Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271

Copyvio in timed text

Main page: WP:ANI § PM (BBC Radio 4)

I've tagged TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-experiment.ogg.en.srt for speedy deletion as a copyvio (its a verbatim transcript of a BBC radio programme), but because it's timed, text, and has no associated video, the tag is not showing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

N Deleted. I won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding of what was going there, but obviously it was a huge copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

TimedText-space is basically just captions for audio/video files. If the file itself is in the public domain or under fair use, then any transcription of the same content should be considered to fall under the same copyright classification, no? In any case, Sladen is an experienced user and should've probably been asked about this upfront. I can't seem to find the associated file, though, so I won't restore the TimedText just yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, it was quite clearly the entire text of a BBC program from the last few days. I can't imagine it being PD or fair use. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be the source material. Note the copyright notices. Please don't restore it. I don't know why such an experienced editor wouldn't know better but it is quite clearly a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Salvidrim! thanks for the heads up, I guess the mandatory {{AN-notice}} must have gotten lost. I would hope that those whom "won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding of what was going" on could restore this transcript in the mean-time, then pop-by WP:ANI#PM (BBC Radio 4) and ask any further questions thereafter. Beeblebrox: hopefully it's clear from the huge gaps in timestamps that the transcript covers ~5 minutes out of 60 minutes (ie. only what is needed for our purposes). Neither is it merely a direct transcription of audio: significant effort has been put into providing 50-millisecond resolution timings again to lessen any doubt. May I draw attention to the guidance at WP:G12 starting at the wording "For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria …".

All-in-all, seeing the handling of the above reminds me of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Media coverage#BBC Radio 4: Today Programme incident from a few years ago where we had enthusiastic admins diving in without context and threatening blocks/bans/deletes left-right-and-centre, all in the middle of other editors trying to get on and collectively deal with the resulting meta fallout and coordinate media appearances whilst other people were still wondering why they couldn't even edit (yes, IIRC I did the original reference transcripts for dealing with that incident too, and yes IIRC they got deleted randomly too, and yes they've been there just fine ever since). Please, take a deep breath, look around the relevant noticeboards, and if you "don't know why" ask other editors first. —Sladen (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted "randomly" it was deleted as a copyright violation. Which it is. Fair use of small bits of copyrighted material is usually ok, but five entire minutes of a copyrighted broadcast is excessive. The fact that it has to do with WP seems to be your underlying reason, but I am not aware of any exception to our copyright policies in cases of a user wanting to "deal with the resulting media fallout and coordinate media appearances." I am equally unaware of any requirement that I check every possible noticeboard before evaluating whether or not something is a copyvio. So I don't believe I will be restoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Indeed, while nobody can force a requirement to read admin noticeboards before wielding the wheel bit (hence the polite "please"), it may assist communication with other editors to at least more carefully read what is being responded to—prior to replying—as this would in-turn allow accurate quoting which may be helpful all-round. …I'm still puzzling over the juxtaposition of the preceding "I can assure the entire functionaries team is well aware of the situation."[1] with the following "won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding"[2].

As a proponent of libre content it pains me to to highlight en.wiki's policies for its own management, but; "Exemptions from non-free content policy are made for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia" (WP:NFEXMP). In terms of fair use, in the UK this falls under "criticism, review and reporting current events" as defined by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (plus enabling access by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, and the study by those with dyslexia or English as a second-language).

Now, at T+72 hours I think the immediacy of the people requesting a transcription has been served. It's now an ex-event. Thank you for having taken care of the deletion; I hope that should an occasion arise to restore it, the assistance will be equally helpful and …speedy. —Sladen (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point about the apparent cotradiction. When I said I didn't have the slightest understanding, that was because I had basically no experience with the "timed text" wikispace, but what it looked like to me was text that was supposed to be attached to an ogg audio file that was not in evidence, so no idea what was going on with that specifically, while being very aware of the broader situation as it had been under discussion on the functionaries mailing list (and apparently the checkuser mailing list before that) before moving on to an arbcom matter.

As to the matter of whether this was a permissible exception to our copyright policies, I don't think it was. I don't think it is at all a good idea for the volunteer community to even attempt to manage and respond to press attention. The WMF has staff who are paid to do that, and it is one area where the paid staff is undeniably better at the job than the volunteers. I can't see why simply linking to the original material would not be sufficient. Obviously we have differing opinions on that and I would have liked to see more participation here so that we could determine which of us was closer to the right answer, but you're right, this seems a non-issue now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably not in disagreement about those best placed to respond on behalf of the project… any/all people formulating a response (admin/arbcom/bureaucrat/_(WMF)/…) are still going to have the same premise/questions in order to inform themselves: who/when/where/what.

The radio boardcast of the PM piece accompanying the corresponding edits went out at ~17:28‒17:30; plus ~17:41 & ~17:49 BST—going-home-time for corresponding UK office-based people. Archive audio became available after 18:00 BST (17:00 UTC). There are other PR/WMF staffers which available in the US, but BBC Radio 4 GeoIP-based streams are unlikely to be as universally available; …and for the reasons you've quite rightly outlined above, distributing an entire … BBC program[me] out-of-band as audio would be a non-starter (a "huge copyvio"). Hence creating a copyright-compatible, minimally-relevant of transcript in textual form covering a sum of 325.4 seconds out of 3600. Precise contextual details were credited within the filename. Both approaches were wishing to protect the encyclopedia: one focused on protecting a staunch approach to libre content, and one focused on protecting the project itself.

I happened to have been the initial person who did the rollbacks/warnings, so my intent was probably pretty similar to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's actions: do the deed; document the details for others; and duck-out to allow distributed takeover. As it stands hopefully anyone who "needs" a copy can still fish it out of the logs. But yes, I completely agree, more input would certainly help to provide greater clarity as to whether one now needs to review the previous consensus/policies covering NFC non-article-space policies and I'm disappointed that others haven't chipped in. —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog

We are (unexpectedly) badly backlogged at WP:RFPP. Some help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I think only more appalling than the backlog is the kinds of articles being abused... "Vandalism orgy in Olympiacos B.C." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I request a restructure of my current TBAN

TBAN is maintained as is for now per discussion and Kosh's agreement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Preamble

This is a request to change, not remove my restrictions. I understand that I cannot use this request as a means to re-argue the ban that was placed on me, further, I have notified the banning administrator User:Fluffernutter already and have provided a link to this discussion. Per the conditions of that ban I may appeal at The administrators noticeboard or The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard . I am choosing to use the Administrators Noticeboard so as to get the maximum input of the community involved. I am also aware that once I post on the AN board, my conduct goes under a microscope and I may be subject to flat, airborne, returning objects flying in my direction. I appologize , in advance, for the length of this report. I felt it necessary to detail my behavior and those involved so as to give a fair report to both sides of the issue. I have sub-divded the argument so as to avoid the "Wall-O-Text" effect. I have further {hat} / {hab} 'ed the details to make reading this request easier.

Brief history of the ban

* I was topic banned for 6 months on October 1, 2013 by Fluffernutter.

* Six months elapsed and my ban was lifted.

* On April 14th , 2014 I was indef banned by Fluffernutter.

* The exact nature of my ban is : topic banned from "all pages and discussions related to transgender issues, broadly construed" .

* Record of the topic ban can be here .

More details are here .... condensed and hatted for easier reading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
History of the disruption * My disruption (the one that initially got me topic banned for six months, and blocked), consisted of my [leaving an edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter]. Even though I never did edit war, I understand and accept that my edit summary very much constituted disruptive behavior, and therefore my block and six months TBAN was fully earned .. * This incident started with a vote on the page that was at that time named Talk Bradley Manning. It's since been renamed to Talk Chelsea Manning [| this is the original version of my vote ]. [| This is (named admin's) edited version ]. * My original vote consisted of an oppose statement and my rationale, rather than just a straight "Oppose", as it's been my observation that just stating "Oppose" or "Support" is treated as an "I Do Like / I Don't Like " statement. Rationale matters. * Pretty quickly, my talk page filled up with requests to re-word my rationale, which I declined to do as I saw nothing wrong with my statement, the page asked for an opinion on a move, and I gave one and included reason in policy for the move. None of my post violated BLP, V, POLEMIC, nor could the post be considered Vandalism , nor could it be considered Copyright violation, nor even trolling. Therefore, I saw no valid reason to remove or refactor my post. * Fluffernutter took it upon herself to alter my post . Note that talk page comments can be removed if they contain libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, violations of blp or banning policies , personal attacks, trolling or vandalism. My post contained none of these, therefore removal of my comments violated TPO which states: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. Fluffernuter did not do this, she simply removed my comments, changed the meaning of them and refused to accept that TPO was ,in fact, being violated. She instead used "Discretionary Sanctions " as a rationale, however, TPO doesn't allow editing or removal of comments for "discretionary sanctions", nor does discretionary sanctions give any admin the right to remove or alter talk page comments, except for the exemptions given in WP:TPO. * At this point, I went to Fluffernuter's page to discuss and as you can see here I wasn't alone . I will state for the record, I didn't invite anyone into the discussion, those that were there came of their own free will. As you can also see, consensus was against this admin's change 3 to 1. The admin dismissed consensus and in fact, referred to it as a "consensus among cohorts", This is not the case, as I invited none of these people, they came of their own free will, and are certainly not cohorts. My history will show, they have not interacted with me regularly, nor I with them, especially not in any way that shows any kind of friendship between us, therefore her claim is invalid, the consensus was indeed neutral, and thus should have been accepted. Consensus is, after all, primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia. Further, this admin, in no way, backed up her claim that it was a "consensus of cohorts" with anything, thus making her claim a claim of bad faith. * During the time I was discussing it with her, her actions were reverted [| by MzMcBride ], and the [|admin promptly reverted] him. [| Also by Dolescum ] who was again, reverted by the same admin. [| Here] , I didn't revert Fluffernutter however, by this time, it had become clear the this admin was not going to accept consensus, nor TPO, but was going to do what they wanted irregardless, and I was pissed off, so I changed her redaction message, and no , it wasn't at all helpful, yes, it was me being a dick, no if, ands or buts about it, and no excuses either, I was a dick and flat wrong to alter her comments. [| A different admin] reverted. [| At this point ] I'd had it, to my eyes, policy was being ignored for admin preference and I did revert here (note I'm at 1RR, the original admin at 2 RR ). Yes, my edit summary was wrong, and yes, I promised to edit war with her, and yes, any such edit summary has to be treated as disruptive. Bear in mind that at that point, I'd done BRD, ANI, pretty much any dispute resolution that was available to me and even had other users supporting my position (both at ANI and on the admin's page) and the only response the admin would give anyone is that they can take it to arbcom. So as you can imagine, I was pretty incensed at that point. I don't say this as an excuse, merely as explanation for my actions. Either way, my actions counted as disruptive. [| At this point] Fluffernutter reverted placing her at exactly 3RR. At this point Fluffernutter then topic banned me for six months. * An ANI request was opened up on the same day, starting before my ban , again, with consensus against Fluffernutter. Fluffernutter's response was to say , essentially, "Take it to Arbcom" thus ignoring (once again consensus ). To be sure, my responses were not civil, however, bear in mind, I believed then, as I believed now that my vote was legitimate and did not rise to the level of having to be edited or partially removed.This was not taken to Arbcom, as Arbcom is the court of last resort, and before Arbcom would accept a case, all other avenues would have to be exhausted, and they were not, therefore, had I or anyone else did what Fluffernutter asked, Arbcom would have rejected the case, and would have kicked it back to ANI. An appeal was filed on my behalf at AE, which was declined , I believe this appeal was handled impartially and fairly. My ban was over in April, and yes I did edit the page I had been topic banned from (since it was over, there was no more topic ban ), it was to respond to a discussion [| here]. I started a topic called [| consensus check] and when it was determined that consensus was against me, per my agreement with Floquenbeam [[[| I voluntarily] dropped the subject and stayed away from that page. I'd also started a discussion on MOS:ID, and again, [| three people disagreed with me ] so I dropped it. After I dropped it, Fluffernutter dropped [| this ] on my page advising that I had been topic banned indefinitely, thus creating a punative block, rather than a prevantive one, in the form of a TBAN. Salient points My disruptive conduct in Talk:Chelsea Manning (and yes, this really was disruptive, no question about it ) consisted of 1RR with an edit summary promising to edit war. I never did edit war with Fluffernutter, and yes, I was blocked after that edit summary, and I definitely deserved it. That I didn't continue the edit war was beside the point, any promise to edit war is , even if not done, disruptive, and therefore, my block was fully deserved fully earned . However, this only happened on one specific article, not a whole swath of like (or even dissimilar) articles, thus the only disruption so far (either then , or within my history from day 1 to this moment ) existed in that one article only, for that one subject only . Thus it can be shown that I have no history of disruption across the topic of (to be filled in when this goes live ). Fluffernutter unequivocally violated WP:TPO in removing a chunk of my comments, and was further wrong to ignore the consensus on her talk page and on ANI, and even further, was wrong to advise the community to "take it to arbcom". She claims "Discretionary Sanctions" as her defense, and while there were Discretionary Sanctions on the page, in no part of the guidelines for Discretionary Sanctions does it state the admin can ignore consensus, nor does it say that the admin can violate TPO. Further the admin's actions were not neutral, the actions supported only one set of beliefs and nothing else Lest there be any dispute as to whether the votes on that page were re-written to subscribe to one set of beliefs on the subject, note that there were (and still are ) comments on that same page that give an argument counter to what I gave,(and note, per my ban, I cannot state what my argument was, but if you'll look at the references I'll provide momentarily, you'll see the counter argument still on the page and from that you should be able to deduce my argument ) and Fluffernutter not only let them stay, but failed to take any action on those comments, showing her to be partial to one side. Combat Wombat made this point clear to (admin's name to be inserted later ), and note that on the page in question Comments remain to this day (Specifically, "Support" # 11,14,17 & 25, "Oppose" # 1,7,12,14,16,36,37), that show the counter argument I mentioned a moment ago, any that were made were with a counter-argument similar to my own were removed by (admin's name to be added later) and still remain as such on the page to this very day, proving partiality to one side only, rather than her suggested aim of .... my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. Her next sentance is even more telling denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, (emphasis is mine ) which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue. . (Combat Wombat's comments and Fluffernutters are on the same link, referenced above on the comment "...Combat Wombat made this point....) The first topic ban was far-reaching and had little-to-no evidence of any conflict except in one section of one talk page, in one article, there the ban was deserved. However, rather than ban me from participating in that one article, I have been TBAN'ed - broadly construed from ( will be filled in just before I file ) thus the ban reached beyond the article in question and is punative, not preventative. The second (indefinite topic ban) was placed after I'd agreed to drop my argument, thus this ban was also punitive and not preventative.

My proposed outcome

I am , again, not requesting that my topic ban be lifted, but rather, restructured. Specifically:

* I request that I continue to be topic banned, broadly construed to only the topic of Chelsea Manning , my edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter cannot be construed any other way other than disruptive, even though I never carried out such a promise, as far as I'm concerned, it's proof that in that article, and solely in that article, I demonstrated disruptive conduct, as such a topic ban was clearly earned on my part.

* Fluffernutter has also topic banned me from MOS:ID under the same discretionary sanction. I ask for it to be lifted with the understanding that: I am to avoid MOS:ID for 6 months, broadly construed, after 6 months time, I may revert obvious vandalism only, six months after that, I can request a lifting of sanction from that page completly, and if consensus is that it be lifted, then good, otherwise, let consensus dictate what restrictions, if any should be given to me.specifically on MOS:ID.

* I would request that I be allowed to edit any other articles relating to transgender issues. There never was any history of disruption across that whole topic of transgender issues or people, only on one specific topic in one specific article, thus a topic ban for all such articles is punitive and not preventative.

KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as Proposer KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• TL;DR If you want any support for this proposal, please shorten it (or provide a summary). You know as well as I do that a lot of people aren't going to slog through this wall-o'-text. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment OK... a bunch of stuff's been hatted up - creating a brief summary. Thanks for the suggestion. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Question - How would any disruptive behavior on transgender related articles be handled if it occurs? Would you expect it to be treated like any other editor with incremental warnings (which for inexperienced editors amounts to a 5-strikes-you're-out policy), or would you expect to be under a higher level of scrutiny with fewer (or perhaps no) warnings? Just curious how you envision this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

*Answer EvergreenFir Per my agreement with Floquenbeam I would be on 0RR on Transgender articles (I'm by default on it anyway ), also per that agreement, any discussion that I get involved in , where at least 3 users in good standing disagree with me, I would need to drop what ever it is I'm discussing and leave it be, so this would take care of disruptive behavior. However, if I screw up , because I've been topic banned I'd fully expect a higher level of scrutiny. I'd say 1 warning only, if I fail for whatever reason to heed that warning, I get TBAN'ed again. I'm not a newbie, I know what 3RR and NPA is, so I would have no excuse. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a reasonable restructuring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose User has history of recommencing disruptive behaviour directly after bans/blocks. Behaviour on Manning was particularly egregious. Not encouraged by the appeal the second the moratorium on appeal expired either, unless the user can show us some edits they think need making so urgently. Begoon ^talk 21:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Look down at the next topic, I think this is a retaliatory strike against me for my comment on unbanning Peter Damien. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC) _{Struck out as a good-faith move. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)}

No Kosh, it's a genuine analysis. I looked through your talkpage archives shortly after you posted this, long before Peter's appeal was ever mooted. Not everything's a battle, even if you want to treat it as such. AGF, y'know. Fix the sig, please, it's ugly. Begoon ^talk 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, tell you what, just like I offered to below, if consensus says I'm wrong, I'll strike my comment. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't care. You accused me of a "retaliatory strike". It's bollocks, but strike it or leave it as you see fit. No skin off my nose either way. The sig is an eyesore, though, did I mention that? Begoon ^talk 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've got to agree that the signature is both a bit of an eyesore, and, well, at this point, kind of dated. Nimoy's been dead a month and a half at this point, and keeping it for this long does look, well, weird. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, I love the Nimoy tribute, it's the "look at me, I'm the biggest, most noticeable, blurriest thing on the page" thing that makes my eyes sore. Anyway, that's a discussion for somewhere else, and Kosh has had it drawn to his attention many times before. That's the kind of stubbornness that makes me uneasy about this request, actually. Oh look, we're back on topic. Begoon ^talk 21:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

2 users have asked me to change my signature, so , consider it done. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lose. the. shadow. I'm a huge B5 fan, so yeah, shadows. But lose it. It's visually offensive. That's an opinion, and I do acknowledge your willingness to consider change. Just consider change to something that doesn't overwhelm people's eyeballs. That's a request, nothing more. Begoon ^talk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the sig, fix it for real. You're not exactly showing a lot of cooperative and collegial spirit for someone who wants a topic ban adjustment. BMK (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lose the shadow. It's distracting and unclear. Try to listen to your colleagues when they raise a genuine concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Heck yes, kill the shadow and make the whole thing less huge. IMHO, even your revised sig does two things, both of which are bad for you. It makes you look egotistical (ME!ME!ME!) and it distracts from what you're actually saying. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I like artistic signatures, sorry about that :) I did change it again, no shadow this time. Hopefully this is a bit better. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Now, part of it is so faint it makes me think my eyesight is failing even as I read it. BMK (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing colors is pretty easy.KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it looks cool and I was thinking of making a sig like that but I won't. Don't want to hurt others eyes. Popish Plot (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that the signature's settled. Let's get a consensus on my proposed outcome :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, let's. I'm still opposed, for the reasons I gave above, but open to persuasion. You didn't answer the question about what edits you want to make that you're currently prevented from making. Maybe I didn't phrase it that well. I'll rephrase it: What edits do you want to make that you're currently prevented from making? Thanks for adjusting the sig. Begoon ^talk 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Begoon Sorry, I missed your question the first time. At the moment, there are no edits that I need to make, however, I do vandal runs and my restrictions prevent me from removing vandalism on any transgender articles, also, my restrictions make it impossible for my to participate in any way on any issues that touch transgender issues. If allowed I to edit and particpate I would observe the agreement I have with Floquenbeam (0RR, no hatting anyone's stuff except mine, 3 users in good standing tell me to drop the stick, I drop it ). Thank you KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon Tagging on to the response of 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC), How frequently are you hitting TG articles during your vandal runs? What is the mean time to someone else noticing the vandalism (after you've spotted it) to being reverted? What specific topics would you have participated in had the restrictions on TG issues not been in place for you? I'm trying to establish a feeling for your influence/impact before I give my view. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur I don't hit a lot of articles on my vandal runs, I can sometimes go a few runs with no Transgender topics being hit. Keep in mind, it's not just articles I'm restricted from, any place on Wikipedia where a transgender topic is mentioned, AN, ANI, BLP, V, etc... I literally can not say a word about it. As to your second question, what topics would I have participated in? Well, Leelah Alcorn, specifically this section in the talk page comes to mind, also this talk page discussion on Leelah Alcorn as well as the very next message in the talk page, also here on a BLP board message called Women and Video Games. If you're asking , would I continue the same argument I had before, no, in fact, I'm still asking that I be banned from the topic of Chelsea Manning, broadly construed and I'm also asking that for now, I remain banned from MOS:ID, also broadly construed to prove that I'm not looking to re-hash the same argument. Does that answer the question ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why the restriction should be relaxed in the face of the few incidents in which your restriction is prohibiting you from participating. Given that there's a great amount of volunteers who can (and would handle the issues you raise as the justification for relaxing). Seeing that the case was decided a little under 2 years ago, and you were warned again less than a year ago about the ArbCom case I see relapses of poor judgement. Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kosh, I'd like to ask you a question. It's a long time ago that you made that agreement with Floq. Why, instead of moving past that, and growing to a point where that kind of thing would be unnecessary, are you still the kind of editor that needs such a restriction? It's been a long while. Sorry if you think that's presumptuous, but I often wonder why people don't basically change and grow. This should be a thing buried in your past by now. Yet it's not. Begoon ^talk 15:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Begoon I kept the restriction because it worked well for me. I'm a believer in the phrase "If it works, dont' change it " :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm going to stay in the "oppose" camp, for now, then, because "If it works, dont' change it " [sic]. I think the restriction has been working quite well, but I encourage you to appeal it again, after a reasonable time, if there are good edits which it is preventing which are not getting done. Begoon ^talk 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(So this is how things end up appearing in the archives twice... I've often wondered. Fixed.) Begoon ^talk 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The project will not be harmed if the existing restriction is maintained. There's reason to believe it might be harmed if the restriction is restructured. Townlake (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't like complicating restrictions or unnecessarily relaxing them. I'd have been open to agreeing to providing an exception for obvious vandalism only, but well...that can wait. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry for arriving much later than my notification; I've been on (and am still on, actually, but I've finally gotten a bit of internet access) holiday the past few weeks. So, to catch up: as Kosh says, I am the admin who imposed this set of restrictions, back in 2014. My initial inclination upon reading the opening of this thread was "Hm, well, Kosh has been doing pretty well lately, let's give this some thought", but after reading the collapsed portion of the thread and the discussion so far here, I'm going to oppose changing sanction (inasmuch as I can oppose changing my own sanction, anyway). My main concern with Kosh's editing pattern is that when things get heated, especially in an area where he has strong opinions, he reacts by becoming more heated, more disruptive, and sometimes more expansive (i.e. taking the Manning issue to the MOS when doing it on the article/article talk didn't go his way) rather than backing away. This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella.

  In a hot-button topic area under Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, like transgender issues is, that's something we need to minimize where we reasonably can. It's not enough to even say "well, after X people complain, I might then back away"; Discretionary Sanction policy is especially formulated to allow us to quickly head off, and prevent, disruption before that point. Kosh's repeated episodes of disruptive editing in this topic area indicate to me that whatever drives his behavior there, it's a long-term issue rather than one that can be dealt with (as my initial efforts tried to do) with requests, warnings, or even short-term sanctions; therefore, the best solution is to keep him away from the topic entirely unless and until there's reason to think the behavior will change. That's not to say that I'd never be willing to remove or modify this restriction, but I would need to see some commitment to avoiding - recognition of "yes, I see how that led us here, I am going to consciously focus on not doing those things from now on" - those behaviors in the future before I'd be comfortable doing it. Instead, we're in a situation where a) the user does not actually wish to make any particular edits to the area of transgender issues, b) their summary of the situation shows continued, significant misinterpretations of the policies that govern areas under discretionary sanctions (many of the admin, DS, and talk policy misunderstandings that plagued both of our original discussions of the topic bans are repeated, nearly verbatim, in Kosh's comments above), and c) the user shows no particular recognition that their initial behavior was problematic in the first place. That's just not enough for me to take the leap of faith given the history here.

  That all said, as Ncmvocalist has also suggested, I would be fairly agreeable if Kosh wanted to request some sort of exemption for reversions of obvious vandalism to related articles - I'd hardly be inclined to throw the book at anyone for reverting "So-and-so is a poophead", anyway - as long as a hefty dose of common sense is applied to the definition of "obvious". "Poophead," yes. Anything requiring significantly more editorial judgment than that, no.

  Note: I'll be in transit for pretty much all of tomorrow/Monday and probably unable to respond to anything here unless the wifi gods are being particularly benevolent; I will check back in Tuesday in case anyone has responses or questions about my comment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

* Reply Fluffernutter I appreciate your reply. I'll address your comments one by one: You write here

It's not enough to even say "well, after X people complain, I might then back away"

That's actually not a might it's a must and that's also an agreement Floquenbeam Floquenbeam suggested to me, which I accepted. I will point out that there's an example of me doing this on this AN case, my signature, three people complained about my signature, and rather than arguing or digging in and saying "this isn't about my signature", I changed it and even changed it again when the signature was still deemed unacceptable.

Here you write My main concern with Kosh's editing pattern is that when things get heated, especially in an area where he has strong opinions, he reacts by becoming more heated, more disruptive, and sometimes more expansive (i.e. taking the Manning issue to the MOS when doing it on the article/article talk didn't go his way) rather than backing away. This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella.

That I'm aware of, (and I admitted to this in the collapsed section above ) I changed your message stating you'd altered my message per discretionary sanctions, and I admitted it was a dick move, which it was. I also admitted reverting you on the talk page of Chelsea Manning and promising to edit war, I also admitted this was disruptive and that my block and subsequent T-Ban for it was deserved. I also admitted getting blocked on MOS:ID. So, yes I did admit to where I went wrong. I don't recall any incidents where I carried the same behavior to any other article within the transgender umbrella, if you do, will you show examples ?

Here you write That's not to say that I'd never be willing to remove or modify this restriction, but I would need to see some commitment to avoiding - recognition of "yes, I see how that led us here, I am going to consciously focus on not doing those things from now on" - those behaviors in the future before I'd be comfortable doing it. Instead, we're in a situation where a) the user does not actually wish to make any particular edits to the area of transgender issues, b) their summary of the situation shows continued, significant misinterpretations of the policies that govern areas under discretionary sanctions (many of the admin, DS, and talk policy misunderstandings that plagued both of our original discussions of the topic bans are repeated, nearly verbatim, in Kosh's comments above), and c) the user shows no particular recognition that their initial behavior was problematic in the first place.

I actually did state that promising to edit war was disruptive and that changing your hatted note was dickish, so I have already have recognized where I went wrong. Yes, I realize you believe my vote was wrong, I disagree that it was or is, I'm not arguing, just stating that's what I believe. Further, I am offering to stay away from the Chelsea Manning article due to my disruptive behavior, and stay away from MOS:ID because I have strong feelings about it that consensus didn't support and don't want to re-hash them. My disruptive behavior was confined to those to spots only, to the best of my memory, no where else, but I would welcome examples of such. Also, misinterpretations of policy ? Can you show examples ? I don't see any, when I mention policy, I mention it as it's written. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• You say That's actually not a might it's a must. Which is great, except that your 0RR and "back away" restrictions were already in effect at the time I originally topic banned you and...you ignored them, which is why I had to fall back on a topic ban in the first place. You reverted my redaction of your comment a number of times, going so far as to flatly say "Revert me again fluffernutter and I'll revert right back" ([3]) while your talk page displayed, in a large box, "I limit myself to 0RR. I will observe both the letter and the spirit of this rule.". Your "back away" restriction includes a clause that it's only valid when "no one has supported my position", which rather moots the whole thing as far as you listening to the judgments of experienced users. The fact is that you only seem to abide by your restrictions when your temper isn't heated and when they match what you already think, which amounts to not following them at all given that the whole point was to keep you from digging into heated situations disruptively.
• I actually did state that promising to edit war was disruptive and that changing your hatted note was dickish, so I have already have recognized where I went wrong. Yes, the reverting was disruptive. But it only got as far as reverting because you were failing to recognize that your original conduct (BLP-violating, inflammatory commentary about a living person) was a problem. I realize that you see nothing wrong with anything you said in those discussions, and I can't make you agree that there was anything wrong, but from my perspective, as long as you don't get why your pre-reversion behavior was a problem to begin with, I'm not comfortable letting you return to making commentary like that in topics like that.
• Also, misinterpretations of policy ? Can you show examples ? I don't see any, when I mention policy, I mention it as it's written. Well, at the risk of being glib: exactly. You have repeatedly stated, for example, that I violated "WP:TPO" by redacting your comments (1, 2, 3), but your belief in that values the literal wording of one part of the guideline ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning") over what the guideline says a few lines down ("Some examples of appropriately editing other people's comments: [...] Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies"), what WP:BLP says ("This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."), and what Discretionary Sanctions policy allows ("Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." - emphasis mine). It also ignores that 3RR, which you claim I violated, contains an explicit exemption for reverting BLP violations. All of those things, especially BLP, overrule TPO.

  Similarly, when I implemented your longer-term topic ban, you argued that such a ban couldn't be imposed because transgender discretionary sanctions could not apply to pages outside that direct topic area ("WP:MOS is under a different sanction, not sexology, therefore [transgender DS] can't apply" - sentiments expressed here and here) As far as I can tell, you remain convinced of that fact. So when I say that you appear to misunderstand policy, it may be more accurate to say that you misunderstand policies: you seem to have trouble reconciling how the wording of one policy/guideline interacts with the wording and intent of others, and it's leading you down the garden path of disruption because you're taking actions that you believe are just fine, but which are actually completely inconsistent with a number of policies, and then you're struggling to understand why the rug just got pulled out from under you when someone tells you you can't do what you were doing. My concern is that as long as you're having trouble understanding how talk policy, NPOV, BLP, and Discretionary Sanctions interact, we can't be sure that you're going to be able to govern your behavior properly in this area, even if you 100% perfectly intend to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fluffernutter I appreciate your reply. What you said here You say That's actually not a might it's a must. Which is great, except that your 0RR and "back away" restrictions were already in effect at the time I originally topic banned you and...you ignored them is 100 % correct. I didn't live up to my agreement, I totally admit it. Here I intend to. By my count (and I realize because I'm involved my count is unofficial ) there are at least 3 users who are against changing my T-Ban in anyway. I'm ok with this request being closed and having the T-BAN stay as it is. If that happens I will continue to obey it as I'm doing so now.

However, you made a claim you hadn't backed up yet, it was this comment This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella. As I said, my conduct took place in the Chelsea Manning article , it's talk page and MOS:ID only, no other area, what other areas do you see this same conduct appearing in ?

Regarding TPO, I did actually read all of it, and don't believe my vote violated BLP at all, you believe otherwise, now understand, I'm not going to get into a big-long winded screed about it, I understand you believe it, and because you believe it, you believe your action was justified under BLP and TPO. I hear you loud and clear on that. Remember too that it wasn't just me saying nothing was wrong with my vote, in my hatted section, I note that three other individuals agreed with me , no I won't get into a big screed about that either, it's done and history, just to say, it wasn't me alone that disagreed with you.

Like I said, I'm willing to have this closed and I will stick to the T-BAN as you laid it out with no bitching about it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone

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 admin please put a stop to this post-haste? Both editors involved seem to have dirty hands and the discussion is getting pretty heated. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Help please

Can someone help clean up the mess made at Jack Meakin by a persistently disruptive editor that I've dealt with over the past few months? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two articles that Accy192 (talk · contribs) has been editing. The JM that Connormah has linked to and Jack H. Meakin. They do seem to be about two different people but the moving of the one to the other may take some untangling. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Connormah MarnetteD - Hi, It is not vandalism, I have merely located them to the right locations and added relevant information. They are about two totally different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accy192 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Accy192: How did you determine that the middle initial of this obscure Calgary Stampeder CFL player is "H"? I was unable to find that information online anywhere, including at the Stampeders website. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This user has persistently hijacked the article over the past few months, even after my talk page note and multiple reversions. The article they're creating has also been deleted twice. I'd semiprotected it a month or so ago but obviously forgot to move protect it too. Right now it's a mess and I'm not too sure how to go about reverting this... Connormah (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Accy192 Please read my post. I did not say that your edits were vandalism. All I did was provide a couple of links to help others examine this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Connormah if I remember correctly Keegan (WMF) knows the ins and outs of merges and moves. If my memory is faulty my apologies to Keegan. MarnetteD|Talk 02:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Connormah (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

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, could somebody please look at the WP:AIV backlog. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

UAA backed up

Can we get some ADMIN brand drain-unclogger there? BMK (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User violated personal attacks

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

---

A user by the name of Kuniwa egregiously violated Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks on my talk page, with profanity no less. He just told me to "go fuck [myself]". I'm demanding he be blocked. Thanks. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to this no doubt. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Who's side are you on, Harry. If you take a look at Kuniwa's edit right here, you'll see he's nothing but a vandal. He added that over 11,000 people had been killed in the earthquake, when everybody knows nowhere near that many were killed. And then he violated WP:NPA. He should still be blocked. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not obviously vandalism. 11500 could be a typo for 1500. Your response is over-the-top and unwarranted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks he's a vandal. Kuniwa just got blocked indefinitely for his disruptive editing. Do you still think my response was "unwarrented", DrKiernan? :) Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the side of civility. If you expect civility you have to be civil yourself, even in the face of vandalism. IME using profanity on someone else's talk page will often lead them to respond in kind. Neither is right of course. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You think it acceptable to call someone a prick and tell them to get a fucking life and then complain when they respond in kind. Look to your own behavior first. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made an additional request of User:Scaravich105nj here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The irony here is hard to miss, complaining that someone said "go fuck yourself" and demanding they be blocked when you just got finished calling them a prick, goddamn vandal, and a douchebag in a single edit. You are lucky not to be blocked yourself right now, so I hope your agreement on your talk is something you take to heart and actually do. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, to each his own, Beeblebrox, to each his own. You know the old saying, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You aren't seriously trying to defend that edit, are you? This doesn't fill me with confidence that you understand why that was wrong and are sincere in your promise not to act like that in the future. You have drawn attention to yourself with this ill-advised thread, as I'm sure you must realize by now. Acting like that again would not be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Can a blocked user enable the email facility in their account

user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (MMAR)is currently blocked including access to user talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. As can be see on the history of the talk page MMAR has allegedly let it be known that (s)he has read some messages and wants them deleted. Is it possible for a blocked user to edit their user profile and enable email so that (s)he can contact other users via email sent from that user account (as proof that they control that user account)? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, MMAR is blocked and his talk page access has been removed, so other editors should not be proxying for him by acting on his requests for changes to the talk page. I see you restored the deleted material, and I would have done the same. Second, I'm not sure if blocked editors can access and edit their Preferences or not, but are you sure MMAR didn't have e-mail enabled before the block? I do know that blocking doesn't automatically stop access to e-mail, that has be be specifically selected in some way. (Not an admin, so I don't know the specific procedure.) Third, if MMAR is using e-mail to recruit other editors, his e-mail access should be cut off. BMK (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A blocked user can still change their preferences and set an email address. However email access can be blocked as well. Normally it is not blocked, but if a user is abusing it then email access can be blocked. user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is currently permitted to send email from their Wikipedia account. Also we should have notified the user in question that he is being discussed here, even if he cannot join in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's the case, since the requirement for notification is based on the presumption that the subject should be able to respond to the report. But if the user is blocked from editing, and has talk page acccess revoked, how would he be expected to respond? IN that situation I would think that notification would not be mandatory. BMK (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The box at the top of this page says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"; it does not mention any preconditions or qualifications. