Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff

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.

---

NOTE: Because of items brought up newly within the Meta Discussion, and discussion on with which group reviews the item, this is moved to the A/R/E board, intact. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 19 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.

Advice on AE procedures

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.

---

Another editor has just made some pretty serious accusations about me (in an AE thread that was originally about something else, which has since run its course). I am pretty taken aback and I would like advice on the relevant AE procedures. Am I allowed to ask for time to compose a response? Am I allowed to call witnesses? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:13, 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.

Draft:Cannabis dispensary page move

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 someone be willing to review the move of Draft:Cannabis dispensary from its main space article Marijuana dispensary back to its draft.

Article was approved via AFC and from the edit summaries[1] [2]it appears there is some disagreement on if it should have been moved or titled as such. The move back to draft was then followed up by an edit to redirect it to a page which has in turn prevented it being moved back again.

There has been a string of edits on the page by the original editor who was unaware of the process for reversing the changes and he has sought help on the irc channel. I'll ask them to confirm this here shortly. If someone is willing to review the move as I feel it was out of process to move the page and then edit the redirect to prevent it being moved back and for a discussion to follow.

If not I'll take it to a requested move.

Pinging @Anna Frodesiak: as original approver and @Viriditas: as the editor who moved it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not all that familiar with the AFC process, so some clarification would be helpful. Potguru added a link to the new mainspace article in an article I created. I went to look at it, only to find that it had been declined by two AFC reviewers but somehow made its way to mainspace. The current article is mostly original research and cherry picked poor sourcing. I agree that Wikipedia could use an article on cannabis dispensaries, but this is not ready for mainspace. I tried to point out problems on the draft talk page in two different threads only to have my comments deleted. I am very familiar with the history of cannabis dispensaries in the US, so I was surprised to find this poorly sourced and poorly written article in mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I too am unfamiliar with the AFC process hence asking the person who approved it to see if they can advise further. Just to note I am unsure of the exact process so comments on uncertainty on process are just that and not aimed at implying wrongdoing. Amortias (T)(C) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I have caused all this by moving it to the mainspace prematurely. It seemed fine. Such page moves from main to draft have been done before, but cannot find a policy on it. It is not on the list. I will post at AfC about that and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis to help get a review. The author must be very upset and the sooner he is un-upset the better. I have a long, long history with Viriditas, so I really should stay out judging right and wrong here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up:

• I just posted at Wikiproject Cannabis asking for a review.
• It seems that users can boldly move an article into draft space per "Articles are incubated as a result of...iv) a bold move from article space..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna, it is perfectly fine for friends to disagree. Btw, when editors refer to a "long history" with another user, that generally means they are enemies. I'm guessing you did not intend to imply that interpretation. In any case, I note that the problems observed by the two previous AFC reviewers who declined it, were not fixed when you moved it. In order to move things toward resolution, I have noted on Potguru's talk page that I have no objection to a well-sourced stub that shows room for improvement and development. [3] Since you have lots of experience, maybe you could try starting a new stub on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Viriditas I also was one of the people that helped Potguru on this draft. Why would Anna have to start a new stub? Why wouldn't they just be able to use the draft that was already made? It is not referenced properly but it is referenced and there is plenty of news coverage out there on marijuana cannabis dispensaries. So it is a notable topic. As to your original move, I find your edit summary a little inappropriate. If I had created the page I would take your comment as calling me a "racist and prohibitionist." So Potguru's idea that you were calling them that is not farfetched. You could have just cited COMMONNAME and been done with it. But that is a different issue. This entire thing has blown up to an unnecessary level and I fear that we may lose an editor that actually wants to improve the encyclopedia over it. --Majora (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the term "marijuana" is entirely separate from the problem with the article. As Anna has said below, she mistakenly moved a declined draft to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Enemies? Of course not. You were my mentor and we have been good friends for six years.

When I moved it, I saw no comments from other reviewers. Now, digging into the history, among the long string of Potguru edits, I see [4][5]. My apologies. Those pink boxes had been removed. I have been away from AfC for too long. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, potguru asked whether he should remove the pink boxes on the IRC channel. The manner in which the question was asked, and the answer he received (no fault on either side, IMHO) resulted in the misunderstanding that he should remove them. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I was participating in the IRC conversation between potguru (talk · contribs), Amortias (talk · contribs), Chrisw80 (talk · contribs) and I. First off, I'd personally like to know if we have a policy in place as to what to call marijuana/cannabis. If we don't have a policy, perhaps now we be a good time to make an RfC and get one set in stone. Secondly, potguru (talk · contribs) posted a response over on his user talk since he currently can't participate here. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nathan, nothing is set in stone, however our stable articles on the subject of cannabis were the result of long community discussions on the topic. Given that Wikipedia prefers to use terms that are accurate and precise, it would seem a step back to open a new discussion about using a xenophobic, Prohibitionist term to replace the more traditional historical term that is free from neutrality problems. The term "marijuana" is an early relic from the reefer madness days, when government agencies tried to scare people about immigrants using the drug. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just posted at his talk about those pink boxes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This whole situation seems to have gotten out of control rather quickly, and I think we are all a little worked up over this. I would humbly (very humbly) suggest that the two parties remember that it IS possible to resolve differences of opinion calmly and that it will likely be resolved more quickly (and more to everyone's satisfaction) if we allow a civil discussion to take place. I have attempted to research "precedent" regarding use of the two terms and haven't found much, much less an actual RfC. Has an RfC been conducted regarding this that I'm missing somewhere? If so, could someone link it here? I think different folks have very different ideas about what each of these terms means and as far as I can tell the correct course on Wikipedia is to have an RfC in this situation. If one has not been conducted already, please let's have one. Thank you! Chrisw80 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death, which is why marijuana redirects to cannabis. The new user in question has problems with his draft article that need to be resolved, so anything else (especially a debate over terms) is a distraction. I have discussed the subject on the user's talk page, but they don't seem to be very familiar with the subject, which explains part of the problem. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as all of us engage in a bit of autodidactic editing, but there remains the problem of basic, foundational source material that remains to be answered. So instead of reinventing the wheel, I have encouraged the user to focus on improving his source material. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: If the draft was already accepted, it should have been improved, tagged, or sent to AfD, not moved back to draft namespace. I completely understand potguru's anger over the whole situation. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The draft was declined twice by two different reviewers. Anna says she moved it to mainspace by accident (at least I think that's what she said, correct me if I'm wrong). Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The declines were due to it not having enough information to warrant a standalone article. It is very common for people that have had their drafts declined to come on IRC and ask questions. Dozens of people do that every day and the decline template specifically says that that is an option. So saying that they were "lobbying on IRC off-wiki" is nonsense. Frankly, the two reasoning behind the two declines were fixed in my opinion anyways. So they would have had no bearing on Anna's review of the draft. Anna is an intelligent person who can fully decide for herself what drafts are ready for mainspace. Her decision here should have been allowed to stand without you moving it right back to draftspace. Once accepted, if you don't believe it meets standards you should have taken it to AfD or fixed it yourself. Moving it right back to draftspace after an editor worked hard on something, and it was accepted, is a massive slap in the face to the editor. --Majora (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Did Anna review the article? I saw the two declines by two different reviewers, then I saw the article in mainspace, no review. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anna moving it into mainspace was a review was it not? A draft does not just move on its own without a reviewer pressing the buttons. And per her move edit summary [6] she accepted it. --Majora (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw no review and the problems raised in the previous reviews, such as the unsourced content, were unaddressed. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas:, encouraging the user to improve the article is admirable and we've been working with the editor to do so, and the article has improved materially since it's inception. Unfortunately, I think that they are misunderstanding your intentions and not sure that they are receptive at this point (they are obviously not responding well, evidenced by the walls of text on his talk page). That aside, there seems to be at least somewhat legitimate dispute regarding the terms marijuana and cannabis. Could you please provide some links for the discussions that have taken place previously regarding this? I've found a couple and the newest was over 5 years old, the environment, politics, and culture surrounding cannabis have changed in that time and I feel it may be worthwhile to have a new discussion regarding it. I understand that there is history regarding the term "marijuana", but society DOES change and so do the definitions of words. If there is something more recent I'd like to review it. With many thanks! Chrisw80 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a separate issue from the overall problem, and you are welcome to start a new thread over at the relevant WikiProject or on the cannabis (drug) talk page, however, I think you have it somewhat backwards, as society has changed in the opposite direction, from using and abusing prohibition language rooted in racism and xenophobia to a return to more neutral language rooted in science and history. There are an enormous number of sources on this subject, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them. Search for "Anslinger" and "racism". Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course you wouldn't see a review on an accepted draft. That is not how AfC works. Comments are only written down when the draft is declined. Why would there be a written review when the draft is accepted and moved to mainspace? That would make absolutely no sense at all. Where would the review go? On the article's talk page? On the creator's talk page? Why would you write a review for a draft you accepted? And per the AfC reviewer's instructions the main task for reviewers to decide is whether or not the article will survive a deletion discussion. This article may have messed up citations but it certainly would survive a deletion discussion as there are dozens of reliable sources about cannabis dispensaries. The citation issues are another thing and you should not have moved it back to draftspace because of that. --Majora (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The original concerns with unsourced content leading to a decline were not addressed.[7] Anna has also said that she failed to see those declining comments. The article should never have been moved to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point that I feel I should make. If Potguru made this article outright, instead of going through the AfC process, would you have still moved it draftspace? If I saw that article at NPP I would have tagged it as needing cleanup. I may have even done a little bit of the cleanup myself. But I certainly wouldn't have drafted the article. Just because it went through the AfC process does not mean it should be treated any differently than articles that are made outright. --Majora (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have been redirected. And considering the opinions of the two declining reviewers, that decision would have been supported. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Viriditas, you said above that it is perfectly fine for friends to disagree and I said above that I should stay out judging right and wrong. Okay. Let's say those two cancel each other out. :) You are a dear friend, but I must totally disagree with you on this one. Thank you, Majora and others. You make very good points and I agree with all of them. Viritidas, this is (probably) a brand new user and this is a big bite. We don't want to lose him. I think there were so many alternatives:

• Asking him if it would be okay to move back to draft space for a few days
• Giving him time and guidance on what needs to be done
• Working with him to edit it
• Adding citation needed here and there and tagging
• Chopping a bit
• AfD, although I suspect that would have been a quick keep per GNG and because of no satisfactory place to merge

My review

I must respectfully disagree with Viriditas' "...Anna mistakenly moved the declined draft to mainspace...". I have looked at Draft:Cannabis dispensary again, and the reasons for the declines. I still think this draft should be in the mainspace.

I also respectfully disagree with Viriditas' "...unsourced content, were unaddressed...". That was one of the decline rationales made when the draft was but a few sentences long.

Viriditas, you said, I did not review it before moving it. I did. When reviewing and declining, details are required. When reviewing and accepting, it is common to leave no other comment or rationale than "acceptable for the mainspace" or the like. Am I right in this?

Viritidas, you say that I moved a "declined" article to the mainspace. To be fair, it was also an article waiting for review. I inspected the article, checked for duplicates, noticed lots of references that seemed good, did a copyvio check. All seemed fine, so I moved it. Even had I seen the two declines, I would have moved it:

The first decline was when it was a tiny stub. The rationale was "...note that dispensaries are covered in the Medical cannibis article, so first you should see if this fits in there because we like to keep related information together when possible....". Well, it was a stub. Now, it is way to big to fit into that article. It passes GNG and seems perfectly fit for a standalone. That rationale no longer applies, in my view.

The second decline's rationale was "Recommend merging into the Cannabis in the United States article..." The draft at that point was still only a few sentences long. Dispensaries exist in other parts of the world too. It passes GNG and seems perfectly fit for a standalone. That rationale does not apply to the current version, in my view.

In neither of those two recommended targets for the draft are is there a dispensaries section. Dispensaries are discussed here and there. The draft, considering its current size, could never fit into either of those articles, and nor should it.

I also posted part of this post at Potguru's talk. As he is blocked, I thought he might like to comment on it. I am sorry to split the discussion like that, and also sorry for the long post.

Moving on to getting this sorted out, can't all who are involved just step back and let the project cannibis people decide what to do with the draft? They can see and take the draft at face value and make up their minds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. Encouraged by your defense, I took another look at the draft. I don't see any good reason why this should be in mainspace. The entire article consists of unsourced original research written in incomplete sentences lacking proper grammar and punctuation. The entire lead section consists of an unsourced original research comparison between Dutch coffee shops and dispensaries while the body consists mostly of unsourced statements. Where sources are used, they either don't support the content at all, or are improperly used. For example, the entire section on "locating services" is sourced to citation 27, but there's nothing there supporting the paragraph, nor is it a RS. Out of 23 paragraphs, 12 are unsourced, virtually half the article, while the ones that are sourced are sourced poorly or don't support it at all. I'm also a bit concerned about another article this user created concerning marijuana vending machines which appears to consist of rumors, crystalballing, and promotional press releases by the company. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. I would like to know what other reviewers would have done and have asked at AfC talk. I haven't done AfC work for ages and perhaps didn't do a thorough enough job.

However, the main task stated in the AfC instructions is... "...to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined..."

As for marijuana vending machine, t'was I not Potguru who created it. I left it in this state 19 October 2013. Maybe I should send my drafts through AfC in the future. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think at this stage, the best course of action would be to open an AfD on the article. That is our process for determining whether an article should exist in mainspace or not. I would advise in future that once an article has been accepted at AfC, it should go through one of the deletion processes rather than attempting to revert the AfC review by moving it back to draft space. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 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.

Mister Poeticbent ‎reverts on his talk page.

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

---

Hello! User Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing [8] my comments on his talk page without a correct reason. I have not made a personal attack. What do you admins think about this? He is accusing me of POV pushing and sockpuppetry without a valid reason. I think he is attacking me personally. I know that most of you are more familiar with him and I'm probably 100% unknown to you but be kind and try to be as objective as possible while checking this report. Jomlini (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jomlini: See WP:BLANKING. Users are not prohibited from removing other users comments from their own talk pages. — Strongjam (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Mister Poeticbent is doing exactly that. Jomlini (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jomlini: You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. They are allowed to remove messages from their own talk page. Also see WP:OWNTALK that Drmies linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Yes I did. When I get really nervous that sometimes happens to me.

• Ah well--another case of "not for this forum", but this one a bit worse: Jomlini, before you start lecturing other users about what they can and cannot do on their own talk page, please familiarize yourself with the proper guidelines. You cited Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, but you seem to have totally missed WP:OWNTALK. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And admins, I pray. Be compassionate. I'm not so known here compared to Poeticbent, but be fair while investigating this thing. Jomlini (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is nothing to investigate. You misquote policy, and when that is pointed out you misread the comment. Strongjam said Poeticbend is NOT prohibited from removing your comments. NOT prohibited. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So users can remove everything what is writed in their talk pages? In Finnish wikipedia that is 100% prohibited, only after a month. Jomlini (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, not everything. Read the guideline I linked. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. Thank you for this lesson, I'm sorry for interrupting you. Jomlini (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• That's quite alright. We aim to please. Please convey my best wishes to the Finnish colleagues, especially when the days are short and the nights are long. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman closed

"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."

The following remedies have been enacted

4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 3 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Adding Template:Empty-warn-deletion and other post-deletion notices to Twinkle

Not sure about the rest of you, but I didn't even know these templates existed until recently. I have been doing a terrible practice of first using Twinkle to request speedy deletion, then deleting it (never mind if this was done too hastily, let's assume it wasn't). That way the user gets that important info they need about why the page was inappropriate, along with a welcome template, etc. I know of other admins who also follow this less-than-ideal procedure.

So, I thought this workflow should be incorporated into Twinkle. This would be a whole new interface change, that I figure would mimic the Block module. That is, you have a "delete page" checkbox, and another for "add deletion notice to user talk page". The latter would welcome the user if they haven't been already, and issue a deletion notice if they've haven't already received a notice about the page being nominated for deletion. We'd need to map each rationale to one of the existing post-deletion templates, or create a few new ones as needed.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this matter? Is this effort worthwhile - as in, would you use it!? =P

Related: Around midday GMT on 15 January I'm going to deploy a big update to the Twinkle CSD module. This will just make it so that admins can delete under multiple rationale, enter in URLs for copyright vios, etc, just like you can for requesting speedy deletion. More on that later! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cool! That sounds absolutely appropriate for certain types of speedy, like ones dealing with copyvio, since those almost never can be successfully contested. I'd be more concerned about enabling an instant A7 with no warning, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I had the same thought, however the page could have been up for a while with no modifications, in which case A7 without prior notice might be appropriate. I feel like Twinkle functionality can have a big influence on what users do, so maybe there should be an additional confirmation for certain criterion like A7 — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You wouldn't be "enabling an instant A7 with no warning", that option is available to every admin anyway, and some (many?) use it (I do, to give an example). Whether a page gets tagged for A7 by an editor and deleted two minutes later by an admin, or gets deleted straight away, won't make much of a difference for the user being informed / warned. I have no objection to the proposal, automatically informing the user isn't a problem, but this shouldn't be used to impose new restrictions on what can be deleted. Fram (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't want Twinkle to introduce any unaccepted restrictions. However there is a somewhat accepted norm to allow users some time to work on their article before deleting under less serious criterion like A7. I'm thinking once you hit submit to delete under any of the A-criteria (except maybe A2), Twinkle will check when the article was created. If was created say, less than 30 minutes ago, it will prompt if you are sure you want to proceed with deletion. This functionality should probably also be applied when requesting speedy deletion. The idea here again I think is not to enforce some practice, rather to recommend and/or make it easier to follow that practice — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Unless it's a copyvio / attack or something actually urgent, one editor should CSD tag it, and then another editor can delete it if they agree with the assessment. It's best to keep the "editor" and "administrator" roles separate. NE Ent 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? When I come across an article written by FirstNameLastName with the text "FirstName LastName is a Software developer who works for Tata Consultancy Services Lmtd.", I don't wait for a second opinion, I A7 delete on sight. Tagging articles for deletion is hardly part of the "editor" role, it is maintenance, just like deletion is. People are made admins (or remain admins) because their judgment in deletion discussions is judged to be sound and because they are trusted not to use the tools too fast normally. If admins regularly make bad deletions, they are normally called upon this. Adding bureaucracy (the need to have two people involved in a speedy, the need to wait 30 minutes, the need to first inform the page creator, ...) will only result in poor pages being kept longer (with more pages slipping through the cracks), encouraging people to create more of the same. Is there an actual problem your "better idea" is solving, or is it just a philosophically "better" idea? Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Admins needed at UTRS

It seems that I am practically the only admin reviewing unblock requests that come in through UTRS lately, and as a result it is getting backlogged. Some of them are appeals of blocks I did, so I can't review them. UTRS is generally actually simpler than on-wiki unblock reviews as it is mostly semi-automated. If you don't have a UTRS account it is easy to get one, see WP:UTRS for details. More checkusers would be handy as well, I'm still pretty new to CU and some of these appeals need a more experienced CU to handle them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your dedication and time Beeblebrox. I don't have a lot of time to respond to appeals these days but I remain the active tooladmin and will approve accounts for any admins who can volunteer some time. Most appeals are either easy declines (trolling or companies) or referrable to on-wiki. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a couple there right now that I'm not sure what to do with. They are from IPs that are blocked as proxies. The persons filing the appeals claim to be in mainland China, which is one of the valid reasons for granting IPBE, but they don't have an account, they just want the proxy unblocked. I know that's a bad idea, but what I'm not sure about is if they can create an account at all while stuck behind the great firewall, so I really don't know how to respond. Any ideas? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a few of them and I'm waiting for blocking admin input on a couple others. I'll do more once my latest headache fades away. Katie^talk 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm back from my unexpected break and will be able to help out more. I'm knocking a bunch of the outstanding requests back now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

PS @Beeblebrox: I created a new template for IPBE requests where the range is hardblocked if you would like to use it in the future. (title: "IPBE request on hard rangeblock").--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Beeblebrox. I have emailed the UTRS admins list to offer my assistance. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. The more the merrier. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生 I regret to inform you that we have not received an e-mail from you. In any case, to volunteer you can simply register an account here. We're currently developping a new OAuth system to auto-authenticate admins, bypassing the need for individual registration, for that's just a project. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Deceased admin/Dreadstar

Here Dreadstar.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

Sad news. –xeno^talk 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is outing but can I ask how this information was obtained? I corresponded with Dreadstar as recently as last fall so this is a surprise to me. Regardless of the fact that he was a former admin, he was a longtime Wikipedia contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

News was obtained by Diannaa: [9]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Liz is in the US, so that's the Northern Hemisphere fall. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW: In my past conversations with Dreadstar - I believe that he preferred that his privacy be respected. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Littleolive oil and Ched in particular, I was wondering whether his family or friends (at some later point) could be asked for a good photograph of him for Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, but I can't work out whether he would have wanted that. I think maybe yes, but I'm not sure. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note at WP:BN. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive Canvassing (WP:VOTESTACKING) to Ensure 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.

---

move to ANI - sorry posted on wrong board LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 24 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.

Bambifan question

Could someone familiar with Bambifan address WP:RFPP#Bambi II? The article was semiprotected in 2008 after a pile of trivial vandalism, and a new user asked that it be unprotected. The user in question doesn't at all look like a Bambifan account (all other edits are stuff like [10] and [11]), so I'm not questioning the request; I just don't know how we handle these pages that Bambifan loves to mangle. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that, in the absence of any BF activity, the article should be unprotected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for Trinacrialucente

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. And yes, this is an actual proposal. I hereby propose we ban Trinacrialucente for removing talk page comments without warning, making personal attacks, canvassing, and copyvio. Evidence found will be below: If you see his talk page history, it is often blanked, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trinacrialucente&oldid=692622766 shows a dangerous edit summary, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ATrinacrialucente is his block log (notice the copyvio), https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trinacrialucente&diff=653053041&oldid=652987896 is an old but shocking example For the community, 96.237.20.248 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Non-admin comment My personal suggestion for AN is that whenever the first edit of IP is to come to AN or ANI to suggest a user be banned, it should be speedily closed under WP:DRN, followed by an WP:SPI. Jeppiz (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC) IP blocked for disruptive editing after blanking AN and issuing a PA on his talk page. Katietalk 17:36, 23 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.

TFA semi-protection

Hello. Earlier today I semi-protected Banker horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to vandalism from multiple IP editors and newly registered accounts. It has been brought to my attention that this is today's feature article and was not intended as a controversial administrative action. Please review and adjust the expiration time (or remove semi-protection entirely) as warranted. Signing off, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've shortened it to just cover while it's TFA because it's incredibly unlikely any vandalism will continue after that. And no prejudice against any other admin shortening it further if they think even that is overkill. I will note we don't seem to be as leery about protecting TFAs as we once were, so the current situation is probably fine. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:RHaworth Wrongful deletion

Banned user, nothing to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:RHaworth wrongfully deleted Draft:List of shape topics in various fields under G13 but it was never under the AFC banner. This was no small draft and a lot of information has been lost. 166.176.57.196 (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Click on the title and get this advise: 11:51, 24 January 2016 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:List of shape topics in various fields (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND /G13) Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I don't see where you have approached User:RHaworth and asked for it to be undeleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Look at 166's contribs; it looks like they are the banned 166.xxx IP from the oldest person debacle. They also posted on ANI from a different 166 address also about draft space deletions. Looks like they have a new pet project. Rgrds. --64.85.216.86 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Orthodox2014?

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

---

A topic ban on User:Orthodox2014 has already been suggested at WP:BLPN and I for one agree it may be the only solution left. Orthodox2014 has been a single issue editor on the Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management apart from a brief sojourn on 17/18 January. A number of experienced editors including myself have attempted to improve the articles in the interests of balance, accuracy and NPOV. User:Smalljim in particular has expended a great deal of time recently engaging Orthodox2014 in discussion with an attempt to reach agreement or, at the very least, explain their actions to improve the article. Orthodox2014 in response has taken to lengthy accusations of 'libel' at WP:BLPN, personalised scrutiny of Smalljim's edits on the article Talk page and noticeable 'forum shopping' at WP:BLPN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance.

Orthodox2014's recent tactic has been to create his own version of the article and, after considerable discussion and incremental edits, revert wholsale [12][13] or dump his preferred sandbox version back [14][15], making it difficult if not impossible to meaningfully discuss any issues. They have, in their most recent post on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson announced their intention to do the same thing again, after which no doubt we will have all gone full circle. Their obsessive attention to one specific subject is not constructive and a draining time and resources which can be better applied elsewhere.

Pinging other involved editors @Doncram, DGG, Green Cardamom, Grayfell, and KoshVorlon: (sorry if I've missed anyone) Sionk (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't guess the motive, but the editing is obviously unconstructive, and there does not seem any way of reasoning with him. This is the only recourse short of a block. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• That is a particularly vexing and unconstructive approach to editing, I think a TBAN is amply justified. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm past thinking a TBAN would necessarily stop the user's character assassination campaign against Smalljim, which is now officially past ridiculous. I've blocked indefinitely. Read all about it on User talk:Orthodox2014. It's an ordinary block, not arbitration enforcement. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 25 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.

Close, please

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.

---

• Talk:Glyphosate § RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study.

The debate appears to have run down and some of the more vociferous are now topic-banned, it's enormous and slow to load, I think we could probably do with closing it now. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 25 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.

Massive MFD reversal required

Hasteur has pointed out that hundreds of MfD discussions have been wrongly decided in terms of this stale theory for Draftspace. There are multiple discussions of the like today. Can someone reciew all past discussions and reverse those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.96.161 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with "probably not". If consensus was that the pages be deleted, they get deleted. WP:REFUND is always available if anyone actually wants to work on any of this stuff again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly WRONG. Again, the CREATOR of Draftspace says that MFD is wrong. These must be overturned as against policy. Everyone who points this out has been ignored. 107.72.98.163 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Required?" No. "Discussed?" Sure. Hasteur's doing that now. As noted yesterday to the other block-evading IP, retribution is uncalled for. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why the unregistered editor is saying that the consensus is clearly wrong. MFDs, like AFDs, are decided by consensus. What exactly is the unregistered editor saying was done wrong? Drafts can be speedy-deleted (not just MFDd) if they are stale. I have often nominated drafts from MFD if they are in my opinion unsalvageable (especially if created by users who were later blocked as promotional), or if the author is tendentiously resubmitting them without improving them. Why is the unregistered editor saying that the consensus was wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 January 2016‎ (UTC)

He's quoting User:Hasteur who has declared that "I had a hand in creating the Draft namespace, so I tell you with great authority there was no mandate for any form of Stale Deletion. If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong" which is nice and all but he's no authority on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If I see this correctly, then quite a bit of those stale drafts were personal unsubmitted drafts from active editors that were moved into draft space without asking the active editors. Some of those got tagged for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds about right. The issue here is what is the best use of our limited administrative resources. One option is to compile a list of every one of these, go through them one-by-one, and determine which ones may have been deleted inappropriately. Another option is to just restore any draft that is a subject of a request at WP:REFUND, which we would do anyway and requires no further action or discussion. I vote for option two. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the standard WP:REFUND process is available and works; also Hasteur's WP:OWN attitude towards Draftspace is concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there were no unsubmitted drafts from active users. Those were inactive users. Everyone there claims that I was stealing pages from active but no one can point to one for a good reason, it didn't happen. User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics was a single draft moved to draftspace in February 2014 by Dodger67 (NOT ME), left inactive the whole time, tagged with AFC in August 2015, left inactive another six months and then the editor was given a G13 notice in January 2016 and exploded onto that page screaming about me stealing and deleting pages from active users. Point out a single one and I will move it back and reverse it immediately. An editor leaving a single sentence sitting around for a year and a half in draftspace is not the same as "stealing drafts from active users and deleting them." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll note again that, contrary to what is asserted, there's no indication that any active users lost their drafts. WP:STALEDRAFT is pretty clear that one year of inactivity is sufficient to be considered stale and for them, the pages not deleted per CSD nor blanked nor taken to MFD were moved to draftspace, tagged with the AFC without asking for a review and the editor was notified. The editor was again notified when G13 became applicable and so was instructed to go to WP:REFUND if the draft was deleted. As always, if there's interest in any draft there, I'm willing to refund and move it to whoever wants it. The local consensus expressed there does not seem to be in policy expressed elsewhere (in particular the view that draftspace is exempt from WP:WEBHOST for some reason). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to waste our limited amount of admin hours to manually rethink each and every draft-space MFD; should any be brought to REFUND (you should only do it if you either want it back personally, or are acting on the behalf of someone who seems to), it can be re-discussed there based on your issue here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible bot login problems / logged out bots

I've been seeing a few notes in various locations, that changes to the bot logon process may already be in effect. See Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Breaking_change for more technical details. Possible impacts: certain bots may not be able to log in. If the bot checks to ensure it is logged in before operating, it may be out of operation. If not, it may edit without logging in. Please evaluate impact if it appears to be a not logged in before just blocking (e.g. if the edit summary or comments indicate the bot and the edits are not massively disruptive the block may be able to wait). Contact the operator if known and refer them to Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Breaking_change. Should it continue, block as necessary. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Basque&Roll- 79.167.164.4 Vandal and sockpuppeteer

He made several ip disruptive edits (as 79.167.164.4) in Olympiacos B.C.. They were reverted by Jim1138 and myself. As soon as the page was protected, he returned today with the exact same edit he made as ip user (vandalism - POV edit in a matter already discussed and explained over and over again in the past), this time as Basque&Roll. There is a high posibility that he uses even more ips. I made a report for Checkuser here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Basque&Roll, but he keeps vandalizing (see Olympiacos B.C.). At first he vandalizes as ip user, then the page was protected, now he keeps on as Basque&Roll. It's obvious that he has some kind of fixation and as soon as the page was unprotected (after a six-month protection) on 25 December 2015, he came back with the same old story. It's the same drill. I don't want to revert yet again because I'll violate 3RR. I defer to the admins. Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the proof (beyond any shadow of doubt) that he is the same person (ip and account): [16] and after the page gets protection: [17]. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• OK, this isn't really the right place for it, but who cares. EdJohnston, you semi-protected the article, which is fine with me, but I'm not sure I see the IP-hopping. There's a bunch of IPs in that history; are they making these edits? Because if that is the case then there's abuse going on rather than, say, forgetting to log in. Gtrbolivar, filing an SPI with a request for CU is way over the top and, as far as I can tell, premature. To put it another way: I don't mind longterm semi-protection (it's par for the course with sports teams), but I don't see yet that this is some serious socking or account abuse problem. In the meantime I'm going to have a word with the editor--Gtrbolivar, you should have done that already, and you should have notified the editor of this thread. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Drmies Forget to log in? He made edits after edits as an ip user. When the page was protected and he was unable to edit as an ip user, he came back with his account and made the exactly same reversion. Here is the proof: [18] and after the page gets protection: [19]. He comes back from time to time with the same story. We explain it, he goes away and after months/years, when the page becomes unprotected, he comes back with different ips and does the same thing. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• • EdJohnston did absolutely the right thing, the page was protected for six months and the protection ended on 25 December 2015. After that, numerous ips started messing with the page. Every ip user who wants to become basketball coach does it through wikipedia. This 79.167.164.4 - Basque&Roll has a certain fixation-POV regarding a matter which has been discussed and explained numerous times in the past. This page needs permanent semi-protection 100%. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser can't act in this situation since it implies revealing IPs. But if the registered editor continues to repeat these changes it may be best to re-file at WP:AN3. I left a warning for User:Basque&Roll. I wish somebody could explain to outsiders what this war is actually about. (On the article talk page, rather than here). All I see is a bunch of (apparently) non-consensual changes that get reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Gtrbolivar, you gave those diffs already, and they don't prove it is a longterm problem. I am not saying Ed did not do the right thing; I was saying he did. I think you should be careful talking about fixations lest you be accused of having one yourself; next time, if you say something has been discussed extensively, please point to such discussion--which I assume happened on the talk page, and which I hope shows consensus against the other editor. Finally, the account continued edit warring so I blocked them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to explain yet again what's this all about I'll do it on the article's talk page. It's something so obvious and self-evident that it's a complete waste of time. The matter was discussed in the edit summaries, not in the talk page because it is something so simple and plain that nobody, except this ip user-Basque&Roll, would spent his time explaining self-evident things in detail. Now the fact that you imply that the fixation may be mine really saddens me, but I won't react because I'm aware that you, as an admin, should be impartial and objective. But it was truly unnecessary and unfair. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't so clear to Ed or to me; and note that things that seem obvious to us aren't obvious to others. Yes, that should be on the talk page. And I believe you should not use phrases like "fixation" since they can easily be perceived as personal attacks. In the end, they have nothing to do with what we should be doing here, which is focusing on content. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion to return Oversight privileges to Floquenbeam

A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.

Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee if the comment is private or sensitive.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Kasaragod article

Thread has been moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request for review of Kasaragod article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, I goofed!

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.

---

It is a common and normal human failing to downplay one's errors. How many times does an investigative journalist turn up on the doorstep of some public figure accused of an interesting scandal (diversion of government funds to build a new wing on their mansion, sending photographs of party members to ex-lovers etc.) and the answer is "No Comment"?

We're all public figures here on Wikipedia, and our admins are a little more visible than most, I guess, being magistrates, maintenance workers, local politicians, teachers and donut-munching deputy sheriffs all in one. They fill an important role here in our community, and for the most part they do a fine and thankless job.

But every now and then, like every other human being, they screw up a little.

Twice recently, I've found an admin to have made an error. Probably an honest error: an oversight in haste, a failure to know every single line of every statement of wikiprocedure, whatever. But when the mistake is raised privately, the response has been "No comment".

I don't think that's what we should expect from admins. I think that if admins are expecting others to toe the line, comply with policy, admit to misbehaviour and face consequences, then they should accept the same in their own wikibehaviour. If they get something wrong, as every one of us does from time to time, then what's wrong with admitting it?

OK. Rant over. This example, from an admin I've never dealt with in the past, is an honest mistake, so far as I can see. I'm not looking for any blame to be laid or action to be taken. The thing's past and let's keep it there.

But the problem remains. An admin makes a mistake, responds "No Comment", and if the matter ends there, then there's a sour taste and a lack of transparency. That's not good for the community, when editors begin to doubt the powers that be, such as they are.

The incident in question is on WP:3RRN now archived here. These two editors had previous history of edit-warring, resulting in User:Dennis Bratland receiving a warning.[20]

This incident is pretty straightforward: each party reported four reverts by the other and each claimed they had only made three. The admin, User:KrakatoaKatie, blocked one editor (User:Spacecowboy420), saying:

I am sure that she believed she was correct, but she actually erred here. WP:3RR states (in part):

Bratland had made four reverts in 24 hours: three on one word, and one on another. Both parties had crossed the bright line.

SpaceCowboy420 raised this in an unblock request here and later on KrakatoaKatie's talk page here. No comment, except to say "See you in court." So, here we are.

Admin Krakatoa Katie has indicated that she will respond here. I'd like to hear what she has to say. Again, I don't think she has done anything wrong beyond being unaware of the exact wikilaw, and she acted in good faith, but there are wider implications here, and I believe that this is an appropriate forum to discuss them.

1. If an admin makes an error and polite discussion ensues over the problems this has caused, is a "No comment" response appropriate? This forces the editor to either give up in frustration, or "take it to court", which can be a daunting process for some, especially new editors.
2. If the editor is blocked, the difficulty level is higher. There is a (possibly indefinite) delay before the wronged editor can take it further, and if the admin refuses to acknowledge or engage in polite discussion on the blocked editor's talk page, then that creates more frustration with Wikipedia and its processes.

Can we do anything to help both admins and editors work through such issues in a transparent and non-judgemental fashion? --Pete (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have blocked both editors and fully protected the page, though much good it would have done. One gets upset because another wasn't blocked, another gets upset because another was. They throw accusations of sockpuppetry around but won't take it to SPI. They're still edit warring over the word 'winningest' on Harley-Davidson XR-750, they're still sniping at each other over multiple articles about motorcycles, and they're dragging it out from my talk page to Swarm's (two separate sections) to SQL's to others, I'm sure. It's becoming a problem with each of these editors disrupting all over the encyclopedia. Topic bans may be in order, but someone else needs to do it. I have no opinion on the article content and I'm not going to take any further administrative action here. Katie^talk 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Katie, I'm not concerned with your actions as an admin. I believe you acted in good faith in that incident. I'm interested in your inability to respond in polite discussion when the error was pointed out. --Pete (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• (ec)Unblock- both editors crossed the 3RR line, so they either should both be blocked, or neither should be. As Pete says, one revert by one of the parties was disregarded for erroneous reasons. This could unfortunately give the impression of playing favourites. Reyk _YO! 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• In such situations like this? the article should be protected. If blocks are going to be handed out? it shouldn't be to just one participant. Certaintly not 60hr blocks, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The block was 24 hours, not 60 hours.[21].—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Pardon me. I was speaking of Administrator Swarm's 60hr-block of Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
      • They are different circumstances. See the AN3 closing in Skyring (aka Pete)'s case. Suggest continuing in a different thread, if necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Okie Doke, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lousy block, and attempts to evade valid criticism after the lousy block don't impress me. KrakatoaKatie should be sent back to admin school, if we had such a thing. Meantime I don't think she should exercise admin tools unless she is able to grasp the magnitude of her error. I don't see such understanding in her statement above. I would welcome further reflection on her actions followed by a better statement. Otherwise my respect for her judgement skills will be permanently tarnished. Realistically we do not desysop for one stupid mistake followed by avoidance. In a way that's a shame sometimes. --John (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to avoid criticism. I'm open to criticism anywhere and I try to respond as politely as I can. I think what happened on my talk page was the editors in question started talking amongst themselves and I wanted that to play out, without realizing I let it go on too long without my own input. Sorry about that to all involved. As I said above, I should have blocked both editors and protected the page. No excuse for not doing that. We've got a problem now, though, with the disruption spilling out in multiple places, and that needs to be discussed somewhere. Katie^talk 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@John: I also don't think Katie was attempting to avoid criticism. See my comments below (or diff here)—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair points, KrakatoaKatie, and I apologise if my comment was unduly harsh. I think when I looked at it the edit I found troubling was this one. It is always better to deal promptly and openly with such requests, rather than refer them to a central venue like this one. But I accept you made an honest error and have acknowledged its seriousness. Thanks for that. I also agree there is a wider problem. --John (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• These discussions would take far less time if Pete/Skyring would simply tell the truth. I wish I could make this brief but the facts don't allow it; we have to wast valuable time with point-by-point refutations of Skying's ludicrous howlers.

  Skyring habitually posts statements which are blatantly untrue, easily disproved by the page histories, or easily Googled reliable sources, and when you point out that he's making erroneous statements, he doubles down, and fills talk pages with long rants repeating the same unsupported claims. Fundamentally, Skyring never gets the point. At least four admins, Drmies, SQL, KrakatoaKatie, and Swarm told Skyring to drop the stick, but here he is. Can't ever drop the grudge and move on. It gets so frustrating that you are sometimes drawn into making personal attacks, like when I said "You are a ***** liar, Pete".

  Drmies pointed out that while "f***** off" is not usually considered a personal attack, calling someone a the other thing is, and so I WP:LISTENed and resolved not to keep calling Pete that and instead tell him to "f**** off" as often as necessary when he is posting more of these false claims.

  The MOS winningest debate? All about opinions that defy gravity, or verifiable, reality-based facts that force us to one conclusion. The VW emissions violation debate with me, Skyring and John? Some thing: let the sources guide us, or make up our own tone and wording with no regard for external sources. XR-750? Dodge Tomahawk? Also a basic question of whether we arbitrarily ignore what's in the sources based on ignorant opinions, or whether we follow wherever the sources lead us, like it or not.

  The falsehoods that this thread begin with are the howlers that these admins ignored Skyring's whining and said "no comment". Not true. Look, anybody can read the record. He was told, 1.) admins are not required to use their tools 2.) the target of the complaint was blocked 3.) one of the reports against Dennis Bratland (moi) was for 3 reverts, not 4, and item 4.) Skyring was blocked for edit warring after having posted in the discussion at the MOS talk page, proving he was already aware of it, and edit warred more after he was "officially" notified of the discussion he had already participated in, and edit warred again after he agreed to stop! Wow! No wonder. 5) He was told that his block was also the result of his history of 3RR blocks, harassment, Wikihounding, refusal to drop the stick and arbcom interaction bans from his obsession with getting even with others (as he is doing right now).

  Maybe Skyring doesn't like the answers he got, yet here he is, with the chutzpah to baldly accuse these admins of not explaining their decisions, of saying "no comment". The whole premise is a lie hi-fucking-lariously bullshit.

  I'm sorry I don't have every single diff of the above events, but Skyring has been disrupting Wikipedia for something like 12 years and he is very skilled, and prolific. He gets away with it partially because it's so much effort for one person to collect all the evidence, and so much work to review all of it. Look at virtually every page he has posted on in the last several weeks: the evidence proving he is making false claims is all there. It would be wrong to call him a purveyor of falsehoods for that, but who could blame you for wanting him to "f*** off" after wasting so much time learning that he never should have started this because the facts don't bear out a bit of it.

