves Supoport even from a non admin like myself. We need to make it easier for admins to deal with disruptive IP hoppers when they pop up. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per BMK's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 5 January 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 page access

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.

---

Please consider removing talk page access from this blocked user per this edit after being blocked: [111].--John Cline (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment was a joke. Graeme Bartlett - can you have another look at at? Thanks - ghytred talk 12:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a sock of a prolific sockmaster who has been making obnoxious attacks against other editors and has been shouting and screaming when he couldn't get his own way - there's no need for talk page access for that account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 7 January 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.

Merge request closure from 2014 needed

Admin action needed. There were merge request templates placed on the pages Separable verb that it be merged into Tmesis in October 2014 with no discussion. It seems the merge request is incomplete with the Separable verb article a first class contender for an AFD discussion and maybe a speedy delete. I would say that merging might be a good idea except Tmeses is only a slightly less equal candidate. At any rate the issue is long past needed attention. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand: can't you just perform the merge yourself? It looks like you'd just need to do a properly formatted copy/paste of any relevant information, followed by redirecting it to the other article. Reading your message, I get the impression that this is some sort of emergency, but looking at the page, I don't see how it's significantly different from other pages in Category:Articles to be merged from October 2014; would you explain what the difference is? Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The CW Plus.png

I just uploaded a file in commons under the name of File:The CW plus.png. Borre.la request that is the image with the same name is in this wikipedia, as long as one is in the logo Commons, as here, have almost the same content. I request that the logo with the same name that have this wikipedia should be deleted, because logo that appears in Commons, and the logo that appears in en.wikipedia, are almost the same. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 04:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The logos are different, so you should not have done that upload with the same name. But if the one at en.Wikipedia is not the valid one we should not use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the local file to File:The CW Plus logo.png so it no longer shadows the Commons file. The local image is no longer the current logo, and so I have nominated it for F5 speedy deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do with articles that actively WP:HOAX, but do so incompletely?

Carnism is a neologism created in Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. The book is somewhat notable, and, as such, the name of the book is quoted, in full, in several sources, often summarising Joy's work, but the term is basically unknown outside of these explicit summaries. The article acts as a WP:HOAX by adding in large numbers of concepts where the sources do not mention carnism, outside of, perhaps, a reference to Joy's book in another part of the work or list of sources. These are then used to claim the concept has expanded beyond Joy's work. There are also at least one person who personally knows the author floating around, which helps muddy the waters

I have analysed the references at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination). As you can see, they're... appalling. 30 of the 59 sources provably don't mention carnism (outside, perhaps, Joy's book title), 10 are Melanie Joy herself, 5 are summaries of Joy's work, 12 are partially or completely inaccessible, one is in French, and one uses the term independent of Joy, but is completely unnotable. However, because the book is notable, it's always possible to find another place summarising the book, or which includes Joy's book in a reference list, and they can always Gish Gallop with a google search.

It's an appalling situation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

After two deletes and a no-consensus-tending-delete, the fans of the term still have not got the hint? This is a classic case of WP:NEO. I have !voted delete and redirect, which is what we should have done last time, but unless the editors are WP:SPAs there's bugger all we can do about it here, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: While I am certain that you really do believe that this is a hoax, I am concerned that your creation of a merge discussion, a biased advertizement for said discussion on WP:FTN, a deletion discussion that actually argues for the same merge, another biased advertizement for that on WP:FTN, and now this message, has the appearance of campaigning. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I really do wish you wouldn't keep making things up. I linked the discussion of deleting a fringe neologism on FTN, and asked about the problems raised here. I don't quite see where on earth you're getting a claim the deletion is a merge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is this an issue for admins? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are paying attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination), please also note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat. Bit I agree it is not an issue for this noticeboard. (yet) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to bring that up: there's a procedural paradox. Adam Cuerden created a discussion at Talk:Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows#Carnism merge, and people weighed in; then a different editor, seemingly unaware of the un-bannered [112] merge discussion, created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat after the latter page was accused of being a WP:POVFORK of Carnism, and !voters there are expressing opinions about the fate of the Carnism article; and then Adam Cuerden created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination), a nomination which has been accused of forum-shopping and canvassing [113]. How is a closer supposed to decide which discussion has "jurisdiction" here? FourViolas (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a mess alright, but in the end since there's only one subject the only real question is where does the final article go. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alas, it's not that simple. Joy's original book is uncontroversially notable; there are masses of sources in the draft which would be flagrant OR in the book's article or in Carnism; and several editors (including myself) believe that Carnism is notable independent of either Joy's book or Psychology of eating meat. Does anyone have experience closing discussions which have been unintentionally split among forums like this? Do we need to start over with one overarching RfC? FourViolas (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

There's a backlog of almost 5 days at WP:UAA, please could admin(s) take a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Thanks for leaving a note here. I took care of a handful of the oldest cases just now (while on a flying machine— so fancy!) . I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting multi-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)

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 page has become a major time/energy sink, having gone through four AfDs and several DRVs, not to mention various threads at other venues. It's a complicated one, and to give us the best shot at a quasi-lasting outcome, I wonder if we could get a panel of, say, 3 uninvolved admins to do the close. The seven days ends today, and although it wouldn't be unreasonable to relist given the length of the page produced in the first week, it doesn't seem like substantial new arguments are being raised and there haven't been any new !votes in the last 24h.

The precedent I'm drawing from in suggesting a panel of closers is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination), another highly contentious article that spanned many discussions. Of course not everybody was happy with the result, but it seems to have been "sticky", and I imagine that's in part due to the manner in which it was closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let me just add that ArbCom has indeed received a report about canvassing; consensus in our secret cabal is that a. it involves (ALLEGEDLY!) a relatively small number of votes, and b. this is nothing that the admins can't handle. Speaking of admins: good luck to the multi-headed panel called upon to close this. I propose a poll is taken to find out which admins are somehow involved in the topic, by which I mean, you know, the actual topic, not the article. Just to be fair. We gotta have representation from all fields of activity. Please do not post results of said poll anywhere. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that you're WP:INVOLVED per that poll, or are you volunteering to help close the thread? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just bumping this (it'll be the only time). We've passed the 8-day mark without a relist or anyone expressing an inclination to close. Normally not a big deal, but the whole thing seems rather toxic. Better to send this through WP:ANRFC? Or too soon? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I support going to ANRFC immediately. Fatigue is becoming an issue in that discussion. This needs to end. Townlake (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know I have not commit any canvassing what the "evidence" which exist it has been fabricated. I do not know those editors and have never interacted with them. It would be unfair to come to a conclusion without all parties involved. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  This in itself is blatant and disruptive canvassing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  This is also blatant canvassing by you, while the DRV was active. Dave Dial (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  Historically you attitude to canvassing depends on what side the canvassee supports. If you agree with the vote then its OK to IAR canvass for keep votes. I'm curious when your epiphany with regard to canvassing was. Such a Damascene conversion requires proper respect. Spartaz ^Humbug!

Did we get any other admins to volunteer? I'm willing to tackle this one, and would like to coordinate the closing statement. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm considering it, need to do a little more reading to see if I have the time though. Sam Walton (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Let me know. Remind me - if the coin lands heads, we Keep it, right? _{I'm kidding, guys.} UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll join, I think this is manageable. And yes, though from what I've seen, if it lands tails we take the discussion to DRV and vote to do a new AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, let me get my thoughts and notes together and we'll see where we are once we get a third. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can we quickly get a third masochist so that we can get this closed asap please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would volunteer but I am not an admin. However, would anyone be against the idea of salting subsequent nomination pages, as these are starting to become textbook cases of the "I don't like it" argument, and are not becoming worth it to keep having. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There's almost certainly a consensus in that discussion for salting and/or not having any more discussions about this page for a while. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing already? Discussion has only been open for 9 days, do we not normally give 3 weeks to a month? I know now the bias is obvious. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Policy for discussion length: A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Beyond seven days, it's fair game to close it whenever if closing administrators come to a conclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to participate in closing it. Just point me where. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I noted the discussion was being closed on the AfD page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the debate as Delete and Salt, have posted a joint statement explaining the close, and have deleted and salted the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks to Ultraexactzz, Samwalton9, and Nihonjoe for tackling this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• +1 -- Yes, thanks to all. Dave Dial (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone point the way to DRV? This close deserves a relisting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.205 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Go here ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 20:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is hidden pretty well at WP:DRV. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:54, 8 January 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.

My User Page

Lrwx has logged into the new username, so closing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, can't create my user page. Its on local or global blacklists. Could anybody help me. --Lrwx------ (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If we create it for you, you will not be able to edit it. You could make a draft page, and someone could move it for you. But... How about you chose a username with less than 6 consecutive symbols in it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The talk page will not work either, so definitely change your username . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lrwx------: The rename help page is Wikipedia:Changing username, it also links to the pages where you can ask for a rename.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a flaw in the system that a user could even create a username that the software will not allow a user or talk page for. . Would they even have been warned about this when creating the account? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

hmmm Didn't see it on the blacklist, but I can understand why it would be troublesome, it's a set of linux permissions usually associated to files, so theoretically User:Lrwx---- would mean User(is) Linked (with) read, write & execute permissions. Yeah, I'd say a name change is needed . KoshVorlon 16:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been renamed to Lrwx on commonswiki, cswiki, dewiki, enwiki, enwikibooks, enwikinews, enwikiquote, enwikisource, enwikiversity, enwikivoyage, enwiktionary, frwiki, incubatorwiki, loginwiki, mediawikiwiki, metawiki, nlwiki, plwiki, ruwiki, specieswiki, svwiki, trwiki, and wikidatawiki. You will need to logout of your account, then login again using "Lrwx" as your username and then whatever your existing password is. Hope that helps. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it may be good to point some developers at this issue so something can be added to prevent such usernames in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Devs probably can't do a lot. It appears to be a local blacklist - so as the account was not actually created here, it would have bypassed it. Nothing can be done, unfortunately. Mdann52 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's local, it should still be something looked at in order to prevent such issues in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Bruskom

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, Please see in my opinion the talk page's Bruskom. Urmia lake is located in West Azerbaijan in Iranian Azerbaijan region, Iran and this user write this lake for region of Kurdistan. also west Azerbaijan Province: the majority of west Azerbaiajn are Iranian Azerbaijanis & only large minority Kurds living in province. but User:Bruskom write all of the West Azerbaijan is Kurdistan's geographical my neutralization.please consider it--Samək^Talk 19:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy. Discuss on article talk page. If that fails, follow one of the content dispute resolution procedures, such as third opinion. Report conduct issues at arbitration enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 8 January 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.

WP:RfPP backlog

It's only about 15 hours backed up or so, but with NeilN off there are fewer eyes over at WP:RfPP and there's currently a bit of a backlog, so if any Admins want to wander over there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't really have any regular clerking admins, would be nice to have some so we don't have one admin shouldering the majority until another admin steps in. tutterMouse (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We definitely do have regular clerking admins, who are at the time NeilN, KrakatoaKatie, BethNaught, Ged UK and me. I might have missed someone else due to the time difference (I am mostly working in the European morning and evening), which would make it even more admins. But indeed in the last several days we tend to be backlogged for whatever reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually check in throughout the day but I caught a stomach bug last week that's knocked me for a loop. Doing a little better now. It seems its worst to me in the American very early morning and late afternoon/early evening. If somebody with football knowledge could have a look on a regular basis, it would help a lot. The football/footballer articles sometimes sit for a while because we American admins can be clueless about it (I know I am). Katie^talk 13:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As a European, I am fine with the football articles, and also 90% it is transfer rumors not yet confirmed by sources which are persistently added to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Help me, please!

Look, what a vandal Илья Драконов 2 is doing with my pages! Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

The account was blocked as being an impersonation account of your account it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you protect my talk page for a few weaks? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

I'd suggest going to WP:RFPP for that to request it there. I'm not an admin so I can't help in that regard :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles case modified

The committee has resolved Palestine-Israel articles 1RR by motion that:

• (1) The General 1RR restriction that is part of the Palestine-Israel articles case is rescinded including all modifications of the remedy.
• (2) In its place, the following remedy is enacted: Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion on 7:30 am, Today (UTC+0)

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel articles case modified

Request for uncontroversial RfC close

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 I ask that an uninvolved admin (or experienced editor) close the RfC currently underway at "Woman" article. All participants have agreed that any local consensus is not applicable as it will be overridden by the RfC pertaining to infobox image galleries underway at the MOS talk page, and everyone involved on the "Woman" article's RfC have now !voted at the higher level RfC. A comment guiding potential editors to the main RfC would be appreciated. I would close it myself, but would prefer that an uninvolved editor do so. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:  Done Sunrise (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Sunrise. Much appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 10 January 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.

Odd technical problem with a closed AfD

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 somebody smarter than me figure out what's made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg go all wonky? The "this AfD is closed" archive box is, for some reason, covering all of the AfDs below it in the log as well, and I can't for the life of me figure out why - the closure code at the top or the bottom doesn't change when I paste in the code from one that displays correctly... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed now, there is a random extra div tag in it that was never closed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 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.

Billy Beggs - Article name on global title blacklist

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 attempted to make an article for the VFL player Billy Beggs, and received this notice:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.

I've had a quick look, and the title is on the Global title blacklist. I haven't come across this before, so wasn't 100% sure on the process - I've drafted the article at User:Terlob/sandbox/Draft article. Terlob (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Terlob:  Done GiantSnowman 12:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: That was quick! Thanks Terlob (talk) 12:35, 10 January 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.

Genetically modified organisms case modified

DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case modified

Review of Revision Deletion

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.

---

At the request of Prodego, I'd like to seek some additional viewpoints from other administrators about a recent revision deletion. (The action can be found here.) I don't believe that the revision meets the criteria of purely disruptive material. (Allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, malicious websites, etc.) Personally, I don't think one ping is enough to be considered harassment that requires revision deletion and a simple revert and block would have been appropriate. I propose to reverse the action and would appreciate some input before doing so. Mike V • Talk 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hihacking the top here to give my reply. As I mentioned on my reply on my user talk page (linked by Mike above), in this case I felt a revision deletion was appropriate. This appears to be purely disruptive content (WP:RD3) - specifically an attempt by a user banned for harassing other editors to harass another editor. Harassment is specifically called out as an example where RD3 applies. I came to the conclusion that these edits were harassment and a threat to continue to harass based on the content of the edits, and the use of {{ping}}. I did not rev delete the other edits by this account, which didn't appear to be harassing. I understand the concern though, as I'm usually pretty stingy with revision deletions myself. I'm happy to have some third party review. Prodego ^talk 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I would have gone out of my way to delete these edits, I think it's fair to say they fall under the description of edits which are "of little or no relevance or merit to the project" and I can see the merit in deleting the edits of a banned user trying to get attention. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the edits have little relevance or merit to the project but that condition is dependent whether or not they're considered to be purely disruptive material. While I don't encourage banned users to get any additional attention, I don't believe that revision deleting the edits is supported by policy. I find it hard to equate highly disruptive edits (linking to malware, threatening others with harm, shock pages, etc.) with the edits linked above. Mike V • Talk 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at it, I wouldn't say RevDel was violating policy, but the correct way to deal with this would have been to entirely delete the page per G5. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The criterion for RevDel are sufficiently vague that almost any disruptive edit can be shoehorned into them, so as a matter of policy I can't say these don't qualify for it, espescially when coming from a banned user. That being said, I doubt I would have bothered doing it in this case. Blanking the content and revoking talk page access is sufficient. At the end of the day (or the end of the year) it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've probably done more of these deletions than anyone, and yes, any contribution by a banned editor falls under revision deletion if it can be performed without deleting any contributions by another editor. Since they could be speedily deleted under G5, the contribution can be excised under RD5. It would serve the project well if someone edited the policy to make it clear that RD3 (being "purely disruptive") isn't some kind of gating factor or overriding criterion. It's not: it's just one condition among six.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think I would have gone out of my way to revdel those edits, but they were disruptive and I certainly don't support restoring them. Hut 8.5 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is probably symptomatic of a larger issue. There is a massive disparity between what many admins think is "disruptive" enough to require a revdel. And as Beeblebrox notes, the policy is so vague that almost any vaguely vandalistic edit can be interpreted to meet the threshold. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• In my view, these edits are "purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project", and therefore meet the revision deletion criteria. No opinion as to whether revision deletion was the best way to address this, though.  Sandstein  20:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close enough to a WP:DENY type deletion. I probably would have just deleted the entire page; and as these are the only edits really no effective difference. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the standards of what should be rev-deleted varies quite a bit. I've looked at deletions that were called insulting and grossly offensive and just found harshly worded disagreements, definitely not obscene personal attacks. I wouldn't have rev-deleted those comments but they could have been seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 9 January 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.

Review of EEng's indefinite block

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 a review of EEng's indefinite block by Nakon is needed. I know EEng and although I acknowledge that his sense of humour is not everyone's cup of tea, I also know that it cannot possibly be the reason for an indefinite block. The block was placed without prior warning with a rationale of NOTHERE with talkpage/email access removed initially, then restored after a complaint by another editor. Also EEng's user and talk pages were blanked. These actions are rather strong and unwarranted in this case, as they concern an editor in good standing. Various editors have talked to Nakon, including myself, but s/he currently appears to have stopped editing. Consequently, I am requesting a review of the block. In an attempt to minimise drama I am requesting the review here rather than ANI. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake. But let's give Nakon at least a few minutes to reverse himself, and give Drmies a few minutes to chime in here... "Cowboy unblocks" of other Admins' blocks is one of the more vexing issues we've had to deal with lately, and let's not add this one to the pile... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that caution is needed for any action, I don't think reversing this faulty block asap qualifies as a cowboy unblock. Also Nakon appears to be offline currently. Dr. K. 06:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally we give a reasonable amount of time for the blocking administrator to explain their position. EEng seems to be offline right now too. HighInBC 06:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I had not realized that the blocking admin has already explained their position on their talk page. HighInBC 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies seems offline right now as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree. But this block is extraordinarily bad. In any case, I don't wish to rush anyone. This is just my opinion. Dr. K. 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No – the blocking Admin should be the one to undo their mistakes. This is exactly the problem we have right now – Admins stepping all over each other, which is just leading to bad feelings. If EEng is owed an apology, I fully expect one will be forthcoming shortly. Let the process play out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ideally, I agree that the blocking admin should undo their mistake. But this should be done in a reasonable amount of time. If that time is exceeded, someone else has to step in and reverse the block. Dr. K. 06:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A "reasonable amount of time" is measured in hours (on Wikipedia), not minutes or seconds. Currently, it looks like the 3 main parties to this are offline. The place isn't on fire, so there's no need to rush. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I say I wanted this resolved in minutes or seconds? Or that I wanted to rush this? In fact, just above I explicitly mentioned that I don't wish to rush anyone. Dr. K. 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there must be more involved. A bit of snarky behaviour deserves a trouting at best. HighInBC 06:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the background to this block? Is it purely from this discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Meh We can wait. It's pretty clear Nakon's block of EEng was in error (as well as the initial revocation of talk page and e-mail access, and blanking EEng's user and user talk pages, and probably the rollback of EEng's edits] on Wikipedia:Deletion process), but doing it right now makes no difference to EEng: He's probably asleep or otherwise occupied. While I initially saw this block as being so obviously bad that it was probably in error (I initially suspected Nakon had accidentally blocked EEng instead of PokestarFan ‎while handling the thread above), Nakon has argued that the block was appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • EEng is online now, and has announced his wishes with respect to this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In case it's unclear, I support unblock, though I do favor having Nakon do it. This has all the hallmarks of a block by mistake, and I hope Nakon owns up to it as such. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Okay when I made my earlier comment I had not seem that Nakon had defended this block on their talk page. Given the blocking admin has already been approached about this and and defended the block I think that the only option that remains is to come to a consensus to reverse the block here. I support unblocking or reducing to finite block based on the block being very excessive. HighInBC 06:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Extraordinarily bad block. Dr. K. 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely support an unblock. This was clearly a misunderstanding. But Nakon needs to be the one to unblock (provided he shows up in the next 12–24 hours). That's all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Have you seen this thread: User_talk:Nakon#Indef_of_EEng.3F? It seems it was intentional and Nakon is standing by it. HighInBC 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still assuming a misunderstanding here. At the least, Nakon should have the opportunity to explain/defend his actions. I've dealt with Nakon enough to believe that this has just got to be an mistake... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• An error in judgement for sure, but I think their responses "I feel that the indefinite block is necessary" and "I blocked the account for abusive comments, especially this one: [114]" pretty much rule out misunderstanding to me. Seems more like a difference of opinion on what justifies an indef block. HighInBC 07:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking an editor of EEng's stature on WP:NOTHERE grounds strikes me as showing confusion as to the circumstances. The other context here is that I asked Nakon to revdel a BLP violation just minutes before the EEng thing, and the BLP violator clearly was a NOTHERE case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The very first thing I thought was that they meant to block another user, I don't see how that can be the case now after the conversation on their talk page. HighInBC 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I pretty much agree with this. While it's a done deal that Nakon intentionally blocked somebody, the circumstances are so strange that I'd be willing to believe Nakon made a mistake in the investigation phase leading up to issuing the block. That said, from where I'm sitting it looks like negligence or recklessness. (I'm editing way too damn many tort law case articles today) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I concede the possibility. HighInBC 07:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with EEng, but Nakon's block would be the 6th block for this editor in 16 months. An indefinite block does seem excessive, but I don't think a wholesale unblock is necessarily appropriate either considering this editors habitual personal attacks. WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is one of the bigger injustices on Wikipedia. Had EEng not have been an "established editor" this conversation would not be happening. I'm in agreement WP:NOTHERE was perhaps not the correct grounds for the block though. Mkdw^talk 07:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• A finite block would be reasonable. HighInBC 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps we wouldn't be here if EEng weren't an established editor, but we're here, and there's clearly some kind of problem. Perhaps it's just negligence or a simple mistake as I have hoped elsewhere in this thread, in which case a reminder to Nakon to be more careful would be in order, which Nakon would hopefully take on board, and there'd be a reduced risk of Nakon enacting a disproportionate block against another editor (perhaps a less well-known editor) in the future. In short, even if EEng should've been blocked, this incident will improve Nakon's use of the admin tools in situations that other editors are not so likely to see. And honestly, an indef with revocation of e-mail and talk page access for a non-established editor—even one with six blocks in the last two years—for the same comment would also have been excessive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• And that doesn't include the blanking of his user and talk pages and the placement of a block notice on his userpage. These actions are excessive even in the case of a new editor. Dr. K. 08:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that he also blocked my use of email-this-user, effectively forcing any unblock request by me to go through the very UTRS system for which he is a gatekeepers. EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, per Dr.K, words fail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Piss poor block. Ironically, the point EEng was trying to make (talk one on one before going to ANI) was completely lost here. The snark against Drmies was unhelpful but that's not a hanging offence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would also be helpful to here from Drmies on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Given Drmies' comment "obviously EEng has a lot of time on their hands" immediately before the block, it seems that EEng was simply responding in kind. When is Nakon going to indef block Drmies for personal attacks? (note to the humour impaired, this is sarcasm) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lest the casual reader misunderstand, Ritchie333, when you say "EEng was responding in kind", you didn't mean that Drmies was actually making a personal attack, provoking me to attack in return; nor did you even mean that Drmies had been uncivil or unpleasant in some way, provoking me to be unpleasant in return. What you meant was that Drmies gave me what was obviously a bit of goodnatured ribbing, and I gave a bit of goodnatured ribbing in return (see [115]). Right? EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it was just a bit of banter as far as I'm concerned, totally unwarranting a block. Right, back to article work methinks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unblock, immediately if not sooner. This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers. Frankly I was shocked, especially at seeing this referred to as "abusive" and called out by Nakon as one of the primary reasons for the block. I'll note, also, this comment and then this one's of Nakon's - the second heralding the block without giving EEng the chance to so much as reply. Yes, he's snarky. Yes, I've shook my head at some of his peanut-gallery comments at ANI. But he is, IMHO, by no means abusive, and the worst part about this for everyone else is that Nikon has caused a chilling effect on everyone else at ANI who suddenly has to ask themselves if trying to inject a little levity in the grim darkness of the Adiministrators' Noticeboard/Incidents board will wind up with them being summarily blocked with their pages wiped and talk page and email access revoked without so much as a by-your-leave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll add that I only just now saw that the original block was just a standard block and then five minutes later with no input from EEng it was escalated by Nikon to a "everything revoked" block, something that raises extremely serious questions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• As this has been up for a few hours, consensus is trending towards an immediate unblock, and my own review confirmed that the block was not justified, I have removed it. I encourage some further discussion as a matter of feedback for all parties, Nakon, EEng and myself. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• As a generic comment, I don't think that it's good form for admins who block established editors to use the generic "You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges" template as was used here. This is OK when blocking clearly disruptive accounts, but not when the editor isn't just here to cause problems and/or when other admins might need to review the block. At the risk of piling on, the block rationale and duration were clearly errors. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unblock, and question why Nakon is still an admin This is wholly unacceptable behavior from an administrator. This is malicious, and throwing down an indef like this and then running away is not the way administrators should behave. Unless Nakon completely owns up to their mistake and promises never to do anything like this again, they should have such powers removed from their person. --Tarage (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The account is now unblocked Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the question not needs to turn to if Nakon should remain an administrator. This is the biggest boomerang I have ever seen. --Tarage (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go with it being a little premature to ask Nakon to hand in the keys on the back of one incident. Unless there's a clear indication it's not isolated, or there's an emergency, I think it's best to let Nakon explain this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of all the places where we are sorely in need of a mop, this was the last place. righteous unblock for sure. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv is right - let's let the peanut gallery die down on this one and hopefully when this has blown over in a day or two, we'll get a sensible and rational response out of Nakon. I will say that if EEng is tempted to put a picture of a orang utan anywhere and compare it to admin, it might be best to let temptation pass for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.

Ritchie, I would never take such a swipe at admins in general, as you'll realize when you remind yourself of this text (and its accompanying image, seen here as well) on my user page:

And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3%—​whoa, boy, watch out!

EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Admins are also humans, they can do mistake, same way editors are also humans, they too can do mistakes. I think this matter should not be dragged further. That will be better. Sometime such things happens. Let it go. EEng is unblocked now. --Human3015^TALK  11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I mentioned above, after the initial block and with no action on the part of the blocked party the talk page access and email access were revoked. That is the single most serious concern I have here now - the (for want of a better phrasing) unprovoked escalation following the intial block - it escalates it above "a mistake in the heat in the moment" to the "what on Earth..." level. I agree that we do need to near Nakon's explanation here instead of breaking out the pitchforks and boiling oil, but we can't just say "oh, it was a mistake" in this case - a mistake doesn't come back five minutes later to do something like that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is blatant administrative recklessness followed by a blithe, vague-wave brushoff of WP:ADMINACCT [116] inconsistent with his own entry in the block log. I don't think it aggrandizes my momentary martyrdom to say that the outcome of this thread will tell us plebians once and for all whether admins are subject to even the most minimal standards of accountability, or can do whatever the fuck they want with no meaningful consequences, ever. Imagine if I'd been a new user‍—‌score another one for editor retention! EEng (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nakon misinterpreted a friendly exchange as a personal attack. As a result of his misinterpretation, Nakon decided to act on it as an admin, which was a mistake. Because Nakon has difficulty interpreting contextual humor and differentiating it from an actual attack, he should ask his fellow admins for a second opinion in the future. Further, he should think twice about using his admin tools in a similar situation again. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was logged out throughout this entire incident, and I realize that it is now completely over with, but I want nonetheless to register my strong opinion that this block was a serious error, and I am sorry that EEng had to be subjected to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response

I'd like to start by apologizing to EEng and the greater community for my actions last night. I made a huge mistake in blocking the account without doing deeper research into the situation and I will strive to not make the same mistake in the future. I had been fighting a cold and was awake for way too long before coming to the project, which contributed to the severe lack of judgment and quick action. I understand that doesn't excuse my actions and I'm not sure why I kept editing on the site, but it was the wrong thing to do and I take full responsibility for the improper block. I'm deeply sorry for the disruption that I caused and will take the above comments to heart before making any further administrative actions. Thanks, Nakon 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nakon. My concerns are certainly laid to rest, assuming there's no repeat of the actions. Worm^TT(talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with WTT. Dr. K. 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

These things happen. I hope you feel better, Nakon. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And that's what was needed. Thanks for the explanation, and remember don't cold medicate and admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there is a lot of truth to what you've said. I avoid all cold medications (it helps that I only get a cold about once every ten years) because they can seriously impair your thinking. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"You've still a lot to do before the weekend... ", [117], [118]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ... sadly I too also sometimes feel "I was awake for way too long before coming to the project".

Next time I do something stupid, I'm going to remember this. Sounds better than blaming it on drink. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And you can use the Neelix method of saying it's all getting a bit too much for you to escape any sanctions. Oh wait, that only works if you're an admin... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Nakon, for your gracious apology. I've ordered the unmanned killer drones back to base. (Note: NOT AN ACTUAL DEATH THREAT. DO NOT BLOCK.) However, I must ask that you also add a retracting postscript to your comments at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hello. I get enough grief for things I actually do, without the record implying things I didn't do. EEng (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• May we, additionally, have a name for this cold remedy which causes an otherwise sane person to block, come back 5 minutes later to increase the block to remove all conceivable access, insist in discussion they were correct, delete user pages and post in tangential discussions, then "wake up" and say "oops - sorry, my bad...". My pharmacist had no clue when I asked about that, and it would be so much cheaper than whisky, I'm thinking. Begoon ^talk 12:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is surprising, given that cold remedies are meant to remove blockage, not promote it. Nonetheless I'm happy to accept Nakon's explanation‍—‌if it's all an act and he's really a jerk, I'm sure that will become apparent sooner or later. I'm more concerned about this guy, who dropped in on my user page to tell me that I really should have been blocked after all. EEng (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You were subjected to an excessive block. Please don't confuse that with you doing nothing wrong. HighInBC 02:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that might seem to be a concern. Yet apparently in this part of this case no medicinal/mood-altering substances were involved, unless we're guessing. Ah, well, though - you're unblocked, so none of that really matters any more, does it? Chin up. Begoon ^talk 13:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Letting Nakon walk off scot free without any ramifications for himself (there are potential ones ahead for EEng which I'll get to in a moment is both troubling and predictable. Predictable because if an administrator fails to back off, like KWW did in the recent episode with The Rambling Man, will the admin get themselves into trouble. As has been shown, an apology will get everyone to move on. We have no way of telling if the apology is sincere or not, but Nakon's initial reaction is troubling because when his first justification came under fire, he reached for a second justification. As we all know, that was less satisfactory. He fired from the hip, repeated it, issued an apology hours later after it was all but apparent nobody thought his actions justified.

The potential ramifications ahead for EEng are pretty simple. One day another administrator comes along and doesn't like something EEng did (whether justified or unjustified) and uses this block as basis for his judging Eeng in that instance. It happens and as in this case[119], the administrator's outcome was poorly justified and on top of that he basically told me to bug off when I pointed it out to him. He counted unblocks towards an editor's block total, plus counted a wrong block in that total of 8 or 9....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you have administrator HighinBC who is perfectly fine with Eeng being blocked when no one else supports it. You can't say there isn't another administrator out there with similar beliefs. What was done to EEng by Nakon was wrong but can be held against him in the future. That's why you can't let this all slip by the wayside. Not as long as all blocks, including one The Bushranger termed the worst he ever seen, can't be expunged from an editor's history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you about future blacklisting effects. A genuine keying/mouse click error would be treated exactly the same? That particular rooftop looks a particularly scary place. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing will actually come of what I'm about to say, but I want to say it anyway. The underlying software needs to be revised so that block logs can be annotated or revised after the fact. (Entering a new, brief, block just so there can be a new summary is such a crude workaround that it really does not suffice.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a proposal in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey to allow a "Technical user right to edit summaries" (after the fact), but it didn't make the Top 10, so I don't know if it will be pursued or not. But what you're proposing is almost the exact same thing, except for Admins and the Block Log – I think it might be worth keeping this idea in mind, and propose it in the (hopefully) coming 2016 Community Wishlist Survey. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If the community wants it, then it'll never happen, because the WMF is too busy deciding what we really want because they know better than we do what we want. (Yes, I am that jaded by this point...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a software problem; the capability exists to revdel block notices but arbcom never buys into using it. NE Ent 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(This is getting far afield, but...) It's not the same thing: revdel'ing it would actually hide the log entry (if I understand it correctly); what I'm suggesting is something like the "right to edit Edit Summaries" – it wouldn't allow an Admin to "remove" a bad block from the log, but it might allow them to, say, strikethrough a bad block (or an incorrect block rationale) which wouldn't remove it from the block log, but would alter it in such a way that it would be clear to everyone that it was a "bad block" or a block by mistake, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• One way to deter admins from making bad blocks is to block every admin that makes them for one second. This will help maintain a semblance of institutional memory and to allow regular editors and the community at large to judge the accuracy of their blocks. It's time to start guarding the guards. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Postmortem

This pretty well illustrates why:

1. "Not here" is a crappy reason for a block, and should be eliminated -- Nakon's thinking would have been much clearer had they said "personal attack" or some other actual offense (as opposed to the vague psycho analysis of "not here").
2. The so-called "humor" by EEng (or anyone else) doesn't really belong on ANI, et. al. Although editors dramas / foibles may seem not so serious to us veteran Wikipedia cesspit dwellers, they are typically serious to the editors involved. At best, the not funny "humor" is just wiki-noise, at worst, it's offensive. In the past we've ended up topic banning folks off ANI for repeatedly jamming up discussions with stupid remarks -- while EEng isn't quite that bad yet, it would be better if they (and everyone else) confine humor to user talk pages. NE Ent 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote administrator Sphilbrick who gave his opinion on whether telling an administrator "Take it to ANI or resign as an administrator" was a personal attack or not- Not even close. The same goes for what EEng said and Nakon's administrator status should be under review for this horrible block. @Nakon: is totally at fault for what happened. As for his having a cold, I had surgery for a a malignant melanoma on Dececmber 22 and because of its location, the wide excision by the surgeon couldn't be stitched up. The surgical site is open and would be in plain view if it wasn't covered by gauze bandages my wife has to change daily. I've been in discomfert/serious pain for 3 weeks and taken pain medications but I'm going about my life pretty much the same as before except for my inability to do my daily walks. People get colds all the time. It's routine. Blaming your horrible decisions on a cold[120] is a serious case of bullshit IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone using "not here" when it does not apply does not make it a bad reason, it just makes it a bad reason when it does not apply. As for injecting humour at ANI I am guilty of that myself, however I do try to stop when I notice people are getting annoyed at me. HighInBC 02:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to say here what I said at ANI – why don't you all look for Admins who have been long-term problem Admins, and then haul them before ArbCom. From what I've seen, Nakon is not in that category (not even close...), and until you can show a pattern of problems, this isn't going anywhere (nor should it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you get well soon William. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Tar-and-feathering Nakon for making a mistake and keel-hauling him for blaming it on cold medication. Drawing-and-quartering is suspended because he apologized, but the next time it happens, Nakon will be boiled in oil and made to watch re-runs of My Mother the Car. Also support nuking this site from space (it's the only way to be sure) for not allowing a human being to occasionally be human. (Oh, and NE Ent: "not here" is an excellent reason for blocking someone. The majority of us are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and shouldn't have to put up with freeloaders, trolls, lol-ly-gaggers, SPAs, wiki-lawyers, and other disruptive elements. "Not here", works quite nicely to that end, thank you very much, I'm sorry it doesn't fit into your personal philosophy of how Wikipedia should operate.)
  Now, what are the chances that someone can close this thread and shoo everyone to other, more productive tasks? BMK (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Writing articles is hard – I'm procrastinating!!... [[File:|20px|link=]] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was with you up until you suggested My Mother the Car. We need to respect people's right to basic human dignity, no matter how horrible their crimes... even to the point of issuing a block while ill. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nakon made a bad mistake but it's not reasonable to expect an admin to carefully inspect every piece of nonsense posted at ANI to see whether it is yet more trolling or brilliant humor. EEng has softened in recent months and is very productive in many areas, but he really needs to stop putting images on ANI. He won an edit war at ANI in August 2014 to insist on keeping three such images: 03:33 + 09:24 + 10:15. No more please. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing

I see someone has unclosed this. While Nakon did screw up badly, I want to emphasize again that I'm perfectly satisfied with his apology (subject, of course, to good behavior in the future) and I would be distressed too see any tar-and-feathering carried out on my account.

I would much rather see discussion directed at eliminating the "scarlet letter" effect of bad/questionable blocks, and tracking patterns of bad/questionable blocks by a given admin. For anyone who doubts that there really is such a scarlet-letter effect, see the bullshit I-can't-be-bothered-to-actually-find-out comment by an admin in this very thread [121]:

I'm not familiar with EEng, but Nakon's block would be the 6th block for this editor in 16 months. An indefinite block does seem excessive, but I don't think a wholesale unblock is necessarily appropriate either considering this editors habitual personal attacks.

"Habitual personal attacks"? WTF? Oh, right, you saw it in my block log, so it must be true -- just like now I've had a NOTHERE block, so I must be NOTHERE. EEng (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would much rather see discussion directed at eliminating the "scarlet letter" effect of bad/questionable blocks. Very noble, EEng, I'm not sure I'd be so gracious in your position. It does you credit. Take a look at this disgrace, for example, where an editor doing good work in a difficult area is left with a stained record, through no fault of their own, when the remedy was simple, and obvious. We should be thanking and encouraging work like this - not potentially hindering or discouraging it. Begoon ^talk 13:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I look better in the silver halo, or the gold? EEng (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd need to see a picture, but this is probably the wrong time and place for that, all things considered. Got to go, I'm feeling a bit sniffly. Begoon ^talk 14:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng, your accepting an apology is fine and good but as I raised above the apology doesn't sound sincere one bit and smells of bs. The bs having one purpose- To get the administrator out of a big mess. @Nakon: should have thought of something seriously stronger than a cold to blame his block on because if colds impair editors that seriously that they make what one administrator called the worst block he had ever seen, some sort of health criteria for editors needs to be in place. Imagine what somebody with a life threatening illness can wreak on this website.

The scarlet letter issue, or blacklisting, is a serious issue that needs discussion. As I have pointed out, bad blocks and unblocks, have been counted by an administrator in at least one case as the basis for how long an editor can be blocked for. More disturbing, that same administrator brushed off his being criticized for it.

Nakon's block of you was disgraceful on many levels. His excuse for it, horrendously weak at best. If an administrator can become that impaired, a serious discussion of whether or not he should be left with the tools is required. Furthermore, any fallout for the editor who was given the worst block, has to be prevented. The community needs to discuss that too. We already know two administrators are perfectly happy with what was done to you. That is deeply disturbing. I think you agree with me on that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE:

• I have no way of knowing for sure whether Nakon's apology is bullshit or not. Only his future behavior will tell, and thus the need to think of ways to track the quality of individual admins' blocks.
• As seen in Mkdw's ridiculous armchair condemnation linked above I will, without doubt, be judged by my block record in the future, unless something is done to make it possible for such records to be annotated or redacted.

Pillorying Nakon won't help with either of these goals, which is part of why I'd rather we not waste time on it. In the meantime I've decided to add a little table to my userpage outlining the circumstances of my blocks, for the convenience of any admin who wants to prejudge me for my next block.

EEng (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with trying to make an administrator use your correct past history as a guide in the future. I can point out where an administrator threatened to get a User blocked for harassment based on some past incident, when the very same administrator who was a part of the past incident said unequivocally that no harassment had taken place during that past incident by the User who he was threatening to get blocked.

Back to Nakon's defense. It is the Wikipedia equivalent of this whether the apology is sincere or not. If Nakon's defense is valid in his case, why shouldn't it be in the case of other users. The standard being used to let Nakon walk away from this should be valid for any experienced editor or none at all....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Time to move on. Why things are not perfect can be addressed another day, and not on the back of a settled dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 11 January 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.

RE: Heads Up

If this is even serious, the "warner" is collaborating in the trolling, and indulging feeds the trolling "friend". Socks come, socks go, they're dealt with and the trolls move on. In the mean time, WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Last week I warned you all of my friend's plan to launch an attack using an army of socks. I wasn't taken very seriously, so I don't expect you to listen now. I have received new Intel that the attack will take place this Friday at 1800 UTC. If you're interested I'll try and find out what pages will be targeted, and I'll report any socks I learn about. I'm hoping someone will actually listen to me this time. 78.40.158.50 (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC) CONFESSION!!! ;) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Yes please post what pages will be hit. This is as good a place to post as any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullying on Wikipedia

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

---

I am not forum shopping. I have come here because I have been advised to by another user. I want all administrators to be aware that Wikipedia's anti-bullying policy is not working. Wikipedia has a duty of care towards its users and Wikipedia is negligent if it does not uphold that duty. It is not enough to have an anti-bullying policy, that policy must also be enforced.

Wikipedia:WikiBullying states: "If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with".

Note the word "feel". I do not have to prove I have been bullied. I do feel that I have been bullied and that my concern was not taken seriously by administrators. I am not trying to re-open this particular case] [122] but I have since become aware of other cases of bullying on Wikipedia and this leads me to believe that bullying is widespread on Wikipedia and is being ignored by administrators.

I have therefore started a campaign against bullying on Wikipedia and I expect all administrators to support it. There is a discussion here [123] which may be relevant but the message I am posting here today is not a complaint about any particular editor, so I am not notifying every editor I have ever had a disagreement with. It is a general point about Wikipedia's failure to enforce its own bullying policy. I have also found that, when I notify an editor about a discussion, I am often accused of "canvassing". Biscuittin (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you're linking to an essay, not a policy or guideline. While certain essays like WP:BRD have fair degree of cachet, they're ultimately intended as an explaination of some other policy or guideline, as the page you linked to says. Secondly, nothing in the part you quoted says that if you feel you're being bullied we have to deal with it in a manner that satisfies you. It simply says you should report it and it will be dealt with. If you feel you are being bullied and report it, but no one else can see any evidence of bullying, it's entirely resonable that dealing with it would be to tell you that. Nil Einne (talk)

BTW, none of this means bullying is acceptable nor am I commenting on whether we have a problem with bullying. My main point is that if you think we have a policy against bullying which says "if you feel you are bullied and tell us, we have to take you seriously and resolve it to your satisfaction even if no one can see any evidence of bullying and you're unable to provide any", you're mistaken. Also bear in mind that although we allow minors to edit with certain limitations, the nature of wikipedia and its editing culture means we normally handle stuff at an adult level. Therefore we will handle bullying much more like a workplace or university will, than a secondary (let alone primary) school. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have therefore started a campaign against bullying on Wikipedia and I expect all administrators to support it. Is there a campaign page, where administrators may read details of this campaign, and indicate their support, or otherwise? Or is that a rhetorical "expect"? Serious question. Begoon ^talk 13:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you give some specific difs on where you feel bullying has specifically been an issue? Most of the links/discussions I've read through are more about you discussing bullying in general than the actual examples of it. Its hard to respond without knowing what type of thing you're referring to. I mean, for example, I've had editors that report things like bullying or conspiracies to me, when in reality, the problem wasn't so much that, as much as it was just that no one was agreeing with them in a discussion, or that they were using an unreliable source or something. People often confuse the actual issue. I'm not necessarily saying its you, just that I can't rule it out without more info. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure if you saw the ANI complaint linked above [124]. There were no diffs, but it complained about issues relating to Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change and the article. I see Biscuittin left comments in the threads #This page should be removed, #Edit war on dissent and #Neutrality tag. Their complaint was at 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC), so it would have to be any comments or actions before then that they felt was bullying. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was was skimming through that talk page, but its pretty lengthy, and most of it looked like on-topic, normal discussion at a glance. That's why I was hoping may Biscuittin would maybe link to some specific comments that were out of line? Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me translate: User:Biscuittin believes that Scientific opinion on climate change should be radically revised or deleted altogether. He didn't get what he wanted, which is of course the very definition of "bullying." See the edit history and talk page for details. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you're a bit of a bully, too, using facts to go and prove things like that. Won't anyone think of the downtrodden? Begoon ^talk 14:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tort awaiting further analysis

• Duty of care? Are you kidding? EEng (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I was about to jump in with some tort analysis, but you put it much more succinctly. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Succinct" is my middle name -- E. Succinct Eng. Actually, this is pretty serious: a few hours ago the OP posted to his/her userpage [125]:

I believe that Wikipedia owes a duty of care to its users and it is currently failing in that duty. If Wikipedia does not start taking bullying more seriously I will be reporting it to the Police. [126] To quote from the Police website: "There is not a specific law which makes cyberbullying illegal but it can be considered a criminal offence under several different acts including Protection from Harassment Act (1997), Malicious Communications Act (1988), Communications Act (2003) Obscene Publications Act (1959) and Computer Misuse Act (1990)".

EEng (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We're doomed. This day had to come, and now here it is. At least I have all that corned beef and powdered egg in the basement. They laughed at me for that, you know. Begoon ^talk 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've found that, in general, when accusations of "bullying" are bandied about, the accuser has little to no grasp on reality. I see nothing in this accusation that would make it an outlier.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As usual, whenever I criticise Wikipedia, the immediate response is for somebody to attack me. It seems that Wikipedia has an institutional culture of bullying which is condoned by administrators. My complaints are always interpreted as "he didn't get his own way so he is throwing a hissy fit" but this is not the case. I do not always expect to get my own way but I do expect to be treated fairly and Wikipedia's administrators are not doing this. My complaint is about bullying and nothing else. There is a widespread belief that the laws which apply to the real world do not apply on-line but I can assure you that they do. Administrators, as representatives of Wikipedia, would be wise to take note of this. I am not thinking of committing suicide but it is quite possible that somebody else might commit suicide after being bullied on Wikipedia and then finding that administrators did not take his/her complaint seriously. If this happened, there would be consequences. These could include a civil lawsuit for damages against Wikipedia and civil or criminal liability for people who should have prevented the bullying but did not. The fact that Wikipedia administrators are unpaid would not absolve them from liability if they were held to be the people who should have prevented the bullying. I have no doubt I shall be accused of making legal threats but I am not. I am merely outlining a possible scenario and asking you to think about it. Stop being so defensive, stop sneering at me and start taking bullying on Wikipedia seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Administrators are not policemen nor are we therapists. You are approaching what could be a legitimate complaint in a manner which ism not serving your purpose. You should take the advice you are receiving and reconsider your course. Tiderolls 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Isn't this report an actual legal threat? It's hard to see otherwise. The campaign on the user's page is inherently chilling; "Agree with me, or I will report you to the police." Referencing specific statutes under which an editor may be culpable under law. Scr★pIron^IV 15:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The threat appears to be retracted. Tiderolls 15:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Don't presume to tell me who to sneer at, Biscuittin.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh, its a load of wind from someone who isnt getting their POV into articles like they feel it should be. Ignore. Move on. No one is going to take any pseudo-threat from Biscuittin seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 11 January 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 close review of RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast?

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 closed "RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast?". It was closed as consensus to remove Flow. Afterwards one of the participants (Ottawahitech) disagreed and has stated the desire to request a review but had no idea how or time to do so.[127] Ottawahitech had asked questions about the close here Obviously not aware of the correct forum to ask for a review.
In order to settle this in a timely fashion I am asking for a review. As I understand the concerns, the RFC is questioned on the basis of outside responses and that the members of a Wikiproject should have more say in the outcome. Here are some facts:

1. The RFC had a small turn out.
2. As can be seen from the Wikiprojects member list as of the time of the closing only 2 members participated. The rest are not members according to the member page.
3. The 2 members responded with a neutral remove comment(Doug Weller) and a remove Flow comment(Cullen328).

Thank you for your input in advance. AlbinoFerret 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC's are specifically to get more input, usually from uninvolved editors. So the nonmember argument is out the window. It probably was not the best option if the project wanted local consensus to take precedent. Too late to complain now tho. Close is fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't that argument go out the window when the RFC was not started by project members but an outside uninvolved editor? Basically I see this complaint as an editor outside of WikiProject Breakfast, at least from what I see, came in and started an RFC to remove Flow. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait, that pile of steaming dead tauntaun is Flow?! Oi vey, Jimbo save us from the WMF's "improvements"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, although as Alsee states below, the project was much inactive until the rfc started. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point is that while an outsider may have started the RFC, if a majority of the members wanted to keep it, it would be something that a closer would have to take into consideration. But in this case, we only have two members responding, both saying remove flow. AlbinoFerret 18:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: I initiated the RFC). According to WP:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects To qualify as "inactive", a project page should have had no directly project-related activity for at least three months. There had been no project-related activity for fourteen months. Until I started the RFC there was no one there to object to the removal of Flow, and there was no one there to bring the defunct "trial" to an end. The only posts were a few random Flow-testing-posts (which didn't belong there according to the page header message) and WMF-Staff posting about a Flow bug. I don't think there can be any reasonable objection to an RFC requesting input on whether the Flow trial should continue, especially when it is possible that Flow itself may have contributed to the death of activity on the project.

Reasonable arguments were made for ending the Flow trial. I see no basis for striking those responses. The close accurately reflected the clear majority outcome. As such, I Endorse the close. Alsee (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse the RFC and the closure. Bringing a disputed close here for review, in the circumstances, seems like the right thing to do, too. Begoon ^talk 10:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• I was one of the non-project members that commented in the RfC. As Alsee points out, WikiProject Breakfast is stone dead. The possibility that Flow may be part of the reason for that can't be proven but should certainly not be discounted. Either way, AlbinoFerret did a good job in summing up the responses, and I endorse the closure.  — Scott • talk 13:03, 11 January 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.

UAA Backlog

Not sure if this has been a regular occurrence recently, but UAA has been filling up. Requests have been open since the beginning of the year, if anyone wants to tackle a few. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I cleared a few out. Now I don't want to sound like a broken record but I can see at least one case where the editor had created one article that was speedy deleted a week ago, there was no warning about the username policy, and there were no edits since. I warned and closed the report as "wait for more edits", then a few hours later, and another admin comes along, slaps a big orange template on their talk and indef blocks them. Sorry, I can't see the point of a block, and it appears to contradict the policy ie: "Remember that blocking a new user is not actually something we want to do, it is something we do when it is needed to protect Wikipedia from harm." - what's the actual consensus for these sorts of things? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OTOH, accounts in violations of username policy, especially for corpnames, cannot be allowed to edit with that username because of our attribution rules. If there is a not a quick reply-and-rename following the initial warning, then they must be blocked in case they come back to the account weeks, months or years later. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Racism_in_Italy

Hello, I filed a request for mediation yesterday for this topic https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Racism_in_Italy but did not get any notification. As this is my first such request, I am hoping an Admin can help guide me through the process to get a resolution. Much regards, Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence in your edit history that you filed such a request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. Miniapolis 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the link I provided in the original request above was not showing under my edit page. I did it a 3rd time and now it is showing https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_ItalyTrinacrialucente (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As the request for mediation was rejected by Transporterman, I would like to ask what the next step here is? After on editor challenged me to provide citations and evidence for a topic on the Talk page, I did so. Then another editor (who has been blocked 3 times for edit warring and who did not take part in any discussion on the Talk page) simply reverted the page. This is seriously anti-scholarly behavior and Wikipedia is being held hostage by a few POV-pushing individuals here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests backlog

Some help is needed from autoconfirmed editors to help with the backlog at Category:Requested edits and Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. There are currently 140 requested COI edits and 74 requested semi-protected edits. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at these now. Nakon 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Two edit filter RfCs

Please vote and join discussions at two RfCs regarding the edit filter, including the possibility of enabling its blocking ability. Sam Walton (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

History merge/split requested

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 admins. I did a silly thing and drafted a page in my sandbox while it had history attached, and then moved it. I think that my older sandbox edits should probably not be attached to it, but fortunately I think that adjusting the page histories should be pretty straightforward. Could some helpful admin please split the moved sandbox history including this revision and older and append it back to User:Ivanvector/sandbox? Or if I'm way overthinking this and don't need to worry about it, then that's fine too. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• All done, fixed up both histories, lemme know if that's how you wanted them. But also: yes, you're overthinking this and revision history for userspace pages you're the only contributor to don't matter whatsoever. But I also like having this kinda stuff well-organized, so I sympathize. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks good from here. Thanks! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 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.

Rams page "moves" in need of a histmerge

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.

---

Recently, CASportsFan has been copy/pasting content from the St. Louis Rams page (and related) into new Los Angeles Rams pages instead of simply moving the pages. Can an admin perform a histmerge so that the editing histories aren't lost? The only gripe I have with this is that supposedly, there's edit warring going on about when to update the page names, so I don't know if they should be reverted back to St. Louis or not. Zappa24Mati 02:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that you changed Los Angeles Rams back to a redirect, and no new content appears to have been retained, I am not seeing any benefit of performing a histmerge. Feel free to explain further if I am missing something.—Bagumba (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I was also referring to the other articles (like St. Louis Rams awards, St. Louis Rams Cheerleaders, etc.), but it looks like those have been reverted back as well. Zappa24Mati 03:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an Admin issue, but there should ultimately be two separate articles IMHO – for examples, the St. Louis Cardinals have a separate article, and the Baltimore Colts sort of do (at History of the Baltimore Colts). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've RD1'd the diff in question for the copying-within-Wikipedia copyright violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I opened up a discussion on Talk:St. Louis Rams#Requested move 13 January 2016, with my original intent to discuss how to re-organize the team's history articles, but right now there is also some debate about when to update the page names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Somebody just messed this up again – somebody did a cut-and-paste move and page history is all messed up. Needs Admin attention. Pinging The Bushranger and Zzyzx11. I might also suggest Move protecting that page until the Requested move discussion is resolved... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:25, 13 January 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.

Would an admin kindly look at this thread?

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

---

Obvious trolling going on, should be boxed up. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_the_WMF_is_not_working AlbinoFerret 19:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_is_not_working, and it looks like Liz is trying. Keegan (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion for now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 16 January 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.

Topic bans for Gamergate?

Yes, the Gamergate controversy mess again. It is well known that there are SPAs and more-or-less SPAs operating there, of which ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) is a prominent one. All sorts of elaborate rules have been created, some apparently by ArbCom, but the net effect seems to be to stifle valid debate about the entire concept of the article, let alone its appearance. The fall-out has, of course, been massive and extends well beyond en-Wikipedia itself. At least anecdotally, there have been site bans here for off-wiki harassment relating to it.

We've got to break this cycle before it subsumes a massive number of experienced contributors who could probably sort things out but, like me, tend to be discouraged by the sheer ferocity and tenacity of those who are far too closely attached to it. I propose that we start with ForbiddenRocky, who recently hatted a comment by me in the belief that it should be on some sort of subpage. Splitting things apart like this falls into the hands of those who want to control through wikilawyering. How many newbies would look at the subpage, or even realise it exists (I certainly didn't until recently). My comment discussed no editor in particular, specifically mentioned "both sides" and was a terse analysis of the problem that is at the heart of why the article is as it is. I subsequently added this.

Yes, topic banning ForbiddenRocky purely on the basis of this one thing is ludicrous but I am becoming very frustrated with the pattern on that article and I am sure that other people could find other examples (I've seen loads but am not in a great state to look for them right now). It needs to be opened up and I think the easiest way to do that is to offload those who spend far too much time there for, apparently, very little gain - bearing in mind that the article seems to be as unstable now as it has ever been and that the same arguments keep arising week in, week out involving mostly the same people.

I'm happy to voluntarily ban myself (I've said very little there anyway and don't think I've edited the article at all) if only we can find a way to break the deadlock. Even topic bans of, say, one month in duration would probably help if we could find some metric for application.

Not sure where to post this - I do realise that it is not an isolated incident, hence here rather than at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I had thought of something based on if an editor's contributions indicated > X% of total edits to this or related articles (which I think are mostly BLPs). However, the 30/500 rule in force might make that impractical - my brain is a bit fried at the moment and I can't work it out. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You did two reverts of ForbiddenRocky, which is not permitted. You should have asked for help before the second revert. However I agree that you talk should not have been hatted. 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Isn't it on the talk page? That plays straight into the hands of the wikilawyers. Regardless, my main point here is not that specific incident but rather how to find a way out of the morass. Perhaps it needs some sort of revision to past ArbCom remedies - I really don't know because it isn't the sort of thing I'm usually involved with. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor of video game articles, this is one of those topics Id rather not get involved with under any circumstance. However, I am neutral on the matter and could provide a fresh perspective on the whole situation. → Call me Razr Nation 10:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Dont do it. Also no doubt someone will claim you have a COI because you love gaming mice or other such nonsense ;) Gamergate is a conflict between a tiny subset of forum/reddit/chan gamers (and I mean *tiny* given the % of the population of the world who play electronic games), journalists and rent-an-activists. For the majority of the happily gaming population and the entirety of the games industry proper, it is a non-event. Best keep it that way. Let them argue amongst themselves and keep doing your thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend towards this sentiment but then I think, hey, if we keep brushing this under the carpet then the attrition will continue. It only takes a few experienced contributors to turn a mess round, provided they get a level playing field. Quite a few of the higher-profile caste articles were pretty much sorted out in this way and, yes, those too tended to be frequented by SPAs. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

786 edits to that talk page, which is over half their total number of edits. But they rank only #6 for most contributions on that talk page... Drmies (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Only in Death hits the nail on the head. According to recent surveys around 178 million Americans are regular gamers (multiple hours per week). Average age of men being 35, women being 43. 99.9% of these people couldn't care less about GG and the only reason they'd even heard of it, if they have at all, is because of the abuse and harassment GG has heaped on women because that's all they're notable for. The article right now is a battleground of a tiny subset of vocal gamers fighting over something that's barely notable in the community that it concerns. If the article stuck to the actual notable events surrounding GG, that are mostly years old now, it would be a fifth of its size. Capeo (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The claim that you discussed no editor would sound way more plausible if you hadn't responded to a comment of "I've put in an incredibly bold edit," by an editor you have repeatedly attacked as an SPA with, "The idea of SPAs making incredibly bold edits here doesn't surprise in the slightest, although of course they shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the article anyway." 107.72.99.29 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"They" is plural, ie: SPAs shouldn't be allowed within ..., etc. And this is the last time I respond to an anon in this thread. Anons in this topic area are in my opinion almost entirely people trying to avoid scrutiny. I see, by the way, that ForbiddenRocky has now activated the Wikibreak Enforcer. I suppose that is a start. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sitush - there's a bit of a pattern on that page of people turning up, claiming to be super-neutral and only concerned about article quality, then making the suggestion that we ignore usual source policies/block a bunch of users/include a bunch of stuff that goes against UNDUE/delete the article entirely. This pattern does not generally increase article quality and frequently leads to a suspicion that such users are not really all that neutral after all, I would avoid repeating it. Artw (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a pattern of people getting shouted down by entrenched contributors, quite a few of whom seem to contribute to little but that and related articles. That so many people have queried the quality and even the "sense" of it (ie: they read it and haven't got much clue what it is dealing with) suggests that new blood would be A Good Thing. Not mine, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

When editors show up to ask and question the neutrality and then get labeled as Gamergate supporters by entrenched editors simply because they are questioning the article's narrative, that is a problem. I note I have not looked at the page since September per my voluntary ban, but what Sitush is saying is what has been happening even before the ArbCom case and was the basis for it. Note that there needs to be a larger discussion on dealing with ongoing controversies and the methods of the media today and how they intersect with WP policies that GG is only one recent example of, as what I've seen happening across WP lately is the use of UNDUE and FRINGE as shotgun approaches to shut down any deviation from mainstream sources, encouraging the type of behavior Sitush describes. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't beiieve this is the right approach to this discussion. This was an extremely contentious arbcom case, bringing it here when the community was already unable to handle the situation seems unlikely to produce the desired result. A filing it WP:AE or WP:ARCA seems like a better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I did say that I wasn't sure where would be best. I don't think there is anything from the case that could be enforced, so I guess ARCA would be the better of those two options. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nononononono, AE, not ARCA. All the arbs are off this weekend to prep for the Alabama game. Please? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but I feel that the issue with the Gamergate article is that the current SPAs owning the space have an admitted ideological bent, and they see their positions as one of defending against an inevitable wave of trolls and harassers. Therefore every new face at the article is viewed with suspicion, and eventually treated as an enemy combatant which is just a continuance of the battleground behavior that landed the article at ArbCom in the first place. My suggestion from several months ago (supported somewhat by Gamaliel) was to just topic ban every editor who has ever contributed to the talk page or article space. Maintain the 30/500 ratio to keep out the trolls, and let the neutral, experienced editors take over. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Giant mug of NOPE We don't reward Trolls/Harassers/Sockpuppets efforts by topic banning those who are upholding the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. Don't like how the consensus stacks up, File an ArbEnforcement action and see if there is valid arguments for topic banning (though I doubt you'll find any support). Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between upholding and gaming. No-one will ever convince me that, for example, MarkBernstein should be allowed to continue editing there, bearing in mind the Twitter feeds, blogs etc to which he contributes his acerbic commentary in relation to the subject. Similarly for the SPAs (of all persuasions, not just specifically ForbiddenRocky). I am looking at filing something somewhere but still can't get my head round which is the most appropriate venue. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That the comment above has been condoned by administrators familiar with WP:NPA for hours is discreditable to the project At long last, have you all no shame? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure their shame is in the same place yours is. Why dont you go blog about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The aversion of some Wikipedians for those of us who write elsewhere is very strange, but also neither here nor there. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly where you see the personal attack in that? Do you object to your commentary being described as acerbic? Or is any discussion of whether your contributions to the article are a net positive, no matter how they are voiced, necessarily a personal attack? Or am I looking at the wrong comment? GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am almost certainly one of the accounts that would be topic banned under any of Sitush's proposals, so make of that what you will. I think it is generally agreed that this is simply the wrong venue for the relief sought. As such, I think it wise to simply close this discussion and move on. Then again, what I think of as wisdom is not always correct. Dumuzid (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

User names for administrator attention has a backlog going back at least a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting about it every week on AN is hardly necessary nor helpful, especially when the latest post is only a few threads up. Everything is a backlog by definition. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of revision of two Arbitration motions

This serves as a notification that two previously announced Arbitration Committee motions ([128][129]) have been revised.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Bravo – that is much clearer than the originals. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cram101

Not sure were best to bring this up. Basically this group appears to has created 10s of thousands of textbooks based on Wikipedia content.[130][131]

They do not state the books are from WP.[132][133]

They appear to be created by artificial intelligence.[134]

Even the sample on their website is from us.[135]

We had a couple of dozen references to them which I have removed.[136] Have pinged legal to see if they are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before [137], the official stance (in the form of a crafted template) that OTRS agents are directed to reply to tickets about reuse of Wikimedia content:

"Dear Stifle,

Thank you for bringing the reuse of Wikipedia content to our attention.

As you may be aware, we encourage other sites to reuse our content. Wikipedia contributors license their content using a license called the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), which allows reuse of text either in its original form or with modifications provided that certain conditions are met. There are hundreds of web sites that do this. A list of some of them is available here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:FORK

While we encourage all reusers to comply with the requirements of CC-BY-SA, including proper attribution for authors, we are aware of the fact that many web sites do not do so correctly. Thank you again for bringing this site to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Landry"

Just FYI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the difference here is that they're not just making $ selling WP content (which is fine), but grossly and blatantly ripping people off by misrepresenting what they're paying for. EEng (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy for them to use our content. These people also make textbooks based on Wikipedia content[138] but they at least attribute better (after I brought it to their attention).

The main thing is we cannot use derivatives of us to references ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We all know that we can't use circular references. And you shouldn't be happy for them to use our content -- not the way they do [139]. Commercial use is fine; repackaging WP's material in meaningless ways to rip people off isn't. I'm not saying we can do anything about it, just that it's not OK. EEng (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify I am okay with them using our content as long as they follow our license. It is unfortunate that Amazon and Google do not simply removal all these "books". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up and removing the uses. I've added them to the list of common book mirrors in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. Fences&Windows 01:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockmaster at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

All blocked, and then some. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Someone is creating multiple accounts and IP editing which is wasting the time of teahouse hosts. --Marvel Hero (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016 and take some preventive measures. --Marvel Hero (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is hereby disbanded. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Complaints can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.

Support: kelapstick, Doug Weller, Keilana, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, Salvio giuliano, Courcelles, Guerillero, Callanecc, Cas Liber

For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Committee by Kharkiv07 (T) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

AUSC community members who do not hold CU and OS tools in their own right are given them during their period on AUSC. As their terms have now expired, the checkuser permissions of:

• MBisanz (talk · contribs)
• Joe Decker (talk · contribs)

and the oversight permission of:

• Joe Decker (talk · contribs)

are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.

Support: Doug Weller, DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Gamaliel, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Committee by Kharkiv07 (T) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

Revdel requested

Can someone please Revdel this- I don't want company spam in the history of my talkpage, and it clearly meets criteria 3 for redaction- purely disrupted material. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable request to me, so consider it done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Could you also Revdel this as a grossly offensive edit summary? Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting login credentials for restricted online sources

I'd like to confirm if there is a consensus on posting credentials to access restricted online sources that are used as reliable sources. To me it somehow violates the spirit of WP:NOT, even if these same credentials might be somewhat readily available through other websites. It seems that Wikipedia would be aiding the circumvention of other websites' access restrictions.

I have warned a particular user about this in the past, but they have resumed this practice. Before taking action, I thought I'd get more feedback on this practice. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that posting something that goes against the terms and conditions of another website (with potential legal ramifications from a non-lawyers perspective) wouldn't want to be something we keep here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I found essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, which also mentions that content should only be shared if it is legal, which would make sense for username/passwords as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If we're talking legal policies, I'm not sure an essay would cut it; seems like a policy or guideline would serve better, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about any particular database, it's very likely that WP:TWL has or is trying to reach an agreement with that database to provide access to Wikipedians. Someone posting login details for that database would potentially compromise those negotiations. I'm not sure of a particular prohibition against posting login/password information, but someone willing to do that is probably willing to share their Wikipedia account details somewhere else. See WP:SECURITY. It also sounds a bit like a WP:COPYLINK situation, except it's not a copyright problem but a contract problem. Finally, I feel like it probably violates the Wikipedia TOS, specifically the section on "Committing infringement", which covers more than just copyright. In fact, I feel like that's something you can hang your hat on, but I'd suggest asking for someone at WMF to look at the specific situation and, if necessary, enforce the TOS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The case I was initially referring to was a domain specific website, and not one of the more general repositories that TWL provides us access to.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, unless I misunderstand the concern you're addressing, I feel like this is a TOS-type issue which probably should result in a office action or something similar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin must be blocked and desysopped immediately

(non-admin closure) WP:DENY: editors trolling Ricky from this range have been formally banned. BMK (talk) 01:54, 21 January 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. See the absolute epic disaster at [140]. There must be an immediate stop to this. Literally thousands of pages have been lost from users due to the single antics of this admin. A stop be done immediately so he can taken to Arbcom immediately. 166.170.44.197 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC) He conceded he shouldn't have done that, and said he'd go back and undo it. (You realize admin have access to things they've just deleted, and can restore it, right?) Not sure how this would warrant a desysop. Do you have an axe to grind with him or something? Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC) It's been a long day... can you explain exactly what the problem is? I also notified the user in question about this AN post EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC) I smell a troll... JMHamo (talk) 23:40, 20 January 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. And how was we to know if the admin actually fixed the problem? It's time for the Super Mario effect to go into effect right now. This is a complete emergency, people are being driven off the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.45.203 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Big update to Twinkle CSD module

I've just deployed a big update to the CSD module. You can now delete under multiple rationale, and the deletion summaries are generated by the corresponding speedy deletion template. This means they live in one place, and you don't need a Twinkle developer to update them. If a page is already been tagged for speedy deletion, the CSD module will presupply the edit summary created by the speedy template, just like it does now if you delete manually. You also can use the same parameters you can use when requesting speedy deletion. For instance, if you delete under G12 you can provide URLs which will appear in the deletion summary.

Other unrelated changes you'll notice are that talk pages now open in a tab by default, not a window. This change has been a long time coming, and I assume it will be welcomed by most. E.g. beforehand you needed to disable popup blockers!

Let me know if you have any issues. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This, and the section above, all sounds like good stuff to me. As a long-time Twinkle user, I thank you for all your hard work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to offer a promotional statement for those who haven't been using Twinkle to delete pages... Delete a page, it's talk page, and all of it's redirects, in as little as two clicks. If you have "When to go ahead and tag/delete the page" set to "As soon as I click an option" in your preferences, you can do all of this in one click. I don't really recommend that though, so as to avoid mistakes. Your choice! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff MA- have I also noticed a change in what happens in an edit-conflict- being able to save the changes without reloading the page? Or do I not know what I'm talking about??? Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm not sure, wouldn't have been part of this release — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well. Thank you for confirming I don't know what I'm talking about MusikAnimal. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I never really used Twinkle's CSD module as I thought t was a bit clunky. Just tried this out, seems much better, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved to ANI — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to community ban the "Best known for IP"

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 I personally have blocked the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP about 15 times now, including several lengthy rangeblocks for chronic block evasion, edit warring and incivility, and I'm not the only admin to do this, and I'm now a bit fed up of blocking the same person for the same policy violations over and over again. Unlike most long-term abusers, he's never actually been community banned, merely repeatedly blocked ad infinitum after evasion. While this might seem like an exercise in pointless red tape, it does give us a firm consensus to say "you are banned, goodbye" without any possibility of wasting anyone's time arguing about it. Our banning policy does permit it, though it's rare. Your thoughts, please.

• Support as proposer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support their long term abuse page seems eminently justified. Any editor who is a long term abuser should also be site banned, in my opinion. Also, being an IP editor should not be a "get out clause" for chronic sockpuppetry. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support This editor has taken up far too much admin time. Any suggestions for long-term solutions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As is well known, I make only high quality edits, which are often reverted for no reason at all by a clique of editors who simply hate people without usernames. Ritchie333 has led a long term campaign of attacks against me, creating a policy violating page to coordinate them. He has a) blocked large ranges of anonymous IPs for months or years at a time in contravention of blocking policy, b) declared himself "involved" and unable to block me only to then block me, as he says, many times, c) abused the revision delete policy to delete my edits, with the claim that the word "idiot" is "grossly offensive"; d) encouraged others to revert my edits for no reason - see "Beyond My Ken"'s 200+ reverts last night; e) encouraged others to break the 3RR and to violate core policy; f) used his adminstrative tools to prevent spelling and grammar corrections being made to severely deficient articles, including acting to keep the word "should't" in an article for more than a year; g) encouraged a racist editor to remove sourced statements describing the reaction to a referendum, on the grounds that he finds them personally offensive.

I am not and have never been banned. I am not and have never been a "long term abuser", as falsely claimed here. An absurd block placed for spurious reasons by a subsequently desysopped admin is being used as justification for the most obscene attacks yet on my character and edits. It should be obvious who is causing the problems here. If you think that admin time is being wasted, then tell the policy abusing admins to stop wasting their time. If you'd only stop reverting and blocking for no reason at all, there would be no problem here. 85.13.238.124 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, stopping your attacks on me is the only plausible long term solution. I will never stop what I do here, because what I do here is write an encyclopaedia. 85.13.238.124 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying "I bet you pissed yourself laughing at the latest series of 50 or so pointless reverts, didn't you?" and then violating WP:3RR to edit war over it [141], [142], [143] [144] is not "writing an encyclopedia". I don't think I've ever done this, but I'm now going to formally ask you to stay off my talk page and never comment there again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment if you're so unfairly treated, can you explain all of your sock-puppetry? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never used sockpuppets. Why are you lying about me? Who are you, anyway? To the best of my recollection we've had no previous interaction whatsoever. 85.13.238.124 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If have seen you keep the same IP for weeks, then switch within minutes of being blocked. You are not innocently changing IPs, you are deliberately doing it to circumvent policy. You sock puppetry is very real and intentional. You are not fooling anyone. HighInBC 17:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your LTA page makes it clear you have used IP hopping in a way that highly suggests it contravenes Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you disagree, to avoid doubt, you should edit from an account. If you were to do this I would support a fresh start. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Of course. Extremely disruptive editor. Actualy, the IP he's using now needs to be blocked for the same reasonm his other IPs were blocked yesterday. BMK (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You have made more than 10 reverts in the last 24 hours on more than 40 separate articles. You are engaging in extreme disruption. I only ever make high quality and highly necessary edits. You and your ilk don't like quality, do you? 85.13.233.118 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • As a LTA, you are de facto banned and your edits will be reverted on sight. BMK (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Ritchie333 is entirely correct -- it is an exercise in pointless red tape Oppose NE Ent 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that they appear "pointless" to you, but clearly other editors do not agree. We either have a blocking and banning policy, and we follow through with it, or we don't. Allowing long time abusers such as the "Best known for IP" to edit at will when they are under an active block, and are de facto banned as an LTA, is detrimental to the community, and an insult to those editors who actually try (obviously, not all of all always succeed) to edit according to the rules and policies of the space. If an LTA is given the freedom to evade their block/ban, why should anyone else feel obligated to follow any other policies? BMK (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Allowing this guy to continue is an admission that Wikipedia has no blocking policy. The fact that he improves articles by 0.1% on an occasional basis does not outweigh the interminable attitude, abuse and insults that he throws around and the incessant block evasion. He has even admitted on this page that he will "never stop". So can we effectively block someone or not? Contrary to his claims, his edits are moderately useful at best, very rarely "high quality" and he never writes anything anyway. He's 10% value, 90% tedious, disruptive childishness. He has sometimes been reverted for no reason, for sure, but if you revert him for a good reason, he will frequently tear into you with a tirade of disgusting abuse. Moreover, he has been allowed to do it for years and years. Unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban: I see nothing wrong with formalizing the ban. My understanding of the preference for leaving de facto bans as de facto is to avoid using noticeboard space in a formal ban discussion in a way that somewhat undermines the goals embodied in WP:DENY. Well, the die is cast: Ritchie333 made the thread. I'm not saying it was a mistake... it is certainly unusual to have someone on LTA who isn't banned, and maybe there's been trouble in dealing with this editor that isn't immediately obvious that would be aided by the mechanisms available for a formally banned user. In any event, as I said, I see nothing wrong with formalizing the ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban The guy's claim he only does quality edits isn't true. Its those occasions where his edits don't improve the encyclopedia that are the most problematic. He will return again and again, edit warring to impose his edits, whilst grossly abusing anyone who disagrees. He doesn't actually create content, never seen him create an article and the minor spelling corrections and grammar polishing he does do is not worth the problems he creates. WCM_email

15:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in several places, if any editor in good standing wants to restore any of this editor's contributions that I reverted (which are easily found by scrolling through my contribution list) and take personal responsibility for them, I have absolutely no problem with that. Several editors have already done exactly that, and I have not touched those restorations. BMK (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban LTA, edit warring, disruption, block evasion... A net negative to the project. Keri (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban Quality edits? Are you kidding me? That's a serious insult to those who are actually writing the encyclopedia. He's a negative to the project and a ban discussion is long overdue. Katie^talk 15:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban. All his edits at the moment are block evasion at this point, so even those that may be seen as constructive are problematic. Add the abuse makes the point perfectly clear for me. I'm not quite sure what difference a ban will make compared with the current situation (I don't think there are any tools not at our disposal that will become available if we get consensus), but it may be useful to make the position more unambiguously clear. Kahastok talk 16:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban Block evasion, abuse of editors, this guy needs to find another website. While the ban may not make much of a technical difference it will at least discredit his constant complaining that his blocks are unfair. HighInBC 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - while editing from different IPs, all by itself, isn't evidence of bad faith, doing so right after the old IP was blocked, repeatedly, is. If you add any other disruption bad enough to justify many of these blocks, then a ban is appropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Persistent block evasion. It's well-known that this editor's IP has a tendency to change immediately after being blocked. That's block evasion, plain and simple. Having a dynamic IP is no defense. Blocks are levied against the editor, so switching to a new IP does not absolve them of the block. This is, of course, in addition to the personal attacks they spew when they don't get their way. Useful edits or not, this editor is persona non grata because of their behavior. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban If reverted, he will edit-war his own version, even if the article has subsequently been checked against the sources and corrected. See [145] (not to mention the edit summary). Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban After reading the LTA report, it is less about the nature of the edits and more about the extreme incivility that this editor has shown others. They repeatedly edit war, spew personal attacks whenever challenged, and from looking at the evidence they purposefully change IPs to avoid blocks. The personal attacks are enough to warrant blocks and the repeated block evasion and sockpuppetry is enough to warrant a ban. I also don't appreciate being duped into thinking I am helping someone with a problem and it turns out that the person is a LTA case (ie. Jimbo's talk page last night). --Majora (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose ban. This is an overwhelmingly positive editor on whom a long-term abuse page was originally made to correlate reports on their edit-warring. However, much of the edit-warring arose out of their being reverted on spurious grounds (I recall the report on Wind waves as an early example, where at least part of the disputed edit was correct), and the existence of the long-term abuse page was taken to indicate they were a vandal. Kww implemented very long blocks on the same basis, set up a filter to identify their edits from edit summaries, and rolled back all their edits. Kww is no longer a sysop but this editor continues to be blocked as if they were a major threat to the encyclopedia; meanwhile, their edits are overwhelmingly good. Yes, this person gets angry and abusive, but I and Drmies worked with them and they greatly reduced the amount of abuse; for some time, it has required diligent searching to identify this editor, since they are not habitually abusive. Meanwhile they have themselves initiated several AN/I reports in an attempt to get out from under this cloud. This is a positive editor determined to help Wikipedia who is being treated like Willy on Wheels. No basis for a ban at all. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is not some poor soul caught up in a bad situation. This person is a nasty[146][147][148][149] IP hopping edit warrior[150]. That is plenty of basis. And a lot of their edits are only good in their opinion. They are certainly not overwhelming positive, in fact they are so negative that they can only exist here by constantly changing IPs. I wonder if you have looked at any of the masses of evidence provided? HighInBC 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• They're no shrinking violet, but just at random, this edit they reinstated was perfectly fine - it corrected a grammar error and removed a peacock word. I would love it if they would start creating articles. I have sometimes found their copyediting exasperatingly limited (they miss other glaring errors in the article). And I'm ill-equipped to evaluate scientific edits, although my impression is that they're usually right in their corrections to science articles, too (re: Wind waves, what I recall was that the article defined them in the lede as very large and then went on to say in the body that they also occurred in puddles; the IP was being reverted removing the statement from the lede that they were always very large; within my scientific competence, I believe the IP was right). I note your first set of diffs are all slanging Ritchie; well, Ritchie's a big boy and an admin now, and can presumably take a certain amount of that, and the basis of the IP's discontent is that he stated he would not block the IP - and now does just that. As if the IP were community banned. I do not see any basis for such a ban. This emperor has no clothes. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Some of their edits are good, so what? They edit war, and are nasty, and evade blocks immediately and often. I see you did not look at the masses of evidence provided, they are not just nasty to Ritchie, they are nasty to every person who disagrees with them. Half of the conflicts they get into are with people who don't know who they are. This person creates their own trouble. HighInBC 21:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• We want to minimize editors being nasty to each other, but the way to do that is not to endorse the blanket reversal of good edits on spurious grounds. This is a circular mess. The editor is not banned, and who wouldn't react badly to knee-jerk reverts of positive edits? Those who "don't know who they are" are mostly reverting just because the edit was by an unregistered user - there is rarely any other reason per se to revert their edits. And that's harmful to the encyclopedia. So is treating an overwhelmingly positive contributor like a vandal by banning them. The better solution is to give only commensurately short blocks for actual instances of bad behavior, so that they don't get constantly caught for "block evading" when they fix grammar errors, eliminate peacock words, and improve science articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Given that they "evade blocks immediately and often" -- converting a de facto ban into a we-all-voted-on-it ban doesn't actually make any difference to anything. NE Ent 21:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. What Yngvadottir said. Most of their edits are high-quality, and they are not always unwilling to discuss--as long as they are not reverted on sight without any justification. Automated and unexplained reverts, which were routinely done, were justified along the lines of WP:BMB, to the detriment of the encyclopedia and the editing atmosphere. But I've said all of this before, as has Yngvadottir, and our claims that the editor was frequently provoked into edit warring and insults by way of passive-aggressively reverting with boilerplate summaries have always fallen on deaf ears. I've frequently edited as an IP, depending on location and circumstance, and I recognize the feeling the IP must have felt frequently--except that they never got the "Oh it's you! Sorry for reverting" apology. But this is all water under the bridge, I see. I'm sure someone will add this to the LTA page and everyone will feel much better about themselves for Having Done The Right Thing. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This looks like the same restless energy formerly used to dismember Eric Corbett, now seeking the next sacrifice. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Provoked into edit warring? Really? Do you remember this exchange from 2013 User_talk:200.104.245.226. He was claiming he was provoked but he hadn't been. People give too much credence to the poor little IP picked on by named accounts meme, it was a fig leaf he hid behind. WCM_email 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Drmies and Yngvadottir, and mostly Ent, although obviously too late, and my apologies for that. I do feel strongly enough about this to post after the close, though. Begoon ^talk 16:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban since it looks like this is heading toward being reopened given the mess of post-close comments. Support per nom. I strongly object to the notion that any editor disruptive enough to earn themselves an LTA case can ever be considered a positive contributor, and I strongly object to the mess of holes being constantly punched in the blocking policy by administrators endorsing constructive actions by blocked users. I say again: if admins aren't going to strictly enforce blocks, then it will save all of us a whole bunch of time if we just stop pretending they exist at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this discussion was open only for less than half a day, rather untypically for ban discussions, and several substanial oppose votes from well-respected editors were added later, I have asked the closer to consider reopening the thread to allow these concerns a proper hearing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The opposers have prolonged this problem for quite some time, Fut.Perf.. They don't really have an argument beyond their personal distaste for the concept of reverting edits simply because they were block evasion. This particular editor is the subject of multiple blocks at this time: I think the longest currently running one expires sometime in 2018.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• WCM, that kind of commentary, that sort of sneering, my kids aren't allowed to do that. You're an adult. And why you don't get that such remarks are a personal attack on me, I'll never know, but thanks for your good faith, pal. Fut.Perf., I appreciate what you did, but it's not going to make much of a difference, given the overwhelming support for the ban. (Note I'm trying to phrase this as neutrally as I can.) Drmies (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well Drmies it wasn't intended as a personal attack, I forget sometimes that text is not always the best means to communicate and as it has upset you, I apologise for my poor use of words. Just for information, not an excuse, it was intended as light hearted remark on my part. However, I do have a serious point to make in reference to assuming good faith; no one set out to provoke the guy. In assuming that they did, you do a disservice to the editors who've been on the receiving end of his abuse for no good reason, other than a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia. WCM_email 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I think we're all a bit thin-skinned here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support this being re-opened for another 14-15 hours if only to put this to bed. Ban discussion are supposed to run for 24 hours, and the last thing we want is another thing for this IP to wikilawyer about. I have no concern that the outcome will be any different, the evidence is clear to anyone who will accept it. HighInBC 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else even want to say anything? If not then we should just extend the close tag over this text. HighInBC 04:06, 21 January 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.