  @KrakatoaKatie: The reason I have not taken this to SPI is that I already did and the IP trail doesn't support it. I've said that whether they are the same person, or several people, intentional or accidental, the behavior shows that they are meat puppets who edit in a coordinated, tendentious way, they have admitted tracking my contribution list to find targets, and that is Wikihounding and meat puppetry. But they'll never get blocked for it unless a volunteer spends a great deal of their time researching it, and that's a thankless task. Look at the admins who are now facing blowback for trying to mitigate some of the damage caused by Skyring, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: KrakatoaKatie erred in their interpretation of 3RR, but there's no denying the blocked editor was edit warring. Being that the editor who made the report to AN3 was also warring, alternatives such as full protection would have been better options. I don't think she's been intentionally ignoring the requests. The block was 24 hours, and the unblock request was clearly against WP:NOTTHEM, and the block expired. Looking at the related thread on her talk page, it started off as more about THEM, before others turned it into a TLDR mess over the related debate over the word winningest. Katie's suggesting a topic ban for multiple editors is not far fetched. See the chaos and voluminous text at related threads over an MOS debate on winningest, MOS debate on article tone, and the ongoing AN3 report by the OP here, Skyring, on Dennis. Skyring themselves has already been blocked over this winningest debate . The winningest participants need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking of dropping the stick, Bagumba… I've made it quite clear that this discussion isn't about any of that. I'm not criticising Krakatoa Katie for her admin actions. I believe she acted in good faith. It's the consequent question about admins withdrawing themselves from polite discussion, even when they have made an honest error. If you want to bring up other matters, perhaps another forum? Or well, take your own advice and drop the stick? Please. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You are more than welcome to present the date of my last edit related to winningest in comparison it to yours. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • "Gaslighting" is the specific term for the type of harassment Skyring is doing to you and the rest of us here.Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Was anyone checking out what Skyring was posting at the exact time he was here projecting his own inability to drop the stick onto Bagumba? He's over at Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750 pestering me to keep debating him about Winningest! Less than 1 hour after that, he's back here skeevishly trying to take the high road on dropping the stick. But wait it gets better: I said to him: "It's WP:WABBITSEASON, bud. I just can't do this with you any more". And does he finally stop debating winningest? Of course not, he goes on hectoring me: "Just out of curiosity..."!!! This is gaslighting, it's provoking more pointless, lame discussion then attacking others for beating the same dead horse. Swarm specifically told Skyring it was these kinds of two-faced broken promises that bought him a 60 hour block. Back on January 14, Drmies warned Skyring: "Dennis Bratland may be wrong in all kinds of ways, I don't know, but hounding is still a policy violation. I really, really, hope that you two can leave each other alone." And, of course, Skyring made another false promise "Thanks for the advice. I'll do more watching and less helping."
• The other boomerang Skyring has coming his way? Forum shopping. He's said he's not here to get any one de-sysoped, and not here to criticize any admins. Why the hell is he here now? Same old same old: to get Dennis Bratland. He wanted to get me blocked, twice, at AN/I, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. He asked to get me blocked twice at 3RR/N, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. He took it to 3 (or was it 4?) different admin's talk pages, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. So now? Here he is, at AN, posting false assertions and disingenuous canards hiding his real purpose: trying again, in yet another forum, to get Dennis Bratland blocked. If he doesn't get the block he's after today, is he going to be allowed to keep coming at me in yet more forums until he gets the revenge he seeks? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pete, Katie and all concerned. The block was short, I was curious if it was a result of an error, or just me deserving a block. I was also curious as to why other parties were lucky enough to avoid a block. Those questions have been answered. I stand by my comments that Dennis was in violation of 3RR and should have been blocked, but for a stale violation that wouldn't seem to help much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to pile on here as this subject matter has nothing to do with me. But really do not appreciate my name once again brought up about sock and meat thing. Dennis you openly stated that the IP trail doesn't support it. So there is no evidence to support it yet you continuously make these false unsupported accusations. Then repeatedly go on too attack other editors of making false or unsupported claims. Not sure if you are aware that is a bit of a contradiction as well this claim. they have admitted tracking my contribution list to find targets I have never done this or made that statement and I could be wrong but not aware of others making that statement either. Or am I aware of some conspiracy out to get you as you have repeatedly stated verging on sounding like paranoia. But you have openly admitted this. When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) And that was proven by him posting on my talk page just moments after another editor he deems disruptive that he follows around. Even when asked politely to stay off my talk page with harassing messages. Dennis you are aware the admin has stated she made a mistake in not blocking you. Because I see no remorse no apology no humility nothing just more attacks more incivility. And you have gone on to the very same misconduct of the 3rr rule. Having not been reprimanded on your misconduct has just seem to emboldened you. And maybe you feel like the rules don't imply to you. Because it has made you a bear to deal with when a editor does not share your views. None of this gives me any pleasure to say. And as I live a very active life I have limited time to come here and edit. But instead editing I find myself either defending myself or in some drawn out debate over what should just really be a trivial matter. 72bikers (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This statement by Dennis sums up how much respect he has for Wikipedia and the attitude in which he interacts with others: " instead tell him to "f**** off" as often as necessary" while it might not be a personal insult as per certain guidelines, it shows a total lack of respect for his fellow editor and a very aggressive, confrontational and provocative attitude. How this attitude can be seen as compatible with a group project like Wikipedia is beyond me. I see no reason why Dennis should be allowed to continue editing, especially when he sees nothing wrong with acting like this towards fellow editors. Indef block please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

IP evidence is not definitive proof of socking or not socking. The above comments are yet more evidence that these guys follow each other around, yapping at each other's heels "me too! me too!" It doesn't matter if they are intentionally acting as meat puppets, or if it is entirely accidental that they ignore Wikihounding policy, click on my contributions list, and then each, individually, without coordination, choose to hound me and all agree to oppose me. The point of WP:DUCK, which Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers have proven once again, is that the behavior is the problem, regardless of what caused the behavior. The behavior is Wikihounding and meat puppetry. I've posted many diffs showing they track me, and they have admitted the click on conbribs for that purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rehashing the edit-war and block is pointless, IMHO. What's done is done. The problem as I see it is that if an admin is unable to engage in polite discussion with the person they have just blocked, where an error has been made, they are unable to respond effectively to correct the problem. If the blocking admin has been called away from Wikipedia for some reason (travel, illness, parturition, drunkenness, whatever) or feels that they haven't made a mistake at all, or just doesn't want to admit it, then there is perceived injustice.

When unblocked, there is the chance to discuss with the blocking admin, but again, if the admin is unable or unwilling to respond to a polite request, the next option seems to be here or WP:ANI

I'm not saying this is the case here, but some admins (being naturally human) are inclined to take shortcuts, and "No Comment" is certainly an easy option to take, especially if one feels that errors are things made by others. --Pete (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Collapse digression"? You mean the part about the WP:BOOMERANG that you've earned? I don't think so, bud. I can see why you'd want to suppress any thought of that, but you're the guy who jumped from one venue to another to another bleating "Dennis Bratland! Dennis Bratland!" It is a fact that you are gaslighting, hounding, and that you are pushing a vendetta, and forum shopping to get your way. Don't try to censor it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing of comments: "Collapse digression" refers to Pete's edit summary when they attempted to collapse a large set of comments here at 15:55, 27 January (UTC), which included remarks concerning them. While WP:TPG allows an editor to be bold when they believe a discussion has gone off-topic, the guideline clearly states: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." It's clearly not productive to edit war on what is "off topic", as they did again in another attempt to collapse the same comments at 16:41, 27 January. Please leave it to an uninvolved editor at this point. Personally, I think WP:BOOMERANG is fair to discuss. The accused, Katie, opined that "Topic bans may be in order", while John stated "I also agree there is a wider problem".—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Stray observation: Skyring grumbled but moved along when apparently male admins SQL, Drmies, and Swarm told him to drop the stick. But when an apparently female admin, KrakatoaKatie, ignored him, it seemed to inflame his sense of male entitlement, and precipitate this bizarre attempt at public shaming. Far fetched? I don't know. Is Skyring gaslighting? Is he as obsessed with me as Captain Ahab? Is he being so two-faced that it almost seems like a put on, like performance art? Maybe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• And now the gaslighting and beating a dead horse goes one and on. After four days, Skyring doesn't get the block he wanted at 3RR/N, after canvassing all sorts of talk pages, and forum shopping it to this noticeboard. So today, he floats the frankly batshit insane proposal for an indef (!) block for my 3 (not 4) reverts last week is that today I made two reverts. Where? Right here!

  "Discussion – polite discussion, as opposed to ranting at others – is far more productive" he says. So he comes here and I gave him the discussion he value so much, but it doesn't go the way he likes, so he tries to squelch it. I object -- Don't collapse my comments, bro! And what does Skyring do? He reverts! After edit warring over refactoring other people's comments, he heads else where to sniff, "edit-warring is wrong"!?! Edit warring is wrong, Skyring? How many times have you edit warred today? Well, here obviously. Fine, whatever. Where else?

  Here you reinstated your own personal attack on Miesianiacal (talk · contribs), where Skyring hits him for "a long history of severe violations of Wikipedia rules" Skyring? WP:POT much? Who has a longer history of violating WP rules? Longer than any of us? You, bud. Skyring calls Miesianiacal's good faith edits "vandalism", (that's the civil way to reach consensus, right?). Calls his ideas "odd" and calls him "often wildly out of touch with personalities and issues here." Which, even if true, is using WP:EXPERTISE to WP:OWN a topic and discourage participation and input. Who was it who said "Discussion – polite discussion, as opposed to ranting at others – is far more productive"? Uh, Skyring said it.

  So, If I should be "indef blocked" for two reverts today, shouldn't Skyring be indefed for his 3 reverts today? The day before today the guy who said "edit warring is wrong!" reverted twice.

  The common denominator behind all this drama is Skyring. He's obsessed chasing his white whale and has lost all perspective. He's had blocks and interaction bans before for exactly the same harassment. At the minimum, Skyring needs an interaction ban to stay the hell away from me. And if you really want the disruption to end, tell 72bikers, Zachlita, and Spacecowboy420 to leave me the hell alone too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 27 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.

ANRFC again

Here's a story, for those who haven't met their recommended daily allowance of drama yet: Over the last few months, we've had a series of RFCs at WT:MEDRS, some of which would have benefited from closing statements by experienced admins. Most of these RFCs have dealt, directly or indirectly, with whether sources from a particular country, whose academic journals are under political pressure to publish only The Right Answer™, are desirable sources. (The overall "vote", if you care about numbers, is about 3 to 1 against this idea.)

We've simultaneously, and not really as a result of this, had another one of our periodic fights about the exact scope of MEDRS, with the usual (i.e., very low) level of immediate success, but with some useful and interesting comments that might eventually help us improve that guideline. This fight mostly covered the question of whether and when information about violent crimes needs medical sources, e.g., rather than legal or social ones. Having both of these fights at the same time, and mostly involving the same people, has been more than a little inconvenient.

(I'm omitting names, because identities actually don't matter much, and I don't want to bother with a long string of notifications or to have anyone think that the problem is just one person's personality.)

Order of RFCs:

• The first round was originally closed by a NAC who was TBAN'd (from something unrelated to the RFC) last year. Multiple editors involved in this RFC were also involved in the TBAN discussion. As it happened – I explicitly do not allege any sort of dishonesty here, but rather an unfortunate circumstance that the NAC may not even have noticed – the closing statement was in favor of the minority who favor citing politically manipulated journals and against the editors who voted for the TBAN. "Losing" editors have made this NAC suffer for volunteering to close this enormous discussion.
• Then we had a long fight about whether there exist things that are related to health, but that aren't exactly intended to be covered by MEDRS (e.g., violent crime). Initially, there were two of these RFCs; thankfully, the OP for the first stated that he formally withdrew it in favor of the other, and it therefore did not end up in the laundry list at ANRFC. (If it had, then we might have ended up with contradictory closing statements.) The second one was closed, about two months after it began, by an admin who deserves praise, because this was not a small task and because it was impossible to avoid disappointing some good editors. The thoroughly explained closing statement is getting a few complaints, but IMO they are largely respectful complaints, and I expect the overall dispute to settle down as people find ways to adjust and meet their needs.
• The second round on politically pressured sources demanded that ediotrs pick a way to implement the first RFC even though they objected to everything about the close, from the outcome to the identity of the NAC. This newer one was closed the other day by an apparently innocent editor, who created an account two months ago and has made exactly 384 edits so far, including closing several RFCs and a lot of edits about a movie. The new editor has tried to provide helpful advice, like narrowing down the five options to the two least-contested.
• Now we have another RFC that's trying to force people to pick between the two least-contested wordings about political sources, even though the clear signal from the editors is that they do not want any of those options at all. Realistically, I expect this to either keep going for a month, or for someone to propose a TBAN against the OP.

Why I'm bothering telling you about this:

The fact that two NACs have tried to close some of these incredibly contentious RFCs on hot-button issues means that we have a structural problem with ANRFC. We have a lot of "process" and a lot of "activity", but the RFCs that need admin attention aren't getting that attention.

I don't believe that this is due to having too few admins, because we had too few admins a few years ago, and we didn't really have this problem a few years ago. What's changed since then is:

• One editor has been filling ANRFC with about 90% of the RFCs that have expired. The number of listed RFCs has gone up 3x to 4x compared to 2012, although the number of complicated or highly contentious RFCs does not appear to have changed. (I've checked the RFCs listings for formatting problems off and on for years, so I've got a decent idea of what goes through the pipe.) Listing almost everything might make the signal-to-noise ratio unfavorable for admins. When you see that there are dozens listed, with no sense of priority and with many that can have nothing more than a rubber-stamp on a nearly-unanimous vote, it would not be unreasonable to start ignoring the whole list. It's also on a separate subpage, which means that changes probably aren't appearing in your watchlist.
• We have formally agreed that NACs can and should be encouraged to close all sorts of discussions, and we have relied upon their experience and wisdom to stop them from stepping into a mess like this. I actually saw the ANRFC listing for one of these a while ago, contemplated adding a note warning off NACs, and I decided that such a comment was unnecessary, because it was so obviously contentious that nobody except an admin would touch it. I was wrong. At this point, it might be reasonable for WP:NAC and related advice to stop assuming that all editors have the necessary experience and wisdom figure out which discussions come with a free bull's eye target for their backs.

I'm not really proposing a specific solution here. Instead, I want to point out that there is a problem, and that I have identified two separate factors that I believe are contributing to it. There may be others; I would really appreciate hearing ideas about other probable factors. I think that if we can identify the probable causes for this, then we might be able to find a way to make this system more functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAC is less relevant than WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs and WP:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure. You were wrong in thinking a non-admin would not close the discussion because becoming an admin bestows no magical consensus deciding powers. In fact the majority of admins have little/no more experience in that area than many long-time editors. Not to mention the 'this is a contentious RFC' line is trotted out whenever someone disagrees with the result. Just because people have different opinions does not make something contentious. Although I will agree that most of the MEDRS stuff does follow that path by MEDRS own design. The problem at this point is not with non-admin closures, or closures in general, its that MEDRS is full of people who want MEDRS to apply everywhere. Even when it really shouldnt. Some of the recent articles I watch where people insist on a MEDRS compliant source - crime articles for example - are not remotely medical, yet people are seriously arguing crime is always a health issue so MEDRS should apply. Now couple that with the fact that at MEDRS, people generally fall into two camps, a)editors demanding the highest possible quality source (the inference being: Western published) and b)editors who want the criteria lowered so they can use all sorts of crap as a source anywhere MEDRS applies. This wouldnt normally be a problem (people arguing in their walled gardens) except for the aforementioned over-reach of MEDRS scope. It has the potential to impact large sections of wikipedia. At this very minute people are arguing over wording that (as it reads) says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions." Anyone who spends any time at RSN knows that (apart from possible country of origin) those are considered all the time. The problem isnt with ANRFC, discussion closing etc, the problem is MEDRS and the crap thats argued over there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that a NAC wouldn't close those discussions because I figured that they had a decent sense of self-preservation, if nothing else, and that nobody in his right mind would really want to close a discussion involving thousands of words and lots of yelling. About half the list at WP:BADNAC and its #Pitfalls section applies, too. But that assumes that the NAC has enough sense to figure out when "a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous". Or even "The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally", for the newbie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this specifc situation but I do agree with WhatamIdoing regarding over-reporting at ANRFC. It's become a bloated mess that is often longer than the whole rest of this noticeboard, and as a result suffers from disinterest. I think a re-organization of ANRFC is in order, something that would make it clear what is a priority that really needs a close and what is just a low-level content dispute that petered out days or weeks ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• When I tried to deal with the over-reporting some time ago, merely removing stuff that didn't need to be listed, I got reverted: [22] and [23] were followed by reversions by Dicklyon (who hasn't touched ANRFC since his unblock) and by the 90%-filling editor. We need to enforce WP:ADMINSHOP — when an admin has responded to your request, don't re-post the request as if it had been removed by accident or by a vandal. If you don't like being told that it doesn't need a formal close, ask another admin privately; I'm not trying to shut down the asking entirely. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I fully support reigning in ANRFC. This even came up at one of the Village Pumps last fall, and I tried to get Cunard to quit spamming ANRFC, but got nowhere. I'm not an Admin, but even I took to knocking out some of those entries a few days back as "Not done" as they were clearly "uncloseable" – a significant percentage of the entries that keep getting spammed to ANRFC simply don't belong there. (As an aside, it might be good if something like that – "Uncloseable" or "Declined" – is added to the other options at ANRFC like "Done" or "Not done"...) But I think it's going to take concerted action from Admins to reign ANRFC back in. Heck, it might even require a temporary Topic Ban in one case... But this is going to have to be done by Admins – after all: this is your page here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• From what I am seeing here, I think a formal RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish some reasonable guidelines and best practices for what should be reported there and how to handle the sheer volume of reports. I have been trying to force myself to take a prolonged break from creating policy RFCs, but I would offer up User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal as guidance for anyone wishing to construct such a process. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• As a NAC that has closed quite a few RFC's on WP:ANRFC, I see no problem with the listing of RFC's in bulk. The editor opening them may not be aware of where to request a close and may just think its automatically done because the header is automatically removed. I honestly believed that when I started editing. The RFC's go down to a respectable level before more are added. As the editor who specifically requested an admin to close the last RFC on MEDRS, even if I were not involved I would not have closed it. Not because it was contentious, all RFC's are contentious to some extent, there is a disagreement, thats the reason a RFC was started in the first place. The reason is that a NAC was completely ignored when last a NAC closed a RFC there. There was no respect for the process and edit warring ruled. The RFC close was not followed, but the larger number of editors edit warred to keep the page exactly as it was. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The problem is that it's obfuscation through volume. I stopped looking there when I realized I was wasting my time going through all manner of discussions that are 1. almost without exception the most stunningly boring issues imaginable and 2. didn't need a formal close anyways. After a little while I felt like it'd be less painful to pound my nuts flat with a ball peen hammer, and judging by the size of it now I don't seem to be the only one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  Agree with TBotNL – a significant percentage of the content getting put up at ANRFC are either, 1) not actual RfCs and thus don't belong there at all, or 2) are RfC's that are "unclosable" either because no real "Support/Oppose" voting took place or because there was too little discussion to even establish "Consensus/No Consensus". I doubt anyone has an issue with real "problem" RfC's being posted to ANRFC – the problem is 1) the volume of postings to ANRFC, and 2) the relative percentage of "junk" entries there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have been checking for non RFC's for the last three months. I have seen some editors request a close of a discussion they are a part of. So far the only discussions that I have seen that are listed as a RFC had a RFC header removed by Legobot. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I haven't scrupulously checked, so I'll concede that what you say may very well be true. Nonetheless, even if they had proper "RfC headers", some of the ones I've seen were not properly formatted as RfC's, and thus shouldn't have been put up at ANRFC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The bulk listings by Cunard rely entirely on the removal of RFC tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

yep. Just putting {{RFC}} on a page does not mean it has to have a formal close no matter what. Robotically reporting everyhting that has had that header on it at some point without seeing if it really needs a closer is a disservice to the community because it increases backlogs and leads to disinterest in the whole process. Look how bloated it is right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. There isn't currently any way to differentiate "bulk listing just because Cunard wants (almost) every single RFC to get a formal closing statement" from "this one really needs outside intervention", and the sheer volume of the bulk listings discourages people from searching for the critical ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you to the WP:ANRFC closers, particularly the recent prolific closers AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs), Fountains-of-Paris (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), GRuban (talk · contribs), and Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), for your hard work.

  Mariah Carey birth years discussion; a "consensus is clear" close is referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus

  Here is a "consensus is clear" closure request from September 2013: link. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. An admin wrote "no need for a formal close of this". I asked again for a close after someone reverted against consensus, and Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed it.

  In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC, Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion".

  Of course something like this doesn't happen to all "consensus is clear" discussions. But it is impossible to distinguish between the two types because we cannot see into the future. It is impossible to determine whether the consensus will be overlooked or ignored in the future. And it is not worth the time to hazard a guess because as S Marshall noted "Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them" and as Ncmvocalist wrote, "it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted".

  Why closing discussions is important

  Scott summarized it very well at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Too many discussions being added:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  Robert McClenon, one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:

  I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.

  Recently closed RfCs

  1. Talk:Kuwait Airways#RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article? (closure request):

     The discussion was split 3–2 to include the material in the article, but the closer closed the RfC as allowing the material based on strength of argument. Without an independent closer, the policy-based conclusion would not have been reached. The discussion looks like "no consensus", which means the material is excluded.

  2. Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5#RFC Victim names (closure request)

     The discussion was contentious and from at a superficial glance looks like "no consensus", which means all of the material is excluded. But the closing editor carefully read the discussion and wrote a nuanced, eloquent summary of the discussion and the applicable policies, allowing part of the material to be included and part to be excluded.

  3. Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: Should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (closure request)

     The discussion was split 5–3 to say that the glacier is disputed in the inbox. Without an independent closer assessing the strength of the arguments, this could be considered "no consensus". The closer reviewed the discussion and found there to be a consensus based on the strengths of the arguments to say that the glacier is disputed. The closer further noted that there was no consensus about how to word this.

     The close paved the way for a second RfC, Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: How should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (closure request). The second RfC achieved a consensus for how to word the dispute in the infobox.

  The RfC close that prompted WhatamIdoing's post here

  WP:ANRFC has worked well for the past four years. If there are problems like inexperienced editors incorrectly closing RfCs, then those can be individually handled.

  I think the RfC close that prompted WhatamIdoing's post is Elvey (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin. An RfC closure review was filed yesterday here. Non-admins have closed contentious RfCs in the past and have done a good job doing so. If there is a problem with this particular non-admin close, then it will be overturned at the closure review.

  Cunard (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

TLDR. The same thing is the reason why ANRFC is pointless; you overwhelm the important things with the trivial. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the RFC closing that prompted this was the one in which an editor with a two-month-old account and a grand total of 384 edits tried to issue a "ruling" in a controversial change to a major sourcing guideline. There is nothing about a closing review process that can fix the busted process that led such an editor to believe this was a good idea.

Also, I believe that all of us who frequent the drama boards are tolerably familiar with your belief that flooding ANRFC is a net benefit and that getting a single editor's view of a one-time discussion enshrined forever as The Consensus™ is a good thing. The fact that I disagree with your view does not mean that I'm unaware of your view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cunard will often request "an experienced admin" vs "an experienced editor". Is there merit to having some categories based on this assessment? Cunard, what's the rationale for asking an admin close an item vice an editor? Alternatively, maybe categories based on Cunard's rough judgment: "likely contentious"/"not likely contentious". Would that poison the well though? --Izno (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing If the problem is that an inexperienced editor closed a RFC, the problem isnt with listing RFC's, but the editor who did the close. I am not placing the blame on the editor though. To my knowledge there is no policy, guideline, or even essay that controls or gives guidance on what qualifies as "experienced", and believe me I have looked. There is a need to spell this out, WP:CLOSE would be a great place for it. Maybe giving a minimum time/edit count to reference if you should be closing as an editor. It wouldnt be perfect because 3 to 6 months editing on a contentious topic to me is a greater teacher than doing a year of spell checking and removing stray commas on seldom edited topics. But at least it would give editors some idea if they should be closing. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You and I are looking at the situation from different perspectives. IMO the important problem is not that an inexperienced editor closed an RFC. (That's easily fixed, with little long-term harm beyond possibly driving away an innocent and potentially good new editor.) The important problem is that the request for a closing statement was not visible to the small number of experienced policy experts who should have closed it.

User:Izno, what do you think about putting Cunard's NAC-suitable requests on a completely separate page? WP:AN would transclude only the smaller number of requests that are made by participants or that Cunard believes shouldn't be handled by a NAC. The less complex ones could go on another page. Perhaps admins would be more likely to see the ones that they need to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You could technically put them all on the same page and only transclude the interesting ones here ({{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Administrators' noticeboard|<includeonly>}} and etc.), but yes, that was my general gist. Alternatively, you can keep them all on the same page and then just add some more subsectioning e.g. == Possibly contentious RFC == and ==Likely not contentious RFC==; everything still shows up here but I think the admins figure out what they need to then. Those are still solutions which may have problems (c.f. my comment earlier about possibly poisoning the well--Cunard brings up an example above that looks non-contentious but really isn't). --Izno (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal opinion is that the latter concept is the better one. In fact, ANRFC was previous "sectioned" until several months ago when somebody decided it was a "brilliant" idea to remove the sections. But, at the least two sections: 'Contentious RfCs' (which would be transcluded here), and then a more general 'Unclosed RfCs' (which wouldn't be) would be a vast improvement. Also, it needs to be clear that non-Admins can "reject" RfCs from the second list if they are not properly formatted RfCs or are otherwise uncloseable, without fear of such judgements being frivilously reverted as a matter of course; also NACs need to have the authority to move entries from the first list to the second one if they determine that an RfC isn't "contentious" enough to require Admin attention... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Whenever sections are introduced, it seems that someone eventually removes them after a few months. Maybe the next time they're restored, there should be a hidden comment saying "Please do not remove these headings even if the section is empty." Sunrise (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall Very sensible idea, I also suggest to allow/recommend that if a NAC sees a RFC that requires an admin in the less contentious area, the NAC can move it into the admin section. AlbinoFerret 23:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant

User:WhatamIdoing, what is happening is because the WMF is refusing to hire competent people to override bad decisions made by editors and admins. Wikipedia is obviously broken. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) See User talk:Nyttend#RFC — QuackGuru's idea of a bad close is one where the admin assesses consensus and closes a discussion likewise, because "The closer must find out who is right or wrong." Would someone mind instructing QuackGuru on the standard method of decisionmaking here at Wikipedia, with a firm reminder that repeated attempts to have decisions closed because one side is right and the other wrong will result in QuackGuru's twenty-fifth block? Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) According to User:Mrjulesd Wikipedia is not a vote.[24] QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC) The WMF will continue to refuse to get involved in content decisions, including the content of guidelines such as this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"being ineducable"

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.

---

Note: This section was mistakenly placed here by me when it should have been located at WP:AN/I. The discussion as far as 05:59, 28 January 2016 has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"being ineducable". My apologies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal and LilaTretikov: the term ineducable refers to mental disability. Unless you publicly disclaim this assertion with respect to me throughout Wikipedia, all rights are reserved. M Mabelina (talk) 07:04, 28 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.

Bullying of Female editor by Shootingstar88

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 a female editor and a female human. I have been personally attacked by editor Shootingstar88 accusing me of not being a female?? The gender biased personal attack on me is here. [25]. I retaliated to some degree on my talk page, but would never attack another editor in this way. I did believe that Wikipedia is trying to encourage female editors to participate, but this type of attack doesn't help that cause!!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to prove my gender to any editor too. How can I do this please?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out why it would matter to Shootingstar88 whether you were male or female, but after reading the diff you provided, I see that you have somewhat misrepresented what they said. The nub of their claim was not that you weren't female per se, but that you are a men's rights activist masquerading as a female in order to push a men's rights POV on articles about women, and not get negative feedback for it. That's really quite different from what you reported here. Shootingstar88 is essentially claiming that you are not editing from a neutral point of view and are hiding your bias and philosophical conflict of interest bu pretending to be something you're not. So proving that you are female (which I'm not sure you can do - although someone from the WP:OTRS team can correct me on that if I'm wrong) doesn't really solve the perceived problem of bias and lack of neutrality. I would say you need to address that question, and not the other - and Shootingstar88 actually has some good advice for your there:

When I came here, I had trouble with the other editors too. But I discussed the issues and got over it, because in the end if you cite good studies that reflect the majority consensus in scientific literature then no one can revert your edits. Good research means you have to read a lot of scholarly reviews or replicated primary studies from pubmed or sciencedirect.

I think you should consider that. BMK (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am specifically talking about me being accused falsely of not being a female and extreme gender bias!! Wikipedia talk of how many men are editors compared with women and I am accused of not being female. This is extreme sexism. So, who is the WP:OTRS team? I am desperate now to prove my gender!! Why the hell should i have to though is the point. And here you are Beyond My Ken dismissing this personal attack. What type of sexist culture exists here??? Charlotte135 (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify Shootingstar88 of this thread so that they may participate in the discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the underlying dispute at all, but that remark is definitely inappropriate on Shootingstar88's part. For the record, Wikipedia:Harassment is a policy (so are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy, but we'll leave those aside for the moment...). You don't need to prove anything about your identity. Nor could you, because gender identity is self-determined; we have to take your word for it by the very definition. — Earwig ^talk 04:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So, this was stated by Shootingstar88 four days ago and you followed with attacks against them and Flyer22 Reborn. What is this? Is this some kind of tactic? You seem to launch your own attacks (edit summary - "Leave me alone Flyer22 and shootingstar you are just cheap, nasty bullies.") But now you show up four days after and wanting something here? It is called a boomerang. Your heat-to-light ratio isn't looking good so far.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone wanting to know why I, Shootingstar88 or others feel the way we do about Charlotte135 can see this topic ban discussion. They can also see this and this section at Shootingstar88's talk page. And, yes, Charlotte135 commonly misrepresents people's comments, views and behavior. And even if one were to prove that Charlotte135 is female/a woman, it doesn't negate the disruptive editing and POV-pushing that Charlotte135 engages in when it comes to gender topics. Furthermore, as noted by me, Montanabw and CFCF, Charlotte135 was WP:Hounding Shootingstar88. I stated the following to Charlotte135 at Shootingstar88's talk page: "You saw Shootingstar88 editing domestic violence articles, and you even complained about Shootingstar88 editing the Intimate partner violence article. You stated, "Disturbingly though, while this witch hunt goes on and on, much to the pleasure of Flyer22reborn and her colleagues, editors are quietly continuing to quickly delete significant sections of the intimate partner violence section, basically in an attempt to convey to readers that men are the only perpetrators of IPV and women the victims. As anyone here can obviously see that is just not what the science says! Is this what Wikipedia represents? I'm a woman, but I'm also a scientist, and it is clear that the frantic additions to support a topic ban above, is about this censorship and agenda on Wikipedia and it appears.'" Charlotte135 has denied stalking Shootingstar88, even though the evidence is clear. Charlotte135 plays the victim when called out on violating Wikipedia's rules, and then asserts that Montanabw, CFCF and Gandydancer are a part of a gang (are my gang) intent on making things difficult (for Charlotte135). Quite frankly, I'd rather never interact with Charlotte135 again in my lifetime; that is how frustrating an editor Charlotte135 is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason I posted here is that I am a woman!!! And I am more than willing to prove it. I thought Wikipedia encourages women to join Wikipedia. Flyer22reborn you keep bringing up my editing at the domestic violence article because I dared, as a scientist to stumble across the article and saw extreme bias of you and a few editors However I've moved forward. How would you like your very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry between you and your brother in your parent's place every time you try to edit an article??? I just want the accusations that I am not a woman to stop! Full stop. I have periods each month, I have breasts and a vagina, but still I get accused of being part of some mensrights group and that I am a man. I want it to stop. That's it. Nothing more. No tactics. No bullshit, just stop the gender bias.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of shootringstar88 and flyerreborn accusing me of not being a woman. [26] I'm just sick of it and want it to stop. I am not a man and I am not a bloody mensrightsactivist!! Show some respect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is what another uninvolved editor who noticed the bullying going on, wrote to Shootingstar88. Shootingstar88. I have never met Charlotte135 but I have no reason to believe that she is a man masquerading as a woman. I am in favour of having more women contribute to Wikipedia. Does that make me a woman masquerading as a man? Biscuittin (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I very much appreciated them standing up for me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there are two things to look at here:

The first of them of them is the pov-pushing Charlotte 135 has been accused of, and Charlotte 135 has accused others of, to look if it is really POV-pushing or not.(on both sides, ofc).

The second of them are personal attacks on Charlotte 135 regarding gender... and the follow up incivilites by all involved editors.

I'll split it up in two sections.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135, you asked, "How would [I] like [my] very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry between [me] and[ my] brother in [my] parent's place every time [I] try to edit an article???" I'd respond the way I've already responded to you on the matter; Alison saw that comment, by the way, judging by her thanks via WP:Echo. I already told you that if you have doubts about my innocence with regard to sockpuppetry, ask her. Otherwise, you just look desperate every time you try to mention my block log, which includes clear edit summaries about unjustified blocks and one block to protect my account when it had become WP:Compromised. I don't have a long history of blocks. Why don't you actually count them? You can keep misrepresenting my block log and trying to divert the attention from your bad behavior as much as you want to, but it will not work. Now do stop obsessing over me. And, oh, I wasn't living with my parents. My teenage brother was living with me. I'll go back to ignoring you now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I was just sick of you and others trying to drag me back into the domestic violence article. I've walked. But you and Shootingstar won't let me go. Here you and Shootingstar actually posted a separate section on domestic violence on another article's talk page. Then you Flyer22 went ahead and deleted it from the record! Here is the entire conversation [27]

Why do you and shootingstar keep dragging up the bloody domestic violence article. It is an extremely biased article which is filled with POV, but I don't care. I've walked and got on with editing. Nonetheless I'm a big girl and promise not to bring your sockpuppetry and history of blocks up again, albeit in reaction to your constant attempts to continue beating a dead horse. Just stop the accusations over my gender and your mensrights crud. Please!Charlotte135 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible POV-pushing

Personal attacks and incivility

This is clearly inappropiate. Don't speculate on any editors gender. Accusing someone of representing a wrong gender based on their views is unacceptable. User:Shootingstar88 please tell us why you did that. And please promise not to do it again. An apology would be good as well.

This is already a very angry post...

and no matter how someone attacks you personally, you must not tell anyone to grow up, User:Charlotte135. Editors at Wikipedia are asked to respond to personal attacks with civility. Not with other personal attacks, which just puts oil into the fire and makes the situation difficult to resolve(and can lead to sanctions against you as well!).--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Müdigkeit, that sounds fair. I'm a big girl and accept that my reaction to these comments was not ideal. I have read the policy you pointed out too. I apologise for my reaction.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

'Totally agree Müdigkeit, speculation on who someone is, which is what shootingstar88 did (not just gender, but in particular who they are ) is edging very close to outing, I'd request that edit ( the first one you mention) be revdel'd and ShootingStar88 needs to back off Charlotte135 unless proof of his accusation (through the appropriate channels on Wikipedia) can be offered. KoshVorlon 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the thing is, Charlotte clearly *is* an MRA (directly or indirectly) from perusing their editing history. While it is statistically unlikely such a person is female, there are highly active male feminists, so I wouldnt concentrate on their gender. Just focus on their POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that an attempt at a joke at my expense Only in death? And what exactly is "an MRA" by the way? And what is a female MRA? I actually do identify as a feminist, by the way, as did my mother, but what the hell has that got to do with anything either?? What business is it of yours?? How is this gender bias, gender attacks and extreme incivility tolerated by administrators?Charlotte135 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think User:Only in death is making a joke. “MRA” is an abbreviation for "Mens’ Rights Activist," a movement with which you would appear to hold some sympathy. The overwhelming majority of Mens’ Rights Activists are men, but of course women might support that movement just as many men support feminism. There's no bias in that observation, no attack, and no incivility that I can see. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly true that nobody should be demanding that anyone else reveal or prove their gender. Who someone "really" is is irelevant. My username implies I am a two-headed alien who is president of the galaxy. I've never been asked to prove it. I once met a black nazi sympathizer. These things happen. Edits people, it's the edits that count. Comment on the edits and leave the personal stuff out of it. And yeah, everybody please just calm down. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But MarkBernstein I am a female feminist! I have a vagina, breasts, bleed once per month, have 2 biological children, one step child, a dog and a cat, and believe in rights for men, women, children and animals. I'm a scientist and believe in equality. None of my edits have evidenced POV. Only that some people like you and Flyer22, Shootingstar and others seem to know a whole lot more than me about thinks like the MRB! So...? Not all feminists are man haters Mark! But some men are misogynists and treat women with disrespect!Charlotte135 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, who can I contact in Wikipedia paid management team please, to discuss these attacks and bias against new female editors and provide some personal details to verify all of the factual, personal information being demanded of me, including my feminist beliefs? I thought Wikipedia were encouraging and welcoming of new female editors?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And MarkBernstein could you provide some diffs here to illustrate the exact edits to actual articles which show why you believe I am a male rights activist and not a fair minded adult woman in her 50's? That would be appreciated.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that all these editors who know so much about these types of groups are perhaps not neutral? Just an observation. For example if one were to carefully look at the entire editing history of shootinstar88, they seem to have only edited gender topics and hold extremely strong, even passionate personal points of view in these gender articles, very similar to the ones you and flyer22 also talk of so confidently and personally MarkBernstein. Is shootinstar88 showing a POV I'm wondering? Could some experienced editors (who importantly, are not as familiar with male and female rights movements) look at Shootingstars edit history and determine if there is a POV in their actual edits to actual articles as Beeblebrox pointed out we should only focus on. Would that explain the attacks on any neutral, good faith editors, (male or female) who try (tried, in my case) to show what the reliable sources actually say?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)

Charlotte135, you have already had editors support you in your assertion that it was improper to question your gender. You don't have to list all of your womanly qualities with exclamation marks. WP:AN is a noticeboard where editors can request administrator action and I don't see what else you are requesting besides the demand that other editors believe you are who you say you are. But this is not a discussion board where editors debate your identity. You can only change editors' opinion of you by making productive edits that abide by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Focus on the work, not on other people's opinion of you.

Administrators can only take action against misconduct, not what other editors think and believe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Understood. Just wanted to ensure all editors now clearly understand the reality that I am a woman and I am a feminist and back off! It is very clear that these editors are incredibly passionate about these mens and womens rights groups. However I'm not, so, yes please back off and show some respect Flyer22reborn and co. Now, as for the significant personal attack on me by shootinstar88, I am waiting for administrator action against Shootingstar88's misconduct for their blatant and personal accusation that I am not a woman?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:47, 28 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.

Deletion backlog

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old has a backlog of ~370 items. I've just done 50 but while I did, about 50 more were added. If anyone has the time, it's relatively simple work and instructions are provided. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why these can't be deleted by bot?  Sandstein  13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good reason: The tag might have been used in error, or maliciously. Manual checks are required.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much so. I watched this category for a couple months about a year ago, when the backlog was much worse. In my experience, about 20-25% need further administrative attention, running the gamut from nonfree images illustrating biographies, to mangled bot uploads, to full 1080p screenshots being passed off as sufficiently reduced in size, to not actually being non-free at all (typically for failing c:COM:TOO). If all you're doing is clicking on the "Rescaled per F5" link from the simple instructions, you're not doing it right. —Cryptic 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog busted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Need help from a bureaucrat or person with similar access

In the context of my last entry on AN/I, I need both help and advice on how to proceed. At the risk of repeating myself: IP-hopping stalker reverts my edits every chance he gets, disappears for 6 years, comes back doing the same thing. My solution last time was to contact their ISP, making it known that I was doing so. And I got far in the sense that I actually received a response, this is also where I got stuck when I was asked by the ISP abuse department for "server logs", after which I found out I had to contact a bureaucrat here, which I then did, and was told that for all intents and purposes, the article history IS the server logs. Is there any other kind of information that you guys can provide me with or I can somehow get my hands on for when the ISP abuse team starts demanding evidence/data to corrolate IP activity with user activity? Eik Corell (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have no special access to "server logs" or similar. –xeno^talk 14:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want information that correlates IP addresses with signed-in users, only the Wikimedia Foundation has access to that (funtionaries like checkusers and developers may have access to that, but must defer to WMF when someone wants specifics). It's my understanding that WMF will only disclose such info when compelled to by a court order or similar warrant (due to criminal or civil proceedings). You can certainly ask the WMF for help, but they may tell you that you'd need to complain to the police if you think the law has been broken. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the contributions history for a page is the equivalent of server logs, and the WMF certainly won't correlate an IP address with a registered account without something like a court order. They've told me that in the past when someone was after my IP address. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's my understanding that with the modern ToU, the WMF reserves the right to voluntarily disclose the information to ISPs themselves when filing abuse reports. I'm pretty sure they still won't disclose it to third party filers without a court order or similar.

However I don't think this has anything to do with accounts. From reading the linked discussion, it sounds like the editor isn't using an account, so their IP is already exposed via the contrib history. The problem is the ISP is asking for server logs by which I'm pretty sure they mean regular HTTP/S server logs. This is a problem because 1) the WMF doesn't log everything anyway AFAIK only a sample (like 1/1000), although I'm not sure if this applies to edits as well (possibly the CU data comes from such logs just in a more userfriendly format) 2) they're not likely to disclose it even though it relates to an IP editor.

Unfortunately convincing the ISP that the contrib history is in fact better than regular server logs since they clearly and easily link the contribution with the IP is likely to be difficult. Particularly if you're a third party rather than the WMF. (Admitedly want they may want is the contrib history and server logs anyway, even though the later provides little advantage.)

I guess the additional logged info that is accessible to a CU (like user agent) may be enough to convince the ISP regardless of the source or whether it's in a normal log format. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the WMF won't disclose this to a third party even for an IP and CUs definitely won't. So I guess we do get back to the earlier point namely your only real hope is to convince the WMF to file the abuse report themselves. If the IP is only occasionally doing this, then disappearing for long stretches, I suspect it'll be difficult to convince them to intervene.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming the ISP took you seriously, and you actually got hold of the logs they require (unlikely, the WMF is not going to hand over connection logs to a private third party company absent any court order), the first thing they will do is talk to their customer for a response. That is the point where this ends. Reverting your edits on wikipedia is neither criminal nor harrassment - by design wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and allows non-registered users. Their customer will say to them 'Im having a dispute over content' and thats the end of that. Since they pay their ISP money, unless there is the likely threat of legal action an ISP will not take action against their customers. I say this from long experience of tangling with ISPs over genuine harrassment issues. If there are threats of violence etc, report it to the police, and they can request the info needed if they think its credible enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Check-in on Neelix G6 speedy criterion

Hi admins! On November 24, 2015, the community endorsed the temporary usage of speedy criterion G6 to short-cut deletion of redirects created by Neelix: "Any administrator may delete any redirect created by User:Neelix as uncontroversial maintenance under the WP:G6 speedy deletion criterion, if they reasonably believe that said redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause." Multiple editors have been working at this problem for nearly two full months, and recently some Neelix-created redirects have led to time-consuming discussions again (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 18#Perfumedly for example). Supposedly Legacypac has again begun to receive flack for his work on this issue, and seemingly as a result there are more obvious deletes getting sent to WP:RFD again (see today's log for good examples). Because of this, and because the Neelix G6 amendment was meant to be temporary, I'm seeking to either reaffirm its endorsement, or else rescind it. Also, since the page listing all of the redirects created by Neelix is so long that it crashes my computer, I guess I'd like a progress update. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for raising this.I assess that of the 50,000 redirects [28] created and only edited by Neelix maybe ten thousand have been deleted, but there are more then 20,000 that remain unchecked but appear very similar to the deleted ones. There are some distinct varieties such as 1. fake or extraordinarily rare words created by adding multiple suffixes [29] [30] 2. non-english words with no affinity for the target [31] and [32] 3. generic phrases that happen to be meanings of non-English names [33], 4. straight up stupid redirects of words and phrases that have nothing to do with the target, or are directed to an obscure target instead of the Primary one. 5. Sliding words together to create fakecompoundwords [34] [35] and I'm sure a few more types I'm forgetting. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work getting rid of this garbage. If there is still that much of it we should certainly keep speedy deleting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector (and yes, I did mean to ping you this time), Legacypac, and Beeblebrox - I'll be more than happy to slog through checking some of them out in my spare time. However, I don't want to create more work for folks, so here's a question. I checked out 2 just now, the first, Kayte, has a rationale on the page, which seems to be correct. The second, Mathyu, has no rationale, and seems to be simply a very bizarre variant of the name, Matthew. Would that second one be of the type that should be marked G6? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Kayte, to my surprise, survived an RfD [36] leading to the explanation on the redirect page. Turns out it is a rare enough spelling no other bio exists on Wikipedia with that first name. I'd speedy Mathyu [37] as nonsense. Maybe we should start posting "Looks ok" on the talk pages of redirects we have checked out to save others looking at them again? Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My interpretation (and intent, FWIW) was, basically, if you have to ask whether it qualifies or not, it doesn't, list it at RfD. Speedy should be for very obvious cases, and the idea was for this to be a "delete-on-sight" criterion for the most obviously deletion-worthy of them, to save a whole bunch of time and hits on the database. It's working against that idea to be placing tags on the redirects that have been "checked", I think. Mathyu is a borderline case I think. If this had gone to RfD, I think you'd find that some editors endorse it as a phonetic redirect, while others would suggest deletion because of its limited utility, but I couldn't say for sure from here what the outcome would be. On the other hand, a redirect like Tradeunionistic should have qualified for deletion without Legacypac having had to identify it and list it at Rfd first (it was eventually speedied under different criteria), and there have been a large number of those.

I have an idea in my head to make a list of the discussions we've already had at Rfd on Neelix-created redirects and look for common themes, so that maybe we can determine which types of these are not surviving discussions, and provide recommendations that are better than just my wild guessing. I might work on it tonight. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've partly created the list at User:Ivanvector/Neelix RfD list. I've only done a few days' worth and don't have more time to work on it now, but I'll check in on it later. Feel free to edit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll ask again but why are people reverting to restore the entire gigantic list? It's in the archives if someone wants it with the original numbering. All that's doing is discouraging more outsiders from helping something when their computer hangs for no reason. I can't tell what's been reviewed and kept unless I check each blue link manually which is quite silly. Those rules are part of the reason why so few people are helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your question Ricky. There are two lists of Neelix redirects I'm aware of. One by target and one numbered to just over 50,000 - both linked at the top of User talk:Neelix The "by target" one is less useful today because links don't turn red in it. The 50,000 numbered list is better because deleted links turn red, but sadly it does not show what the targets are so each has to be manually checked. It is also a really big file! If anyone has a better list, please post it. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have WP:POPUPS enabled you can hover to see the target of a redirect from the link. That might save some time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just remove the red links? See User talk:Anomie/Neelix list. I tried to manually remove some to shorten the page when it was started but that's been reverted without explanation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree it would be nice if that list were broken up. My computer can't handle the full list, and lots of people are using computers with less power than mine. It seems to be about 1250kb as a full list. Even if we split it up by 10,000 redirects per page, that would be a significant improvement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I say make a bot request for a bot to just get rid of the red links. The original will still be in the archive, and it'll cut down the list. You could also ask for someone to split the list into smaller chunks but seriously just removing the red links alone will make the page manageable. Plus again the original full list is in the archive so why the absolute desire to keep a monster than is literally unusable by most people on the page? Look I'm just making a suggestion. If everyone here is intent on making this awful for anyone else to help, that's on them. I asked for help and got this 46k list into something manageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good ideas on making the list more manageable - let's figure that out on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Anomie/Neelix_list Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Good news - the list has been broken into 5 lists with editable sections so it is much easier to work on. Please help at the link just above. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had forgotten how bad it was. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I found more stupid breast screening ones just for you Drmies. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't read every single word in the section (too discouraging) but to respond to the original question, I support the continuation of the special g6 CSD. Let's keep in mind the extremely low damage created by an incorrect deletion. It means if someone is looking for an article about X, and they enter X they will find it but if they enter Y they might or might not. And if they report that Y is a reasonable search term for X, it can be created in seconds. Literally.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Deleting a redirect with no incoming links that was created with NO thought is not going to damage the project. In the last few days I've CSD'd hundreds and hundreds of redirects based on 'non-words' and made up phrases with ZERO real word use. Put the redirect in quotes, Google it, and get results like 16 hits to wiki mirrors or a few French hits or finding the Neelix target list is the only result on Google for the supposed word! These fake words are just as harmful as building redirects like junkityjunk or nonsensively or Neelix should be banned forever and pointing them at random pages except worse because many look somewhat plausible. These get robotically copied into the free dictionary etc and escape into the wild.

For my efforts the peanut gallery is voting on banning me in another ANi thread for my alleged Neelix crusade (could that be closed already?) in the case of WV - reverting some of the CSD's and disruptively voting in RfD with personal attacks against me for making the nominations. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

Enforcement of the ArbCom Arab-Israeli restrictions

Hi, I'm a sysop on fr:wp where there are talks about implementing a similar policy than yours regarding the ability to edit the Arab-israeli conflict articles for accounts that have less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure. My question is technical, how do you make sure this type of accounts can't edit those pages ? RegardsKimdime (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kimdime: Right now it is enforced by Special:AbuseFilter/698. MusikAnimal would be the person to contact about specific details. Jbh^Talk 13:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--Kimdime (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kimdime: You may also want to take a look at this related proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Robinson (footballer, born 1979)

Could an Admin please semi-protect Paul Robinson (footballer, born 1979), it's being targeted by vandals for some unknown reason. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Gfoley4 following a request at WP:RFPP. Jenks24 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FPAS case request

A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Future Perfect at Sunrise case request

SPI page template oddity

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.

---

For me at least, a template is behaving very oddly. If I look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavindeep there is very little content and no link to any archive page. If, however, I edit the page I see the {{SPIpriorcases}} template there as it should be, and if I preview the page the link to the archive page does show. Is this a general and/or known issue? BC108 (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Try purging the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

All is now well - thanks! It had me very confused but apologies for what turned out to be a non-issue. BC108 (talk) 11:11, 31 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.

Kiernan Majerus-Collins

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 seems to be self-created and non-notable, so I nominated it for deletion (or at least I think I did, first time!). The author of the page has removed the notice from the page twice now, and cleared the discussion I created. I don't think I did anything wrong in the deletion nomination, so can someone take a look? Thanks Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong done on your end, the discussion page links have been added back by another user, might just be worth keeping an eye on it until the discussion has run its course. Amortias (T)(C) 23:03, 31 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.

Restoring warnings

Hello, I wanted to advise you that user:BobKawanaka keeps restoring warnings on the talk page of user:166.173.251.120 after I told him that he needs to stop because user:166.173.251.120 unfortunately has the right to delete warnings on his own talk page. I do not know how to handle this one, so I need an administrator to make the final judgment. CLCStudent (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That being said this looks like another one of the IP's that the 166.X troll uses (who has been banned). RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

His | edit summaries don't look very promising. I'm thinking a block would be good. KoshVorlon 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• The IP has been blocked as a vandal, so that part's done. As to the warnings, CLC is correct, any user may remove almost anything from their talk page, and warring over it is not a good use of anyone's time. Hopefully that's all that needs to be said about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ryulong

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.

---

Howdy. It's been over a full year now, so may we have Ryulong's talkpage privillages restored? He deserves a chance to seek reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 1 February 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.

Disruptive RFC needs closing

An excavator driven by a climate change denier, still digging industriously.

Biscuittin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently unhappy with the tone of the article on Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because he thinks we do not give enough weight to the denialist viewpoint. This has resulted in a long series of conversations at various venues, which have as usual supported the scientific consensus view. Since Biscuittin seems unwilling to accept the answer no, I proposed that he take one of two courses: walk away, or start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC. Sadly his attempt at an RFC is simply to rehash the same nonspecific and unactionable WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See Talk:Climate change denial § RfC: This article is unencyclopedic and does not comply with NPOV. I think this RFC needs closing as obviously unactionable and Biscuittin needs counselling on how to start an RFC that can actually yield any kind of result. Either than or the whole thing needs to go to WP:AE, since people are losing patience with the constant demands to be "fair" to climate change denialists. 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Guy (Help!)

Addendum: some bizarre choices of location for canvassing.

WikiProject meteorology, arguably valid

WikiProject earth science, arguably valid

WikiProject cosmology, WTF?

WikiProject solar system ditto

WikiProject physics srsly? And twice?

WikiProject chemistry also twice

WikiProject plants also [38] twice

WikiProject animals

WikiProject geology

WikiProject soil.

I think this looks like disruption and a case of WP:RGW. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the RfC heading to Talk:Climate_change_denial#RfC:_Is_this_article_encyclopedic_and_does_it_comply_with_NPOV? and struck out part of the RfC to accommodate objections from other editors. I have not been canvassing, I have just followed the advice at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. I have posted news of the RfC on several Wikiproject science talk pages because I want to get comments from a broad range of editors with an interest in science. So far, the same small group of people have been making the same assertions over and over again so it would be useful to have a wider range of contributors and this is the reason for the RfC. Any disruption has not been caused by me but by a small group of editors who want to maintain the article as it is, in spite of its unencyclopedic tone and failure to comply with WP:NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Two editors appear to be trying to prevent me from publicising this RfC. [39] [40] Biscuittin (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Guy. And this isn't the first waste-of-time from this editor. This is within the area of climate change; what about some sanctions? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that it was Guy who suggested that I start an RfC. [41] Biscuittin (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this a trap? Suggest I start an RfC and then sanction me for following the suggestion? Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not a trap, but you treated it as if it was: rampant canvassing in completely inappropriate venues for an RFC that is of no use whatsoever other than as a venue for you to continue making vague and nonspecific demands to change the article because reasons. RFCs are supposed to be specific and actionable. The only likely action from yours is a trip to WP:AE. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: The user was alerted in December. If you believe sanctions under ARBCOMCC should be applied, WP:AE is the appropriate venue. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There's a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for any admins who can find a few minutes to stop by and help out. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting about it every week on AN is hardly necessary nor helpful, especially when the latest post is only a few days old. Everything is a backlog by definition. It'll get done eventually. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your...help? ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is, indeed, helpful, and should not be discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zordon (2nd 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.

---

I'm looking for some advice. What's the best thing to do with this AfD? The nominator is a sockpuppet and was blocked before the end of the AfD; one established editor participated, as did two IPs, one of which belongs to the same sockmaster. In light of that, the result is potentially unsound. Is it worth re-opening it or re-closing it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry is not good. However, the article should probably have been merged anyway. There doesn't seem to be an independent notability for the character. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

AFD is not required anyways for merging. Merging can be done unilaterally, as it is part of the normal editing process and reversible without the use of admin tools. I see no contradiction with closing the AFD as bad faith/sock abuse, and just enacting the merge anyway. --Jayron32 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The AFD had been NAC'd as merge, but I reclosed it as a bad-faith-speedy-keep with reccomended merger discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 29 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.

MfD of WP:Reform of 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.

---

Could I please request that several admins go through this discussion and stop the incivility and bludgeoning that is occurring in various !votes and comments by various users on both sides. I am aware that this is not the 'typical' board for this type of request, but several users may need to be brought here because of comments on the essay/proposal's talkpage and the MfD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Also posted on WP:ANI

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 this page

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

---

I created this Talk:Tomyris//Archive_1 by mistake. Would you please delete it? And next time where I can submit similar cases? Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. You can tag any page where you are the sole contributor with the {{db-author}} template and an admin will delete it within a few hours at most. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 30 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.

Steel1943

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.

---

Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please block this user. He keeps reinstating original research in the Melissa Duck article. 172.56.30.65 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

With very few exceptions (and NOR isn't on of these), we never block a user without first trying to communicate with him/her about the issue at hand. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OP blocked. Unsurprisingly a banned user. Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Long term abuse

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse

 – Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Future Perfect at Sunrise case request, integrated version I think we should start thinking about whether TW and the standard UI can be tweaked to provide a "long term abuse" flag, to help build best practice into everyday actions. For example, patrollers may be dimply aware of LTA and may revert edits linked to same (as was the case with Grawp and Willy On Wheels years back), but our structures mean that centralised data collection is difficult. I am not thinking of anything massive here, just a checkbox "possible long term abuse" or some such which flags all parties to step back and cross-check. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This would probably be better at WP:AN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle feature requests belong here (and you need GitHub account). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: I definitely agree that this should be reposted/moved to WP:AN where Admins can discuss it in more detail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I think this is a good idea regardless of the fate of that particular motion. WT:TWINKLE is another good place for suggestions on-wiki. Having a consistent way of labeling actions as LTA reverts would also help in data collection about how much abuse comes from a particular case and how much time and effort is being spent dealing with it. I imagine it'd be more persuasive to show good data about a problem if/when we have to ask the WMF for assistance dealing with it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• We have LTA and had for years, the problem is 1) It is basically moribund, no one clerks it or does anything to new requests to update or add new cases and 2) It is not prominently linked from anywhere nor frequently referred to. I'm not sure if 1) is a cause of or an effect of 2) but those are major issues. I've noted twice in as many months on this very board that Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval has not had any action on it in quite some time, some pending requests have been around for many months with no one approving or declining addition to the main list. I've not worked on that particular task in the past, and it isn't really in my skill set, but there are users who ARE good at clerking similar boards (like SPA or ARBCOM) and it would just require people with that skill set for taking up the ball and running with it. I think it SHOULD be a working process that allows us to refer others to problem cases, and where we can keep historical data on problematic trolls and other badly disruptive users so patterns and the like can be more easily recognizable. The process exists, we just need a dedicated group of users who are willing to maintain it. Since no one is, it has basically died, but not for lack of usefulness, just for lack of anyone doing anything to keep it useful. --Jayron32 00:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to spend some time to publish some of those LTA reports; are there any instructions anywhere that I can follow on what needs to be done? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
  • A lot of LTA these days is dealt with via SPI. That being said, LTA is pretty damn moribund. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it's still useful, mostly for the subtle vandalism that requires an explanation – for example, "Oh, that's the cause-of-death vandal. Yes, his edits sometimes look constructive, but if you examine them closely, they're hoaxes." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree. Was just making two separate factual observations, I wasn't implying causation one way or the other. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• FWIW, I would certainly consider a case on this if one arose. I was outvoted on whether to hold such a case in the matter mentioned here, but I cannot predict what I would have in the end said if we had held such a case. There are in such matters difficult factors of balance. There is in most instances a difference between the magnitude of the latest precipitating event and the general history, and I can see no fixed rule for making such decisions. The role of admin action and arb com is to prevent disruption, not punish past disruption. We always need to predict and there is no way to do this securely except in the most obvious instances. It will always be a matter of personal judgment, which means that in almost all instance there will be profound disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl and the Passion

I am trying to list a 1980's Long Island Band called Carl and the Passion. We were a New York Music Awards nominee in 1988 for Best New Band and Best Male Vocalist. I have tried to edit as a registered user our submission on The Music of Long Island Page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Music_of_Long_Island#cite_note-1). Please advise if I am doing something wrong in this process as I am confused with the process to getting this uploaded correctly. Thank you! Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulDohertyAIA (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@PaulDohertyAIA: In the {{Cite web}} template, you forgot the |url=, which I have just added. Also, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, as you shouldn't be inserting information about your own band into Wikipedia. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight

Recently the Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tag was TFDd (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_6#Template:Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent) and replaced by User:Primefac as "replacing template use per TFD outcome using AWB". On his talkpage, Primefac was notified by User:Marchjuly that the images should be judged on a case-by-case basis, "many of the "Non-free Scout logo nocontent" tags were added a long time ago and either simply ignored by the uploader (and tus the problem remains) or never removed when the problem was fixed. I think many of the images you have tagged do have non-free use rationales; the question is whether they are valid nfurs.". The deprecated Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tags were bot-mass-replaced without review, vide https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Primefac&offset=&limit=500&target=Primefac for January 21, 2016, too many to diff-list here.

Yesterday I went down the list and added appropriate text to several dozen of these images in article space.

In several others I found that the old Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tag had not been removed even after the issue had been corrected years earlier; the tag should have been removed years ago as each issue was addressed. User:Gadget850, who placed the tags 4 years ago, retired in July 2015. It's easy to tag-and-forget, we've all done it.

In yet others I found there was no justifiable reason for the image, so I did not remove the NFCC tag. I proceeded to work on all these images.

Later yesterday, marchjuly undid all my edits, claiming "Re-added template. An administrator will remove it after assessing it". I have seen how the regular image-issue admins deal with images, almost always favoring deletion.

Again today, marchjuly just follows behind me and undoes all my edits without concern for their merit, or following to see where the images actually link.

I am asking for an impartial administrator to look at each of these images in turn. The only way I think these can be reviewed impartially is by an admin who does not frequently get involved in image deletions. Case-by-case may take longer, but it is much more honest than a steamroll mass deletion. There is no reason for them all to be deleted because they all have the same, often inaccurate tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged so I'll respond. It appears that as result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent, files which had been tagged with the deprecated {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} were being re-tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} by Primefac. I have quite a number of files on my watchlist, so when I noticed a few of these changes I posted at User talk:Primefac#Non-free files related to scouting/guilding and asked about it. I then added more of the files which were tagged to my watchlist so that I could go back a take a closer look. I saw Kintetsubuffalo removing the "di" templates often with the edit sum "old tag had improperly been left on" or "appropriate text commentary added". While it's true the templates were added by a bot, the non-free concerns in many of the files were not and have not been resolved. The template instructions also say "Note that if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page." which I assumed means that only an administrator should remove them and that Kintetsubuffalo doing so was premature. So, I re-added the templates and then began posting comments on file talk pages, such as File talk:Druze Scout Association.png#Non-free usage, File talk:Scouts Polynesiens.svg#Non-free usage in Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien, File talk:Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council 1980s.png#Non-free usage in "Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council" and "Rub el Hizb", File talk:Catholic Scout Association in Israel.png#Non-free usage in Arab and Druze Scouts Movement or File talk:Scouting in Saint Martin-Sint Maarten.png#Non-free usage, explaining my take on the non-free usage of the image. My intent was to get to all of the files which were tagged and post similar messages on their talk pages. In the same manner, any editor including Kintetsubuffalo could also post on a file's talk page and comment on the file's non-free usage. My understanding of the template is that the administrator who eventually reviews the file will look at the talk page for comments and then decide what to do. If re-adding the tags was inappropriate on my part, then it was a mistake made in good faith and I apologize to Kintetsubuffalo and anyone else involved. I am assuming that the administrators know to look at the talk page and decide or suggest that further discussion is needed via WP:FFD. If it's more appropriate, however, to nominate them now for FFD instead of waiting for the speedy to be resolved, then I will go back and self-revert and add {{Ffd}} instead. I just want to add that I did not remove any of the images which were tagged by Primefac, I simply re-added "di" tags which I felt were inappropriately removed. The only scouting logo I have removed today was here per WP:NFCCE because it lacked the non-free use rationale required per WP:NFCC#10c and was being used in a gallery which is typically not allowed per WP:NFG because such usage is considered to be decorative and fail WP:NFCC#8.

As for Again today, marchjuly just follows behind me and undoes all my edits without concern for their merit, or following to see where the images actually link, I think that might be in reference to this edit where I did revert Kintetsubuffalo, but only because they reverted here which actually re-added the incorrect article to the non-free use rationale and was unnecessary since Salavat had already fixed the problem here. I've tried to explain this at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo#File:Movimiento Scout Católico.svg so hopefully that particular edit is no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless you've specifically directed the admins and interested parties to look at the talk page, there is no evidence to suggest that they do indeed look at the talkpages, and I have been involved in enough of these deletions over 10 years to see that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The template clearly says "Administrators: Check the image talk page for comments before deleting this file." I am not aware of any way to specifically direct an administrator's attention to the file's talk page other than by posting on the talk page itself. If a file is deleted in error, then it's undeletion can be requested via WP:REFUND, can't it? A post may also be made on the deleting admin's user talk page asking for clarification and whether they checked the file's talk page before deleting it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Some variant of {{Hang on}} seems to be needed here, like how {{Di-replaceable fair use}} has instructions to apply {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. (Template:Hang on immediately categorizes pages it's on into CAT:CSD, so it's probably not a good idea to use it directly.)

Speaking solely for myself, though I don't usually monitor CAT:DFUI, I do do a fair amount of work in the other nonfree image deletion categories. I don't notice comments on file talk pages until after deleting their files mainly because they're essentially never relevant - out of the tens of thousands of images I deleted last year, I remember exactly one having a comment that wasn't either a Wikiproject banner or vandalism. —Cryptic 08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OK Cryptic. Is there another way to direct an admin to check the talk page before deleting the image since there seems to be no "hang on" for this situation? Can you just post something on the main file's page? For example, something like the following:

Administrators: Please check the file's talk page because comments regarding its non-free usage have been posted there.

Otherwise, I don't know how to tell an admin to look check a file's talk page any better than what the template currently says. Even if it's common practice for admins to not check file talk pages before deletion (thus making any talk page post basically pointless), there's still the "Note that if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image." Isn't that still more appropriate than simply removing the template before it has been reviewed by an admin? Once again, I only re-added the templates because I thought that they could only be removed by an admin after they had verified whether there was a problem with the file's non-free use. If anyone can remove them, then I will self-revert and nominate those files which I feel do not satisfy the NFCC for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Would that be an acceptable way to try and resolve this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|Please see the talk page and this}} at the very top would be more likely to be seen, and I don't think anyone who wants these images deleted would object to them moving to WP:FFD; but neither of those methods are going to fulfill Kintetsubuffalo's (entirely reasonable) request for an admin who doesn't normally work in image deletion to look at these. —Cryptic 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I just re-added the same templates that were removed. Your suggestion of "di-replaceable fair use disputed" seems workable, but that's mainly used for NFCC#1 issues, isn't it? As for a non-image admin looking at files, that's fine because I only re-added the templates so that the files could be reviewed by any admin. But, that review would be because the files are tagged for speedy deletion. Even if they do not meet the conditions for speedy, that does not preclude them being nominated for discussion at FFD, does it? I mean articles which are inappropriately tagged/declined for speedy or are de-prodded can still be brought to AfD, can't they? Doesn't the same also apply to files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was bold per Cryptic's above suggestion and went ahead and added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to all of the file's where I re-added {{di-fails NFCC}} tags. This is hopefully acceptable to Kintetsubuffalo since it will be pretty hard for any reviewing administrator not to see the new template. I believe I got all of the files I re-tagged, but please let me know if I missed any and I will add the template asap. Or, another editor can add it if they want. I did not re-re-add a "di-fails NFCC" tag to File:Scouts du Burkina Faso.png even though I still think there are still some outstanding NFCC issues which need to be resolved. I will discuss those at WP:FFD. I will also start a discussion at WT:NFC to and ask that the wording of templates such as "di-fails NFCC" cannot be clarified a bit to avoid any confusion and also make mention of "di-replaceable fair use disputed" or a similar template for those contesting such nominations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MarchjulyFWIW, I appreciate your efforts to go back and add the clearer tag. We're still at cross-purposes, but that was big of you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I think we've disagreed about stuff in the past and probably will do so again about something else in the future, but I also think we are both here to try and improve Wikipedia and are acting in good faith. As I said in my above post, if I missed a file or two, or if there are other files which were tagged, then feel free to add Cryptic's suggestion to the file's page right below the "di-fails NFCC" template. The only thing you need to remember to do is to remove the "tlp|" from {{tlp|Di-replaceable fair use disputed|Please see the talk page and [[WP:AN#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight]]}} so that the template is not treated as a wikilink. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this tempest in a teapot can't be resolved. I support Kintetsubuffalo in his effort to fix the images and their templates. --evrik ^(talk) 03:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Some time ago, users added {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} to file information pages, confirmin that the files violated WP:NFCC#8. The only thing which happened in 2016 was that the syntax was changed: one template saying that the files violate WP:NFCC#8 was replaced by another template saying that the same files violate WP:NFCC#8. If a file no longer violates WP:NFCC#8, or if the original template was misapplied, then I assume that the admin who evaluates the tags will remove the tag and possibly remove the file from some pages but keep it on pages where its use is appropriate.

This matter also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#Tidying up "di-XXXX" templates for non-free use. I left a comment on that page about talk pages and templates for disputing tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I'm about to go through all 163 files which are up for deletion as of today in Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 21 January 2016. Thought I'd point out that I am aware of this discussion. — ξ^xplicit 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I deleted 147 images. As expected, most did in fact blatantly violated WP:NFCC; I tagged seven talk pages with {{G8-exempt}} as some sort of discussion transpired, which I felt was reasonable to archive. I removed the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag from remaining the 16 images, as there was reasonable cause for a full discussion at WP:FFD. — ξ^xplicit 04:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This was not an appropriate action. Please restore the images. --evrik ^(talk) 21:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How was it not? These images were tagged with {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} for violating WP:NFCC for years, something User:Kintetsubuffalo agreed with when expressed that he wouldn't argue for the retention of 80% of the images [42]. Even then, I didn't delete over a dozen because they required more discussion at WP:FFD. As I mentioned before, these images blatantly violated policy and User:Marchjuly, at times backed by User:Stefan2, adequately provided reasoning in several talk pages like they did on File talk:GirlGuiding New Zealand 2007-2008.png. I fail to see what part of any of this was not the appropriate action. You may not agree with the policy, but that's another matter entirely. — ξ^xplicit 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate because you went ahead and acted unilaterally. I was going to ask for a list so we could review the images. I saw a bunch of on my watchlist get deleted I had no idea were up for discussion, much less deletion. Citing Stefan2 does nothing to bolster your case as he is an avid deletionist, no impartiality there ... Please restore the images so we can go through them and see if they can get fixed ... or have someone impartial review them. This is what was asked for in the first place. --evrik ^(talk) 23:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And if I had kept them all, would that not have made me an avid inclusionist? Or do these underhanded attacks only apply when things don't swing a preferred way? I don't see how you were unaware of these images being up for deletion, as you had commented on this discussion 48 hours before I became aware of it, with a link provided by Kintetsubuffalo himself from the very beginning to the list by means of Primefac's contributions that showed all the images that were tagged before they were deleted. I came into this situation knowing nothing about it, pursued no specific outcome, and still declined to delete 16 of them. If my actions are the result of not being impartial, feel free to report by conduct at WP:ANI. — ξ^xplicit 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

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.

---

Also see Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin, December 2014

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([43][44][45]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [46], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [47],[48],[49]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [50] and a couple dictionary definitions [51] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
  For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [52] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [53] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[54] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

• De-archived January 28. Martin Hogbin continues to be a disruptive presence. He comports himself in an overtly polite manner while manipulating the system to disruptively push his idiosyncratic points of view, which have ranged from climate change skepticism to counterfactual history to the opinion alluded to by Dan Murphy above - I didn't know the half of it. In present case of veganism, where for the past six months he has been pushing the idea that calling animals "commodities" is rhetoric - in defiance of all sources - he refuses to drop the stick. He has been soapboxing about the issue on other pages, for example here and here, in the hope of persuading other editors to support him in the ongoing RfC. Notice how in the second diff he even discourages the other editor from taking the issue to the appropriate talk page. He also abusively AfD'd commodity status of animals, offering nothing that approaches a valid deletion reason. And he has now gone back to fighting over a related issue with the lede sentence which was raised and resolved six months ago:[55]. Individually, his actions may seem minor or harmless - collectively, they form a campaign. Too many editors have sunk too much time into dealing with this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I want to clarify that when I write "manipulating the system" I am referring to his way of using multiple fora over the long term, avoiding overt rule-breaking behavior, and appealing to others who may be sympathetic because they don't know the context of the problem. There is an essay on this: WP:Civil POV pushing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in the same position as Martin Hogbin. I am constantly being accused of POV-pushing by people who want to push their own POV. Biscuittin (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• comment/request@User talk:Sammy1339 Sammy, please can I respectfully suggest that you drop the references to other editors being "overly polite" or WP:Civil POV pushing. I am also on the receiving end of such name calling (not from you, of course) and it is really unpleasant and inflammatory. When has it ever been a crime to remain civil? Please take this message in the way it is intended.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I can understand how this essay can be misused, and that is probably why it is not policy. From what I've seen I think the accusations against you are without merit. However, the contents of this essay describe Martin's behavior almost to a T. The crime isn't remaining civil - the purpose of mentioning civility is to alert people to the fact that his politesse is superficial. It is impossible for me to imagine that all his endless needling objections are genuine. I don't claim to know why he's doing it - to be generous to him, maybe there's no ulterior motive and he simply enjoys arguing for its own sake. However it's not constructive and he is pushing particular (and often peculiar) points of view for months and years on end. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy - thanks for the reply. I think your much greater long-term experience of editing in this area makes you much more qualified to comment on this than myself.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• It seems clear at Veganism that Martin's aim is to disrupt. Just one example: he complained that the first sentence seemed to describe only one form of veganism. Sammy noticed that someone had removed the word both: that veganism is "both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." So Sammy restored the word both. Martin removed it again, [56] even though it solved the issue he had raised.
  So now we may have to devote weeks to discussing that single word with him. When that ends, he'll start another about an equally minor or obvious issue. It has been going on now for over a year. He is the 4th highest commentator on talk, with 234 edits since October 2014. The three editors with more talk-page edits than him – Kellen (390), myself (295) and Viriditas (272) – have all been editing the page since 2007. [57]
  I would mind less if he were reading the literature and bringing himself up to speed. But there is no sign of his having read any of the sources, even when people type up what they say on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's worth reading this AN/I from December 2014: Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin. He decided that "Scottish" is not a nationality, and would not let it go. There was extreme repetition, forum shopping, RfCs, canvassing, etc. The proposal for a topic ban failed, but it was exactly the problem described above. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• He is canvassing again here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

In line with the suggestion above, I propose that Martin Hogbin's talk page interactions be limited. I suggest a limit of 20 40 talk page edits in any 30 day period, with no more than 5 allowed per day. Pinging previous participants: Rose, 4V, Betty Logan, SlimVirgin, Binksternet, Coretheapple, Trekphiler, Viriditas, Gandydancer, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, GoodDay, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, IjonTichyIjonTichy, Dan Murphy.

• Support. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I acknowledge that I might be biased here. In the past at WP:UKNAT, I collaborated & got along well with Martin Hogbin. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose 20 talk page edits in a month is lunacy. Limiting his talk page participation also still doesn't seem to make sense. I've seen nothing to indicate bad behavior or spam on talk pages. I think he has simply dared to talk in a bad Wikipedia neighborhood and now they are trying to ban his right to free speech. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• 20 per month may be too strict. This was meant to be similar to Viriditas's suggestion of one per day, except I allowed multiple per day because I thought that it would be awkward for him to keep people waiting. Since no one has supported yet, I'm taking the liberty of changing the proposal to 40. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Even 40's too little and I now visited the talk page and I saw that he's absolutely right. There is a group of editors trying to force their view that all vegans reject pet ownership, even though all sources state that it's simply rejection of animal products and not pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your user name does exactly what it says on the tin. :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I regret that this must be as frustrating for User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker as it is for us. His involvement is an example of the general problem where good-faith editors get drawn into Martin's trumped-up controversies, which not only wastes a tremendous amount of time but also feeds the problem by giving others the impression that there must be substance to the debate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time anyone's told me I've got good faith; I might put that on a placard. My pessimism often leads me to trouble. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Considering that Martin is aware of this discussion and other discussions on the matter of his disruptive behavior, and that it doesn't stop him from acting exactly as described here, digging out the same, long buried issues, anything that puts a limit on this should be beneficial for Wikipedia. It should allow editors to continue improving veganism and other pages instead of having to get involved in pointless discussions for months. --Rose (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This happens at a wide range of articles. He sees his opinion as ipso facto neutral, won't read the sources, which means he often misunderstands the issues, and is willing to make the same point repeatedly for many months. A talk-page post limit will help. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and note that he appears likely to be correct on many of the "issues" some are upset about above. For example - it is am individual "person" who may be vegan - their "group association" of whatever nature has nothing to do with veganism unless the article on that group makes such an association for that group. Collect (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Martin Hogbin's Civil POV pushing is disruptive. IjonTichy (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think this has the potential to reduce drama. Several of his recent statements seem to me to be advocating a POV antithetical to Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality, this may be down to ambiguity or careless use of words, I think this limit should result in a clearer impression of what he actually means, and possibly therefore a clearer view of whether he is in fact advocating, e.g., climate change denial - something no Wikipedia editor should be doing by this stage. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The more I deal with these people attacking Martin Hogbin the more I believe in his innocence. They removed 4 of my sources for the definition of veganism by general veganism organizations for being "unreliable" but when I removed 6 of theirs which had nothing to even do with veganism but with animal rights with one more that talked about making clothing or commodities out of animals and not the property status they have, of course I got reverted and by none other than the sysop (one can only wonder how the person has gotten the rights even after having a history of blocks). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I took a look at your diffs in both the context of the page history in which your edits occurred and in the context of the talk page discusson(s) where consensus has been reached. In so doing, I discovered that you appear to be intentionally disrupting the article and proxying for Mr. Hogbin, ignoring the consensus on the talk page as well as the sources, and engaging in IDHT behavior and pot-stirring. What appears to have been a simple case of Hobgin's obsession with Veganism is now turning into a focused assault on the subject, with the help of canvassing and tag teaming. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Concensus reached? What? There is no concensus with 10 voting NO and 11 voting YES; and you yourself have voted against Martin and thus are obviously biased in the matter. This matter is also unrelated to the vote of the RfC matter because the text in question wasn't changed in any direction. Only sources were being added and removed. In addition I have posted numerous examples of why they're wrong and they haven't responded to those bits even though they've clearly seen them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support due to the latest shenanigans by Mr. Magoo. Hogbin has taken this from simple POV pushing to another level, from simple disruption to outright canvassing and campaigning. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself. You had most likely simply forgotten to vote before now. Above this section you had called for "immediate action needed" against Martin and wanted a limit of one talk edit per day. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I don't think Mr. Magoo has malign intentions. He's just badly uninformed:[58]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But that is what all our sources except for one radical vegan, a veganarchist abolitionist states. Francione is on the fringe, an extremist. If you are about the commodity status then you are not only a vegan but a veganarchist abolitionist. We have the Veganarchism Abolitionism (animal rights) article for that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please keep your wrong opinions about a content dispute on the article talk page. This page is for discussing how to limit and end the recursive Hogbin problem, which continues to muck up the gears of consensus and perpetuate its disruption through canvassing and wikilawyering. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Support Notwithstanding this dismaying AFD, I believe Martin is sincerely trying to improve content in these areas. However, I think it would be much easier to reach agreement on his (often quite subjective) concerns if he made his points more directly, with RS to back them up instead of walls of opinion-based rhetoric. It seems plausible that this proposal could promote that end. FourViolas (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Martin Hogbin

This is another personal attack from the same group of people. I freely admit that I disagree with the editors above who want my editing curtailed but I am not a lone tendentious editor. if you look at the RfC at veganism, you will see that I have considerable support. Even when I try to get wider community opinion by rigorously following the procedure suggested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC I am accused of canvassing. Please do go to the RfC and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please nominate the name of an editor (or admin) who will guide the discussion towards closure. Some of us have other things to do rather than discuss the same thing over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Tangential argument about treatment of Mr. Magoo and McBarker.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree after now getting personally attacked myself. Anyone who disagrees at the talk page there will be hurt. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) I see you have been getting a bit of a bashing on the talk page too. This could become a case for Arbcom soon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC) @Mr. Magoo and McBarker: I am sorry that you felt that this was a personal attack. I am doing my best to accommodate your concerns, such as they are. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Well, no. Just look at this edit by Viriditas. He tried removing a large section — which points out the fact that "commodity" has a single source whose author in other context states the exact opposite — most likely because he has some sort of personal motivations I've described. In addition this kind of removal of the other's opinion can be called nothing but a straight-up attack. And in addition your edit was heavy distortion of what I had written and it was in response to the very section Viriditas tried removing. Your only retort against my pointing out the bad sources was to personally attack me as well. That is how it is there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC) In addition I noticed that Viriditas has written on your talk — which I just now visited to talk myself — that apparently the first section I had made on the talk is to "gambit to flood the talk page with meaningless, trivial questions". He called for "What is needed in this situation is to tightly control and structure the discussion page through archiving, collapsing, and movement to user talk pages." What that is, is just silencing the opposition. This is worthy of a block from editing the talk page! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Please note I reverted that edit of his within one minute, but he was reasonably arguing that the relevant section was a distraction and should be refactored. Although I believe that you, personally, do not have bad intentions, everything else he wrote on my talk page is true. This line of discussion is not relevant toMartin Hogbin, so if you want to continue it, we should do so elsewhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC) He stated he was going to move it to MY talk page (in addition he never did). My talk page is obviously and plainly not the place for that conversation. And the only reason I posted this here was because in your opinion that diff you posted was the sole personal attack. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Why would I move it to your talk page if I was instantly reverted? Would that have made much sense? Has it occurred to you that I was in the middle of copying the discussion to your talk page when I received the red notification indicating I was reverted? Please try to read for comprehension and think before you reply in the future. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC) A minute after. If you were copypasting it, did it really take you over a minute to traverse to my talk page? Maybe you stopped to enjoy the sight of the talk page without disagreers for a minute. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Magoo, please read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. It is best practice to prevent trolls from disrupting talk pages. I realize you oppose it for personal reasons. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC) That's your line in the sand here. Anyone who disagrees, presenting themselves with a proper argument, is a troll. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC) I've never seen you make a proper argument, only fallacious ones. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC) So essentially you're just stating I'm wrong without even pointing out what fallacy I'm committing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin, would you care to take Viriditas' suggestion and nominate an admin to close this discussion? If not, I'll list it at requests for closure. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to do as you wish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Close

This ANI report appears to be evolving into an extention of an article content dispute. Recommend it be closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I put in a request at AN/RfC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 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.

Block review of Brad Dyer

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.

---

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

Brad Dyer (also called Bad Dryer) was indef blocked by Drmies due to this thread.

The matter is rather delicate. I will give a capsule summary here. It concerns an Israeli human rights activist Ezra Nawi who was accused of statutory rape against a Palestinian minor. It was a long court battle (five years, including two appeals), and the minor was reluctant to testify against Nawi. Eventually a plea deal was reached and Nawi was sentenced to six months in prison, of which he served three.

The discussion on the talkpage was heated at times and all kinds of insinuations were made, as is only normal in an area in the intersection of child abuse and Israel/Palestine. Still, I think the discussion was overall in good faith.

In the course of the discussion Bad Dryer made some ill-advised comments about Nishidani, which they are remorseful about and indicate they would be happy to strike. (Whether or not one believes the sincerety of the remorse is another question). I think the indef block by Drmies was hasty (only one other person had opined on the matter at the time, and they didn't see the personal attack), harsh, and only served to increase the drama. See for instance, the section now at WP:ANI.

There is an important background to this matter. Brad Dyer was indeffed a few months ago, due to a spat with Malik Shabazz which led to the latter's desysopping and an ArbCom case. He was unblocked after a month or so, but the events cast a shadow on the current situation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So I guess you are part of the "hasten the day" crowd on Wikipediocracy? 207.38.156.219 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

IP, play nice, please. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What's not nice? You're one of their favorites! 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been known to have that effect on men, I know--it's my cross to bear. :) Drmies (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the operative words above are "(Whether or not one believes the sincerety of the remorse is another question)". The initial unblock request 2 days prior was anything but sincere or even comprehending of the issue. There was or has been so much revdelling in the Malik case and so much retrospective he-said she-said confusion that it's hard to extrapolate decisively from that, but since personal attacks have resumed, with increasing self-justification, it seems unlikely this will not continue down the line if unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well block appeals are basically 'Agree with the block, say sorry' or they fail, so its hardly unsurprising that a first appeal where he doesnt think he did anything wrong would be less than contrite. Personally I think his comments that led to the block had weight behind them if not quite expressed in the best way. When as an editor you make the same arguments that a pro 'sex with minors' group makes (in support of your editing), expect some pushback. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The operative part, imo, is that they said they had not intended it as a personal attack (another uninvolved admin had opined similarly on WP:ANI), but are willing to strike anything which could be construed as such. Absolutely nothing is gained by coercing them into an insincere apology or putting a requirement for groveling before unblocking. See WP:Editors have pride. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The operative part is that he only said that after his first unblock request, which continued with the PAs, was refused. To quote the admin who declined the unblock: "Repeating the personal attack that caused you to be blocked in your unblock request is a guarantee that your request will not be granted. Saying you will strike comments upon request while continuing to repeat those comments is not a means of making amends or ensuring that you will not repeat this behavior." Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. He said in the very first unblock request which you yourself linked above. I quote: I don't believe I have personally attacked any editor (and note the concurring opinion of an administrator on this matter), but will strike out or remove any offensive comment if unblocked. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is exactly what he wrote:

I don't believe I have personally attacked any editor (and note the concurring opinion of an administrator on this matter here:[2]) , but will strike out or remove any offensive comment if unblocked (a courtesy not extended to me by people using vicious antisemitic slurs against me ([3]).
I noted that Nishidani takes a different view of consensual Man-boy sexual relations as evidenced by the fact that he repeatedly referred to these actions (which are a criminal offense in most countries) as "victimless", and going as far as putting the word "victim" , used by multiple reliable sources without quotes, in scare quotes in our article and then delivering a passionate defense of why such scare quotes are needed ([4]). He has also cited favorably the notion of Sotadic zone - the hypothesis that there exists a geographic zone in which pederasty is prevalent and celebrated among the indigenous inhabitants. This is common in NAMBLA literature, and I don't believe should be part of an encyclopedia, other than in an article about NAMBLA, of course. However, I will strike out those comments if editors believe they crossed the line. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

-- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever one makes of the back story here, the reason given in the second block decline ("I have every confidence that you will stir up another shit storm if you are unblocked") is pretty compelling, and it's solid reasoning in connection with blocking policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is that compelling? That's not BadDryer's opinion, that's another person's opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)}}
    • Huh? Of course that's another person's opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This person(by any name) has a history of starting major stinks and then apologizing to get unblocked. Looking that the recent unblock request you can see a progression from denying the charges to a tactical apology. History shows that their promises to be unblocked are lip service. In my opinion they are expert at pushing buttons and know just what to say to cause the most disruption. I have every confidence that if they are unblocked that they will find another way to be disruptive. HighInBC 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Right, but why should someone else saying I don't trust you be a compelling reason to not unblock? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How should we do it? Should we base it off if the blocked person thinks they should be trusted? We pretty much have to base our blocking decisions on what people other than the blocked person think. HighInBC 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I think based on the whole story of this topic, not his past history, I think the block was a bit too much. I also think that saying he'll be bad in the future is not a valid reason for him to stay blocked. The talk page was mostly civil in a heated discussion, he said he'd strike the comments, and I think he should be given the chance. Plus, Wikipedia does need more editors on the other side of the issue, every time one pops up one of the other side labels the a sock or scares them away so of course it's a bit heated so I think a bit leeway is sometimes needed as well. And for the record, I'm not a sock. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying "bad in the future" is a valid reason to not unblock. I am saying "he was bad in the past, promised not to do it again to get unblocked, was bad again, and is now making the same promise again" is a valid reason not to unblock. This is not an isolated incident, it is part of a long term pattern of disruption and duplicity. This person has shown themselves to be insincere. HighInBC 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Could very well be, but did you read the talk page? Putting victim in quotes and continuing to justify it does make other editors jumpy. What would you do when you edit a page about a rapist and someone puts victim in quotes because they say it was consensual because the 15 year old kid liked it and didn't testify? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think the behaviour of another editor needs to be looked at then start another thread. HighInBC 17:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think Nishidani did anything wrong, I perhaps thing BD was just exasperated and that might have made him use those words and influenced him. That is why I think the indef is unwarranted. I think he did his time and I think he should be unblocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the history, this editor was indeffed in the past for making racial comments at another editor. They were unblocked after apologies and promises. They have since changed their name. HighInBC 15:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Weren't the racial comments after the antisemitic comments? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Brad's comments were first. Not that it matters, people are responsible for their own behaviour. HighInBC 16:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'll just say that for me, the previous history didn't matter. An accusation of pedophilia (or however you want to rephrase what was said) is an instantly blockable offense, and the needling beforehand indicated it wasn't something said in anger or haste. But as always, I will not stand in the way of another admin being of a different opinion and unblocking if they think it is an appropriate thing to do. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think there was an accusation of pedophilia. I think there was an exasperation that Nishidani put victim in quotes and stood by that merely because the victim didn't testify and stated the sex was consensual and BD stated, from what I recollect, that perhaps that came from NAMBLA literature. I don't think that is indef ban worthy at all. Nishidani should have stood down, and should have realized that indeed something is indeed a bit off. Perhaps both should have stood down. BD has been blocked, he aplogized and we don't need to lose yet another editor here. Sir Joseph ^(talk)

• I was going to stay away from this, because I hate the IP bullshit. But your posts are bordering on the same accusations that Bad Dryer has made. Both here, on his Talk page and other places. I totally support the block and block decline, this user has consistently used racial and other chilling tactics to degrade his seen 'opposition', and I think an admin should also block you if you continue to accuse other editors of have pedophillia sympthathies. It's a disgusting tactic and needs to stop NOW. Dave Dial (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Why don't you follow the conversation? I'm not casting aspersions. But if someone puts victim in quotes because he says it was consensual, and he didn't testify, something is a bit off. All I said was that Nishidani has to understand that those claims don't make sense and that there is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor/underage and not testifying is not proof of anything. What BD said is that what Nishidani said is what NAMBLA says all the time, is what BD said bad, probably, but so is saying a kid didn't get raped because it was consensual. I was just continuously trying to point out to Nishidani how his viewpoint seems to others. Don't try threatening me with blocks for discussing something civilly as I've done here and on the talk page. I don't have a problem with anybody. I just want him to realize how his views seem, not that he shares those views. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know the relevant legal issues, you shouldn't pontificate. Statutory rape is not the same as rape. Everyone, including Brad Dyer and the WP article and the Israeli court itself, agrees that the sex was consensual. I agree with the last part of the comment, which is what I have been trying to impress upon people here. What Brad Dyer was saying, as I saw it, was that the argument is distasteful, because NAMBLA uses the same arguments. This is not the same as making an accusation of pedophilia. I can guarantee that if you stop 10 random people in the street, at least half of them will find Nishidani's argument distasteful - which of course says nothing about its correctness. The block button is not the correct tool here. Besides, there are plenty of solutions short of indef block, including article ban and topic ban - why were they not used? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:You say "Everyone, including Brad Dyer and the WP article and the Israeli court itself, agrees that the sex was consensual." No...we don't. I can cite more psychiatric and scientific studies than you could count on your hands and feet that illustrate MOST (operative word, since every human develops at a different pace biologically speaking) 15 year old brains are not as chemically "balanced" or "wired" as they are in adulthood [[59]], meaning to many people, including myself, most 15-year-olds are not capable of giving "consent" to a sexual act with an adult...and ergo cannot be deemed "consensual". I don't care to discuss the legality of the issue or debate science vs court system; I simply want to negate your emphatic assertion that "everyone" agrees the sex was consensual. As much as I disapprove of the behavior of the individual we are talking about here, we did come down on the same side of the argument here, albeit with different tactics.Trinacrialucente (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and Nishidani said something similar, when he said sex with under 18 is not good for different reasons. I too think the ban hammer was used much too easily, it is similar to the US Judicial System being an adversarial system where a judge will ask a question (similar to Scalia asking about something distasteful) and then the Facebook trending will think Scalia thinks that. Bottom line is that the ban was unjust and should be overturned. To that we can agree. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats not really an argument anyone wants to get into here tbh so we should probably drop it. Minors under the age of consent cannot *give* consent in many jurisdictions. They can physically say 'yes' and willingly engage in the act to a common understanding of 'consent', but legally thats not consent any more than someone who agrees to any form of contract (physical or otherwise) while drunk. Legally they lack the judgement required in order to make an informed choice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• There's no reason to believe that the person operating the Bad Dryer account is capable of successfully and consistently mimicking the behavior of a decent human being in this environment to the extent that is necessary to ensure that editors like Nishidani, Zero0000, Huldra, Nableezy and their other usual targets are not harassed or attacked. They will continue to get it wrong and someone will suffer. Editors in ARBPIA should not have to be exposed to and collaborate with people who can't even pretend to be decent human beings, let alone decent Wikipedians. Unblocking this account (again) would in my view be an example of the community failing in their duty of care to protect editors (again). The person operating the Bad Dryer account is very likely to already have one or more sock accounts they can switch to, so the block on this account will merely slow them down, but it is better than facilitating them and exposing editors to harassment and attacks through this account. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• The bans legit and there has been no actual reason provided to unblock other than emotional sympathies in my view. In the event of an unblock the community should take action to that will at least attempt to stop any further disruption. A topic ban perhaps, considering the comments of Sean.hoyland, of ARBPIA. Perhaps a interaction ban from the 4 individuals that Sean has named above. Perhaps a topic ban of all articles under any sanctions? Reading the discussion Brad seems to have been banned before for similar issues as well as desysopped. All seem somewhat recent as well. Seems little reason to unban but in the event it's considered the conversation really should be more than, "Well he said sorry."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I quote my colleague: "There's no reason to believe that the person operating the Bad Dryer account is capable of successfully and consistently mimicking the behavior of a decent human being in this environment to the extent that is necessary to ensure that editors like Nishidani, Zero0000, Huldra, Nableezy and their other usual targets are not harassed or attacked. They will continue to get it wrong and someone will suffer." Begoon ^talk 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• dudes a NoCal100 sock anyway, who cares. nableezy - 19:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Bishonen, this is what I mean. Isn't there a policy about calling someone a sock? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• This has always been at least  Possible based on what (not great) technical evidence I could scrounge up. Not certain, but quite firmly on the possible to likely continuum. At any rate, Sir Joseph, it's absolutely not a baseless accusation. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Again, that could be but it also seems like a constant witch hunt that certain people take up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh puleeez, a witch hunt, "certain people"--name them or keep it zipped, Sir Joseph. I'm going to paste an NPA template on your talk page to symbolize, emblematize, signify, or even enshrine the lack of good faith you keep espousing. The IP who commented above can direct you to a place where your conspiracy theories are more welcome. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• paste all you want, I pinged bishonen for a reason and I didn't need to name anyone, I replied to this right here.How exactly is it a personal attack to say that people are accused of being a sock? I didn't attack anyone and I'm not being disruptive, so I'd ask you to assume good faith, as you're supposed to. I said it seems like a witch hunt, are we now not allowed to post what we think?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you mean me, so just say that. As far as witch hunt, I think you can check my track record with NoCal socks, Im not one to accuse without evidence. But more to the point, theres something you want to say, so just come out and say it. nableezy - 04:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I said all I have to day on this matter. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a free-speech zone where you can say anything you like. Plus, you're talking about someone who apparently has been taking up time and resources for years--"witch hunt" is a ridiculous term to use for someone who needs an LTA page dedicated to themselves, someone who needs to get a different hobby. These jeremiads, which remind me of the ones we hear from prolific sockers and disruptors, are...what is the word? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I had opened an SPI myself last August, which fell through the cracks somewhere. I stated then and am still not sure that this is NoCal100, and have been proceeding on the basis of benefit of doubt. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block The WP:ARBPIA area is sufficiently toxic without encouraging editors to taunt opponents with outrageous attacks phrased in a manner that can be brushed off later with a "sorry"—particularly a sorry extracted after "I don't believe I have personally attacked any editor" (diff). This is the second such attack which led to an indefinite block, and it should be the last. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block After the debacle that led to Malik's desysop, the arbcom case and aftermath, I would have thought indef blocking would have put paid to this part of the PI drama. BD's unblock requests smack of "I don't think i did anything wrong", "I'm sure I did nothing wrong" then "Oh I better say something appropriate to try to convince the admins to unblock me". If BD had been truly sincere, he'd have voluntarily offered up a community endorsed one way interaction ban with Nishdani as well as a self imposed but community endorsed indefinite topic ban from all PI articles, broadly construed. Blackmane (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block I've read about and thought about this for a few days, and the drama surrounding this guy is too much. He doesn't think he's done anything to warrant his block, he's offering platitudes to get back in our good graces, and I have no doubt that, if unblocked, he'll go right back to what he's done twice before. Enough. Katie^talk 14:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block (Non-administrator comment) - even in one of our most consistently awful topic areas, this editor's attacks have managed to stand out on multiple occasions. I don't know why they're not sitebanned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block (Non-administrator comment) - Bad Dryer left an oddly worded threat on my talk page [[60]] as he has done with others he disagrees with. And while his comment to Malik was not a "pass" for Malik's subsequent tirade/unbalanced response, it was yet another example of this user "going for the jugular" for maximum cruelty via ad hominem. He has repeatedly "crossed the line" in behavior and content. I have no doubt he has other WP:SOCKPUPPETs and will be back (has been back) using anonymous IPs, so even a block will not curtail the behavior...but it will send out a warning for like-minded individuals. On a related note, the response @Drmies: left on Bad Dryer's page was foul, vulgar and low-class language which is not WP:CIVIL. Granted, neither is/was Bad Dryer...but Admins here need to realize they are setting the bar in both directions, so when it is lowered, other editors use foul-language and say "hey, Admin X used it, so I can to". Just saying, this is supposed to be an academic encyclopedia, so let's try and foster an appropriate environment.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • What on earth are you talking about, Trinacrialucente? I made one edit to that talk page: this one. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Drmies:, I think @Trinacrialucente: was actually referring to @HighInBC:? If so, I think you are owed an unequivocal apology as it as pretty clumsy to blame you for something you didn't say. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Huh? In recent history I left two notes: [61] and [62]. If "shit storm" is what is considered "foul, vulgar and low-class language" then I suggest it is only so because it is an accurate description of "foul, vulgar and low-class behaviour". There is a difference between naughty words and incivility, a difference between describing a person and their actions. If you think not swearing should be required for civility you can suggest it at the policy talk page, but that idea has been rejected in the past. HighInBC 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • For the avoidance of doubt, I don't share Trinacrialucente's opinion; I just preferred you respond to it directly so that it can be nipped in the bud sooner. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Consider the bud nipped. To avoid hijacking this thread @Trinacrialucente: is welcome on my talk page to discuss the finer points of words/intent. HighInBC 16:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
            • AN is the last place we'd want to have a shit storm. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear (and not hijacking the thread) I DO owe an apology to (talk) as you were not the one who originally stated it on Bad Dryer's page (I'm sorry). It was indeed directed to @HighInBC: and his comment. And yes, I do understand the type of behavior you were describing, but as you can see even on this page, the words in question are now becoming pervasive due to that initial usage. If everyone is "fine" with taking it down to this level, then so be it. But it is not at all academic however and it does foster bad behavior. enough said.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• This latest 'endorsement' is one agenda driven SPA endorsing the indef of another agenda driven SPA. Which is why I try to stay away from the IP area, and have sympathy for those who wade into that mess. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Standard offer request for Bazaan

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

---

Hello,

I am passing along a Standard offer unblock request from Bazaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This request was sent to UTRS. The user has requested that the content of the unblock request be forwarded to the noticeboard. The relevant content is as follows:

I agree to another Standard Offer if necessary, although it would be the second time. I would like the content of my unblock request to be forwarded to the noticeboard. I promise to never repeat the behaviour which led to my initial block, and the subsequent indefinite block.

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? It's been six months, please give me another chance. At least give me a rope.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Most South Asian, but wide ranging

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I purposefully brought a sock puppetry ban on my account. It's my fault. I have suffered enough, including tremendous personal attacks.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Plenty of accounts have been blocked in my name, although most aren't mine.

The ones used by me are Bazaan, Rainmaker23, Uck22, JKhan20 and Merchant of Asia.

The user has not received any additional blocks on the account and is therefore tentatively eligible for Standard Offer consideration. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• See Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. BMK (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• There were issues concerning Bazaan and his or her socks other then sockpuppetry itself, which the editor doesn't mention. Search on "Bazaan" in the noticeboard files. I'd like to hear what the editor has to say about that behavior. BMK (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've modified Bazaan's block to permit him to edit his talk page: if we're willing to consider unblocking someone, the situation isn't so bad that talk access should remain disabled, and it's easier if the user can post messages on his own talk page instead of relying on UTRS assistance. Nakon, would you mind sending Bazaan an email asking him to make further replies on his talk page? Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've sent User:Bazaan an email update regarding their talk page. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from the sockpuppetry, there was some copyright issues way, way back. Is there anything else, from a content perspective, that would merit a conditional unblock? By which I mean, an "unblock conditional on an acceptance of a topic ban in articles relating to XYZ." Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I may be unusually strict, but I oppose any sort of standard offer when there has been sockpuppetry/ I don't think that anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry can be trusted at their end, at least not until the twenty-second century. That is my opinion. It just reflects a distinction between editors who make mistakes and editors who choose to game the system. I know that other editors are more forgiving than I am, and I am very forgiving of flaming, but not of sockpuppetryl Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Further note from Bazaan's talk page:

  I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

  This was left as an unblock request, which I've declined because it wouldn't be right for me to unblock him as this discussion's still ongoing. It was a procedural decline (don't think of it as a frivolous request), and I've asked him to use {{helpme}} when writing future comments for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Bazaan writes "I believe I have matured over time", but he also writes "The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further" and "I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences." These don't appear to me to be the statements of someone who has "learnt [their] lesson truly well", as they are still blaming others and not taking responsibility for their actions. And for an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to write "Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake." is not acceptable. Perhaps we can accept that one sockpuppet was a "mistake", but what about the other three they admit to? (That's assuming we can take their word that other accounts which were blocked as theirs were incorrectly identified.) I'm not yet closing the door on this, but, at least so far, I do not find the editor's comments to be persuasive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Although I'm often in agreement with BMK's opinions, in this case I do believe a few of Bazaan's statements are somewhat excusable. Articles about the sub continent can be very contentious considering articles about India and Pakistan ended up at Arbcom. Perhaps Bangladeshi articles should fall into that category given the nation's history with India, but that's a discussion for another page. The sockpuppetry issue is certainly of concern. Perhaps a quick check by a CheckUser would alleviate this concern. [Iff] no socking is revealed in the last 6 months, I could probably support a conditional unblock. Bazaan has admitted to having issues in Bangladeshi articles in the past and letting him back into this area may not be healthiest. If no socking is revealed, then I could support an unblock provided a 3 month topic ban from Bangladeshi articles is levied to encourage Bazaan to edit somewhere else so the community could regain some confidence and to truly prove that he has "matured over time". However, if socking is revealed within the last 6 months, then the offer is off the table. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have similar concerns to Blackmane; given how controversial such articles can be, and the past troubles this editor has had while editing them, Most South Asian, but wide ranging doesn't seem the best space to dive straight back into. Perhaps a 3-month topic ban from all sub-continent / South Asian articles would be a good place to start? GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• oppose unblock - I had edited with him and I would say that it was a bad experience. Yes he has evaded his block enough times for like a year, I can see that some of his nationalistic edits on Bangladesh subjects had been removed, a few more are still left to be checked. You need to read his unblock request, "My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV" or "I opened a second account after being blocked" and "I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system"[63] tells that he rejects that he was totally wrong with his blatant policy violations that he has made, which includes vandalism and block evasion. How he can be trusted with this? I understand that I had socked too but blaming others or failing to accept it is not good. Capitals00 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - this is a historically highly disruptive user. Normally I'm quite lenient with supporting standard offers, but this is not a case of an editor going off the deep end one time and then seeing the error of their ways. Here we have an editor who was indef'd for outright vandalism who attempted to abuse a process to erase their history, and then socked through their siteban for almost another full year. That behaviour ended less than a year ago, and I don't think we should even be considering the standard offer until at least that much time has gone by. Call it punitive, whatever: I do think a very strong message needs to be sent to this user. Nevertheless, I have a proposal: that Bazaan be conditionally unblocked, under the conditions that they are indefinitely topic banned from any topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed, and may not operate more than one account for any purpose; conditions may be appealed after no less than one year. They are encouraged to contribute constructively in other areas and to follow all content and behavioural guidelines during this time. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock as requested Several of the requesters statements seem to indicate that they do no realize which behaviour of theirs was disruptive. Capitals00 has gone over some of those statements. I would not oppose a conditional unblock that involves a topic ban from areas this user was disruptive in in the past. HighInBC 23:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and accept standard offer, though only with close scrutiny, and the understanding that if he even so much as leaves a major edit marked as minor, would be enough for a total site ban. Besides that, I sensed a of ring of truth and sincerity that gave me a rather brief reprieve, but just enough to give him another chance, but only ONE chance.. after this, this is it.. gone for good. I think his gaming the system and bad behaviour in the past is simply his way of beating the system.. he had a genuine interest in improving the project but for whatever reason his way of going about it is breaking some site rules that he seems to feel are not as binding (to him) as they inevitably are; plus his intellect and wit would get him past it it without a scratch, and got a rude awakening that he can't just breeze his way past our site policies. Anyway.. my characterizations may be totally off-beat here but this was my two cents and initial impressions that colored by my decision to support. Thanks very much. -- œ^™ 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let me clarify a few things here. First, it is not a good idea to expect Bazaan or any other editor here to be completely perfect. Second, like some others have requested, I would oppose topic ban and it is not needed because he was not topic banned when he was blocked. If he makes disruptive edits we have always got AN or AE for seeking sanction like topic ban. Instead I would say that he should make another promising unblock request, not before next 6 months. He should confirm that he understood the damage that he has done and try not to justify with anything better that he presumably did here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unconditional unblock, support conditional unblock. Just to make a my position clear. Unblock on the condition that a minimum 3 month topic ban from all Bangladesh relate articles broadly construed be levied. My support is also conditional on no socking within 6 months prior to the unblock request. If socking is discovered, then the clock is reset by another 6 months per the Standard Offer. However, I would be willing to overlook the socking if Bazaan proactively reveals any socks they may have used in the 3 months leading up to the unblock request. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock with close monitoring and a complete understanding on his part that the leash is very, very short. Katie^talk 13:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion

• This was listed at ANRFC, though I can't quite find sufficient consensus to close it one way or the other. Most users have opposed an unconditional unblock, though some would support an unblock on the condition of a topic ban from the most problematic areas. I'd like to see some further discussion on this before closing. Should Bazaan be kept blocked, or would an unblock with a topic ban be acceptable, and if so what would the terms of this topic ban be? Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Good question. Let's hope some more folks will look into it. Personally, if a former socker asks for an unblock and hasn't been socking, I see no reason to be extra-strict and say no. After all, if they were sockers to the core, they wouldn't have to be asking for an unblock. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'll restate my suggestion from above, since it came late in the thread: that Bazaan be reinstated but topic-banned indefinitely from Bangladesh. They were disruptive in that topic to the point of earning a siteban, and then socked through it persistently for over a year. It's apparent that they shouldn't edit in that topic area until they build experience editing in topics less personal to them. If they can show they're able to contribute constructively in other areas, then requesting lifting of this sanction should be very simple a year from now. I say a year because that's the length of time that they abused multiple accounts to be intentionally disruptive through a siteban, and it hasn't been a year yet from when they finally gave that up. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am with Blackmane here; let him potter along quietly, away from the contentious areas, for some time. Gives him the possibility to build more experience and "feeling" for wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made an unblock offer in line with the above opinions, awaiting a response. Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 5 February 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.

Editwarring to delete WP:Disambiguation guideline material in mid-RM

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's an open WP:RM at Talk:Nothing Has Changed (album). Born2cycle didn't like one of the arguments presented against the proposed move, feeling it was mis-citing some of the guideline wording. Someone else suggested he open an RfC he if wanted to change the guideline. Instead, he simply went and deleted the wording he didn't understand or like, on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. I restored it with a reasoned objection on the talk page. A WP:FACTION has formed and is editwarring to remove it. They appear to be under the mistaken impression that everything that was not added to a page with previous lengthy discussion may be removed at any time, even if its actively used at RM as an actual guideline.

I believe that this transgresses WP:POLICY (policies and guidelines codify practice, they don't try to reimagine it and force that version on everyone), WP:CONSENSUS (anything stable for months and months and used in actual practice does in fact have consensus whether it was formally proposed or not), and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (the fact that RM has repeatedly relied on this rationale, before any such wording existed, and has continued to rely on the codified version of it since then, means it has broad consensus, so three editors making up their minds to nuke it to WP:WIN in an RM is a false consensus and WP:DE). When I commented on the RM case in question, I gave some (just a handful among many) of actual cases of RM using the principle in the guideline that is being deleted, so I'll just diff that here rather than repeat it: [64].

I believe this material should be restored administratively, and the page temporarily protected. If those who have an issue with this wording want to launch an RfC about it whether it should be retained, modified, or deleted, they're free to do so. We do not delete part of a policy or guideline because someone cites it incorrectly, right in the middle of the RM or other procedure upon which someone is relying upon the policy or guideline wording! We correct them if they're wrong, wait for the procedure to close to see if consensus agrees with us that it was being misapplied, and then if necessary adjust the wording to make misinterpretation of the provision in question less likely in the future.

This silly thing is, everyone but the one editor who cited it wrongly agrees that this provision isn't applicable to the Bowie album case, and that RM was never in any danger of going the non-commonsense way. It's simply being used as an excuse to editwar out something from WP:DAB.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, welcome to Wikipedia's tried and true WP:BRD process. Your addition of the statement into the guideline was Bold. It was Reverted when it was noticed. The Discussion (as you know, but others may not), is here: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Unsupported_change_reverted, which I think shows that the statement is not supported by consensus. It should remain out unless and until consensus support for it is established, which I seriously doubt will occur, now that it has seen the light of day. --В²C ☎ 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• You're applying BRD completely backwards. You deleted something, I reverted you, discussion is open. Leave the long-standing guideline material in place unless and until a consensus is reached to change it, especially since other ongoing processes invoking that material have not closed yet. As I said at WT:DAB, I'm pretty certain you know better. This entire thing is ridiculous, because you know full well, having already had it shown to you, that RM regularly relies upon that line-item in the guideline with no problem. You've identified a potential misinterpretation problem; if it turns out to be legit, the fix for that is to tweak the wording, not to strip the guideline of the entire provision in question. If your finger is sprained, you splint it, you don't amputate your hand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• B2c is making it difficult not to conclude this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND against a consensus he doesn't like. When presented with evidence that RM regularly performs disambiguation of naturally ambiguous names to be sensible to the average reader, his response is "sounds like a list of titles that need fixing" [65]. I repeat that the point of this AN is procedural (it's not like I'm asking anyone be blocked or whatever): Restore things to the status quo consensus that's been stable since June 2015 at WP:DAB, especially given that the modus operandi of the deletion of a provision from it is to thwart reliance on that guideline wording in an ongoing RM. If B2c or whoever else wants to make a case that several years of RM consensuses, pre- and post-dating the wording being in the guideline are "wrong", and his/their personal, contrary view should become the new consensus and overturn all those decisions, well, good luck with that. Start with an RfC, as was recommended at the RM (which also noted that B2c has been on about this for several years; this has the hallmarks of a long-term failure to drop the stick).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to take admin action here, as I've had run-ins with Born2Cycle over similar issues previously. I believe he has been censured more than once for battleground behaviour (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation and its links from 2014 for example) and I would support his indefinite topic banning from all discussions related to article titles, including requested move discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There was never a consenus to add the text in question and it should be removed (I in fact just did that). The addition was contentious and clearly not supported by the community, regardless of whether or not it went unnoticed at first. We wouldn't let vandalism stay in an article just because no one happened upon it. B2C's supposed past misdeeds are irrelevant here; in fact SMcCandlish is the one previously blocked for battleground behavior, not him. Calidum T|C 00:44, 6 February 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.

Copy/paste move problems around Circuit City

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 really not sure exactly what's happened here, but User:FoxNewsChannelFan has been doing some strange moves and copy/paste things at Circuit City and Circuit City Stores, Inc. On Feb 3, they moved page Circuit City to Circuit City Stores because "...it is a brand and I want to use the page as a brand", and then went on to create a new version of Circuit City. But in the recent history of the new version, there's a 30kb copy/paste from the original article (now moved to Circuit City Stores, Inc). And in FoxNewsChannelFan's edit history there are various moves, copy/pastes, and redirects between the various titles. I really don't have the brainpower to do anything right now, but something clearly needs to be unraveled - can anyone help? (I'm just about to notify FoxNewsChannelFan and ask them to stop what they're doing until it's sorted out). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm wondering whether the best approach might be to nuke the new Circuit City, move the original back from Circuit City Stores, Inc, and then try to discuss things with FoxNewsChannelFan and see what they're trying to achieve? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we were on the same page. I deleted it and moved Circuit City, Inc. back and restored the inbetween revisions. -- John Reaves 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Requesting revdel

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 was revdeleted like the IP's other comments as purely disruptive, but this diff still has the signed version. 96.237.20.21 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- John Reaves 17:59, 5 February 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.

Need someone to nuke mass contributions from banned user.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2, a recently blocked sock needs their pointless redirects (the MO of Bowei Huang 2) WP:NUKEd. Will an admin experienced with the nuke function take care of this? Thanks! Here are the page creations of the most recent sock. Thanks again in advance. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Did you hear the bang from all the way over there? Guy (Help!) 13:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They look better quality then most of the Neelix redirects... anyone want to nuke some of the remaining unchecked ones? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Anomie/Neelix_list Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tag them for speedy as noted elsewhere. Nuking all contribs of an account is easy, deciding which of thousands need nuking, not so much. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotion of Amortias and Miniapolis to full clerks

We are pleased to confirm trainees Amortias (talk · contribs) and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) as arbitration clerks, effective immediately. We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the other arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Promotion of Amortias and Miniapolis to full clerks

Appealing topic ban

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

---

I was topic banned by administrator Drmies for making sock accusations while editing Mudar Zahran which he claims is under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict arbitration. When I made my first accusation, he left me a warning on the talk page to not do it again. While arguing with him, I made a very vague contrast between the edit warriors involved, and he considered it another accusation. So he topic banned me. After explaining, I am not convinced that his call was the right thing to do. I didn't even accuse anyone, I was just comparing. Furthermore, it seems to me that Mudar Zahran is anything but relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a opposition figure in Jordan, being quoted by some Israeli newspapers doesn't make him a part of the conflict.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sock and meat accusations, complete with charges of collusion via Facebook involving German and Canadian IPs and poor old Smartse. Last edit in the talk page conversation is this one. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban - Makeandtoss was warned to stop making unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry or they would be topic banned, they made another accusation of sockpuppetry, and they were topic banned. Simple. I agree it could not be read differently given the context. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

  I didn't accuse for second time, he literally just notified me, why would I do it again?!. Still doesn't change the fact that the article is irrelevant to IP conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Comment Someone perhaps like the ones operating a sockpuppetry network or the ones rejecting is what you said and has been interpreted as being an accusation of sock / meat puppetry. You really did walk into it yourself. Blackmane (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just using this for discussion purposes not for accusing purposes Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You were told not to discuss it or mention it at all. Indeed, why would you do it again? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm lol, perhaps I didn't, which is what I am arguing...Makeandtoss (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was gremlins that logged into your account and made this edit then? Since you're arguing that it wasn't you that made that edit, which was a discussion of sockpuppetry made by your account? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes discussion, not an accusation. I didn't even point out to anyone Makeandtoss (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban. Makeandtoss made a clear accusation of off-site organized socking which clearly crossed the line into personal attack, continued to try to justify it, and then repeated the attack after being told to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please start elaborating on how this is relevant to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Thanks Makeandtoss (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• No need to elaborate. The article falls under the scope laid out in WP:ARBPIA; see, for instance Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Findings_of_fact. The disruption you caused stemmed from edits related to that article, in that area, governed by those sanctions. It is entirely possible that you are disruptive in other areas as well, in which case you can fall victim to a more general block or ban, but I doubt that you want to pursue that option. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here you are trying not to assume good faith on my editing. No I am not disruptive in other areas. No it doesn't fall under that scope, the guy gets quoted by Israeli media and suddenly becomes part of a century old conflict?! Makeandtoss (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that is how "Israeli-Palestinian topics" work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can't see how this is relevant to Palestine in any possible way. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Makeandtoss: As I tried to tell you here, the Wikipedia:ARBPIA is to be broadly applied...basically it works like this: if anyone says an article is under ARBPIA...then it is. Simple as that. (And reading Mudar Zahran makes it very clear to me that it is under ARBPIA. You seem to think that only things *directly* related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict comes under ARBPIA: not so!) Secondly; you will find that admins are very willing to block/topic-ban anyone violating WP:ASPERSIONS. Yes, it is frustrating when we get lots of "new" editors who magically knows all the rules and notice boards of Wikipedia.....As I normally put it: they pretend to be new editors...and we pretend to believe them. But you must never, ever call people a sock outside the WP:SPI-page. Frankly, I think you should be glad you got of with a 6 month topic-ban, on only one article; I would sit that out, if I were you. There are plenty of other articles out there! Huldra (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Huldra: Why did the article become suddenly classified as Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Just because I put an accusation? Why wasn't it classified as such much before? You know what, fine. Actually perfect! Can someone now add the IP conflict template to the talk page so that the article will no longer be edited by IPs and SPAs, and is now subject to 1RR. If this was done earlier, we would have avoided soooooooo much trouble. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW lol, here, you also made a sock accusation, it is as vague as mine the second time.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what more you think there is to say here, Makeandtoss. Several users have linked to the edit in which you were warned that the article you were editing was under ARBPIA sanctions and that you would be banned if you didn't completely stop talking about sockpuppetry. We have also linked to the edit in which you blatantly ignored the warning. If you can't or won't acknowledge that those two things are why you are now topic banned, then you are wasting this board's time. Now, not only have you still not stopped talking about sockpuppetry, but you're requesting edits to the article which specifically violate your topic ban. Lol all you want, but take this seriously: you're on a short path to stronger sanctions if you don't stop this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Makeandtoss, well, I put {{ARBPIA}} on the talk-page. But recall that still, today, the vast majority of articles under ARBPIA is not marked as such on the talk-page. I have lived with the ARBPIA since that first 2008 arb.case (virtually all my edits are to articles under ARBPIA), and in 99 out of a 100 cases there is nothing to discuss if anyone say that an article is under ARBPIA: it just is.
• Also, when I made this remark at AN/I, nobody had warned me about not mentioning socks..... Seriously: warnings from admins should be taken ....seriously. Especially on a page which already had a {{discretionary sanctions|topic=a-i|style=long}} notice on its talk-page. That is a big "WARNING:DANGER"-sign! Huldra (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

*I think I have been improperly sanctioned and I am defending myself. Isn't making sock accusations prohibited but not talking about socks? That is my impression. I think that after I was warned, that I talked about socks but did not accuse anyone, which is why I am here. If you all disagree, then I obviously can do nothing and will just have to accept it. I didn't know defending myself was bad on Wikipedia.. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the article in question and it seems very clear to me that it falls under ARBPIA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: OK I got that. But is this an accusation? "Someone perhaps like the ones operating a sockpuppetry network or the ones rejecting". Makeandtoss (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes it is, Makeandtoss. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It was not intended to be one, but OK. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban: I don't see an abuse of discretion here on Drmies' part, which is how the topic ban should be reviewed. Even if we might not have enforced DS at that precise moment, in response to that precise comment, I don't think there's cause for reversal. Makeandtoss certainly may wish to apply for the topic ban to be lifted at some point, but it's too soon. Go edit something else, show that the topic ban is unnecessary, then ask for relief. The mark of a good Wikipedian is the ability to adapt to these sorts of setbacks in what might be your personal editing preferences. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I am under the impression that appeals need can only work if the ban has been placed improperly, rather than what you mentioned ? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The logical standard of review for this sort of action is going to be an abuse of discretion standard. The propriety of a discretionary sanction topic ban should be evaluated on the basis of whether the admin abused his or her discretion in placing the topic ban. I'm not seeing any abuse of discretion. Therefore the topic ban was proper. Bringing the topic ban to AN in the hopes of litigating whether the topic ban was proper as a de novo matter would completely defeat the purpose of discretionary sanctions: There is no indication that ArbCom or the community intend DS to be a paper tiger in that sense, rather than an effective, expedient means of stemming disruption in contentions topic areas. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: After being topic banned and been struggling to prove my point, I believe I will never ever use that word in my life. Ever! I will remove it from my dictionary and I will forget I even know what it means. As weird as this may sound, but its my first block ever and I find it really bad to accept it. What I meant in that statement which got me banned, was to say that "am I really that disruptive? (relatively)". Makeandtoss (talk) 00:14, 7 February 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.

Poem of woe

And, denied
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here sit I, a much merry sort On my way to a flight from Heathrow Airport Declaring my intention unto thee To engage in a wiki vandalism spree This IP expendable, one should confess For it belongs to the National Express There's no point blocking, as you'll feel my wrath When soon free airport wifi shall I hath My advice, sit back enjoy the show Cos you ain't not seen da last of me bro! Yours, A traveller of sorts who enjoys good things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.107.132 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Can impotent wrath be felt, by definition? If a tree is wrathful in the forest and no one is around to feel it, does it make a sound? Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I think you'd better ask User:TheGracefulSlick about that tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.107.132 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Grundle2600

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 administrator kindly block Fffr546567 (talk · contribs), who self identifies as a sock of banned user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) (one of Wikipedia's most notorious puppeteers), please? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 February 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.

Nigger Alley

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

---

Could an admin create this as a redirect to Chinese massacre of 1871? If you read the article, you can see the term is used in the article: it was the place where the massacre took place. The alternate name for the street, Calle de los Negros, already redirects to here. I'd create it myself, but creation of articles with "Nigger" in the title is forbidden except by admins, and the message telling me creation was forbidden told me to ask here. pbp 20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:03, 8 February 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.

Need admin assist on GA nomination

Hey all, this isn't my area of expertise, so I could use some other adminly eyes. According to the messages from Legobot on this talk page, it appears that user Uploader & Solver (an editor with ~230 edits under his belt) has nominated Indian film Premam for GA status, then performed the review himself. That sounds highly sketchy. I also think it's sketchy that another user, Sm Sangeeth Sm77, who has a scant ~140 edits under his belt, commented at the GA a few minutes after Uploader made some changes. The two users have a number of weird editing intersections, so I have filed an SPI report about the two, but I would appreciate another admin taking a look at the GA nom/review and deciding what action should be taken on it. Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Cyphoidbomb, I'm on it. I yanked the star already after seeing three or more grammatical errors in the first two paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Wait for the CU block--I'll let you do the SPI if you like, and you can throw in User:Abhi Kampurath, User:Salmanfaris143, and User:Pg krishna kumar as well. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment and Threats from User Duikelmaan

Since popping up in January among a swarm of sock puppets on the Carl Raschke page, Duikelmaan (talk · contribs) has shown a pattern of harassment ([66], [67], etc.), including posting a threat as recently as last night, as can be seen here. Enough is really enough—someone needs to step in and stop this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am too slow I guess, was reviewing the contributions and rapidly coming to the same conclusion as Drmies. HighInBC 18:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate you taking a look at the situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, Bloodofox--and I think we get $15 for a NOTHERE block. For those new to the program, NOTHERE is also kind of a rubbish bin for all kinds of completely unacceptable behavior. And those comments--We No Who U R. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I present to you a high-five and a share of my recently gained sock heads for your admin board invocation of the Caveman, Drmies. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban help

I recently closed a ban request as successful, resulting in the imposition of an interaction ban and a topic-ban. Some of the involved editors have left notes for me, asking about the scope of the ban; they're well within the WP:BANEX situation, so I don't have any complains about their actions or words. While I'm familiar with closing discussions, I'm not familiar with how we typically interpret the implications of Ibans and Tbans, so I couldn't give full and adequate responses. Would someone familiar with administrating Ibans and Tbans (the processes themselves; no prior experience with this specific situation is necessary) contact me at my talk page? It's nothing secret; I just don't want to have to wade through the pile of off-topic comments and strife that's likely to happen if we have the discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the 5 editors-in-question stay away from any discussion that directly or indirectly involves the winningest topic. When one's in doubt, don't hang about. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring / illegitimate removal of templates

A user, Jodibusch (talk · contribs), removed legitimate templates from Isis jade, an article he/she created.

Here is a list of diffs:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Isis_jade&diff=703328991&oldid=703328809
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Isis_jade&diff=703328539&oldid=703328453

Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The user Jodibusch (talk · contribs) left a message on my talk page falsely accusing me of "bullying" her/him. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:64.134.64.190#Using_ip_address_as_opposed_to_your_name_when_messaging_new_users

64.134.64.190 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

the anonymous User 64.134.64.190 (talk · contribs) messaged me on my talk page falsely accusing me of deliberately removing tags that I was not aware were not supposed to be removed. I am writing my first article of many human trafficking advocates for GEMS and other organizations for fair policy inclusion under the guidance of an experienced wikipedia editor. Operating anonymously under an IP address is not acceptable when targeting a new writer for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodibusch (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 February 2016‎

With all due respect, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This includes IP Users that choose not to create an account, and is completely acceptable if the IP user is editing within the guidelines of Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced information (such as person's legal/birth name) / edit warring (?)

I am reporting user 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs). That user has (more than once) removed the birth name/legal name of Ira Korff/Yitzhak Aharon Korff.

Diffs:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=703333513&oldid=703322236
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=prev&oldid=703256695
• Another clear edit-warring edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=703336563&oldid=703335581 64.134.64.190 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed sourced information, such as that Korff's book was published by The Jewish Advocate:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff&diff=prev&oldid=703334509

Talk page: Talk:Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff#Please_refrain_from_removing_his_birth.2Flegal_name_.2B_source.28s.29

Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm so sorry - I didn't think I removed the other name just reorganized - it still appears. Sorry. And on the book the original book wasn't published by The Jewish Advocate, and I don't see publishers mentioned elsewhere when books are mentioned and besides it's in the Amazon link to the English translation. Again, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.144.134 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the things 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs) has done: removed a category (Category:Redstone family), deleted sources, falsely inserted "Yitzchok A. Korff" as Ira Korff's name/deleted "Ira Korff" as his legal/birth name, deleted sources I added that back up that "Ira Korff" is the person's name, inserted unsourced information/claims repeatedly. User 204.195.144.134 is deleting important basic information. If you take a look at the edit history of Yitzhak Aharon Korff, you will see that this has been happening over and over and over again over a long period of time (with other users and/or other user names/users who are apparently religious followers of Korff?). Also- no source says that "Yitzchok A. Korff" is Ira Korff's birth/legal name: not one. I took time to find sources. It's not right to delete a person's actual name and background (Redstone family) from Wikipedia and also give apparently disingenuous edit summaries such as here. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, user 204.195.144.134 re-added the honorific "Rabbi"/"Grand Rabbi" titles that I had deleted. (You can see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorific_titles) 64.134.64.190 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also edit-warring/removing sourced info at Shari Redstone, the ex-wife of Ira Korff

User 204.195.144.134 (talk · contribs) is removing sourced info from Shari Redstone's article. She is the wife of Ira Korff.

Diffs:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shari_Redstone&diff=prev&oldid=703338330
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shari_Redstone&diff=prev&oldid=703329876

Thank you. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate RFC

This just came to my attention at the dispute resolution noticeboard. About a month ago, there was an RFC to remove the galleries of images of ethnic groups. The RFC was https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups

It was closed with a consensus to remove the galleries of images. The close was then challenged, and upheld at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=&oldid=698198748#There_is_likely_to_be_trouble_ahead

There is now another RFC about removing the galleries of images. It is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#.22Articles_about_ethnic_groups_or_similarly_large_human_populations_should_not_be_illustrated_by_a_gallery_of_images_of_group_members.22

Can some admin come along and close it as having been recently decided? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

These are not duplicates. The former RFC was about ethnic groups in specific; the latter RFC is about any group of persons. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So is the latter RFC intended to expand the former one by widening the rule against image galleries? If so, that should be noted in the RFC; I will reread it to see if it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC is about the broader application of the original RfC, a broadening signaled by Sandstein in many of the voters in the original RfC. I'd close it as supporting that broader application, but lo and behold, I found my own name in there. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• In light of CONLIMITED and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Violating_policies I, personally, have some doubt about the ability of the initial RFC to set guidelines or policy for the encyclopedia (and I say that even though I support the result reached there). I do not take the position that policies and guidelines cannot be made at wikiprojects, but I do take the position that for them to do it that they have to be very careful to publicize the discussion by listing it under "pol" in the RFC tag, by placing a notice and link to the discussion at Village Pump policy, by placing a notice and link to the discussion on the talk pages of any policies being modified by the discussion, and by listing it at Central Discussion. The first of those was done, but I don't think any of the rest were done, though perhaps I missed them (I did not take part in the initial RFC). I've had folks take the position that my position on this is over-bureaucratic but the fact is that, at least in the case of policy or guideline modifications, allowing wiki-project discussions to modify policy or guidelines without clearly notifying the community as a whole and, especially, without notifying the folks who care about the policy or guideline in question enough to watchlist that policy it is bad for the process, as is illustrated here where the second RFC which grew out of an attempt to implement and expand the first discussion at the affected guideline page is struggling to find consensus and is throwing doubt on the original RFC. We're already seeing disputes arising out of the first RFC and disagreements over whether or not it ought to be implemented. I'm hoping that the second RFC will be adopted by consensus (the good Drmies says, above, that he feels that it should be, but the last time I looked I thought it was pretty close) but, frankly, I'm hoping for that more to legitimize the original RFC and avoid the disruption that will otherwise result as I am the fact that I support the result that was reached in the first RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no bar on choosing a WikiProject as the venue for a properly constituted RfC. In fact, the procedure for starting an RfC on a policy issue as outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment #Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues begins "1. Edit the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page." (my emphasis). Is anyone seriously contending that WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups is not a good venue for discussing more general issues arising at articles such as African Americans?

The procedure continues "2. Choose a category and insert an RfC template at the top of the new talk page section". There can be no doubt that this step was followed: This is the diff.

There is no requirement to do anything more once the question has been posed. Nevertheless, Wikipedia:Requests for comment does offer some further guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment #Publicizing an RfC: "there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:" and lists Village Pump; Noticeboards; WikiProject talk; editors listed at the Feedback Request Service; talk pages of related articles. It is pertinent that the following advice is also given "Centralized discussion may be used for policy-related RfCs ..."". here is the diff of the notification at CD.

The RfC already was publicised wider than was required by our procedures and attracted a commensurably large response. Your short list of requirements represents good practice, but even if an RfC fell short of your standards, it still would not be invalidated. As it happens, the RfC in question met almost all of your concerns. - given that there are only 71 active watchers at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, I'm not convinced that we lost much input to the RfC by not advertising the RfC there. The purpose of advertising an RfC is to attract a broad range of participants and I see no complaint that the RfC failed to do that. --RexxS (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Requests for comment page is not a policy or guideline. CONLIMITED is policy, being part of the Consensus policy, and it reads in pertinent part, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay." (Emphasis added.) I acknowledge that the number of participants in the first RFC might make this not apply due to the "limited group" language in the first sentence and the "single individual or several participants" language in the second sentence, but if you look at the policy and guideline proposal process, which is also policy, it repeats what I said above and also says that the problem if it is not followed is that there may be "complaints about insufficient notice" and that is particularly true on controversial changes to policy. If the second RFC does not pass then we who work in dispute resolution are going to have to deal with the ambiguity caused by this and, I wouldn't be surprised if it does not end up before the Arbitration Committee to be resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are no more than reflections of practices and procedures that enjoy community consensus. When they have been proven, they are written down, but the text is not the policy. To say that WP:RfC is not policy or guideline and therefore has less standing than WP:CONLIMITED in determining whether an RfC is valid is to misunderstand the strength of our consensus process. No part of the process followed by the authors of the RfC on image galleries in infoboxes of ethnic articles was defective by the standards outlined at WP:RFC, nor for that matter was it defective by the standards of WP:CONLIMITED. You need to understand that CONLIMITED was developed to avoid the problems of "walled-gardens", where a small group (such as a WikiProject) might create their own policy that contradicted a more general project-wide consensus. There is no value to the project whatsoever of denigrating the consensus established by an RfC that had such a large participation, simply because of the venue. I do understand that working at the DRN makes you feel that you have to scrupulously follow the letter of whatever policy you can find, but that can devolve into process-wonkery, which benefits no-one. I could accept some of your argument if you could quote a precedent for any properly constituted RfC being declared invalid solely because it was conducted on the pages of a WikiProject, but I'm willing to have a small bet that you won't find one. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed article (unable to request for 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.

---

Hello Wikipedia Administrators. I recently found a article with no name[68]. I tried to request it for AfD using Twinkle, as it contains no encyclopedic value. However, I ran into a snag. The page cannot be created, as the name is restricted from use. So therefore the only action taken was posting an AfD template on the page in question. I was hoping an Administrator could be kind enough to make this AfD article for me. Thanks. Boomer Vial^Holla 02:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: I've created it blank (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%C2%8D). —Cryptic 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Boomer Vial^Holla 09:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The page was vandalized, no need to AfD it. Instead, I reinstated the redirect. You might want to seek RFPP instead. Rgrds. --64.85.216.89 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The AFD page is blank. In any case, redirects are sent to WP:RFD not WP:AFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

?? It was an "article" when the user AfD'd it; I just restored the redirect which an IP vandalized and turned into an "article". No need for any XfD, just speedy close it and maybe consider semi'ing it. Rgrds. --64.85.216.89 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 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.

Question from an old timer for all you kids with your fancy toys...

So, I was just wondering, is there any utility for admins that enables any kind of "batch protection" or something like that, that would make it easier to protect a whole mess of articles (about 100 or so) at once, or I'm I just going to have to do it the old fashioned way? I ask because there's an unresponsive editor who is actively vandalizing the entire set of Interstate Highway Articles. A few representative examples: [69] [70] [71] He edits under a wide range of IP addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) and throwaway accounts. There's no way to rangeblock or anything like that. We're gonna have to semi protect the entire set. Is there an expedited way to do that, or are we just going to have to go through each one? Thanks in advance for ideas... --Jayron32 01:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Yes, Twinkle has a mass protect function (I was cosnidering using it for this very case, having just blocked a few IPs at AIV). The best way to do it is to create a new page (eg User:HJ Mitchell/Sandbox 3), and add link to every page you want to protect (you can put in a bullet point list if you want it neat and tidy, but you don't need any formatting at all apart from the links). Then select "p-batch", assuming you have Twinkle installed. Or just stick them on my sandbox and I'll do it. I should be around for another half an hour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

After blocking another sock, I used Twinkle to mass-protect all the articles in that category. Only for a week, but it's easy enough to do it again and for longer if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You could also cascade protect a template that is on all of them. That's how they do the main page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is, I guess, what HJ Mitchell was suggesting. My way is faster, though, if the template is already on the pages. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not something I've ever tried to use, but I thought cascade protection only worked for full-protection? Courcelles (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. It's been a while since I used it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. If it worked for anything below full protection, a non-admin would be able to adjust the protection of any page at will by just editing the cascade-protected page ... and they're not supposed to be able to do that. Graham87 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Big thanks to everyone here who pitched in and helped out. Next beer's on me... --Jayron32 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

TB by MastCell without admin consensus and difs

Closed is closed in this case. There is clearly no consensus to overturn the TB so this thread is done. If you disagree your next step is ARCA. Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recently i got reported at the Arbcom request board for a 1RR violation. Two admins responded: MastCell responded after my self-revert: This particular 1RR violation is moot, at this point, with the self-revert, but the lack of insight that I mentioned in my original comment is, if anything, more apparent, which concerns me because there's a strong pattern here and it's not heading in a good direction. The level of enabling in some of the "outside" comments here is likewise unhelpful, as is the general pro and con content argumentation. I'd be OK with closing this request without action (in light of the self-revert), but with a recognition that there aren't likely to be much additional leeway given to Prokaryotes. Thoughts from other admins? After my self-revert i did not comment further there, except for a question addressed at MastCell. Basically the same questions i raise below. The second admin EdJohnston, responded before my self-revert: This is a plain 1RR violation. The talk-page consensus may be unclear, but that doesn't give anyone a license to break 1RR. If admins decide that a block is needed, then something between two days and one week would be appropriate. During the Arbcom hearing I pointed out to MastCell that i am unaware of any other wrongdoing, besides my 1RR violation, since 2016. He did not address this directly, then closed the request with a indefinite topic ban, and added: ...pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks, and so on Then i went to his talk page and asked him to reconsider his judgement, pointing out that I am unaware in regards to the things he described above, and asked him to provide some difs. However, when he answered he basically referred to my edits from last year. Personal attacks he mentions, edit warring, stonewalling, or misuse of sourcing guidelines, is the opposite of my edits i made to the topic of GMOs in 2016 (primarily on the talk page here). Therefore i ask other admins to consider a different judgement, and repeat my question for MastCell to provide difs for the points he raised. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Strong Support for overturning the decision. The problem was cleared up when another editor admitted fault, apologized and worked with Prokaryotes to resolve the issue that led to the inadvertent 1RR violation. There was no reason to topic ban Prokaryotes. I could explain more, but most of what I have to say about it I already did at the WP:AE I explain more below (in my response to Johnuniq) and at the original WP:AE action. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) (revised 05:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)) I also support striking a topic ban issued by Mast Cell. This topic ban is a unilateral act, and is draconian under the circumstances, which are complex per David's previous statements, and needs review by uninvolved admins and/or the community. Jusdafax 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Prediction This episode will play out in the same way as all the other battles in the GMO Holy Wars, with the same people taking the same sides. Of course it might not work out this way, just as tomorrow morning could see end of all conflict in the Middle East. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The current discussion evolves around a statement in regards to safety. However, it appears that the majority participating over there could settle with an alternative version. I can only count two editors over there who still opt for the 2015 version, still under discussion (basically about the word consensus). Some are fine with various suggestions, brought forward by "both sides", as was I. If this input is against my current active/enforced tb, please redact it....prokaryotes (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Question pair for Prokaryotes — "I pointed out to MastCell that i am unaware of any other wrongdoing, besides my 1RR violation, since 2016" Presumably the year is a typo, so what year did you actually mean? Or if you indeed meant 2016, it's an odd usage (if you made a big mess yesterday, the statement would still be true), so could you explain what you meant? Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Part of MastCell's conclusion involved that i "continued a pattern". I accidentally broke 1RR after last years edits, and before this he gave me a warning last year in response to comments i made after the Arbcom decision verdict. But all the edits i made after the GMO verdict, did not include personal attacks, edit warring etc., so i am really clueless what he is referring to when he speaks of strong pattern, continuation. I actually almost stopped editing article space, sticked to talk page instead. And on the talk pages i edited there were never these accusations i here today. Hence, why i ask for difs to these issues raised, and used to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @Nyttend: My understanding is that Prokaryotes is saying that after this warning by MastCell on December 14, 2015 (2 days after the ArbCom decision), Prokaryotes refrained from further similar comments that might be construed as ad hominem attacks or WP:BATTLEGROUND (i.e. since 1/1/2016). @Prokaryotes: Is that what you mean by "since 2016"? And do you admit that some of the diffs that MastCell provided were a bit on the aggressive side and that you have learned from the warnings and have changed your behavior accordingly (during 2016)? (By such admission this in no way dismisses others who have used similar ad hominem attacks against you or others--separate issue). --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Yes. And I apologized and explained this yesterday on MastCells talk page, since he brought it up there. And in regards to those edits back then in 2015, and all my other edits, there never been ad hominems, there was never a personal attack, there was never edit warring, and there was no continuation. If someone says otherwise, he should provide evidence. Everybody uninvolved, unsure what is going on, check out this GMO talk page, and this related OR noticeboard discussion, and judge for yourself who is doing what there, and who is cooperative, and who tries to find a constructive agreement, and if the claims put forward here by MastCell (quoted above) are valid.prokaryotes (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Comment from MastCell: I explained the basis for the sanction in detail, in response to Prokaryotes' questioning, here on my talkpage, and don't have much to add. I am happy to answer questions or discuss the sanction further with uninvolved admins or editors, but I don't have much more to say in response to deeply involved GMO editors (pro- or anti-). If a consensus of uninvolved admins finds that the sanction was inappropriate, then I am of course fine with having it vacated (although I would plead for more admin involvement at WP:AE, as sanity checks are invaluable in that atmosphere). MastCell Talk 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The problem begins imho, when you generalize and divide editors in pro or anti. If you look at my edits, they are almost always based on science, and authorities. I understand that it is not easy to judge the issue at hand, considering the amount of text posted by some, but if you tb someone you really need to provide clear evidence of wrongdoing. prokaryotes (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC) One more thing, in the statement MastCell links above he again makes a serious point about personal attacks, see WP:WIAPA what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. prokaryotes (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Please spell out what you are suggesting. Did someone make a personal attack? Who? Against whom? Please quote a couple of words from the comment so we can find and evaluate the issue. I skimmed through User talk:MastCell#Reconsider and did not notice a CIVIL problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The point is, nobody made a personal attack, yet MastCell uses this argument to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) MastCell, I know I would participate more at AE if, like at arbitration case requests, there was a word limit imposed. Lately, editors have been posting endless walls of text (and counter-arguments that are equally long) that are difficult to decipher if one is unfamiliar with the parties. Any chance we could get ArbCom to institute a 500 word limit? Being concise is a lost art, it seems. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) ^Agree. People should also provide diffs for any claims about editor behavior. I am tired of being expected to read all of the talk page discussion and try to reconcile it with the article page versions to try to figure out who did what when. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @Liz: There is a limit of 500 words and 20 diffs, though apparently it's not widely heeded. I made it bold. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Opabinia regalis, I never noticed that and, you're right, it's not commonly observed. Time to find that link to the online word counter. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Is this a topic ban appeal? A quick look at the closed WP:AE report shows that the issue appears to be more than a 1RR problem—reading through the request from Tryptofish suggests "ongoing problems", and the closing remarks includes "larger pattern of disruptive editing" and more. I see no reason the topic ban should be overturned. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @Johnuniq: What Tryptofish is not telling you is that s/he and a number of other editors were trying to edit war in changes in the lead from the formerly agreed upon "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" here and here and here (last edit wisely self-reverted). This was in violation of the WP:STATUSQUO: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." There was no consensus for changing the sentence to say "scientific consensus". Last year there was this very lengthy RfC over this language that found no Wiki-consensus for the sentence containing "broad scientific consensus", and the closer RockMagnetist suggested a revision to the language to gain consensus. Such a revision did take place with this edit which changed "broad scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement". That language was used in a number of articles and was stable for several months until the edit warring started above. That was the WP:STATUSQUO, and three editors tried to change it without gaining consensus first. That behavior was disruptive. Fortunately, Aircorn admitted his/her error here and worked cooperatively with Prokaryotes to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. The other editors never acknowledged they were trying to edit war in content they knew had substantial opposition. Instead, they called for Prokaryotes to be topic banned for standing up to their edit-warring. Why is Prokaryotes being punished so severely when the other editors who brought the action against him/her started the problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Extenuating circumstances are not relevant in a case like this: the topic is under discretionary sanctions and arguments have been raging forever, and several links that I found at WP:AE show that Prokaryotes was not attempting to collaborate but was stone-walling by raising a series of objections that seem to have no common thread other than the objections can be used to block an opponent's arguments, rather than engaging with them. I have not evaluated the entire situation (Arbcom took a long time to do that), but I have seen enough from the information presented at WP:AE to endorse the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Having reviewed MastCell's explanation for the TB on their talkpage, I'm not seeing anywhere near the required level of self reflection or detailed refutation of the detailed reason for the TB to suggest it was imposed in error. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @Spartaz: Please see my comments immediately above. The call for the topic ban was based on allegations of disruptive editing by those who started the disruptive editing by edit-warring. As for use of ad hominems, his/her accusers are equally guilty of ad hominem attacks and completely unapologetic about it. But again, the action was not about name-calling. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC) This meme that two wrongs make a right is one of the reasons why we get into states where topic bans and other sanctions have to be handed out. As a clearly involved person in this dispute I would ask you to extract yourself from badgering everyone who has commented on this TBAN and stop trying to muddle matters and poison the well. I suggest you butt out. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you to Johnuniq for pinging me, and thank you to MastCell for, in my opinion, doing exactly the right things. I looked over the discussion at MastCell's talk page, and MastCell explains the situation very well. And it's no coincidence that the very next talk thread on MastCell's talk is about how AE has become such a difficult place for administrators to deal with. It's unfortunate that Prokaryotes just does not get it, but that's what blunt instruments such as AE are, unfortunately, needed for. And it's also unfortunate that Prokaryotes has a group of other editors who serve as enablers, and they have shown up here right on schedule. In other words, +1 to Boris' prediction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse close. Frankly, this was inevitable, it's always been just a matter of time. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I oppose close until this matter has been properly investigated, which has not yet taken place. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC) @SlimVirgin: I believe you are familiar with the problem I described above about edit-warring of the "scientific consensus" language from the discussion here by Petrarchan47. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) David Tornheim, responding to your ping, I'm not familiar with any of this. I know only that an RfC was closed in July 2015 regarding the "scientific consensus" sentence or paragraph in Genetically modified food. The closer suggested finding alternative wording. How that relates to this, I have no idea, sorry. SarahSV (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Here is a short summary of the issue: the GMO ArbCom case was preceded by an extremely labor/time-intensive RfC in which Jytdog asked "Do these 18 sources support There is a scientific consensus that GMO foods are as safe as their natural counterparts?" The community was not convinced that any of the sources presented, alone or as a group, supported such a statement. We all agreed, and until January 2016, no one argued: the wording would have to match RS, it would need to be changed. Embarrassingly, besides our own internal process, a group of scientists called out Wikipedia for airing this false claim (see 3, 16)[72] A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired The "scientific consensus" wording requires extra diligent sourcing. Normally editors add content and try to summarize it afterwards. This "scientific consensus" was created by Jytdog and added without ever fleshing out the supportive material in the bodies of up to 15 GMO articles. Skip to today: Aircorn, Tryptofish and KingofAces43 suddenly begin defending the use of this wording, group-edit-warring it back into the GM Crops article. Pro had been trying to align the article with our RfC and with RS, and is now enemy #1 for doing so. Editors are still refusing to add content to the articles, and are insisting on coming up with a "statement" based on their favoured sources. I regret to say, it appears to me that if the POV pushing is indeed on the "pro-GMO" side of this, it is doubtful this will ever be formally acknowledged due to group-think and intimidation for having an opposing view, or being labelled "fringe", etc. petrarchan47คุก 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) You "forgot" to mention that this statement you promote was basically a statement by an anti-GMO group in a low-impact journal whose editors have acknowledged a problem with hijacking by anti-GMO authors [73]. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I have promoted no statement, what are you speaking of? The paper you are trying to refute is not one I have suggested for addition to the WP; I am pointing out that our own editors came to the same conclusion. The data in the paper and the conclusions reached are very straightforward - one can try to refute them using facts and unbiased sources, but to suggest that by citing the Genetic Literacy Project (a pro-GMO biotechnology and genetics outreach organization) you have discredited my position, is indeed funny. petrarchan47คุก 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Appears to be a punitive ban. The revert issues were dealt with and diffs were not provided showing personal attacks in the present. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I strongly agree this seems a punitive ban and shows a lack of awareness about the situation, which is far more complex than any drive-by editor or admin can properly rule on, unfortunately. Even though I have been somewhat involved there, the vast amount of text, different noticeboards and litigiousness of some involved heavily in the GMO area make navigating this chain of events nearly impossible. petrarchan47คุก 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Just noting that AlbinaFerret was an involved editor in the AE discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC) True, but my involvement in the topic is rather small and consists of participating in the GMO arbcom case and about 20 or so talk page posts, mostly during a RFC. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Tryptofiish is the most active editor (by a wide margin) in the related discussion, he reported me for 1RR, Guy is heavily involved in the topic and always supports Tryptofish. prokaryotes (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) In re what David Tornheim and Prokaryotes have each said about me, I'll simply reiterate that Boris' prediction is correct, and I'll leave any content disputes for another venue. Once again, I endorse MastCell's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Since you are an involved editor and since you endorse MastCell's decision, maybe you can answer these unanswered questions, presenting some difs confirming MastCell. Surely this must be easy for you. "...pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks" prokaryotes (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Then I guess we should add WP:IDHT to the list, because I provided just that at the AE filing that led to your topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) You did not provide evidence for personal attacks, edit warring, misuse of sourcing guidelines, continuation. What you did was to provide your opinion, and the majority of involved editors disagrees with you. And now you made my point, that you cannot provide difs. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC) As this diff shows, MastCell does not feel a block by an admin, in this case the obviously involved Admin Guy/JzG, who was also subsequently warned and handed an interaction ban with SageRad for harassing SageRad, is relevant. I'd submit that this diff and other of MastCell's comments during the ArbCom GMO case display a clear bias. I have commented on this previously and find it rather astonishing that I have to point this out. An involved admin, no matter what he claims he is, is not the person to make a unilateral topic ban. I call on a truly uninvolved admin to make a ruling here. Jusdafax 01:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Your diff shows MastCell saying "Closing an RfC is generally a service performed by an uninvolved admin or editor, and does not constitute "involvement" ... I don't see how that block creates "involvement" in the GMO topic area." How does that show MastCell has a "clear bias" and is WP:INVOLVED? It's a very innocuous and generic statement. Which part of WP:INVOLVED applies? Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Yet another go at poisoning the well to get round this tropic ban. Time for a boomerang? Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Support re-opening AE or overturning block - I believe the close was out of process as there was clearly no consensus among uninvolved admins. There have been 2 recent Arb cases dealing with this type issue with strong directives against admins acting unilaterally against consensus or absent consensus, i.e. Supervoting. In this case, EdJohnson half-heartedly recommended a "2-day to one week block". Even Mastcell commented that he recommended closing with no action before he implemented an indefinite topic ban - even after prokaryotes self reverted and apologized and explained. This kind of action is directly contrary to the two recent Arb cases about enforcement. (sorry, can't link them right now cuz I'm editing from my phone). Minor4th 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Comment on involvement. I guess I'm just further fulfilling Boris' prediction by posting here being involved, but just a reminder that decisions at this board are based off of uninvolved admins and editors. The only people wanting to overturn Prokaryotes' ban (e.g., David Tornheim, Jusdafax, petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, and Minor4th) are all involved in the GMO dispute in various fashions. Conversely, Nyttend, Spartaz, Shock Brigade Harester Boris, Johnuniq, and Liz appear unquestionably uninvolved in addition to MastCell. Some admins here have been commenting on the "peanut gallery" problem whenever cases or action occur at WP:AE, and I do think uninvolved admins here have described that problem occurring even in this thread relatively well with poisoning the well comments, the general travesty attitude, etc. That is evidence of battleground behavior being perpetuated in a case like this where Prokaryotes was given a "final warning" by MastCell long before the AE case that a topic ban was impending if they continued the behavior they outlined. Disputing the ban now is just WP:IDHT in addition to battleground mentality. I don't have a good solution for dealing with that problem except that we need more admin eyes at AE that are aware of some of this history when GMO topics come up. It seems like the community is becoming more aware of it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Kingofaces, claims MastCell is uninvolved, yet it was him to post a "final warning" on my talk page, then later MastCell and KIngofaces, talked about banning me, without me. And one month later MastCell banns me. In regards to the tb: Kingofaces is not able to provide difs, Tryptofish is not providing difs, MastCell is not providing difs. Instead various accusations. prokaryotes (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Are you aware that WP:INVOLVED includes "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area."? Posting warnings or discussing possible sanctions has nothing to do with "involved". There are plenty of links showing problematic issues at the WP:AE discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC) To my understanding when you talk about other editors, especially when suggesting a topic ban, that this editor should be pinged. There are many arguments and links at the AE discussion, i am unaware of difs which support the claims used by MastCell to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC) To the list of previously-involved editors that KingofAces listed, I would add RoseL2P, below, based on her participation in the ArbCom GMO case. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Also noting that RoseL2P is an alternate account of A1candidate[74] for those not aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) After having reviewed some of the above comments, it seems very clear to me that MastCell is at least tangentially involved in the GMO topic area and has not exercised the best judgement in this particularly contentious area of dispute. His active participation in the Arbcom GMO case contributed little to the final decision; and some of his unhelpful comments during the workshop phase, such as this one, are glaring examples of his personal bias for a group of editors whom he describes as "science-oriented editors on Wikipedia". Regardless of his intentions (which I do not doubt are completely sincere), such comments only serve to amplify the amount of partisanship perceived by everyone. I am getting increasingly concerned about MastCell's actions in the central locus of the GMO dispute (e.g. glyphosphate [75][76]), wherein he misuses the talk page of a highly disputed article to issue administrative warnings. These statements should be placed on the talk pages of the involved editors if and when appropriate, not on the talk page of the article itself. And finally, I do not believe that there is a shortage of uninvolved administrators monitoring the AE noticeboard, so the enforcement request should ideally be closed by one of them instead. MastCell, I am puzzled as to why you deemed it necessary to issue an indefinite topic ban for prokaryotes on all pages related to GMOs, despite your active involvement in the same area of dispute. Could you explain to me the rationale behind these actions? –RoseL2P (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I don't believe I'm "involved" in the GMO topic area, and you provide no evidence that I am. Shouting isn't evidence; more often, it signals the lack of evidence. I also think it's clear that we lack admins on WP:AE; the thread on Prokaryotes sat open without administrative input for nearly a week and a half before I closed it, during which the disputants tirelessly sniped at one another (they've now relocated here, to carry on more of the same, which rather reinforces the need for a heavier hand). As to the sanction, I have explained it at length elsewhere, but Prokaryotes' behavior has been flagged repeatedly by everyone from fellow editors to admins to ArbCom as problematic. He's shown no sign of changing, but rather seems to have dug in, enabled by many of the people commenting in this thread, most recently with edit-warring and tendentious stonewalling of sources. It is unconscionable that we've forced the constructive editors in the GMO topic area to put up with his behavior as long as we have, since—as I mention—I'm hardly the first person to flag it as severely problematic. Hence the topic ban. The indefinite length seems appropriate since there is no evidence of insight or behavioral improvement on Prokaryotes' part; there is no reason to think that the passage of time alone will fix the issue. As a side note, the vast majority of verbiage in this thread comes from editors who are already neck-deep in the GMO battlefield, many of whom already argued these same points at length in the WP:AE thread. I welcome input from uninvolved editors and admins, whether supportive or critical, but you all need to simmer down and give them some space to talk. I also think this thread amply demonstrates a sickness in the editing atmosphere in this topic area that goes much deeper than any one editor. It couldn't be clearer that this is a battleground for many of you. MastCell Talk 01:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I was directly involved in those discussions at the Glyphosate talk page. There was nothing improper, either procedurally or on the merits, in what MastCell did there, nor did it make him in any way "involved". And the editor to whom he directed those warnings was just community site-banned in a decision that was closed by an uninvolved administrator, for exactly the things MastCell warned about. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I have no opinion on this sanction since I don't know enough about the situation. I would make two points. AE is a messy place and after a week of no closure, that MastCell's stepped up to close is and was probably humane. I would also note that MastCell did edit on the Jeffrey Smith article [77]. Smith is an anti-GMO advocate/author/filmaker. Whether this makes MastCell involved in the GMO topic area may be a point for discussion. I will not be engaging in further discussion on this issue, but thought I'd make these points(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)) An edit 2.5 years ago does not make you involved. This well poisoning is becoming desperate. Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC) In this edit from 2013, MastCell adds an opinion piece by the NewYorker, about a "Cult". In November 2015 he communicates with Tryptofish, where he comments on current articles, here or here, here in October 2015 MastCell tells Tryptofish that he is going to support his adminship. While he is only little involved in GMO edits he made it clear that he supports Tryptofish, and he used his Arbcom role to decide in favor of Tryptofish. It is troubling when an outspoken supporter of Tryptofish, helps him with admin actions to remove editors who challenge Tryptofish's edits.prokaryotes (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Recent closure Spartaz closed this request, citing admin opinions. However, Spartaz, JzG and MastCell are involved, and so far i only count one uninvolved admin (Johnuniq) who endorsed a closure. Problems which remain include, evidence that admin MastCell was is involved to some degree (outspoken supporter of Tryptofish, and editing a few GMO related articles himself), and why nobody bothered to link to difs to support the topic ban, besides repeatedly asked for. In the absence of evidence i therefore ask the board to either reopen the ARbcom discussion, or to remove the topic ban. prokaryotes (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC) If you want to deal with the arbitrators, the correct place for the discussion is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, not AN. I see no signs of uninvolved admins on this noticeboard wanting to wade into this dispute and reverse the action of other administrators. I see a call for uninvolved editors and admins to take part in these kinds of proceedings but I haven't seen this much sniping between parties since Gamergate, and that is coming from both sides. I wish neutrality was possible but I think as soon as someone offered an opinion, they'd be seen as taking sides. So, I'm betting that any editor who will want to participate in this discussion has an already formed opinion on GMOs....I doubt you will find many uninvolved people who will want to jump in at this stage of the dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I post here because it is advised per this page. prokaryotes (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse close So I edited a few GMO articles a few years ago. Does that make me involved? It seems like you're saying anyone who has done a bit of enforcement is involved. The reality is that you are too passionate about this topic right now and you should step away. The fact that you're not willing to move on actually makes it seem like a proper choice. When you defend yourself by saying you haven't made many make mistakes in 2016, that doesn't exactly help. There are many things to work on in Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 04:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Yeah, but you didn't started banning people. Actually GMO edits are only a minor part of my overall contributions. And what do you expect me to say, i asked to point out what was wrong, but explanations like given above, make no sense whatsoever. prokaryotes (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Let's be clear on what's going on here. Spartaz (talk · contribs), an uninvolved admin, closed Prokaryotes' topic ban appeal as unsuccessful ([78]). Prokaryotes then reverted the administrative closure of his appeal so that he could keep arguing ([79]). I've been here nearly 10 years, but this is a new one for me. MastCell Talk 04:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC) How is he uninvolved? He commented heavily above, at least you have now something to harp about. prokaryotes (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) You seem to lack a basic understanding of the term "involved", as it applies here. I would recommend that you stop accusing people of being "involved" until you understand what the term means. MastCell Talk 04:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC) From my experience at ANI, editors/admins who getting involved into discussions never close a thread. prokaryotes (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for creation of article(Tiny Toones)

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 article name Tiny Toones has been black listed but it is the name of a Cambodian NGO that should have an article http://www.tinytoones.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I created Draft:Tiny Toones, feel free to write it up with sources and then it can be moved to main space if it meets the usual criteria. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 9 February 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.

Tomica's 3RR

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 keep adding sourced information and Tomica keeps reverting it and now is threatening me on my own talk page, can someone please interveen? 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovethewayIlie (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2016‎ Sure, I will take care of this, as you are an obvious sock of user:MariaJaydHicky. — Diannaa (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I often wonder why socks and trolls so often go to the noticeboards to report their "problems".Is it that they want to be able to boast about fooling us, or do they really just want to be caught and told they're naughty? BMK (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Too many E numbers I think, BMK Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I assume it's just their kink. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 10 February 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.

Rename page help

Hello, I'm trying to rename the page for "West Midwood, Brooklyn" to just "West Midwood". This is for the sake of conforming to how many/most other neighborhood pages are labeled. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanchionUrn (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The assumption you're working under is not actually true -most NYC neighborhood names have the borough attached to them. In this case "West Midwood" is such a generic name, moving it away from West Midwood, Brooklyn would, in my opinion, be a mistake. BMK (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If you delete and then restore a page, make sure to recreate the link to Wikidata

When a page on en.wp gets deleted, the link to it from Wikidata is automatically deleted. However, when the page is restored the link to Wikidata is not restored with it and needs to be readded manually.

I've just become aware of this after I spotted the link to the Clapham Junction rail crash article here being removed from d:Q5125870 by user:DoRD. Upon checking what had happened (as I know them not to be a vandal) I spotted that they had deleted (accidentally) and then restored the article. I've recreated the link at Wikidata.

Accidents happen, and there are also legitimate reasons why pages might be deleted and then restored (for example history merges), so I'm posting here to make more people aware that if you do delete and then restore a page, for any reason, please remember to recreate the link at Wikidata. If you aren't sure how, just ping me or anyone else active at the project or ask at d:Wikidata:Project chat. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am assuming the automatic deletion occurs as Wikidata? Is there no way to delay the automatic deletion so that only pages deleted for more than say a day get deleted? I lack a technical understanding of how this works.

I don't really do cross project work, and I think it is unlikely that every admin is going to know to do this. A solution that does not involve that would be much more effective. HighInBC 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion dose occur at Wikidata, and it is attributed to the person deleting the article here (the same thing happens when a page is moved). I have no idea if delaying this would be feasible or not. I think better might be for a restoration to automatically restore the link, but again I don't know how this would be done - and I'm not even sure who to ping to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a more useful place to put this? Not that it is not useful here, but I mean some sort of really obvious prompt REMEMBER TO RESTORE THE WIKIDATA LINKS when people undelete? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Err, whichever MediaWiki namespace page generates text on special:Undelete is my only thought, but I'd rather not edit something like that without discussion first. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Thryduulf, and sorry for the trouble. I had 200+ sockpuppet-created redirects to delete, and the list I fed to the script must have included the target page by mistake. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's actually possibly a good thing you did this as now we know to be on the look-out for this happening! Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Wikidata about this at d:Wikidata:Contact the development team#deletion and restoration of pages on other wikis causes data loss at Wikidata (sort of the WP:VPTECH equivalent location). Ideas and discussion for how this can be fixed or mitigated against on the Wikidata side should go to that discussion, ideas for en.wp, including whether a note should be placed on the special:undelete interface (and if so what), should remain here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this problem too, as I often do history merges. I try to remember to check my contribs on Wikidata every now and then so I can catch this problem. There's an undo link besides each entry in the Wikidata page history, just like Wikipedia; the restore links, which restore to the selected revision, are also useful. I've found some of the links that I've removed have been restored by other editors, sometimes running semi-automated games; for example, see the Wikidata history of revision history of "Sam Carter" (Q20807128). Graham87 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive CFD backlog

CFD currently has almost 150 discussions awaiting closure, including 6 which could have been closed a couple months ago. It would be nice if more admins would help out there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins have got far better things to do than getting involved with issues like this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

24hrs later and no-one has tackled the issue - I guess they have got better things to do. I've listed them at the closure page. Hopefully that'll get the ball rolling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Lugnuts, I saw the massive list: good work. Drew my attention! Two things--compared to AfD, CfD can be surprisingly complex, for me at least, and closing them is not as simple as closing AfDs. I can't speak for other admins, but for me, this is not something I can do in a few lost minutes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I can help in two weeks from now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, good. And for the record, I have closed a few myself in the past. These being obvious keeps where I have not contributed to the discussion in hand. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an attack page?

Would I be justified in adding {{db-attack}} to User:Simon John Pearce? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, what should I do? I've tried engaging with them on their user talk page, where they remain stubbornly silent - and then I get this? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think after a week or two you could try Mfd. The user seems very polite in their complaint, but that's not the purpose of a user page. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Try replying on the user page, who knows they might respond. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Unrestricting File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg

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 require administrative help. The image, File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg, which I've been trying to add to my user page, has been improperly restricted and put on the bad image list. Former user Tyciol, who seems to have been indefinitely blocked for improper fiddling with images of erotic art, seems somehow involved. The image is of an illustration by Édouard-Henri Avril for the Manuel d'érotologie classique (1906), a French translation of Friedrich Karl Forberg's De figuris Veneris (1824), a scholarly treatise on sex in ancient Greece and Rome. None of Avril's other illustrations appear so restricted. Clearly, such a scholarly, rather esoteric, and historically themed illustration should not be restricted on Wikipedia, which doesn't censor. I request that the image be removed from the bad image list and be made unrestricted. It's time for user Ty's damage to be undone. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine why an image of this nature would be on the bad image list. Oh, wait, yes I can - actually very easily. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid wit doesn't suit you. If you'll bother to be serious and even remotely rational: Anyone comparing this image to Avril's other images on here, which are not restr7icted, will be baffled by this restriction. Anyone comparing this image to the others on the bad image list will have no idea why this image was included on the list. And anyone who isn't a drooling philistine will be astonished by this case of audacious and outdated censorship, which Wikipedia purportedly doesn't engage in. So, who's going to fix this problem? Antinoos69 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, insult the admins, that is bound to work. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have the remotest intention of seriously addressing points actually made? I am quite serious in what I've been saying. I would have expected an "administrator" to respond with due seriousness, rather than resorting to glib, drive-by jests. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I remember the case of another editor who had a shocking image on their user page and it was requested that it be removed (or, rather, ordered) because it was seen as disruptive. It didn't help that it was so large in dimension, it had scroll bars on the side and bottom. So, while some latitude is given to editors to create user pages, I don't think you will win an argument that you need this image to decorate your user page. Maybe you can take the image and post it on your Facebook page but Wikipedia is focused on the editing process, not creating decorative user pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The actual point is that this file should never have been restricted in the first place. Avril's other illustrations, of a similar nature, have not been restricted. Why should this one be? And "shocking" to whom? Wiki policy is that Wiki doesn't censor, let alone artwork. What other artwork is listed on the bad image list? "Shock" and offense are irrelevant to that policy. I have made specific points on here. I expect them to be addressed. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's try this: Can someone list for me the specific Wiki policies that are served by this restriction, along with evidence/data/explanations as to how the criteria of those policies are being met here? The notice on the Wikipedia page for this file refers to "vandalism," not "shock" or offense. I see no evidence of this "vandalism," let alone of its being an ongoing issue. And Wikipedia doesn't censor. So what valid purpose, according to Wiki policy, is being served by this restriction, and by its continuation? In the absence of any such purpose or policies, this restriction, which would clearly be arbitrary and capricious, cannot stand. On a personal note, I am flabbergasted, saddened, and ashamed that such boldfaced censorship can occur in 2016 in the modern industrialized West; Wikipedia should be an agent to fight such censorship, not promote it. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the specific policy is: m:DICK. We have the ability to restrict the use of any image to prevent disruption. Most of the restricted images are sexual in nature, and they are permitted on certain pages for encyclopaedic purposes. You have, I would say, zero chance of arguing that listing any sexual image in the bad image list, is in violation of policy, since the list exists pretty much entirely to stop people posting sexually explicit images where they aren't wanted. You could request whitelisting for your user page, to which I for one would respond "no" because Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not an episode of Beavis and Butthead. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. m:DICK aptly describes your first so-called comment here. In any case, first, where is the evidence that this image had caused any "disruption" before being restricted? All I see are concerns over its content, classic and improper censorship. Second, the vast majority of sexual images on here do not appear on the bad image list, so something more is very obviously required for inclusion. The file's Wikipedia page mentions "vandalism," but I know of no evidence of this apocryphal vandalism. Where is it? What I do see is a former user who was blocked for trying to censor erotic art. Third, forget my user page. This is actually about censorship on Wikipedia. Fourth, how do you explain the fact that Avril's other illustrations are not restricted? When attempts have been made, usually with regard to images containing homoeroticism btw, the attempts have been summarily dismissed by referring to Wiki policy on censorship. Why should things work any differently now? I'm afraid your entire argument is arbitrary and capricious and constitutes improper censorship. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The rationale for placing this image on the bad image list appears to be - To avoid the use of this file for vandalism - Is this a punitive measure or has this file actually been used to vandalise WP on some grand scale? Has it even been used one time at all anywhere to vandalise WP? If this was an ongoing and persistent vandalism issue, I could understand the need to restrict it, but if it was just a one time thing, don't we give a warning or block for such conduct? I'm not positive, but it appears that between these two discussions, it somehow ended up on the bad image list - a vandalism discussion and this discussion where the editor states; This could be a very disturbing image for people to look at. We have to consider the sensibilities and how people in the world may be offended by this image (which sounds like censorship instead of vandalism). Looking at the page of the artist/illustrator Édouard-Henri Avril, none of the rest of his images seem to be restricted or censored, including the image of an Ancient Greek fucking a goat. Seriously, WP thinks an image of three adults engaging in sex should be restricted, but a guy fucking a goat shouldn't be, or isn't restricted?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there some driving need to use this image somewhere I'm missing? I agree that it's probably dumb to protect it and inconsistent but I find plenty of things done here that are dumb and inconsistent but I don't see the need to reverse everything without some reason. Images do have exemptions allowing for their use so if that's the request, that's a separate matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Since when is the existence of dumbness and inconsistency an excuse for their perpetuation? The point is that there was no reason to restrict the image in the first place. The only complaint I see is from a former user who was blocked for improperly censoring erotic art. This would merely be correcting a prior wrong. I am also concerned, looking at how attempts have been made to censor Avril's images, that homoeroticism is being targeted for censorship, specifically male-male eroticism. Your cavalier attitude is particularly concerning in this regard. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• On the one hand, Wikipedia is not censored. On the other hand, this is an image that would not pass the I know it when I see it test to be pornographic; while certainly explicit, it is intended as a work of art, not for the prurient interest (or, at least, not solely for said interest). On the gripping hand, however, this is in fact exactly the sort of image that lolrandumb sockvandtrolls would love to splash here, there, and everywhere because "lol dick" and "lol boobies". Part of maintaining the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (including unregistered IPs when even TVTropes doesn't allow that, thanks ObamaWMF) is knowing where the line is between "censorship" and "reasonable precautions to prevent disruption". Yes, it is a shame that we live in such a puritanical society still, in so many myriad ways, and that censorship and prudery are allowed to run so rampant. However, we also live in a "me"-centered society, and as long as people will get their jollies by putting "loldicks!" images on pages on which they are of less-than-nil relevance, images containing dicks have to be carefully watched, even those that are nothing but art. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A very few points. First, I don't see any other artwork on the bad image list. Second, why is this image of Avril's the only one that's restricted, when others would meet your stated criteria? In fact, when attempts have been made, usually with regard to images containing homoeroticism btw, those attempts have been summarily dismissed by citing Wiki policy against censorship. Why should things work differently now? The only complaint I see is one by a former user who was blocked precisely for censoring images of erotic art. Third, where are these "lolrandumb sockvandtrolls" who "would love to splash here, there, and everywhere" this rather esoteric image that, to judge by the other images on the bad image list, seems rather ill-suited for their task? When did any such "vandalism," to use the term on the image's Wikipedia page, actually take place? We certainly can't go about making preemptive strikes, as that becomes dangerously subjective. For example, heterosexuals can go about restricting homoerotic images because these heterosexuals subjectively and improperly imagine homoerotic images are more offensive and more prone to vandalism. In short, I find your argument an arbitrary and capricious attempt to whitewash rather obvious and dangerous censorship. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Btw, when I first posted here, I was under the impression I was merely alerting you guys to a case of obvious and glaring censorship from a previous skirmish that had somehow slipped through the cracks. I fully expected the image would be removed from the bad image list within the hour, perhaps with apologies for having missed such odious censorship for so long. I am saddened (and rather disgusted, to be frank) to see that is neither the world we live in nor the state of the Wiki community, even in 2016. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support continued restriction. The image has been used for vandalism before I believe and so the restriction is proper. The image isn't somehow better so I don't see how unrestricting it entirely makes a lot of sense. Now, if Antinoos69's actual request is for an exemption to use on their user page, that's another point (one I'd probably decline) but if this is a "I couldn't possibly see where anyone could misuse this" I'd say it's been misused, it's been restricted so move on. The walking penis bad image isn't particularly terrible but there was a problem and there's really no reason to unrestrict it to test if the idiots are done with it. Same here. Is there a draft article to be created? Is it a piece on the work itself? Or is this just "I want this picture to add to a gallery on my user page"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is now the same discussion going on at MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#File:.C3.89douard-Henri_Avril_.2829.29.jpg so I don't think this discussion is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I see absolutely no evidence that "vandalism" ever took place. Show me this concrete evidence of "vandalism." I am especially concerned on two fronts. First, the only complaint I see is from a former user who was blocked for improperly censoring images of erotic art, and whose complaint was purely content-based. Second, looking at attempts to censor Avril's images, I see that homoeroticism is being targeted, specifically male-male eroticism. This should concern you. This seems entirely arbitrary, capricious, and homophobic. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• First, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored applies to articles, not user pages. And Wikipedia:Offensive material also needs to be considers which advises against the gratuitous display of offensive material. But finally, this use of this image is restricted and it is used in several articles on Wikipedia (To avoid the use of this file for vandalism, it can only be used on pages for which it is specifically allowed), so you can not claim censorship. The use of this image in articles where it is appropriate is not being prevented, just the use of it on your user page and you have yet to make any argument over why there is a need for you to include it on your user page. The burden is on you to present a case for why your user page should be an exception to the restrictions governing this image. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I can and will declare censorship. Observe. Censorship applies throughout Wiki projects, in one form or another, including with regard to Commons and images. (Forget my user page, the matter is far more serious now.) Images can only be censored or "restricted" for a valid reason. The stated reason on the image's Wikipedia page is "vandalism." So, for the umpteenth time, where is the concrete evidence that this apocryphal vandalism ever occurred? Show it to me. I don't see it, and I don't trust the (mis)representation on the image's page. Here's why. I am especially concerned on two fronts. First, the only complaint I see is from a former user who was blocked for improperly censoring images of erotic art, and whose complaint was purely content-based. Second, looking at attempts to censor Avril's images, I see that homoeroticism is being disproportionally targeted, specifically male-male eroticism. This should concern you. It should concern us all. This censorship seems entirely arbitrary, capricious, and homophobic—not to mention reprehensible and disgusting. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of censorship and homophobia are misplaced, as images are added to the list when they get used for vandalism. There are a lot of penises on the list, not because of admins' tastes but because vandals tend to use them. When adding to the list, we generally won't take into consideration what any other wiki is doing - we don't look at Wiktionary or Wikimedia Commons - Special:Contributions/BigJoeCartwright is the vandalism you were looking for. I'm happy to believe this is not the only account involved in doing such vandalism.[80] Actually I'd be content to add your userpage to the exceptions, in the context of that page, but I'm not convinced about removing it entirely. I can see why it would be popular with the vandals. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Some of us are not sufficiently tech-savvy to verify these things. I can now see why, given Wiki policies and procedures, this image was restricted. I would certainly be grateful if you could add my user page to the exceptions for this file. It has, however, been over seven years since the vandalism, and the user was blocked. Couldn't the file be removed from the list, so that all could use the image as fully as any other image? It seems unfortunate that some idiots indulging their idiocy could spoil things for all forever. In any case, I would appreciate the exception. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

On a Broader Note, However: Accusations of censorship and homophobia are not misplaced here. With regard to censorship, whenever one would express oneself in a particular manner, and is prohibited from doing so, one is being censored. One may argue the censorship is somehow defensible under the particular circumstances, but one may not argue the censorship is not taking place. With regard to homophobia, it, like bigotries generally, doesn't come solely in the intentional variety. Homophobia also comes in the systemic or institutional variety. This latter form is no less odious. In fact, systemic homophobia likely plays a larger role in shaping LGBT lives than the intentional form. If male(-male) (homo)erotic images are being disproportionally censored because vandals, for whatever reason(s), prefer them, the effect is the same as if the images were being intentionally censored for their (male)(homo)eroticism: (male) (homo)erotic images are disproportionally being removed or restricted. Users, including LGBT users, will be deprived of at least some use of them. Homophobia, along with all its effects. This should very seriously concern everyone here. Hence, in part, why I believe there should be no bad image list on Wikipedia. It is akin to dealing with a neighborhood strangler by restricting access to neckties. Wikipedia needs to find other methods of dealing with vandalism, such as blocking the vandals, as also occurred in the case brought to my attention by zzuuzz. That would be akin to catching the strangler in my previous analogy. More generally still, imagine what would happen under current policies if vandals decided to use our best images of Michelangelo's David. Would we really have to go without these images forever? There are serious problems here, folks. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So anyone who believes user pages are for communication and collaboration is a homophobic censor? Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how your question logically follows from my comments. In any case, I would suggest avoiding stereotypically improper responses in discussions of bigotry. I won't be responding to them. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll add it in due course, unless anyone's going to seriously object. However I still think you're misunderstanding the censorship aspect. The badimage list has a system for exceptions which is very liberal, and usually very narrow criteria for inclusion in the list. We have added some really boring safe images to the list before when they're being 'spammed' inappropriately, excepting any and all non-vandal usages at the time. We will do what we have to do, and what we can, and no more, to stop vandalism. Most cases in the badimage list have been where blocks have proved ineffective. The content of userpages is an issue which can dealt with individually. Finally I put it to you that homoerotic images are not disproportionately included in the list, and politely suggest you now drop it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point, as it would take me a while to clarify and explain the matter further. I certainly would appreciate the exception, though. I thank you for your trouble. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe this brief comment will suffice. You have to realize that, where gay and bisexual men are concerned, male eroticism (e.g., images of penises) cannot be disentangled from male-male homoeroticism. Censoring the former involves censoring the latter, constituting homophobia, among other things. Clear? I tried to clarify that by slightly editing my earlier comment. Thanks again. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 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.

Might need to protect this page

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

---

There's a hell of a lot of edit warring regarding the principal's name, everything from Heat Miser to Guy Fieri and other obviously fraudulent names are being added. I just corrected it and placed an edit summary explaining the prinicpal's name is now correct per the school's website, however, I don't expect it to stay, so I'm asking for either admin eyes or protection on this article. Thanks KoshVorlon 12:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

GB fan has semi-protected the page for a week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: FYI, the best place for such requests is at WP:Requests for page protection (shortcut WP:RFPP). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:33, 10 February 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.

Revdel 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.

---

Please can someone revdel this as purely disruptive/racism? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 10 February 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.

Paraiyar Article

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.

---

Hereby I acknowledge that the article about "Paraiyar", a community of South india is a sensitive information.Some Users are potraying the community as slaves.Mentioning of "Slave" or Using any defamatory words against any community or particular section is an punishable offence.There may be a chance for particular section of people were treated as slaves,but mentioning a community as slaves is unconstituional since slavery is abolished by the constitution of India.Degrading a community status is a punishable offence under India law (Promoting enmity between different classes and endangering Integrity of India.Some times some truths cannot be exposed in public.(India was once a slave nation to british,for this single reason India cannot be introduced as former slave of british).I Hope all the admins can understand well.I welcome more research and discussions about the article.I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources).But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language.I Hope wikipedia will protect the true spirit of knowledge and human freedom.

User : AntanO is spreading defamatory information against a particular sect of people. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:AntanO — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 February 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 for CC Music Factory

CC is replaying his Greatest Hits from 70.195.199.166 and 70.195.198.27. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe it's past bedtime. But who's 166.170.45.121/166.171.120.232? Anyone of importance? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: 166 was community banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, that one--the one I'm asking who it is every time I see them, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Indefed user asking to be unblocked and renamed

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.

---

In this OTRS ticket I've an user which has been indefed in this project: Woodcouncil. She is asking to be unblocked here to create an article on her association, and is willing to follow the project rules and rename her account, if that is an issue. Can someone avail this case, and in case of a positive answer, direct her to the steps she has to take? --Darwinius (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• We'll be happy to rename away from a corpname, but according to her talk page message, she asks to be renamed to the same username she currently has, not to a new, compliant username. Once she confirms the new viable username she desires (either via OTRS or talk page), you can simply request the rename on her behalf at WP:CHU/S while pointing to her confirmation, and once renamed, her unblock request can be processed on its own merits with regards to her promotional editing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• What? The user wants unblocking so she can resume spamming? Er, perhaps not. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• The user has an unblock/rename request open on their talk page, and as the new name is fine I have done the rename - but I will leave any possible unblock to whoever reviews their future intentions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  The unblock request is now at User talk:Blue Cascade, but I see no need for AN attention as it will be reviewed in the usual way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for everything.--Darwinius (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Please permanently delete the following edit from the history of User:Jax 0677

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 permanently delete [the following edit] from the history of User:Jax 0677. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 11 February 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.

Unexplained reverts on Comedian and false accusations

I made a constructive edit on Comedian today. MarnetteD chose to revert me with no helpful edit summary whereas I had made my point clear. Then, another user called Curro2 did the same. In the meanwhile, I've been the only one who had undo-ed and readded removed the content two words with an edit summary. First, I was warned my edits were vandalism (wth?!), then apparently I was blanking templates/content (oh, is it?) and was warned twice over that. Also, that templated warning says I didn't provide an edit summary. The two editors have not maintained good faith and accused me falsely. I call for my edits to be reinstated and that the editors in question are reprimanded. Thank you. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Google search is not a reliable source, and the original wording that the other editors have been restoring is the correct one. Referring to your edit as vandalism is erronious and shouldn't be done, but when it comes to the actual content they are correct and not you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know that it isn't. I meant that the users can themselves see the links returned by the search query. [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. Yes, now you'll say they're personal blogs but if you could point me to a single source that says with complete affirmation that they're the same, I'll rest my case. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally, if a Gsearch you executed provides reliable links, you should insert them into the article yourself, not simply a link to the search. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I believe IP is correct here. It can be comedian or comedic actor, but not comic. Comic implies stand-up. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A look at some dictionary definitions [86], [87], [88] and [89] all support its use with comedians. None of them limit it to stand up. These are reliable sources -blogs are not. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Need other admin eyes

Hey guys, I'm swamped IRL, and was hoping to get some extra eyes on this account. He's been editing in another editor's userspace. This other editor hasn't contributed since 2013, so it's weird. I've opened a discussion on Moi Magnum's talk page, and was hoping an admin or two could watchlist it in case he responds. Thanks! And sorry for the extra work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this pattern before and it turned out to be someone who forget the password to their old account, but for some reason wanted to use the same userspace. I have not looked at the specific edits in this case though, it could be something more nefarious. HighInBC 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

On, User:Moi Magnum, he identifies himself as User:Draven Corvis so I think HighInBC's guess is probably correct. And since the two accounts are not editing at the same time, I don't believe this qualifies as sockpuppetry, especially because Moi Magnum connects the two accounts on his user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

backlog at page protection

Lots going on today at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection -- Moxy (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Usual weekend backlog, nothing special but more hands are always useful to clear out the long-termers. tutterMouse (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from Md iet

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.

---

• Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently, Md iet has requested an unblock on his talk page. As this user was blocked for instances of sockpuppetry, I believe this falls under the purview of the standard offer and I'd like to get some community feedback before unblocking. From the technical data, there does not appear to be any additional accounts or logged out editing. In addition, the latest sockpuppetry case occurred in July 2015. Personally, I feel an unblock here is fine. I just want a few extra sets of eyes in case I may have missed something or if there's any outstanding concerns. Best, Mike V • Talk 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the admins who blocked User:Md iet in the past. He is mentioned in this AN3 case. Part of his talk page has been restored at User talk:Md iet/Archive 1 to provide background for this review. (The old block and sanction notices are still visible there). He is currently under a ban from the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, per WP:ARBIPA, due to a long-term pattern of non-neutral editing. Possibly the topic ban could have led to the socking, which continued from December 2014 thorugh April 2015, judging from the entries in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Md iet/Archive. In his unblock request, Md iet says that he will continue to contribute to the talk pages of Dawoodi Bohra topics but his ban does not allow this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear from EdJohnston's post that this user is not yet aware of what is expected of them if they return. Until they properly understand the nature of their topic ban and agree to it then this request is a non-starter. HighInBC 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left Md iet a note about the topic ban concerns. I, too, would like him to address that before we consider an unblock. Mike V • Talk 20:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, maintain topic ban (Non-administrator comment) - I suggest supporting this request, with specific advice that their topic ban remains in effect. They were blocked only three months for violating the topic ban, then indefinitely for socking (which no doubt also violated the topic ban). The last report on the SPI casepage was closed without confirmation, so in effect they have not socked since April 2015 - that's ten months of respecting the block, and should be sufficient to lift it. If they resume editing in violation of the topic ban, they'll be re-blocked real quick. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Once it is clear that they understand what is expected then I will likely agree with you. HighInBC 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock at least, topic ban should be appealed separately. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now The last we heard from this user they were intending to work in an area they are topic banned from. Until I hear that they understand the topic ban this discussion is a non-starter from me. Once I hear that they understand and accept the topic ban I will probably support, but right now we don't have any communication. HighInBC 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing my opinion for now. HighInBC 15:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC, EdJohnston, Ivanvector, and Capitals00: As participants in this discussion, I just wanted to let you know that Md Iet has replied here. Please let me know your thoughts about his response. Mike V • Talk 03:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Md iet's response on his talk page still makes me nervous. The history at User talk:Md iet/Archive 1 shows that he had problems editing neutrally and using good judgment about the quality of sources, on topics where he was personally invested. He is currently banned only from the Dawoodi Bohra. If he wants to edit about the Fatimids that sounds risky. Widening his topic ban to all of Islam, broadly construed, would be safer. It would be helpful to get comments from others who have interacted with User:Md iet in the past. I'll leave a note for User:Qwertyus since he has filed 3RR reports about Md iet. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock (with some caveats): I'm actually getting a good feeling from the tenor of this editor's responses. I agree the topic ban should stay in place, but there are good signs. I admit it's not perfect, but I get a pretty good impression. The only concern for me is the bit of quibbling over the scope of the topic ban, but in light of how it's being voiced, I don't view that quibbling as red-flaggish. I would suggest to Md iet that the best course would be to edit topics that fall entirely outside the scope of ARBPIA for a time, even if they'd be outside the scope of the topic ban, just to build up a track record of credibility beyond what the standard offer requires. I'm sure any number of editors would be willing to consult with Md iet to find a topic area that would interest him in addition to avoiding potential conflict. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment : I'm invited to provide my opinion here by EdJohnston. So here it goes : User:Md_iet has in past acknowledged at some point that he is a Dawoodi Bohra and it upsets him that Wikipedia articles (Dawoodi Bohra and others related) fail to establish "fact" (that he knows very well because he is one of the member of the religious community) and since Wikipedia is a prominent source of knowledge spread "wrong". So he is here to "fix" it. There things happen. He undermines published reliable sources and tends to push his own personal experience and knowledge. It is what led to 3rr block and thereafter sockpuppetry.

He doesn't have an idea what he would do if he is barred from editing his favorite articles (Majority of contribution in last 7 years in mainspace are related to Dawoodi Bohras). Now as he has come to understand and accept that in order to get his block lifted he must stop editing those articles. I strongly doubt the commitment. I've observed that despite being a part of the Wikipedia community for years, he lacks understanding of key policy and guidelines. Like when he says, he will stop editing Dawoodi Bohra and related articles (because of topic ban) but will continue to contribute on related talk pages and as I recall he initially did so.

I'm not surprised that he has chosen "Fatimids" as new favorite and would not further if it leads to the same fate. He is an old man and a nice person as far as I know and perhaps does not do what he does on purpose to offend some person, community or rules.

To play it gentle, his request should be accepted and to play it safe, topic ban could be extended to all topics related to Islam. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - thanks for pinging to his response. I'm still in support as I said above. Regarding the topic ban, I think we need to make sure that Md iet knows and understands the bounds of his topic ban and that it's clearly defined. If we do, then I have faith that the current reply is a sign he intends to respect it. From the talk archive, it's a "[t]opic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk" which I think is reasonably clear. My only concern in his latest post is the attempt to dissociate Taiyabi/Fatimid topics from his ban, even though he acknowledges a connection. We need to be clear that his ban restricts him from editing or commenting on any topic that's even a little bit related to Dawoodi Bohra. If he's not sure, the ban does not prevent him from asking for clarification, but in my opinion if he feels the need to ask if a page falls under the ban, it would be a good idea if he just didn't edit it. If he can find some random unrelated pages to edit constructively over the next six months or so then a topic ban appeal has a good chance of succeeding. I don't see any reason to expand the ban at this point; Islam is a very large topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 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 issues again

Without going over it too much (since the archive of the discussion can be accessed here), Phillp Cross has been adding very libelous material over a woman named Agnes Mariam of who he keeps using an editorial blog from The Spectator to bash over. In the editorial, she is compared to a Nazi, told to be an "apologist for the Assad Regime", and other unsubstantiated, libelous claims that can potentially cause problems, especially since the article is based in the UK where libel laws are a lot more litigant.

Phillip Cross in the previous discussion was recommended for a topic ban by two admins, but nothing came of it; I suggest a topic ban for all articles relating to British leftist and progressive organisations and personalities, since he cannot help but edit with sources that are almost always editorial opinion blogs (since he thinks they're acceptable), such as in George Galloway or Agnes_Mariam_de_la_Croix.

I ask administrators to do something on this behalf, because the problem is only going to snowball if someone who thinks blogs are acceptable sources (and refuses to budge even when editors have been acting in wp:goodfaith to attempt to point out and correct his mistakes) for wp:blp articles and other issues that can potentially turn into a legal problem for this site, especially in the UK. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally inadmissible for use as citations in articles, but interested parties are advised to look at this open letter signed by various leftists who share the concerns of Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones, both themselves on the left. Jones own blog (non-RS, of course, because it is self-published rather than from an established publication, but entirely genuine) confirms the cited assertions from the sources I have used in the StWC, as do many comments on twitter and elsewhere from individuals sympathetic to Mother Agnes and the Stop the War Coalition. Philip Cross (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely here. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick note to everyone — User:Philip Cross has been adding material to the article on Agnes Mariam. Perhaps others will make the mistake I did, thinking that Solntsa90 was drawing out attention to people potentially disrupting things related to an off-wiki dispute between people named Agnes Mariam and Philip Cross. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is edit in question. I checked the source. This particular edit by Philip Cross is not a BLP violation. If there are any BLP issues involved, this suppose to be reported to WP:BLPNB for discussion long time ago, rather than producing heated debates with wording like Wiki getting sued for libel by Solntsa90 [90]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Does that matter? I'm not seeing why that should be included at all. "Hi, it was announced on date X that someone withdrew from a conference this group organized" and then fighting over why that person may have withdrawn seem odd, doesn't it? What happened at the actual conference? Was the conference itself cancelled? Did it went on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be receiving attention from administrators. I don't agree that the conference withdrawal issue is notable. Editorial blogs are not acceptable sourcing for comparing people to Nazis. I have noticed myself an inappropriate pattern of editing my Philip Cross relating to left-wing British organisations and individuals. That needs to stop. AusLondonder (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's one bizarre string off text to add to the Stop the War page and it seems completely unrelated to that organization but instead is just there to criticize her even more. I wonder if people think a topic ban is needed if we're just going to have coatrack attacks about this woman in various places. The prior discussion on the talk page at Talk:Stop_the_War_Coalition#Mother_Agnes and Talk:Stop_the_War_Coalition#Mother_Agnes_.282.29 about a person who literally has no mention at all in the Stop the War article other than what Phillip keeps inserting about her show a complete inability to give proper weight. The context at Stop_the_War_Coalition#Syrian_civil_war is "Stop the War has been criticized for alleged pro-Assad links and this woman once withdrew from a conference of theirs" with this dispute being about why she may have withdrawn, with no indication that anyone should care about the organization at all other than it being the backdrop for her withdrawn and the alleged controversy over her withdrawal which there's no evidence of other than two journalists who also are never mentioned on the STW page didn't want to take the stage with her. If this is the kind of editing Phillip thinks is appropriate, then I'd support a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to tell if the edit was "undue". I can only tell this particular edit looks to me as a minor content dispute; the edit was reliably sourced, and this is not a BLP violation in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, it's just a review on the surface. I agree with those points but just because something is sourced reliably doesn't mean it belongs on that page. As noted, it's essentially "someone didn't attend this conference" and a dispute about whether or not it's properly sourced as why they didn't attend. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux)

(Sorry, I realised that I meant to post to ANI. Reposted here. The last time this issue was posted it stagnated and got archived without any administrator help, so I would really appreciate if someone could give it serious consideration. This has been drawn out for years and it is sapping my will to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you.) Citobun (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstars for editors who are inactive

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

I present the peculiar case of Andysbhm, who only came up on my watchlist for thanking an editor who (as far as I know) has retired semi-permanantly from wikipedia. Understandably I was intrigued as to what this user was up to thanking someone who had retired. I looked in and saw some interesting efforts in their recent edit history (all from today):

Creating a user (Biscuit492) page for a user whose only actions are to wikilove themselves and Andysbhm.

Giving a wikilove to Biscuit492.

Giving a wikilove to a editor who appears to have retired back in 2007

Giving a wikilove for no appearant reason.

Giving a wikilove for no appearant reason to ViperSnake151.

I don't know what the right action with respect to this user is, but I get the impression of creating some trivial edits in order to get autoconfirmed so that they can reach into a semi-protected page. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I will be notifying Andysbhm, Biscuit492, Miller17CU94, and ViperSnake151 shortly. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Notifications complete Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts? See WP:OVERBARN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that Hasteur probably has the answer. It is probably a matter of getting the additional edits, which they now have, to be autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As much as I appreciated the Barnstar from Andysbhm, I think it is inappropriate given I have stopped editing in a large way since April 2011. I do make the occasional edit every now and then, but I think his barnstar, though appreciated, was overkill. Chris (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so much for boosting an edit count as mutual masturbation. The only edit (so far) at User:Biscuit492 is today's "Created page with 'Biscuit 492 is a user" - by Andysbhm. And Biscuit492's only contributions are wikilove for User:Donner60, and (!) Andysbhm. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted one of the few edits by Andysbhm at Un (prefix). Cluebot reverted a second attempt to make the same edit. It would not surprise me if the other unrelated editors also reverted edits by this user or by the same user under an IP address. What the purpose of the wikiloves and barnstars may be is anyone's guess. Oddly enough, I have received at least a couple other wikiloves or barnstars from new users over the years. I supposed they were from former vandals but I have no guess as to their purpose. Donner60 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• If this is Wikipedia's biggest woes, we should only be so lucky! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be as flippant as that MBD. Once a user is confirmed or autoconfirmed, it becomes significantly harder to remove troublesome posts when they do go off the rails, and this behavior has been linked previously to editors making a run for autoconfirmed so that they can reach into a semi-protected page. Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Got another one, User:Jadenvideotube , some junk edits, random wikilove, including on my talk page - all it has done has given me extra attention to their edits though...some scheme! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Well, we can deal with them if they start causing trouble, but as it stands, there isn't a strong indication that they will and this really isn't worth worrying about on its own. Even if it is supposed to game the autoconfirmed restriction: yes, some people are always going to do that. Keep an eye out if you want; otherwise, move on. — Earwig ^talk 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Earwig: So is creating a deficient article in mainspace sufficient for questioning their actions? Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Taharrush jamai RM

I'm looking for an admin to close a contentious RM: Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016.

The title has been in dispute since the article was created on 12 January. Because of that, the article scope keeps changing. SPAs and IPs have arrived on talk and have been reverting, and the page has had to be semi-protected twice since 5 February. An admin decision would therefore be very helpful. I posted a request for closure on WP:AN/RFC, but there's a long backlog. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Four

Globally blocked user (CoUser1) is back, now at Portuguese football league system. Latest IPs used: 46.50.53.229 (talk · contribs), 46.50.2.157 (talk · contribs), 46.50.33.63 (talk · contribs), 46.50.4.200 (talk · contribs). See my previous ANI reports (1, 2, 3). SLBedit (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

These IP adresses are covered by 46.50.0.0/18 (talk · contribs). See the bottom section here for details about all the recent edits from this range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant's Strider unblock request

Resolved

 – Unblocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I was contacted via email by Plant's Strider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) about the possibility of being unblocked under WP:SO. They were blocked twice for edit warring almost three years ago, and then indef blocked for socking in February 2013, all by Toddst1. I am not going to opine on the merits of the request, just posting it here for discussion.

The user stated that they have not edited in any way since the indef of the Plant's Strider account. I replied, I would certainly be willing to open a Standard Offer thread on your behalf so your unblocking can be discussed. You'd have to tell me which account you intend to edit from, provide a list of other sock accounts, and provide me with an explanation of why you believe you were blocked and what you will do to avoid that behavior in the future. I would like your permission to quote your email on the administrator's noticeboard so people participating in the discussion can read what you've said to me.

The user divulged a connection between the Plant's Strider account/socks and Taro-Gabunia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which has its own socks and was blocked for the same behaviors. I believe Plant's Strider was their attempt at a clean start, as there is no overlap between the old accounts and the Plant's Strider set. I don't believe the connection between the two sets of accounts has ever been made here, so I clarified with the user via email whether I may divulge the connection. They indicated "privacy concerns", and I indicated that the unblock request would be unlikely to succeed if there were undisclosed socks. They asked if they could have the entire Taro-Gabunia sock farm renamed, and I said I didn't think that would be possible since they are locked out of the accounts and can't prove ownership. They then agreed to divulge the connection.

Quotes from the email reply are as follows (some wikiformatting added by me):

Extended content

Thank you Laser brain for replying. Plant's Strider is indeed not my original account. My original account is User:Taro-Gabunia, which is currently unblocked. Several years ago I contacted one of the OTRS members for a vanishing request, which I was told was not possible for blocked accounts. The member in question told me I would be unblocked on the condition that I would not edit anything, which I agreed to. The vanishing request, which I had made over email, did not go through and I was told to log into my account and make a request from there, which I was unable to do. For some reason I was not blocked again, though there are no new edits made from that account. Below is the list of all sock accounts that I created. All entries on these lists are my accounts, and to my best knowledge I have not created anything that is not listed here. Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Taro-Gabunia Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Plant's_Strider Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Plant's_Strider - User:GeezerB from this list is me. User:Falco70 is not. Special:Contributions/Taro-Xbox360 I would like to explain why I was blocked in the first place. The main and most obvious reason is my neglect of rules regarding WP:FAC. Nominations should be made by people who actually worked on the article, and my habit of jumping into unqualified articles and nominating them for FAC was both unwelcome and in bad taste. Several edit wars I participated in were uncalled for because I was both wrong and because I did not follow the proper rules, which clearly stated that major changes need to be discussed on the talk page. I believe I have fully grasped the reasoning behind these rules. Another topic that is just as relevant here is my habit of editing articles that are undergoing major changes, especially those that are to be nominated for FAC soon. Even though my edits were in good faith, such contributions are not welcome to the editors at that specific time, and should be saved for until after the major work is already done. I would also like to address my inappropriate behavior regarding a move request that I once made. The discussion got heated pretty quickly, and I made certain remarks toward an editor I should not have made, for which I would like to apologize. I have since realized that it is wasteful to concentrate on minor tweaks and that it is always better to focus on the body of the article, while allowing discussions on the talk page to proceed as they should. My latest edits to the project were in Summer 2013 and I have not edited any article since. I have every intention to follow the rules as completely as possible and not to create any sock accounts under any circumstances. In case I am unblocked I'm willing to improve several articles to FAC quality. Specific examples of this include [91], [92] and [93], where I was working with published books in order to improve the articles, and I plan to continue doing so, although I will do all of the the major work in my sandbox and then invite other editors for review and discussion before pasting it in the body. This will help avoid conflict and negligent errors. Regarding your question about which account to edit from, I am not exactly sure because I have realized the privacy concerns that will arise if I continue editing from the original account, which I obviously had not thought of 6 years ago when I started. I cannot even access the account at the moment because of an old email/password combination. I am wondering if I could either make a new account and provide a list of socks on the user page, or continue editing from any of the accounts that were made starting with Plant's Strider. It would be great if you quoted this email for posting on the noticeboard. Thanks.

I am willing to clarify anything based on my emails with Plant's Strider if there are questions. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support standard offer unblock - this seems to be an easy yes, three years away is a good long time and user seems reasonably self-aware. I suggest that all of the sock accounts should be grouped together under "confirmed/suspected socks of " whatever account they decide to use going forward, since they've admitted the connection, but I don't think they need to list all of the accounts in their own user space like some kind of Scarlet Letter. I'm not sure about the technicalities of WP:CLEANSTART but I don't think it would be appropriate here. As long as the user doesn't return to the behaviour that they were blocked for, it shouldn't matter anyway. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Unblock This ticks the boxes in my mind of what a SO unblock request is. Just a clear statement by the user they realise their mistakes, why they did it, why (in their words) it was inappropriate and what they intend to do moving forward. If socking was involved, a simple statement that they understand socking is unacceptable and a list of any socks used. Sock accounts don't need to be listed on their user page as Ivanvector has said, particularly as the socks will have their own category anyway and a simple search in the archives will provide the necessary link. Any editor who has been blocked but accepts the responsibility for their actions should be welcomed back with a hand shake. Blackmane (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support SO unblock Miniapolis 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support SO unblock. The statement from the editor also goes beyond the expectations of the standard offer in acknowledgement of specific instances on why their editing and interactions were problematic, and how they intend to contribute given their understanding of what happened and why. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support SO unblock provided they immediately get to work on getting Physical Graffiti up to GA status (note to the hard of humour: this is a joke) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unblock - 3 years, acknowledgement of past and what needs to be done going forward is sufficient. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 6 months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, for the most part it was a nice time, but eventually i have to move on. Someone block my account please, thanks. Bye bye. prokaryotes (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just scramble your password? BMK (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea BMK, but i spent enough time here, and have accomplished most of the things i wanted to change, i.e. improve the reliability of climate science stuff for the most part. A block will help me to contribute more time elsewhere, which actually can bring me forward in real life. prokaryotes (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just don't click the edit button. HighInBC 05:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe ban me for 6 month then. Its really hard to resist for me, as a WP addict. :) prokaryotes (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Use the Wikibreak Enforcer if you think you'll be back later, there's always Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks if a temporary block is the only way, ask one and see if they'll allow it. tutterMouse (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Put a Retirement template on your userpage. Then, each time you edit (while under that template), you'll receive a block. Each block will be longer, every time you breach your retirement. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nooooo...editors don't get "retirement template transgression blocks". That's just silly. Tiderolls 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It would work, with the editor's consent. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In theory, yes... But in practice, much as it may seem otherwise sometimes, the admins are not babysitters. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 12 February 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.

Neelix frog redirects

I've segregated about 4,474 Neelix frog redirects onto their own list of unchecked redirects. Like his other redirects many of these frog ones have serious problems including:

1. Fake compound words
2. Fake mix and match names where he combines parts of two different common names to invent a 3rd name
3. Pointless and incorrect dashes between words
4. Absolutely made up/coined names he pulled from thin air
5. Pointless plural or singular variations that search deals with anyway

All these issues are found in his other redirects, but in other topics the problems can be more easily spotted. Many frog species have very light coverage online, with Wikipedia being the source of much of the online coverage. That is why fake frog names here can really spread error widely, damaging the whole topic of frog knowledge. Many sites see a Wiki Redirect as a synonym or alternative name, replicating the error.

We could do nothing, which leaves the mess for all time and eternity to be replicated from Wikipedia. We could check them all carefully, which is a huge tedious job best done by a frog expert. Or, as I'm suggesting subject to some wider testing, we could bulk nuke all Neelix frog redirects and allow search engines to help people find the right frog without the clutter of redirects. Responsible editors can recreate any that are really needed for onsite navigation, a much smaller job then checking these.

So editors can express a fully informed opinion, please first go to the frog list and check 20 random redirects carefully for correctness (keeping in mind the 5 points above). Report with your comment how many you checked and how many were legitimate alternative names backed up by a RS. A good sampling should show us what the correct course of action is. Thanks for providing input. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked through section 1 and they all seem to be good - all the alternate names are mentioned in the lede, though there are those plural/hyphen/spacing variants. I'd assume that he went off the names mentioned in the lede to make these. (The list also has other redirects - plant scientific names - in section 2, but the others seem to be all frogs.) ansh666 11:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood your request and checked every redirect in "Section 12 Stony creek frogs" and "Section 13 Mutuio frogs". Almost all were good in the first section, and the non-"Motuo" ones were good in the second, being alternate names from the intro or reasonable variants thereof; I deleted all the "Motuo" ones because neither the article nor its online sources mentioned that as an alternate name. I've left a note atop each section saying basically "I checked each one individually, and the ones I didn't delete shouldn't be deleted". If we all go through these frog redirects, taking individual sections and examining each title in that section, we can work through the backlog systematically and rather easily, and since G6 is permitted for Neelix titles that aren't plausible, it shouldn't take too long. We can just look for ones that are given as alternate names, either in the article intros or elsewhere, and delete ones that aren't and ones that are odd variants of good titles; we'll make some mistakes, but it should be trivial to get a G6-deleted page undeleted if you show that the title was good. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

After checking another batch of 231 titles, I can report that most of the problem titles are too inspecific: ones such as Yellow and black spotted tree-frog are fine, but a lot were ones such as Jinxiu frog (to the Jinxiu small treefrog) that might be ambiguous. The worst case I found was Zhishihe to Zhishihe's bubble-nest frog, which is named for "Zhishihe", the place where it was discovered. Perhaps some of these are unambiguous titles after all, but that's where we'd need an expert. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort here User:Nyttend, and that Admins can just delete the junky ones directly. I also found one that was xyz but actually there is a state in Burma and a page for that state. It looks like Smiths frog instead of Smith's frog is getting deleted too, which is very good. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This may sound obvious but has anyone posted a request for some eyes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles? I'd say that's your best shot at getting someone with some expertise not so much in frogs but in really what we need, which is an expert on Wikipedia's naming conventions for frog redirects which is worth putting on a resume. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't work on frogs much, but I do work on common name redirects a lot. I'll note that there are some Neelix frog redirects I'm aware of that aren't on the list; e.g variants of sole frog and soul frog (for Seoul frog) and a whole bunch of variant redirects pointing to common tree frog.

I believe that common names should be reliably sourced, and redirects should be created for common names using the exact format found in the source (with exceptions for downcasing per WP:BIRDCON). Any redirects we create on Wikipedia get scraped by various dictionary sites and take on a life of their own on the internet. There are already many minor variants of common names floating around the internet, but we're not doing anybody any favors by inventing dozens of new variants here.

Explicit sourcing of common names is rare on Wikipedia, but most frog common names should be tracable either to the IUCN database or the Amphibian Species of the World database. Ideally, the redirects should be checked directly against IUCN or ASW, but I think for the most part we can trust that common names presented in the lead are usually mentioned in one of these sources (although I know of non-frog cases where Wikipedia has invented new common names on it's own). I'm all for deleting all the Neelix redirects that don't precisely match the common names as formatted in the article. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is absurd that one obsessive editor (making zillions of small variations that only confuse things and that the search engine should solve 99% of the time) may cause uncountable hours of labour to volunteers. They should all be deleted without a second thought. Any one that is a useful redirect will certainly be recreated - Nabla (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's taking a long time because most of these redirects are beneficial. Unthinking deletion would greatly impair the encyclopedia: mass deletions generally aren't permitted by the rules, and you don't get to ignore the rules if your actions wouldn't be an improvement to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• If most are beneficial, then why was Neelix banned from doing more of them?... I am not proposing to ignore the rules, I was supporting a decision to delete. As you just pointed, mass deletions may be performed if beneficial. You think is is not the case, fine, I think it is, so I say to delete them, precisely because of the rules, not against them. We can the discuss the rules, you don't get to ignore that rule, just because you do not like an opinion. - Nabla (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There are also many that need to be trashed. I've set up a section right at the top of of ones that should be deleted, many of which have not been CSD'd. Thanks to Plantdrew for their helpful comments. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Reference Desk Talk Page

There is a Request for Comments in progress at the Reference Desk talk page concerning semi-protection of the Reference Desks. The RFC is at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Concrete_proposal. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are broken and IP continually removing registration template.

The redirect system appears to be broken (and has been for a few days). For example the shortcut WP:REMOVED should take you to the section "Removal of comments, notices, and warnings" of the page "Wikipedia:User pages". However, at present it only takes you to the top of "Wikipedia:User pages" leaving the user to find his own way to the relevant bit.

I was looking for this because 45.26.44.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly deleting the IP registration template (and is currently on a 3 month block). Diffs of removal:[94], [95], [96]. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered". I believe his talk page access should be revoked because of the continued violation. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional info here, this IP has had talk page access removed prior. [97]ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 16:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Revoked talk page access. Katie^talk 17:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox? – 'Cos that first thing seems to be some bug involving web browser software and using wikilinks to take you to a section of a Wikipedia page. (FTR, similar things happen to me as well – I click to go to a section, and I don't quite end up at the section I linked to...) I'm pretty sure this bug is well-known, and has been pretty extensively discussed already. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have never had issues with section links (including right now), except when loading pages with collapsed sections. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-working redirects is not a WP:AN matter. More info at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Redirect to section bugged. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw this as a matter of "please stop this IP from [[WP:REMOVE|improperly removing this part of his talk page]], and while we're at it, there's a technical problem with that link". The first was suitable here, and it couldn't hurt to bring up the technical matter because admins tend to be above-average knowledgeable on technical matters. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If Javascript is disabled, then the sectional redirect does not work; it only redirects you to the page not the section. This is a Javascript thing. Rgrds. --64.85.216.131 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you work that out? Redirects are handled server-side: the MediaWiki server manipulates the URL based on what's on the redirect page before passing it on to your browser. The section link is done as a URL fragment, and although those are handled client-side, it's an inherent feature of all browsers (and has been since the earliest days of HTML), and no JavaScript is necessary for that.

Regardless, that topic is outside the scope of WP:AN. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be true - in Firefox (on Mac) if I disable javascript then the WP:REMOVED link only goes to the top of the page, but with javascript enabled it goes to the correct section. Try it yourself and see what happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My Javascript is not disabled and I am not using firefox. WP:REMOVED takes me to the top of the page. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It is likely that this is a javascript issue. Somewhere back in the mists of time, T2218:Redirects do not support named anchors, redirects to sections were implemented as a javascript kludge so that the "redirected from x" message could appear at the top of the page. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

An open report related to this issue can be found at T53736:Redirects to sections/anchors should not depend on redirectToFragment javascript. At this point it might be helpful if this thread got transferred to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that a patch to address issues people have been having with this issue was tested in late December 2015 MW-1.27 Release Notes. T110501:redirectToFragment script (redirects to section headers) behaving unreliably. I don't know what the projected release date is for 1.27. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This change was marked as part of intermediate release mw:MediaWiki 1.27/wmf.10 which should have been rolled out here on January 14 mw:MediaWiki 1.27/Roadmap, so if OP is still experiencing problems they may want to file a new ticket (assuming their javascript is enabled and that they are on a stable browser version). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

NAC

I have an interesting question about non-administrator closings, and I would like a second opinion to make sure that my thinking is correct. Of course we all know that NACs are allowed, but I am wondering whether in the case of one especially contentious RfC it wouldn't be wiser to ask an admin to do the closing.

The RfC we are talking about is Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox. It is quite contentious, being about a current presidential candidate and about the question "who is a Jew?".

User:SPACKlick tried to do an early non-administrator close.[98] and was reverted by User:Softlavender.[99] This led to a discussion at User talk:SPACKlick#Clearly active and contentious RfCs should run for the full 30 days and be closed by an admin where two questions are being discussed: [A] whether it should be closed early, and [B} whether a non-admin in general and SPACKlick in particular should do the closing. My position is that the reverted close[100] did not gauge consensus but rather was a supervote. I also agree with the title of the section (chosen by Softlavender) that "clearly active and contentious RfCs should run for the full 30 days and be closed by an admin." I have no problem if consensus or policy goes against me, but I really want an uninvolved admin who is experienced in closing hotly-debated RfCs to close this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: An admin could add a hatnote saying something like "This discussion is ongoing and is not to be closed by NAC yet." Removing that would count as WP:RAAA, and ignoring it would be reverted and earn a {{uw-disruptive1}} warning. — Sebastian 18:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My own opinion is that any non-administrative close after less than 30 days is probably premature. As a non-administrative closer, I would leave the judgment as to whether snow applies to an administrator, because any judgment to close an RFC after less than 30 days is likely to be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. There have been at least 2 NACs at AN/I in the last few days which, IMHO, were very premature (48 hrs I think). In one case, I began asking questions to the closing editor about this and s/he refused to answer and banned me from their talk page. If this had been an Admin, I am sure they would have understood the implications of such an attitude and the possibility of action. I appreciate this thread is about RfCs, and I do not wish to derail it, but perhaps the involvement of non-admins in closing threads on noticeboards needs to be discussed again. For example, AN/I is the ADMINS noticeboard - perhaps any discussions there should be closed only by admins.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, the thread is not about RfC, but about NAC. My suggestion above relies entirely on existing policies, so there is no need to renew discussion about involvement of non-admins in closing threads. — Sebastian 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SebastianHelm Perhaps I am missing something here - does NAC mean "non-administrator closings"? If so, that is what my comment was about and I don't understand why you would say "there is no need to renew discussion". Isn't that the whole point of the thread?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to treat this differently from any other non-admin close: if there's a good-faith dispute about the close, reopen it and ask an admin to close it. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Softlavender express a disinclination to participate in that RfC any further. See these diffs:[101][102][103]. If they were confident in the strength of their arguments, wouldn't they continue to present them? I think that policy and sourcing is against their position, and I think this tends to strengthen the argument for the premature closure. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty straightforward: if anyone disputes the close in good faith, it probably was not a good candidate for an early, non-admin close. Per WP:BRD, if it was re-opened that should be allowed to stand. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• As a NAC I dont think I would have closed a RFC a week after it started. If discussion has died after 25 or so days thats another story. ANRFC is full of older RFC's that need closing, best to choose one of them. AlbinoFerret 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• As a user who does non-admin closes fairly often, my thoughts are that it should only be done in instances where the result is not just apparent, but bloody obvious to any reasonable user with half a clue. If it's possible that anyone involved might raise a good-faith objection to a result, or if there's any doubt at all, then it's better left to an administrator. That's my interpretation of "pitfalls to avoid" in the guideline. This close obviously didn't fit that criteria. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As the closing editor I would first say that at the initial point of closing I misread the month it had opened and so thought we were over thirty days. That said on reviewing it, it seemed clear that one side was pointing to sources and policies and the other were mostly having a slanging match. There is one line of discussion in it which is being discussed in a broader rfc the result of which will have an impact on this issue either way. However if the consensus of this board is that participants can revert a NAC then some policies may need to change because they explicitly say that the participants should request an admin do that. SPACKlick (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If the closer misread the starting time of the RFC, that sounds like a good-faith error calling for reopening the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I Agree that misreading the closing time was a trivial error that was easily fixed. I have a real problem with SPACKlick nullifying the responses of over a dozen participants with the assertion "it seemed clear that one side was pointing to sources and policies and the other were mostly having a slanging match". I hate to bring up reasons why I think that my side of a content dispute is supported by sources -- that's usually (and rightly) off-topic at AN or ANI -- but I have to respond to the assertion that SPACKlick makes above that my side of the dispute is not "pointing to sources" as being factually incorrect. As User:D.Creish recently commented,[104] "I was surprised to see the earlier close [by SPACKlick]. This should be stated clearly for future reviewers: the only source that connects 'Religion' to 'Jewish' WRT Sanders is the press pack. No secondary sources whatsoever. They connect 'Sanders' with 'Jewish', and 'Sanders' with 'Religion' but not 'Jewish' with 'Religion.' We do however have secondary sources that connect 'Sanders' with 'atheist.' That's enough to indicate simple inclusion in the infoxbox without qualification is inappropriate." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I will restate that, in my opinion, while non-admin close (NAC) of an RFC that has run 30 days is fine, a non-admin WP:SNOW or speedy close of an RFC that has not run the 30 days is almost always a bad idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Good grief, of course an RfC on a subject so controversial and so in the news as Bernie Sanders should run the full 30 days and only be closed by a completely uninvolved admin (and one who has a lot of experience in neutrally assessing WP:CONSENSUS rather than nose-counting). And all RfCs should run the full 30 days unless they are withdrawn by the filer or are unanimous. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender WP:NOTBURO Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, common sense can be used to close out an RFC is the comments have stopped, just as they had there, and this RFC was generating a lot of heat as well, so based on that an IAR closed was justified. I will also point out that you actually voted in that RFC and whewn SPACKlick closd it, it was opposite of how you voted ,therefore it would have been inappropriate for you to close or re-open an RFC someone else closed (SPACKlick didn't vote or comment on that RFC at all , except as a closer). His close looked ok to me. KoshVorlon 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

His close looked ok to you? In an RfC where it is a demonstrable fact that both sides discussed sources extensively he closed with the false claim that "one side was pointing to sources and policies and the other were mostly having a slanging match" and then ignored the actual consensus (roughly 50/50) and picked a winner. If SPACKlick tries to do that again at the end of the 30 days, I will challenge the closing with a count of how many times each side pointed to sources, and it will almost certainly be overturned. Nullifying half of the comments posted to an RfC and picking a winner is not "OK". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is in a subject area that is so contentious it has its own Arbcom case. Personally, I feel that RFC's on anything that is subject to Arbcom findings should be required to a) run for the full 30 days and b) be closed by an admin. Blackmane (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that any RFC that has discretionary sanctions should run the full 30 days and be closed by an admin. Unfortunately, if the closing admin then sees violations of the DS, there will be arguments that another admin is needed because they have become involved. (A very typical tactic of POV-pushers is to try to find some lame excuse to call every admin involved.) More generally, RFCs should only be closed after less than 30 days for a very good reason, such as WP:SNOW, or that the RFC is incomprehensible or doesn't ask a question, and in the latter case it should be closed as improper, not with a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh, three things are needed to close that RFC and none of them require special admin powers: 1. An understanding of BLP and how it is applied when information is unreliable (due to ambiguous sources, or contradictory reliable sources), 2. Knowing that 'Jewish' is a special case and can indicate ethnicity, religion etc not necessarily both. 3. Having a knowledge of infobox's - that information in them is presented as fact and does not allow for explanations or elaboration - also how they are treated by search engines. Given a knowledge of the above 3, anyone could close that RFC easily. Although it should wait the 30 days, if only to prevent people whining it didnt go the full distance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nearly half of the respondents to Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox would strongly disagree with the claim that 'Jewish' is a special case and can indicate ethnicity, religion etc. but not necessarily both. They insist that 'Jewish' always refers to the religion, never anything else. (None of them, when challenged, has provided a source for that claim and several have flat out refused to look at any sources supporting the claim that 'Jewish' can indicate ethnicity without indicating religion.) As a thought experiment, what if it was 80% who thought that? would an impartial closer simply report the clear consensus, or would he throw out the !votes from those who mistakenly believe that 'Jewish' always means Judaism? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How to handle a BLP violation?

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.

---

Further information: Bad Aibling rail accident

Werther Hartwig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently added names of alleged victims of the Bad Aiblin rail accident to the article, and created articles on each of them. As far as I can tell, none of them was independently Wiki-notable. All articles have been deleted. I've revdel'd his edits to the rail accident article under RD2 - serious violations of BLP. This leaves his talk page, which currently has links to each of the deleted articles, plus the deleted articles themselves. How do we handle these? Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've dealt with Werther Hartwig's talk page. Just the questions of the articles themselves to be dealt with now. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for caring, Mjroots! All gone now except for Google's syndication. I really wondered that Google immediately includes brandnew and unchecked stub articles from us, but doesn't immediately purge then upon deletion. That's a huge problem for all kinds of WP:BLP issues. -PanchoS (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS: Happy to help. Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS, Mjroots, I have submitted a corresponding number of URLs to www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals. I had only just remembered that this was an option. —Sladen (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

But what happens in someone without admin privileges enters a victims name into the Wikipedia search engine and gets as far as the deleted article? Are they able to review the article via its history and seen what was written? Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Mjroots. Oops, you meant the WP search engine. But: Even worse, they can still find a full list of them without knowing a single name: https://www.google.de/search?q=%22victim+of+Bad+Aibling%22&filter=0 We need to discuss this problem with the Google developers and get in fixed, not because of this specific case, but for future cases. --PanchoS (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's a lesson in similar situations to blank + revdel + protected (which is picked up immediately), then leave for a week, and then delete. —Sladen (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen: That might be a workaround, but far from failure proof. I think, the minimum we should ensure is to disallow caching/archiving

• of unpatrolled new articles
• of unpatrolled versions of pending changes articles
• of articles while being nominated for speedy deletion

by adding <meta name="robots" content="noarchive, noodp, nosnippet"/> to the page's header, see Meta tags that Google understands. And we should ensure that an effectively deleted page isn't indexed with its last version prior the deletion. Don't know how to do that, but will try and find out. --PanchoS (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you're right though that both my (technical) and your (procedural) approach should be combined. Need to think it through again. --PanchoS (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could somebody please revdel ru:Special:Diff/76364165. —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked an active Ru-Wiki admin for assistance]. Mjroots (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many more versions to be revdel'd in a number of wp language versions. Should I list here? --PanchoS (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes. List them all here, then search the relevant language Wikipedias for admins who profess to en-3 or above and point them to this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. The versions to be revdel'd are:

• https://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%BDelezni%C4%8Dn%C3%AD_nehoda_u_Bad_Aiblingu&oldid=13336137
• https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accidente_ferroviario_de_Bad_Aibling&oldid=89070490
  • Done Yeza - 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accident_ferroviaire_de_Bad_Aibling&oldid=123239576
  • Done — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treinongeval_bij_Bad_Aibling&oldid=45987062
• https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acidente_ferrovi%C3%A1rio_de_Bad_Aibling_em_2016&oldid=44766105
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D0%90%D0%B9%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5&oldid=76364165
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Aibling_rail_accident&oldid=5324298
  • I've asked a 'crat for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Aiblingin_junaturma&oldid=15522456
• https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%A4rnv%C3%A4gsolyckan_i_Bad_Aibling&oldid=33102316
• https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%83_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D0%90%D0%B9%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0&oldid=17586608
• https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tai_n%E1%BA%A1n_xe_l%E1%BB%ADa_Bad_Aibling&oldid=22893462

We however need better processes for these kinds of cases. Imagine someone using this in a large scale bullying or vandalizing attack. It would take far too long and would cost us far too much time and nerves. --PanchoS (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is significant cross-wiki abuse, we can ask the stewards to globally lock the account and potentially help with all the clean-up work. They have sysop rights on all Wikimedia projects. Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just sent an email to the stewards asking if they would consider RevDeling the above-linked diffs. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks, but it might pay for them to check the editor's contributions to all languages affected, just in case there are other violations we are unaware of. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that it increasingly looks like the edits constituted outright vandalism, as the real victims are cited to be "all male, aged between 24 and 59". --PanchoS (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've struck through those items that have been actioned. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: as the Stewards seem to be taking their time, I've been asked an admin on each of the affected wikis for assistance. Those edits need to be nuked one way or another. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made a REVDEL on French Wikipedia. No article has been created by this user. So far, we have no reason to block the account but I will monitor him. — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just deleted that revision of cs:Železniční nehoda u Bad Aiblingu. Thanks for letting us know about this issue. --Michal Bělka (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Heard back from the stewards. They have no interest in intervening for this situation, since there's no great urgency. (They generally only act on smaller wikis without many admins). We're better off contacting local admins. Mz7 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: It is not that stewards have no interest on that. It is actually easier to do it in all those wikis than explaining why not to do it. Stewards are not given the permission to circumvent the work of local sysops. Believe it or not, but if a steward did this deletion here on English Wikipedia they would hear a lot of criticism on their talk page. And the happens on many large wikis. It is a matter of local communities improve their rules to allow stewards to do that and it will be done. Unless the information can put somebody on life risk risk of death, or is a serious breach of privacy violation or could cause any serious damage if not removed in time, stewards can't act where there are local sysops to do it, but I assure you that some of them would love to help with approval of local rules. BTW, I have done it for Portuguese Wikipedia. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Teles: Thanks for the clarification. I figured this was the case and I could've phrased my comment better. I do wholeheartedly appreciate the stewards response to this matter. Thank you for your action on Portugese Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It just struck me, but did anyone check whether archived versions of those Revdeled versions of those articles in question still exist at archives like the Web Archive or WebCite? Tvx1 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I find this proceeding most bizarre. If these were the victims of the accident, then it is no crime to tell the world that they were killed. Death is not a private event. If we had news reports to back up this data, then it would belong in an article. Now as it happens, the names don't turn up any news article anywhere on three different search engines, and the point about female victims provides good reason to be extra skeptical above that. So it's not verifiable data; it's a straight out Wikipedia hoax, though one showing remarkable determination. Now the point is, there would be no reason to revision-delete all mention of victims of a train crash, if they were real victims - and they're not, they're made up names, so why bother? The only priority here should be getting the fake/unverifiable information off all the Wikipedias. It would probably better serve the public interest not to revdel so that if someone runs across the list of names later on and is in a state of confusion, he can look up this conversation and see this is the origin of the hoax. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Wnt: The named victims, in at least some of the cases, are not those of victims. Ages claimed are 2-99, whereas verified ages of victims are 24-59. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that there are people with the name and age stated, alive on the date of the accident. Naming them on Wiki (in any language), therefore can be said to be a breach of WP:BLP (IMvHO). Therefore it is imperative that the edits listed above are nuked. We can't do much about archiving of pages off-Wiki, but we can clean up across all affected articles. Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: The problem I see there is: what if the names really were the victims? Would you worry that BLP prohibits publishing the right names, because there might be other people with the same name out there who aren't the victim? Oh, I suppose a troll might have listed half the kids in his class at school or something, which would be creepy, but most such scenarios don't allow for the age distribution given - seems too hypothetical to worry about. I still see no valid reason to mess with the article history here. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• If (and it's a very big if) there are any actual victims named, BLP still applies. AFAIK, none is notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia artice, therefore there is absolutely zero need to name them. It is sufficient to say that there were eleven fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 13 February 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.

Edit war

Resolved

There is an edit war on User talk:166.177.187.70 between user:166.177.187.70 and user:7&6=thirteen. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7509:E04E:669F:15A7 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP is a long term abuse case. I've removed talk page access. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No. He's got the message. Is now blocked from editing his own talk page. So should you. You are a sock of whom? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

One might think about suspecting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)r

RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin

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.

---

Location:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable_sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin

Specific question asked:

"Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:

Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

to

Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions.

This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline

Concerns over the closing of this RFC have halted its implementation. The question is specific to only High-quality sources.

Discussion

• Endorse The RFC was specifically about High quality sources and this was spelled out in the RFC question. The question had a very narrow focus. The closer rightfully discounted comments that were about low quality sources as off topic. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  This is nonsense; who defines what a high or low-quality source is? There is no clear-cut process that is accepted by all, and actually the entire reason for the guideline. What if you define it depending on "personal" reasons — then you nullify the entire clause? The RfC concerns sources on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The guideline already gives reasons not to reject "high quality" sources for reasons like funding so that argument fails. But this is not a place to reargue the merits of the RFC. 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  No, but it is important to note the actual coverage of the RfC, which is all sources that would go on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not all sources, only high quality ones. Your statement is one of the reasons I endorse this close. The RFC was a very narrow focused one and the off topic responses were obviously discounted, and your repeating them here doesnt invalidate the close. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I'm kind of inclined to go with "this is nonsense", but because Albino has misquoted the guideline again, and therefore his objection is irrelevant (NB not wrong, just irrelevant). A high-quality type of study is not the same thing as a high-quality source. A systematic review is a very high-quality type of study, but it can be a remarkably low-quality source for any given statement. For example, a systematic analysis of whichever studies I have photocopies of in my filing cabinet would be a high-quality type of study and a low-quality source.
  The fact that the closer made the same mistake, not to mention also introducing ideas never mentioned in the discussion at all, are both reasons to overturn it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless if it is "type" or "source", I used source because thats what they are, sources. We are still talking about high quality, and simply because a high quality type or source is from a specific country is no reason to disqualify it. That premise, that just because something is from a specific country it fails, is troubling regardless of what criteria you are looking at. In any event this is off topic for a review as it is just re-arguing the RFC. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Type of study" and "source" really are very importantly different concepts!

• A meta-analysis is a type of study. They are often done well, but they can be done very, very poorly. All meta-analyses are high-quality "types of studies"; some meta-analyses are impossibly bad "sources".
• A good textbook is a source. It is not any kind of scientific study at all. That doesn't mean that the textbook is a low-quality source. It just means that this particular type of source doesn't fall on the levels of evidence scales. A good textbook can be the best source for many medicine-related statements.

The disputed sentence is part of an entire section ("Assess evidence quality") on how to tell which type of study is better evidence than another. A type of study is all about scientific levels of evidence. It's not "simply high quality" or the entirety of whether a particular source can support a particular statement; it's very specifically about "high-quality types of studies" (emphasis in the original). A specific source (=a specific publication) can be a very high-quality source despite containing no scientific evidence at all. Similarly, a source could use a very good type of study – something that rates high in levels of evidence – while still being a very bad source indeed. To determine whether a source is a good one, you need to look at more factors than merely the levels of evidence (="type of study"). "Assess evidence quality" is only one of six major factors that MEDRS encourages editors to consider, (mostly) in addition to the five major factors that RS recommends for all subjects (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a brief list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, that argument failed in the RfC because editors were objecting to certain Cochrane Reviews simply because they had Chinese authors, and since Cochrane Reviews are prestigious reviews of reviews and meta-analyses, that means they are both the "highest quality source" as well as "highest quality study type". For the purposes of the RfC, there wasn't a difference, and editors who objected because of problems with lower quality references (type or source) missed the point and their votes were tossed aside. Objections were raised on the basis of potentially biased low quality Chinese published primary research (RCT's), which wasn't ever the point. Those are low quality sources and study-type . Naturally, the editors raising these objections weren't happy when their off-topic arguments were counted as such. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing You missed my point in again trying to explain type and source again. The point being that regardless if you are looking at type or source, country of origin as a basis for exclusion is troubling. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that if you're bringing this here at this point, you should present the entire context, such as the two subsequent RfCs about the same question. Sunrise (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would rather start at the beginning and discuss one RFC at a time as it may not be necessary to review them all. The next RFC was closed no consensus and as a NAC I agree with that closing, but if someone disagrees with that close they are welcome to start a review for it. Though I dont know why a review for a no consensus close is necessary. There appears to be a current RFC that has recently started that I just became aware of today, but we are far from the close (about 3 weeks) of that RFC for a review, if it is necessary. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that whether the other RfCs should be reviewed is not the point. The point is that you selectively omitted context in a way that favors your preferred outcome. With regard to the current RfC, if you're implying that you didn't perform due diligence by reading the talk page before coming here, then I don't think that helps you. And perhaps you forgot, but you did not "just become aware of" the current RfC, because you commented in it. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to related discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Questions about RFC closure - Country of origin
2. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?
3. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: How to Implement the Country of Origin Closing

Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? was on a different topic and section of MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Questions_about_RFC_closure_-_Country_of_origin. The closer wrote "Opinion in discussion appears evenly divided between Support for either 1, or 3, or 5 with No Consensus. In addition it is #3 which is the most contested. A new RfC which would rephrase the material as something like a choice between some version of #1 and some version of #5 would likely lead to an outcome." Fountains-of-Paris" The more recent RfC overrides the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

QG your comment is about the second RFC, and a no consensus closing does not override a previous RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. You did not mention the other RfCs when you began this discussion. Do you stand by that decision. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure I do as posted above this is a discussion on one RFC, all the rest is off topic. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a third RfC that rejects the use of country of origin. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_How_to_Implement_the_Country_of_Origin_Closing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn close. The closer neglected to take into consideration comments made by others.

Revert 1.

Revert 2.

Revert 3.

Revert 4.

Revert 5. The closer was trying to force changes in.

It is suspicious the close was on 18 October 2015 and months later it is brought up here. The other RfCs show a clear consensus to not include the language that is against MEDRS to use low quality bias sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the second editor to perfectly explain why the close should be endorsed. The RFC question was not about Low quality sources but high quality ones. Anyone replying with a low quality source comment was off topic. Also thank you for pointing out that the RFC was ignored and the only reason it was not implemented was edit warring, hence the need for this review. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Using low quality bias sources is against MEDRS. Confirmed bias sources are not high quality sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The RFC question specifically was talking about a section in MEDRS dealing with High quality sources and never mentioned low quality sources. Regardless of low quality sources, can you address why the close was wrong when closing on High quality sources without going off topic into low quality ones and rearguing the RFC? AlbinoFerret 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS should not be used as a platform to include bias sources in articles. A high-quality is not from a country of origin that is known to be bias. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that reasoning seems to exclude an entire nation's population for extraneous considerations relating to QuackGuru's subjective notions about nationality that should have no quarter here. (But the grammar problems make it less than perfectly clear.) @Kingpin13:: Do you think it's OK to advocate we reject all studies from a country even though surely some studies from all countries exhibit some bias, and no country is a source for nothing but biased studies? You've blocked users for overt bigotry before, Kingpin13. Where's the line? --Elvey^(t•c) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. I have never edited anywhere near this issue. A well intentioned but inexperienced closer got in the middle of an attempt to rewrite policy to win a content dispute, they gave a consensus contrary to a roughly two-thirds majority (which included some of our most respected editors[105]), and the close explanation effectively affirmed the majority concerns. The close had the good intention of saying people shouldn't baselessly reject reliable sources, but the proposed policy change is pointless once it's re-written to explain that closing intent. The community is now engaged in a clusterfuck of additional RFC's trying to respect that awkward close - by rewriting it in a way that almost no one is going to consider a meaningful improvement. This should not have gotten a consensus against the majority, not unless it's an experienced closer who knows how to send an against-majority close on a constructive course. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Expanding my rationale: The closer was banned[106] for violating a topic ban and battlegrounding. In particular the closer was battlegrounding with at least one of the participants in the RFC - Jytdog. This is a bad close against the majority by a banned user where the closer was engaged in a feud. Alsee (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• If this appeal is going ahead, I'll copy my comment from the long discussion at WT:MEDRS about the original close: "I don't think there's a rule about NACs while under sanctions, but I'd consider it a bad idea myself due to the necessary level of community trust. In this case there are actually connections with the RfC - Elvey's topic ban followed some highly acrimonious interactions with User:Jytdog (one of the editors !voting Oppose), and the t-ban was supported by several other editors who also !voted Oppose here. I read the close as likely being an attempted supervote, especially after their subsequent actions - joining the edit warring over the RfC result, telling editors questioning the close to "drop the stick" and other less complimentary things, and ultimately trying to archive this discussion. But either way, the close unfortunately perpetuated the dispute rather than resolving it." To clarify the first part, Elvey is under a topic ban from COI broadly construed and the closure could easily be interpreted as a violation of that as well, because conflicted sources were one of the points under discussion. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment What I find interesting is that Albino Ferret, who agreed with the close, is actually the editor endorsing its review. That shows character. Every editor opposing it, including those here, were well aware they could have Elvey's close reviewed at this administrator's noticeboard. I, other editors and even an administrator reminded everyone opposed to the close about this review process several times. But the editors who disagreed with the close resorted to edit warring to keep the change off instead of having it formally reviewed. LesVegas (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't actually surprising at all. The closing statement was so far from the actual consensus that editors have refused to allow its few supporters – namely, you and AlbinoFerret – to implement the alleged consensus. Getting Elvey's closing statement affirmed here is the only possible way to get MEDRS amended to permit you to cite studies Chinese journals that have been identified, in academic studies, as being biased due to government pressure to only publish results that support the political party line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of facts I need to correct. First, there have been many supporters beyond Albino Ferret and myself. In the original RfC there were 7 for the change and several more editors have come along since and voiced their support. Even DocJames said the sources in question (Cochrane Reviews with Chinese authors) were undoubtedly of the highest quality. And this isn't about the Chinese published journals you speak about and never has been, although even in the worst case scenario evidence shows that they are still more reliable than much research with industry funding, and we already prohibit rejection of these sources based on funding. That was a point that nobody refuted in the RfC and one that the closer commented on. The final tally was 9 opposed to 7 support (if you read Herbxue's in the misplaced section below), but all but 1 of those 9 votes opposed were votes that failed to stay on topic and didn't stay relevant to the actual question asked in the RfC. As Albino Ferret (who has closed many RfC's) said, an experienced closer would throw these out. The 1 vote opposed that did have a partially relevant point was Richard Keatinge's, and this point was rightfully mentioned in and became part of the close. LesVegas (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, MEDRS does not insist that editors use research paid through industry funding. What it does say is that you can't toss out sources with a higher levels of evidence because of your personal objections (i.e., something not widely supported in academic literature) to the funding source in favor of lower levels of evidence. You may not substitute a cherry-picked primary source for a widely respected meta-analysis merely because you believe that the author is a surgeon and is therefore gets paid to prove that surgery works (=real example, and the one that prompted the addition of that line to the guideline). That canard has indeed been refuted, by me at least twice.

If you're interested in financial conflicts, then you'll want to read the section of MEDRS at WP:MEDINDY.

I agree that you and AlbinoFerret are not the only editors to have supported this change. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who continue to push for its inclusion against the actual consensus there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid this really isn't the forum to discuss this. We've already gone round and round about industry funded primary research making its way into higher levels of evidence many times, which was always the point. So I'll have to politely decline discussing this further here so as to not overburden potential reviewers with in-depth side arguments we have already gone back and forth on many times. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn I am glad to see this here. The closer, Elvey, has a block log as long as my arm. The latest restriction (not in the log) was a community imposed TBAN from COI matters, imposed here on August 7 2015, due to disruptive behaviors, mostly directed at me, over COI matters. I am strongly identified with WP:MED around here, and I was dismayed to see Elvey close the subject RfC just a couple months after that TBAN was imposed. He doesn't ususally close RfCs, and in my opinion this was yet more disruptive behavior, clearly going against the established WP:MED editors who were uniformly opposed to the motion, and supporting the alt-med editors who were arguing on its behalf. (The origin of the RfC was the desire of advocates of acupuncture to use sources from China that present acupuncture in a favorable light, when there is a boatload of evidence that these studies are poorly done and controlled; these editors have continued even here to make the inflammatory argument that the exclusion is due to racism or bias, when the problems are well established in the literature as I pointed out in my !vote here) Elvey himself made thatthe "bigotry" argument just now in this dif with edit note: "Nationalist bigotry?"

I'll add here that Elvey ignored the COI TBAN and is on the verge of getting a 3-month block for doing so per This ANI thread, with an additional TBAN for SPI matters added (per Vanjagenije's comment to him here.)

And I'll close by saying that in my view the close did not reflect the policy-based arguments that were given, and again in my view it was just disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity per markup Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC))

• Comment. The problem lies in part with the way the sentence is written (my bold):

"Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions."

If it said "do not reject a high-quality study" because of country of origin, that would make sense – if it's a high-quality secondary source we should use it no matter what country it stems from. But what is a "high-quality type of study"? A secondary source (e.g. a meta-analysis) is not ipso facto high quality. So that implies that, when choosing a low-quality study (but a supposedly high-quality type), we can't factor in where it comes from, and that makes no sense.

It would be better to say something like: "Do not reject a high-quality source simply because you do not like its inclusion criteria, references, funding, country of origin or conclusions." Discussion can then focus on quality, rather than origin. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors are trying to use MEDRS to include low-quality sources in articles from a country of origin that is known to be bias and of low quality and pass it off as a high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs please, showing where my close is being used logically by at least 2 editors to support that. I bet guarantee you can't find any because it doesn't justify that. I don't believe I wrote it in a way that would allow it to be used to do so. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, yes, but I think the change of wording will help. It now says: "Do not reject a source that is compliant with this guideline because of personal objections to inclusion criteria, references, funding sources or conclusions." If you add "country of origin," it won't cause so much harm now, because it is only talking about high-quality sources, rather than implying that any secondary source (e.g. meta analysis) is high quality, and that therefore any meta analysis is fine by definition. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV I think the wording of your actual edit is very well crafted. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn the close. The RFC was based on a false premise - that nationality was being capriciously used to reject sources (the main issue is pro-acupuncture editors who dislike the well-documented fact that Chinese studies on acupuncture effectiveness are unreliable due to systemic bias; the changed wording does not affect this due to the reference to quality). Practice will not change. Chinese-authored and published studies on acupuncture remain suspect, North Korean studies promting "brand new" ideas originating in North Korea remain suspect, and in both cases we have reliable independent sources to show that they are unlikely to meet quality thresholds due to systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please note. There is consensus to overturn the close but it is being forced in against consensus. An admin should consider a topic ban for User:LesVegas. On User:LesVegas' user page it says "I've been a resident for the past decade and have also lived in China for 2 years." User:LesVegas has lived in China and the user wants to include Chinese journals in articles.QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so you disruptively revert the action of an administrator who reviewed the RfC and I am the one who needs to be topic banned simply because I've lived in China? Hahaha. LesVegas (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Boghog is not an admin and the edit was not the specific text from the close. See WP:CLOSE. Are you providing COI information on your user page regarding China? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Give me a break QuackGuru, you know all too well Jamesday was the administrator I was talking about. You complained about his edit, the one you reverted, in the talk section on MEDRS. Your pretend ignorance is even worse than it was back when I had to deal with you regularly. LesVegas (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you or anyone one else continues to push this nonsense then I think ArbCom is around the corner. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi admins, just want to note that Jamesday's creative but out-of-process approach below, has not helped settle things but instead has become the subject of edit warring in the guideline and further dispute on the article Talk page. The need remains for an in-process decision whether to uphold or overturn the close that is the subject of this thread, so that we can take it from there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse The question posed in the RfC was regarding high quality sources. These included Cochrane Reviews given in the examples which were being objected to based on the authors being Chinese. Many arguments were given by those in opposition regarding possibly suspect Chinese primary studies (RCT's) that would have never made it onto the encyclopedia in the first place, both low quality and low-quality-type sources, and these objections were rightfully not given weight by the closer since they were not on topic with the question being asked. That question was very specific and had a narrow focus. Yet these objectors edit warred the implementation of the close, instead of coming here for review themselves, so it looks like that's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn. The justification for the close is that country of origin somehow violates WP:V and WP:RS with no clear explanation for how this is a violation. Quite to the contrary, if there are high quality sources that document systematic bias from a specific country in the field, then WP:V and WP:RS demands we consider country of origin in deciding whether a source is reliable. By referring to AlbinoFerret's succinct comment, the closing also endorsed argument that the RfC was specifically restricted to high quality sources. Again, country of origin can be relevant in deciding whether a source is high quality. A more relevant policy that was not cited in the in close and was barely mentioned in the RfC discussion is WP:NPOV because excluding sources based on country of origin may lead to an unbalanced presentation. However if the source is unreliable, then excluding it per WP:V would overrule WP:NPOV. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I vote for: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions." However, if there would be a vote on "funding sources", then this would require additional information, such as if the study in question is accessible for independent evaluation. prokaryotes (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Update. The editor who made the close being contested has now been community-banned for 3 months and had their topic ban extended per this for yet further disruptive editing. Again in my view the close being contested was part of the editor's pattern of disruptive behavior. This close review is still awaiting formal closing, which is needed so that the editors who are concerned about MEDRS can continue to follow the DR process. I do hope an admin will pick up gauntlet and make a call to overturn or endorse the close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator

As an editor and administrator who started here some twelve years ago and who has not previously been involved in these discussions I have reviewed this discussion and the past RfCs on the country subject and have come to the following conclusions:

1. there can be legitimate reasons to reject the use of sources from a country but it is unlikely that all sources on all subjects will be unreliable.
2. the underlying cause of dispute is trying to find an all or nothing wording when in fact in most cases there will be no concern but in some there will be grounds for legitimate concern.
3. the requirement to reject based on country of origin must be made for the narrowest reasonable range of fields and based on established consensus.
4. if required, consensus should be sought on what the narrowest reasonable range of fields is.

As a result I have partially overturned and partially accepted the various RfCs and added this text:

"Country of origin is sometimes given as a reason to reject a source. That is not generally appropriate but there are clear cases where it can be an issue. For example, studies of the effect of diet could well have been an issue during the Soviet-era famine in Ukraine and today it is legitimate to wonder whether studies relating to this issue from North Korea might not be entirely neutral or fully authoritative, both because the subjects are politically sensitive and might lead to political interference in scientific research. If you believe that a country is not a good source, before rejecting studies based on that origin you must:

1. seek consensus that for the area of knowledge involved, that country should not be regarded as a suitable source.
2. try to avoid an all studies from the country decision, even a country with poor standards and much political interference may have some good sources.
3. after consensus is obtained, place that list in a suitable meta page location so that all of the restrictions are known and can be subject to revisiting as required."

Naturally, I expect consensus-seeking on where such a list should be placed, if consensus is that an item needs to be placed on such a list.

As with many disputes here, this is not a black or white decision but rather one with many different shades and it is desirable to consider specific cases, not reject outright or accept outright black or white.

Please move on from the is it or isn't it a factor and on to trying to establish consensus on specific areas where specific countries as sources are concerns. If you think you can provide suitable references for rejecting everything from a country go for it and see whether you can establish that as consensus. I expect that you will have a far higher prospect of success if you seek a narrower consensus than that but if you want to try it you might be able to succeed.

In essence, this is a recognition that it may be necessary and beneficial for the community to recognise that certain sources - publications or individuals or institutions, perhaps, not just countries - might be unreliable in certain areas and to move towards a process whereby the community might formalise such a list after discussion of each case.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain here why you do not believe that it is possible or desirable for consensus to be sought that a particular source is in effect to be regarded as not of high quality in a particular area based on country of origin. Since consensus-seeking is how we decide most things, expect that to be a high bar to pass but if you think you can get others to accept it, no harm in trying. Jamesday (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jamesday. First, thanks for trying to take action and I understand the sense of what you wrote and the effort to solve the problem. However, there are a few problems with this.

• First, it is out of process. An RfC was held and closed, and the close is being challenged. The only real options here are to uphold it, or overturn it. I reckon you could do a new close, but that would have to comply with WP:CLOSE, which leads to...
• Secondly, it seems to me that you don't have the right to craft a solution not discussed in the RfC itself or the discussion and impose it. In my view nobody does - not in a close (or re-close) and not as you have done here. Your proposal can be put in an RfC to see if it will fly, of course.

Therefore would you please withdraw your statement, or re-frame it? And I do thank you again for the BOLD effort. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with this as NOTBURO and IAR. Strictly speaking, James can't do this, but if it sticks it will resolve a large part of the main problem. There are changes I'd like to see, but since the text (as I understand it) isn't being presented as a consensus result I think that can be done through the usual process, preferably after a short break to let tensions reduce. Sunrise (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that he actually implemented it in MEDRS, in this dif, as though it is authoritative. I appreciate the BOLDness but it is not a solution that can stick, and the manner in which it was done is going to cause more trouble. In contentious things like this, we need good process. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I think the best decision would have been to simply close this as overturn. This action adds unnecessary complications to the issue, but I think that opposing it is likely to cause more confusion than not. I don't expect this to stick permanently, and I don't think it's authoritative or intended as such. The advantage I see is to finally end the discussion about the original close and the associated drama, including making the current RfC obsolete, so we can restart from the current (speculative) revision. Since this discussion isn't closed yet, hopefully it will just be recognized as a consensus to overturn. In the absence of that, I think the best outcome is to leave the text in for a few weeks, and then start editing to bring it in line with consensus - and I find that acceptable, if not optimal. Sunrise (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all contributors. As the various processes are going nowhere at immense length, a little boldness may well be in order. I do suggest that Jamesday's specific examples are inappropriately speculative - I would hope for RS rather than supposition. As one example, you might like to consider Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. (China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia are mentioned.) I also suggest that all of the new texts proposed are at best examples of bloat, and that a better way of dealing with the problem is to take what RS say, and write the article properly. For example, a section on trials might appropriately start with the point that RS find them to be based on invalid work, and then outline what they say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge's objection seems to be based on an 18 year old publication involving primary studies, not systematic reviews or meta-analyses, likely not published in reputable journals, likely not high-quality, and none of those sources would ever see the light of day onto Wikipedia for about 10-15 other reasons in MEDRS . Country of origin need not even be one of those reasons. China is a completely different country than it was 18 years ago, by the way. Following Jamesday's reasoning that "country of origin" is a valid reason to reject a source only in the narrowest of instances, objectors have shown evidence that we should reject primary studies on acupuncture published in China 18 years ago. And I agree that we should. But frankly, we don't even need to reject sources like that on where they originate; they fail the MEDRS barometer in many other ways. I know there may be other studies out there looking at the possibility of publication bias that are newer, but these also involve primary studies with no evidence any attention was paid to quality. Hence, the RfC was always about "high quality" research. It goes beyong Chinese studies on acupuncture, by the way. Jamesday noted country of origin to have been an issue in his 12 yr editing career; I have also dealt with (the very same) editors rejecting Russian research on GMO's because of its country of origin. Fortunately, some of these editors are now topic banned from the GMO subject, but they are not banned from rejecting sources elsewhere based on country of origin. This needs to change. Rejecting a source should be limited to source quality, journal integrity, if it's primary research, etc, ie if it's low quality based on its merits outlined in MEDRS. Industry funded studies have also shown the same (or worse) issues objectors note with Chinese sources on acupuncture, and we don't reject sources based on "funding source" (noted by Elvey in the close) and yet some editors act like the world will end if they can't reject a source based on where it's published or what country its authors are from. We can treat sources from other countries just like we have been treating industry funded research for years: reject it because it's a primary study, reject it because it's published in a disreputable journal, but not because it's funded by Pfizer or Coca Cola. The world will go on and keep spinning, I promise. LesVegas (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks LesVegas. This does make your position slightly clearer. I'm sorry, but to outlaw the obvious and valid conclusions of highly significant RS such as BMJ. 1999 Jul 17; 319(7203): 160–161. Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine. Jin-Ling Tang, Si-Yan Zhan, and Edzard Ernst is, frankly, not compatible with writing a good article. The acupuncture article needs a lot of rewriting to give a coherent presentation - at present there is no coherent story, it's "balanced" between desperately selected pro and anti assertions and the overall result is a mess. I hope we can spend our time building an encyclopedia, starting with a well-written, comprehensive, NPOV article on acupuncture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you too, Richard. Did you notice your new link was 1) from 1999 and 2) was also involving RCT's (primary studies)? I appreciate the intention to hope for good quality sources on our articles. I just want to mention again that those specific objections are based on terrible research we'd reject for several other reasons, other than country of origin. And I should mention that the BMJ is routinely rejected as a source on the acupuncture article (but only when it shows positive findings). Not saying it's unreliable, I think the BMJ is highly reliable, just saying others on the page feel otherwise. I do very much agree with you that the acupuncture article is terribly imbalanced. The story and history of it do take a backseat to "pro" and "anti" arguments and conflicting minutiae in a wide variety (but not the widest variety) of evidence. My entire efforts were aimed at widening the variety. Perhaps there are better ways, though. By the way, initially, when I read the decision (or proposal?) by Jamesday, I was glad to finally see some resolution. Now I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't open up a path to even more conflicts and arguments, when we need to all be focusing on "building an encyclopedia" anyway? While I agree that things need to be done by consensus, I guess I'm skeptical if that will ever happen in the case these sources, or if we need to find some better way in which we can all agree on how to improve articles like this. LesVegas (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been far too much time wasted in attempts to ignore the well-supported fact that some academic jurisdictions show systematic and extreme bias on some subjects. (What on earth do you mean by "terrible research?) We should use this fact to improve the article. To make useful progress with your argument you would need to present RS that convincingly state that the relevant academic jurisdictions are now free from bias in these subjects. I will be very surprised if you can present any such RS (but do give it a try, I might well change my opinion). In the meantime, some bold rewriting may be a more constructive use of everyone's time. We might even come up with a consensus on a good article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

By terrible research, I'm talking about the RCT's themselves. By MEDRS standards, they're very old and they're primary studies and probably not from reliable journals either. We wouldn't use them anyway. I'm actually agreeing with you it's better to focus on working towards consensus on improving articles like Acupuncture. LesVegas (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks again. Are we coming to a consensus that RS can be used to identify a large group of studies as very dubious? And, while I'm at it, that the results of those dubious studies are not improved by being included in further reviews? If so, we may make some serious progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well maybe we can agree on the ends, maybe we always have, but I always believed (and still do) that rejecting high level research on the grounds of low level research possibly having publication bias, is wrong. I am more inclined to believe we should reject it on those grounds in the case of industry funding, for which there is a slew of well regarded, respectably published, and current reviews which show unreliability of trials in those cases, and yet we are specifically prohibited from doing so by MEDRS, so I always believed "country of origin" wasn't a valid reason, in and of itself, to reject research on that basis alone. I still don't. But, yeah, I will concede there's probably a lot of crap that got published in China. But I think MEDRS already keeps that off our encyclopedia anyway. I have always said it was never my intention to have low-quality, low-level research on this encyclopedia or on the acupuncture article. Nobody believed that, and because nobody AGF, we're here. At any rate, I think we both probably have the same goals, maybe just different ways of getting there, so perhaps we should discuss how to go about achieving better consensus on the means and methods instead? LesVegas (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The concern here is that people are trying to rewrite a guideline to prevent us taking account of the verified fact that there is systemic bias in some jurisdictions. This will introduce an inevitable tension between WP:V, WP:RS and a subject-specific guideline which is being attacked by people who wish the evidence were not developing as it is. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. We may however be getting somewhere. LesVegas, forgive me for pressing a point, but would you agree that aggregated / reviewed / meta-analyzed publications that are based on probably-invalid primary studies share the invalidity of their primary studies? The idea that invalid studies can be aggregated into valid ones strikes me as simple nonsense, not even rising to the level of a fallacy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I would be willing to agree entirely to the idea that invalid primary studies would make for bad outcomes in meta-analyses or systematic reviews that did not take their invalidity into account. But that's, as I said, an idea, and the reality we're dealing with is a bit more complicated. Here's why:

• 1. We don't actually have any sources saying, definitively, publication bias is the reason Chinese, Russian, Taiwanese, etc studies in a review published in 1998 had statistically significant positive outcomes. 100 percent positive outcomes do sound very suspicious, I agree wholeheartedly. But it's important to remember that there may, indeed, be other reasons. One might very well be the political and cultural environment in the China back then. While that's used as an argument to oppose inclusion, it can work the other way too. The government of China, in an effort to validate acupuncture, might very well have only funded studies on things like back pain, frozen shoulder, migraine headaches, and so on, because they knew acupuncture worked for these conditions. They might not have funded studies to see if acupuncture worked for, say, Alzheimer's or Crohn's Colitis or ventricular tachycardia, because it would have been a waste of their money. So that could be a factor for extremely high positive results. It's actually somewhat likely that was the case because they, comparatively, weren't even doing many studies back then and were still relatively new to modern research methods, i.e., so you don't want to waste your money on negative findings anyway.
  2. But let's say for the sake of argument that all of the studies in the Vickers review are crap. While the study you and Guy refer to was published 18 years ago, the primary studies Vickers uses for his findings goes back all the way to 1966! Trying to invalidate published meta-analyses in 2016 based on primary research conducted 50 years ago is a very problematic argument.
  3. There's no evidence the primary studies from 1966 to 1995 have been aggregated into meta-analyses in 2016. If they did, they should probably not be considered high quality sources for using such old, stale research anyway. Even if they were high-quality-type studies (meta-analyses, reviews), they wouldn't be high quality, and would and should be invalidated for those reasons.
  4. Final point: yes, I'm sure there have been garbage Chinese studies published at various times throughout history. I'm also sure some garbage studies are still published in China, although I'm also sure it's less than it once was. But I'm also sure garbage sources are published in the West. Invalid primary studies conducted by industries that promote their products are already protected in MEDRS. We cannot reject high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses based on funding sources, even if "invalid" primary research composes these higher quality-type sources. Even if that were the right thing to do, it would be highly impractical to go through every single study and determine if it's tainted or not. So what do we do? Hold bad Western studies in high regard and piss on bad Chinese studies, and pretend there's no hypocrisy? NPOV states we have to be consistent, and there's no better place to do it than in our guidelines.

You might not agree with everything I said, but at least you know why I believe as I do. That said, here's what we can probably agree on: I would prefer to not see low-quality Chinese research that comes to wild conclusions on the acupuncture article, so I think that's our likely starting point in a compromise. But for the reasons I outlined above, I'm not really budging on the "country of origin" issue, and I many other editors feel strongly on that point too. So I think we'll need an out-of-the-box solution to achieve an end we both would like to see. It's probably not the right forum for that, here, but I do have something in mind that you'd probably agree with. I'll ping you about it later. LesVegas (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. Leaving aside the related, but separate issue of funding sources, I repeat that when RS tell us that an identifiable group of studies is so biased as to be invalid, we should use this, and when this is uncontested (sorry, but your speculations above aren't really helpful) we should use it to frame our discussion of the studies in question. I don't doubt your good faith, but your arguments are clutches at nonexistent straws. I hope that you can maintain enough detachment to help give the article its desperately needed rewrite. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring after uninvolved admin action

Sadly the page had a slow edit warring to reverse the actions in the sections above. I requested page protection, but its only for 3 days. An uninvolved admin should look into this and perhaps formally close this section, and if the result is to reopen, close he RFC again. AlbinoFerret 01:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• LesVegas violated talk page consensus.[107][108] See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#On_country_of_origin. There were also previous edits against consensus.[109][110] I am surprised LesVegas has not been topic banned. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quackguru, I would note you have been topic banned from a couple of topics now, so given your judgement on Wikipedia rules I'm not at all concerned you think so poorly of my editing. I would also note that you have a history of "border lining" and this topic, which is not explicitly "Acupuncture" has involved a great deal of discussion about it, and you have borderlined in those discussions, which could be a violation of your ban. LesVegas (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• There's a lot of motivated reasoning going on with that guideline, and a concerted attempt to change it to gain an advantage in a content dispute, rather than in line with good practice and common sense, which is what guidelines should be for. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

user:70.124.133.228 reverting user:Jaguar's edits

I noticed that user:70.124.133.228 keeps reverting user:Jaguar's edits but there didn't seem to be anything wrong with those edits, so I tried went to user:70.124.133.228's talk page and asked him why he keeps doing that. He continued to do what he was doing without answering me, so I am unsure on what to do at this point. CLCStudent (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. If they keep at it whilst disregarding warnings then it might be best to block them for a while. JAGUAR  19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP is (correctly) re-adding the hyphens to compound compass-points (which are hyphenated in BrEng, as used in Uganda), and which Jaguar has been unilaterally changing to the unhyphenated AmEng form. Jaguar, given the number of warnings you've had previously regarding unilaterally changing articles between English variants, you might want to be less keen to recommend blocks. ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You got that the wrong way around. I've been hyphenating them, the IP has been de-hyphenating them. JAGUAR  20:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: So you make another snarky comment at me (supposedly from nowhere), which was not only false, but when I corrected you on it you pretended not to notice? And you made yourself look like an idiot at the same time. Well done. JAGUAR  11:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's out of order Jaguar. AWB is not a Get Out of Jail Free card to make whatever edits you like, throwing policy to the wind. This looks like a straightforward content dispute to me for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've been using AWB lately to do various cleanups, such as removing overlinkage, and in some cases I hyphenate compass points. I took care to do it in articles that should use BrEng, like Uganda, but saying that, I've only done a small proportion of them. JAGUAR  12:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked all the "undid revision X by Jaguar" edits here, and all of them consist of de-hyphenating directions. Given the ENGVAR issue, I see all of the edits as unhelpful undoing of ordinary maintenance by Jaguar. It's an easy mistake for us Americans to make (I've always assumed north-east to be a mistake, never knowing that it was normal in en:gb), but once it's been explained to you, keeping it up is disruptive. There haven't been any more "undid revision X by Jaguar" edits since Jaguar explained the situation; have there been any such edits with different (or no) summaries? If not, no reason to sanction or make any further objections. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that Jaguar (talk · contribs) is editing at an extremely high rate for a non-bot account - in the 8 hours from 17:08, 13 February 2016 they made almost 3100 edits, mostly AWB. That works out at an average of more than six per minute, so exceeding the limit of one every ten seconds set by WP:BOTREQUIRE for bots doing non-urgent tasks. I've discussed their bot-like editing before (see User talk:Jaguar/Archive 18), and problems were blamed on AWB. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The reported editor is also removing sources, and other information from articles[111], with no edit summary[112]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Here's another example of how the reported editor fails to understand WP:OWN and WP:CIV[113] Boomer Vial^Holla 04:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MFD backlog

Any reason it's not mentioned here? It's been over two weeks since a number of discussions have been closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.176 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Only two weeks? Let me know when it gets as bad as the CfD backlog. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Please merge these templates under an easy name:

1. Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday
2. Template:Admin hopeful 2

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned the related Wikidata item, which is probably from where this question is originating from. No opinion on the content of the two pages. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an entire Category:Not an admin user templates full of templates about whether an editor wants or doesn't want to become an admin. You could try merging the two or coming up with a third, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lego Island

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.

---

Users keep deleting content on Talk:Lego Island without good reason. 2602:306:3357:BA0:E41F:8CE7:4A22:C1FD (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"without good reason"? You might want to consider reading WP:TPO, off-topic content should be removed. And "does this work on Windows 10???" IS off-topic. This is what Lordtobi are I trying to explain. 92.73.99.195 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a good reason to remove the stuff that has been removed. Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. The content being removed is not discussing how to improve the article, it is discussing the game itself. A project banner has been removed also, as this video game is not a toy. -- GB fan 10:10, 18 February 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.

RD swap: TVOS <> TvOS

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

---

As per title, the page follows WP guidelines for naming in all caps (as previously discussed), hence needs the RD swapping by an admin. Even if guidelines change again in future, the correct page should be used for now. TIA. Jimthing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 In progress — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 16 February 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.

Repeated abuse of editing privilege by User:Roman Spinner

Copied over to WP:ANI, please continue discussion there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Roman Spinner has continually and knowingly violated a well-established consensus over a multi-year period, while (politely) dismissing separate complaints by no less than five editors, regarding hundreds of edits. The relevant consensus for disambiguation pages, from MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop. User:Roman Spinner has declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus, and has shown no willingness to change the behavior. A partial history: January 2008: discussion (initiated by @Jwy:) April 2012: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:) December 2012: discussion (initiated by @Ubcule:) April 2014: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:) June 2015: discussion (initiated by @Midas02:) February 2016: discussion (initiated by User:Swpb) Some edit diffs: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff These discussions and diffs represent a small sample, not the full record, of the behavior. User:Roman Spinner has also receieved many complaints about unsupported and incomplete page moves, and has dismissed these as well; however, these are not a focus of the current complaint. I am seeking a formal censure of User:Roman Spinner, making it clear that this behavior will stop. If the behavior continues, I seek a probationary ban, then a permanent ban, on all edits by User:Roman Spinner to disambiguation pages. —swpbT 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC) I'm embarrassed I didn't start this discussion myself years ago, but I hate confrontation of any sort. I have contacted Roman on numerous occasions and got sugar-coated responses which basically say that he knows, but he feels it is better this way and somehow fits in the spirit though not the letter of the guidelines. The spirit is to keep things brief, concise and easily readable, which he doesn't keep to. A case in point is [114]. You can see from the entries how far it is from MOS:DABENTRY. With many dabs like this, Roman created them or edited them to be like that, I then correct them. Roman would then copy his version to a page such as that linked, where he would keep copies of all his preferred versions. I've no idea what the purpose of this may be, but I felt like they were likely to be re-added at a future date, as some of them were, through not realising he had done the same thing before on that page or deliberately. He would also sometimes copy his version onto the Talk page of the dab, so it was still there in some form. I felt this was trying to bully his version on. I monitor the dab page changes, and so undo the majority of Roman's edits, which he must know, but this has been eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs, as it's frustrating to see someone ignoring consensus. I have told him that he could start a discussion about the guidelines at the Wikiproject if he feels they need amending - I have said this dozens of times in edit summaries and messages - but he doesn't do it. I have told him how unfair it is to ignore consensus over the years and how it puts editors off editing, but no changes. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC) My opinion as one of the people mentioned above, but primarily as an outsider looking in:- Even though I only tend to fix dab page issues when I come across them, I find dealing with well-intentioned but misguided dab bloating from inexperienced editors frustrating. In their case, it's forgiveable, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and educate them. I think I'd assumed then that Roman was in the same boat and I hadn't noticed (a) he'd been warned several times before and (b) been on Wikipedia for many years already! I'd have been *much* less impressed if I'd known that. @Boleyn:; Snap. I saw that same discussion before you added your reply and had already intended saying something very similar. ""I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline". Honestly?! If anything it sounds like it's the other way round, with him trying to rationalise edits way longer than necessary by explaining how they're within (or near) various technical limits. The "spirit" is that dab pages are *meant* to be concise! Ditto the way that he responded to you and others; pleasant, polite, respectful and acknowledging their input or opinion... while also not actually responding to or addressing the reason that issue was raised! Truth be told, I think that what he believes what he's doing is right- for whatever reason. Unfortunately, that *is* the problem because if after eight-plus years(!!!) he's still responding with the same apparent mixture of rationalisation, cognitive dissonance and managing to politely avoid the issue, then it's clearly an issue that goes beyond rational discussion with him. If he's still doing this to countless pages despite knowing that his changes are going to be reverted, that suggests some sort of obsessiveness. However, it's really not our place to get involved with personal matters like that. Realistically, then, that leaves us with only two options; (i) let things continue as they are or (ii) accept that- regardless of whether it's done in what he sees as good faith- Roman's editing in this area is a problem, and the only way of drawing a line (which, let's face it, probably should have been drawn before now) is likely to be some form of restriction or sanction. If this seems harsh, then please bear in mind it's also unfair to editors like Boleyn and many others to have to waste their time repeatedly cleaning up this sort of unhelpful and utterly counter-produtive bloat. Ubcule (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 1) It is always a pleasure, regardless of circumstances, to engage in exchanges of ideas with user:swpb and User:Boleyn, two longtime contributors whose dedication to this extraordinary project is most admirable. Wikipedia would be a humbler place without their numerous valuable contributions. In truth, none of us veteran editors would dedicate such considerable portions of our lives to such a task if we were not convinced that our work had a convincing potential to improve lives by promoting and advancing the expansion of knowledge and scholarship. 2) I also welcome the additional participation of User:Ubcule whose original comment on my talk page in December 2012 appeared to be a gentle reminder, rather than a complaint, as did the postings of User:Jwy in January 2008 and User:Midas02 in June 2015. In fact, only the later postings by User:Boleyn and the current postings by user:swpb, who initially communicated with me five days ago, on February 9, appear to rise to the level of complaints. While I would not presume to advise a user of such high intellect as swpb as to the most profitable dedication of time, it still seems regrettable that swpb instead chose to devote the last five days (February 9–14) to a search of my disambiguation edits over the past 10 years, in an apparent attempt to find sufficient evidence for submitting these accusations. 3) As to the heart of the complaint, that I "regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information", my responses have always made clear that none of my descriptions have come close to exceeding a single line of text [I edit on a 27-inch iMac, using a 16x9 screen with standard fonts at 100% (normal) size]. As I explained to Boleyn in April 2012, "I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances." I am a bit puzzled, though, over swpb's above reference to "unhelpful information" — would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?. In fact, most of my descriptions, such as one of the most recent ones here, occupy at most half, but usually only a third of a line of text [on my 16x9 screen], thus turning the phrase "extremely long descriptions" into quite an exaggeration. 4) Another accusation/complaint appears to be that I have "declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus". Again, as I have already explained, I do not feel that there is any need to change the consensus, since I agree that the descriptions should be short and also feel that one-fourth, one-third or even half a line of text, which is the usual length of my descriptions, fulfills the definition of "short". However, if a discussion were to be initiated with the aim of elucidating the term "short" by specifying the acceptable number of characters and spaces permitted as explanatory text, I would support such an emendation and adhere to such future consensus to an exact degree. 5) I am gratified that swpb provided the various links to my edits, since those confirm that as valuable an asset as swpb has been to other areas of Wikipedia, consistency and attention to detail on disambiguation pages is not swpb's strong suit. Here are a few examples: In editing Thunder Mountain dab, swpb deleted all information for Thunder Mountain (British Columbia), leaving only the redlink, plus the unhelpful word "Canada". Boleyn almost immediately added the barely more helpful blue link, List of mountains of Canada, on which Thunder Mountain (British Columbia) exists, but only as a redlink, without any elucidation. The original link, however, which had been there since February 2014, was to Tsitsutl Peak, which does contain some specific information about the mountain. That link was ignored by both swpb and Boleyn even though it was easily accessible via my previous edit. Swpb also reduced the two films on the page to just the basic link, removing all information, without even leaving at least two words, "American western". On other dab pages, however, swpb, who is frugal with dab page verbiage, adds unnecessary duplication: at Death Trip dab, Death Trip (2015 film), top-grossing Chinese thriller, becomes Death Trip (2015 film), Chinese film [we already know it's a film, why not leave the genre instead?]. At Arizona Days dab, Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent western, becomes Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent film [again, we know it's a film]. At Another Dawn dab, Another Dawn (1937 film), American military love triangle, becomes Another Dawn (1937 film), American film and Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican political thriller, becomes Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican film [are these redundancies and genre removals supposed to help users?] 6) Per mention by User:Boleyn, I also "hate confrontation of any sort". Since Boleyn has been such a valuable asset to Wikipedia, I also did not wish to issue any complaints, but as for "eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs", it should be noted that Boleyn has been simply reverting my disambiguation page edits using WP:Twinkle [which hardly takes any time at all], without even bothering to peruse my edits for additions, deletions or error corrections. The very link presented by Boleyn above, displayed here as Boleyn's reversal of my edit is good example. If anyone wonders why the Michael Ames dab page has two entries, while my version of it had six entries, it is because Boleyn reversed it without [presumably] even looking at it or evaluating my four additions. Another example is here. Again, if anyone wonders why the Peter Godfrey dab page has four entries, while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (a pointless addition by Boleyn [to "See also"] of "intitle" which displays "All pages with titles containing Peter Godfrey" comes to nothing since the missing names are not even there). Still another example is here. Once again, if anyone wonders why the Kevin McCarthy dab page has nine entries (not counting [the problematic] Kevin MacArthur, added by swpb), while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (my additions, such as name changes, birth years and nationalities were also not re-incorporated). There are numerous other such examples which I will submit in subsequent installments of this discussion, if/when it continues. 7) Because I value Boleyn's work, having to continue with this line is regrettable but, since Boleyn mentioned that I put my versions on disambiguation talk pages, it should be added that Boleyn has been deleting all such talk page additions as vandalism, although most of Boleyn's edit summaries (when performing those deletions) state that the talk page is the wrong venue. Since talk pages are intended for suggesting improvements, I contend that each respective disambiguation talk is exactly the correct venue for such an alternative dab page, each of which is inserted with its own explanatory notes, specifically focused upon that exact page. Thus, other members of the Disambiguation Project can weigh in on the relative merits and shortcomings of such a proposed page. However, almost all of them have been deleted by Boleyn, such as here, where Boleyn's edit summary calls it "vandalism". As a last item here [for now] I must turn to Boleyn's use of "how it puts editors off editing". The notion that I am driving away editors because my dab page entries may be considered (by some editors) a trifle too long is difficult to comprehend, although I suspect that Boleyn is applying this personally. However, since I have not been driven away by Boleyn's continuing deletion of my dab edits (and dab talk pages), then such a burden of guilt cannot be placed on my shoulders. In fact, since Boleyn has been submitting for deletion (justifiably or not) the work of various new editors, the initial accusation (for lack of a more pleasant term) is difficult to sustain. 8) Finally, I could not conclude this phase of arguments [much more to come, if need be] without congratulating User:Ubcule for a highly skilled use of psychoanalytic parody. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a contributor with a such a keenly honed sense of humor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Roman, I started completing reverting your edits when you wrote that if I felt they were wrong, I could always revert them. The majority I re-edit rather than revert. It is not difficult to sustain that you put editors off editing dabs - I'm one of the most prolific editors of dabs and I'm thoroughly put off because it's wasting my time. If you are unable to understand how your edits don't meet the consensus, then I can't help you - and I don't think you should be allowed to continue editing dabs. Talk pages are not a place to put an alternative version of the dab on, and you did this on dozens of dabs. Again, your sugar-coated response is an attempt to divert from the real issue. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC) @Roman Spinner: As noted above, my 2012 comment had assumed you were a helpful-but-misguided newbie and wasn't meant as a "reminder" to someone who had been an editor on Wikipedia for around six years by that point. To use that as an example, however, I don't understand what you feel this edit makes clear that the previous version didn't. Of course it adds (much) more information, but none of that is realistically necessary for anyone to differentiate the four and find the article they're looking for. It would very helpful to us for you to clearly explain your reasoning behind that specific edit (i.e. how it represents an improvement) with respect to the guidelines- it's a very typical example, and might at least make the rationale for your style clear. Because, with respect, that reasoning isn't at all obvious at present. Speaking as an end-user, I find with your versions I'm having to pointlessly *read through* material extraneous to the purpose of the dab page, less able to see the forest for the trees than the regular versions. You complain about your changes to the Kevin McCarthy dab page being reverted, but while your version had more entries, it also added a lot of bloat which (again) was not necessary to the purpose of the page. Beyond a certain point, if someone is repeatedly combining changes/additions which may be considered problematic with (arguably) useful additional material in the same edit, it's open to question how much onus is on others to spend their time sorting these out, leaving behind only the good aspects. If it happens on a regular basis, I can understand why Boleyn might feel entitled to revert the whole thing since- on balance- the negative aspects of the bloat introduced outweighed any improvement. As I've already commented, you claim to be acting within the spirit if not always the letter of the guidelines, but your argument that your titles technically fit within a single line on your monitor sounds like a technical justification that goes against the general spirit of "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Which part of the guidelines is this apparent one-screen-line limit- or as you seem to see it, target- based on anyway? Ubcule (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC) I appreciate your kind words about me. But, @Roman Spinner:, STOP over-loading DAB pages. I am not an active DAB page updater as I used to be. Had I seen you continued that behavior I would have made it more clear I was complaining rather than suggesting. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Can I open an RFC on this? Side issue; would it be appropriate to place a "Requests for Comment" to get more input into this discussion? The only reason I ask is that- while the issues raised are perfectly legitimate and this discussion *should* be taking place- it already seems to be moving away from the type of discussion that belongs on the Administrators' Noticeboard page, and I don't know if it's appropriate to direct even more people here for a wide-ranging, general-input discussion involving non-admin users. Ubcule (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC) That seems like a WP:RFC/U. I believe that Wikipedia has discontinued that type of Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not that familiar with thes things, but I can't think of a better place than here. If others agreed with Roman and there were genuine disagreements as to what "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" meant then RfC might be best. But this seems to be a case of a long-term editor refusing to listen to other editors or follow the agreed guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC) We don't deal with content issues here, only user conduct. If you want to discuss Roman Spinner's conduct, this is the place. For example, you could propose a topic ban or an interaction ban, or some other specific remedy, and we'll discuss it. If you want to talk about content or get consensus on how much text should be on the dab pages, you should probably start an RFC at WT:D. Katietalk 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Would it be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted? I can't see any other place where it would be appropriate, to be honest, as the other extant RFCs seem to be policy and/or subject-area focussed, which (going by KrakatoaKatie's comment) isn't appropriate here. Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC) To editors KrakatoaKatie, Ubcule and Boleyn: I opened this to address conduct specifically, not content. The example edits point to a pattern of behavior, not a dispute over particular content, so this, not RfC, seems to be the right venue. If a remedy is to be discussed, it should be a "topic" ban on editing dab pages; I leave it to the admins to determine if such a ban is warranted now, or only in the event the behavior continues. —swpbT 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Swpb: So you're proposing that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages - is that correct? If so, start that discussion under a level 3 heading, like the one for this subsection. (There are myriad examples of how to do this in the AN archives.) You brought up the issue, so you need to propose the solution you have in mind. Katietalk 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Perhaps a discussion with the content experts at WT:MOSDAB first to clearly establish how the edits match consensus, then here if necessary? (apologies for going off topic above) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC) I still think the only issue is conduct, content issue is clear. I'm not sure there's anything to be gained therefore by starting a discussion elsewhere, I think we have identified the problem and need a solution. I would propose that Roman is banned from editing disambiguation pages. I see no sign of any understanding from him, and he has not changed one bit after the numerous warnings he has received, not just on his talk page but on the talk pages of individual dabs. The level of obsession shown, by actions such as copying and pasting his preferred version onto the dab talk page, then into his userspace, and the fact that this has gone on for years, makes me think this is necessary. Roman can continue to edit productively in many other areas of Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Clearly a conduct issue; the content (what is needed on DAB pages) is very clear and has been stable for a long time. I am merely an occasional editor of DAB pages and, while i wouldn't necessarily agree that every edit of Roman Spinner's to them is unhelpful, nor even every one linked above as examples, sufficient are that the conduct is not really acceptable from a long-term editor. I would be delighted if, in a very short time, Roman Spinner sees the error of his conduct and is willing to abide by community standards, which are very clear. Until that happens, i fear a ban is necessary. cheers, LindsayHello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Proposal To keep it as short & simple as possible, i propose that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages. cheers, LindsayHello 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Comment: This entire thread and subject belongs on WP:ANI, not WP:AN. Please move it there, or have someone move it, or someone reading this please move it. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC close review request: Jeremy Corbyn, place of birth

The RfC closure was overturned and the RfC was reclosed as no consensus by Ncmvocalist here. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 22 February 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.

---

This is a request to review the RfC close at Jeremy Corbyn, to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. The issue the closer was to decide was whether the existing use of "England" for Corbyn's place of birth in the infobox should be changed to "UK", in terms of WP policies and guidance. Over two dozen editors noted a preference; slightly more of these editors were in favour of noting England than UK. Some others (including the closer) suggested noting England and UK. Noting no country or sovereign state was also suggested. The closing comments were: "This RfC was closed with a compromise which is "Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK"", which reflects the preference of the closer. Several editors specifically opposed the England and UK suggestion (e.g. here, here, here and here). Clearly, no consensus was achieved at this RfC. Only uninvolved editors should close discussions where consensus is unclear. WP:INVOLVED states: 'In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved.', which is the case here. This close should be overturned and reclosed by an uninvolved admin. Daicaregos (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Any close (even if by a different editor) would surely arrive at the same result: views on the matter are evenly split, and the solution that has been adopted is a perfectly acceptable way to accommodate both perspectives. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it may be "perfectly acceptable" to one editor (you) does not mean that it is "perfectly acceptable" to others (me) - because it's, frankly (in my opinion), silly. As Daicaregos suggests, it was absolutely wrong for an involved editor to have closed the discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I closed the discussion, and explained on my personal page, responding to Daicaregos' request: "Actually if I have well understood the procedure for closure, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure is (point 1) "if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion". With no opposition on the compromise during 12 days, and one month after the RfC was opened, it seemed to me that is was a consensus." Wykx (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And I answered you there: "Your compromise position was not one of the options given in the RfC. Consequently,it would be impossible to say the consensus for that option was clear, so 'point 1' could not apply. Also, several editors noted their opposition to the England, UK suggestion, this is just one example. I can't see any other possible close but 'no consensus', but that should be for an uninvolved editor to decide." I linked to this discussion above. Daicaregos (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I find nothing wrong with either the 'compromise' or the closing. GoodDay (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You surprise me. Your post at the RfC asking “Does anyone agree with the compromise?” was unanswered. If editors opposed to including UK had changed their minds (i.e. the majority), surely at least one would have mentioned it. Considering the opposition to including UK, such a 'compromise' should have required a separate RfC. Daicaregos (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked my question on Feb 8, the Rfc was closed on Feb 13. Why didn't yourself, Ghmyrtle or anybody else respond to my question, during those 5 days? It's quite possible for anyone to assume that no response after 5 days, is a silent consensus. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the question posed was “Does anyone agree with the compromise?”. Since it was unanswered, the only possible assumption for a silent consensus, as you put it, would be that nobody did agree with the 'compromise'. Daicaregos (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. One could easily have responded that they didn't agree with the compromise. It's not very difficult to press the buttons on one's keyboard. Particularly over a 5 day period. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then you should have asked a different question. We shouldn't expect editors to have to reiterate their positions. They should be taken into account. Several editors had already noted they didn't agree with 'England, UK'. Their opinions have been ignored. Further options should be phrased in a neutral way and, preferably, in a separate RfC to elicit response. Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Any objectors had 5 days to respond & none did. This may well be a case of 'you snooze, you lose'. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, it's going on 3 days now, since the Rfc was closed. Of the 30 or so editors who participated in that Rfc, only 2 (so far) have complained about the closure. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I reckon we'll have to allow a passing administrator decide that. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to concur with Daicaregos and Ghmyrtle. There really was no clear consensus for an involved admin to use. And the compromise was never presented clearly with a statement like "unless there are objections I propose this compromise". When there is a clear debate between A or B, I would have thought that a comprise of "A and B" risks leaving both sides quite dissatisfied? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to leave it up to a passing by administrator, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As a "passing administrator", my view is that closure of this RfC by a participant was highly ill-advised and definitely trout-worthy. I don't see any consensus for the eventual outcome – it was undoubtedly a compromise, but one that only a tiny number of the participants had settled on. It really should have been closed as no consensus, perhaps with a suggestion to continue the discussions on the compromise version to see if it had wider support. Number 57 13:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand: where would "no consensus" leave us? The person who started this thread says that "England" was the "existing use". But here is a version I've chosen simply because it's close to the bottom of the current list of recent 500 versions -- where UK (not England) is used in the infobox. So what do we "default" to if (while) there's no resolution? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean where does "no consensus" leave us? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved user who has closed a fair few RfCs, I totally agree with Number 57. To answer the couple of questions in response to Number 57's view, the fact is there is no resolution, and discussion needs to continue with a view to reaching a consensus. The compromise wording in the original closure may be a good temporary solution while that discussion continues (which may be worth considering for example by the editor who initiated this review). That said, the compromise wording was certainly not the final resolution, consensus, or outcome from this particular RfC (particularly given the wording of the question which was subject to comment). For now, I have overturned the closure and re-closed as seen here which should address the issues which the original improper close caused. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. Good call. Daicaregos (talk) 15:25, 16 February 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.

Blockcalc: IP range calculator

Admins doing range blocks may want to try {{blockcalc}}. It extracts IPv4 and IPv6 addresses from its input and calculates minimum-sized ranges. Discussion at Template talk:Blockcalc. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I still use NativeForeigner's calc tool, but this is great. I'm to the point with IPv6 range calcs that I could tell the number of affected users just by looking at the list of IPs in the examples, but I know others aren't there yet. We're all going to have to get familiar with IPv6 addressing and rangeblocking them and this will help a lot. I think it's easier for us than IPv4 in several ways, though the sheer amount of digits can be intimidating. :-) Katie^talk 16:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete request - Can't tag the Flow page

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

---

Due to (yet another) Flow bug I can't edit the page header at WT:WikiProject_Breakfast/Flow_archive to properly tag it for Speedy Delete.

RFC - Remove Flow from WikiProject Breakfast? reached an affirmative consensus. The WMF converted all of the content back to a Talk page at WT:WikiProject_Breakfast. The project page and the Flow_archive contain identical content in wikitext/Flow formats. On Phabricator the WMF told me they were leaving it to Admins whether to delete the old unwanted Flow version.

I believe the Flow page falls under speedy criteria WP:G6 Technical deletions as a duplicate, and arguably WP:G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (it is an "identical and unimproved copy" and an RFC to "remove" is a synonym for a deletion discussion for the Flow version).

If this Speedy request is declined I can open an MFD, although due to the bug I still can't tag the page and I believe an MFD would be a waste of time. I have previously run two MFDs covering three Flow pages which closed as deletes, and an admin MFD'd a fourth Flow page which also closed as delete. This leaves only two other Flow pages (1) inactive Wikiproject Hampshire with one Project-related post in a half a year and (2) the Flow testing page. Several editors&admins have been discussing an RFC to remove Flow from EnWiki completely. We decided to wait for resolution on the Village Pump Gather RFC. Alsee (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Hampshire may be inactive because several people (myself included) deserted it after its talk page got Flowed. If it gets de-Flowed, I may return. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeuch. I understand the distaste for Flow, but I think in this case it would be better off to keep the archive for attribution purposes. If you look at the history of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast you can see it is largely nonexistant. This is not a copyright problem like it would be in article space because everyone's contributions have their signatures next to them, however it is still less than ideal if anyone is ever trying to navigate the history to figure out how things got way they are. Additionally, deleting the Flow archive would mean all edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast (pre-Feb 2016) would be deleted, which isn't ideal for looking at editors' contribs. If this were a 'normal' case, the archive would just be histmerged into the current project talk page and then what was leftover at the Flow archive could be deleted. I almost tried this just to see what would happen, but who knows with Flow – it could break the wiki just trying it. I also note the archive is fully protected (this is probably why you can't tag it for deletion), so it's not like someone will edit it by accident and I don't think anyone would now count it as a 'live' Flow page. In sum, I think we should keep it for attribution purposes, because it's not actively doing any harm and hopefully one day it will become histmerge-able. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This page should disappear anyway when the Flow extension removed from en.wp altogether. Otherwise, if this page stops Flow from being undeployed it is doing harm, especially with the large quantities of known bugs. MER-C 13:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If this page is being used as an excuse not to disable Flow on en, or if disabling Flow on en while the page is undeleted will cause serious problems, then sure, I agree it should be deleted. But at the moment, I don't see any evidence of that. I suggest keeping it until then. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24, the replacement talk page has non-existent history and only in-line attribution because the WMF didn't feel it was worth their time to build more complete conversion software. There is a (declined) Phabricator discussion on exactly how they could have created a full page history & edit-attribution for the talk page. I consider the current conversion software grossly inadequate for general use, but the conversion software is unlikely to be used anywhere on EnWiki beyond Project Breakfast and (hopefully) Project Hampshire. I dropped the issue in the interest of getting rid of Flow with a minimum of conflict.

I'm very averse to the idea of keeping Flow solely because the WMF declined make it removable. If a detailed page history for Project_Breakfast is important, we could request that the WMF set developers to work updating the software to fix the history. My first preference is to just leave it be and quietly delete Flow. Alsee (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you bring it to MFD, just tag Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast/Flow archive, and leave a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast. Explain your edits in the MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, lovely Flow bugs. The page *is* fully protected, but there's no protection entry in the history. The EDIT DESRCRIPTION link for the page is gone, but the new topic, reply, and edit-post buttons are still there. Those buttons still open the editor and let you type in a new post or edit an old post, but they all give a badly bugged error message when you try to save anything. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lovely indeed. Just tested (as an admin), I created a new topic and at no time did I get any indication that this page was protected. No popup, no pink box, no warning, nothing from start to finish. Fram (talk) 09:00, 19 February 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.

Motion: Activity

In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of Deskana (talk · contribs) are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.

Supporting: Callanecc, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Cross-posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Taharrush jamai RM

I'm looking for an admin to close a contentious RM: Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016.

The title has been in dispute since the article was created on 12 January. Because of that, the article scope keeps changing. SPAs and IPs have arrived on talk and have been reverting, and the page has had to be semi-protected twice since 5 February. An admin decision would therefore be very helpful. I posted a request for closure on WP:AN/RFC, but there's a long backlog. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sure thing, SarahSV. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that, Drmies. And I must apologize for posting about "circles of hell" before thanking you. You must have been thinking "no good deed ...". But when I wrote that, I hadn't noticed the close; in fact, I almost wrote: "I don't suppose I could tempt you to look at an RM," at which point I scrolled up and joyfully saw the purple. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I saw the ping while I was closing; I saw your earlier talk page post after I had made that edit--all this makes clear we can disagree on this point or that in good faith, I suppose. I was cheered by your change from the one RM to the next: your mind is agile. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't know whether you forgot to move it. The target page, Mass sexual assault in Egypt, exists as a redirect and has been edited by a bot. Because of the bot edit, I'd have to use the tools to delete it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Done. I'm uninvolved in this, so there should be no problem in me using the tools to implement Drmies' close. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24: thank you for doing that! SarahSV ^(talk) 06:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha, sorry, didn't know it was my job to actually do something. I thought I only got paid to yak. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: you get paid? I seem to be missing out here. How much am I owed for 10 years editing and 6 years admin? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

The following is proposed as an ArbCom internal process, it supplements the ArbCom procedure on CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity.

1. Arbitrators will check the CheckUser and Oversight statistics at the end of each month to identify functionaries who have not met the activity requirements in the preceding three months.
2. If a functionary has not met the requirements, they will be sent an email notification reminding them of the required activity levels and asking if and when they plan to return to activity.
3. If within two weeks a functionary does not meet the activity requirements or reply with an acceptable plan to return to activity, an arbitrator will send them a second email notification. This message will alert the functionary that their advanced permission(s) (CheckUser and/or Oversight) will be removed after two weeks unless they respond with a plan to return to activity.
4. If an arbitrator objects to a functionary's advanced permission(s) being removed automatically, they may notify the rest of the Arbitration Committee and initiate a discussion.
5. If a functionary has not responded to the second notification within two weeks or has not provided a plan to return to activity, and no arbitrator has objected, an arbitrator will post an announcement on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard announcing the change and thanking the functionary for their prior service, and will request removal of the permission(s) at the Stewards' noticeboard.
6. If an arbitrator has objected to automatic removal, a motion will be initiated and the Arbitration Committee will be notified via the arbcom-l mailing list. After two weeks the discussion will be closed and the permission(s) removed per the step above unless there are at least three arbitrators opposing removal, in which case it can be left open for more comments or a normal vote can be proposed.

Supporting: Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Guerillero, Keilana, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Casliber, Doug Weller

Opposing: Courcelles

Not voting/Abstaining: DeltaQuad, DGG, Drmies, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

Retrieval of content of a deleted article

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.

Could someone please provide me with a copy of the latest version of RoPeCast before deletion, I'd like to reuse the information in that article on a different page. A temp copy to user NS would be great, maybe User:Chrkl/RoPeCast would be suitable? Thanks! --chris 論 09:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Chrkl, the correct place to make that request is WP:REFUND, or the talk-page of the admin who deleted the article (in this case: Fastily). Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place to go, since I don't want the article undeleted and moved, I just want a copy of its latest content to work with some other place. --chris 論 09:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Chrkl, the correct place to make that request is WP:REFUND, or the talk-page of the admin who deleted the article (in this case: Fastily). Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 17 February 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.

Well, thank you for that overly polite and unbureaucratic piece of help. --chris 論 10:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender is correct. You've been advised of the proper place to make your request (by the way, undeletion/moving is the only way to fulfill your request, as simply copying the last version would not maintain proper attribution). ansh666 01:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC close review please?

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, can I request a discussion about one of my own RfC closes please?

Recently Sandstein closed an RfC here, saying that there was consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. This was expanded into a second RfC concerning galleries of images of living people in general, and after a post on WP:ANRFC I closed this second RfC here. I felt that there was generally a consensus to remove galleries of images of people wherever there's contention about which people should be selected to represent that particular group. In subsequent discussion on the talk page, users agree with the general thrust of my close but are concerned that I may have overreached the consensus in that (a) I suggested the close should apply to galleries anywhere in articles, not just to galleries in the lead and (b) I did not confine the close to ethnic groups; I felt it should apply to any large group of people rather than merely ethnicities and similar groupings.

I've considered this carefully and I think I'm right. If I applied the first restriction, i.e. just to the lead, then the only effect of my close would be to move galleries farther down the page. I don't see how this could abate the pointless contentions editors are concerned about because it's so easily circumvented. And if I applied the second restriction then I'm opening the way for endless quibbles about whether a particular grouping is really an ethnicity.

However, I generally agree that RfCs should be closed conservatively. I can understand the counterarguments to my close even though I think they're wrong ---- so I turn to the community for advice. Do I need to re-close more narrowly? Or would that open so many loopholes as to be self-defeating?—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As the person who closed the original RfC (and didn't substantially participate in the one you closed), I think you got the gist of it right. In the first RfC, the question was whether ethnic group articles (e.g., English people) should be illustrated with a gallery of group members in the infobox or lead. I concluded that consensus was to not do this, and also that consensus was that this applied to other large groups or classifications of people (e.g., religions, genders) for the same reasons: selecting these people is often very contentious (such as when a famous person's ethnic origin is contested), there are no objective criteria or sources for the selection, and the selection may not be representative. The second RfC, which you closed, was about whether consensus was really to also cover other large groups of people other than ethnic groups. I believe you correctly determined that there is. In my view, you also correctly put forth the view that this would also apply to galleries further down the page, if these galleries had, like a lead image, no purpose other than "here's what a bunch of x-people look like". But I don't think that consensus also covers galleries of aspects of human existence, such as amputations or haircuts. These remain covered by the general rules about galleries (no gratuitous or indiscriminate use of them), but the RfCs didn't really address this aspect in sufficient depth.  Sandstein  08:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Discussion of close (permalink here), I'm one of the editors who have expressed dissatisfaction with S Marshall's close. TaivoLinguist (Taivo), NebY and perhaps Carlotm are the others. I'm sure that if I pinged all of the editors involved in the RfC, more would object to his broad interpretation as well. I told him that I took issue with one part of his statement; it's where he stated that the close "would affect the galleries in Amputation or Child." It was clear to me that he was extending the the wording beyond lead issues and also to cover any gallery that has a bunch of humans in it. I stated, "The wording in dispute is about images in the lead, since that [particular] wording is in the guideline section about the lead. If I thought that the wording was to dictate galleries placed anywhere in the article (meaning not just in the lead), then I would have alerted a lot more people to the discussion, including WP:Med and WP:Anatomy, since I highly doubt that they would agree to remove galleries from the bottom of our medical and anatomy articles. The current wording of your close might be taken as license by editors to remove galleries of people or their body parts from any part of an article, even though the guideline wording at hand is currently in the lead section of the guideline, and this page is not a policy page." It's also the case that the text states, "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations." It focuses on articles that are about the groups, not every article that might concern humans. For what I mean, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead. I also noted that, despite his broad interpretation that the wording should extend beyond the lead, I (just like him) also questioned how it is any more of a problem to have ethnicity galleries or similar in the lead than lower in the article. I mean, the same concerns would still be taking place in the article, except now it would concern the lower part of the article instead of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that Taivo already commented here...but removed his comment. So I'm no longer sure what his full stance is on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I commented very quickly after this was posted and then thought that it would be better to get other, neutral comments, rather than rehashing the same things I said at the Talk Page for the guideline. My opinion on the matter (stated above quite clearly by User:Sandstein) hasn't changed--this guideline should affect articles about groups of humans, but not other articles. --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Taivo. And for the record, I don't necessarily object to S Marshall's interpretation that the wording extends to the lower part of the article as well (as in not just the lead). After all, I noted above that I've thought similarly. I think the people who didn't want these galleries in the lead wouldn't want them lower either, at least for ethnicity issues and issues very similar to that. I object to S Marshall's even broader interpretation that the wording applies to all articles that may at some point address a large group of humans; for example, a gallery of amputees at the bottom of an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein. To expand the scope also to other articles would in my opinion require (God forbid) still another RfC. --T*U (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm now minded to amend my close to elide the word "amputation", but would appreciate further commentary from previously uninvolved people.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 18 February 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.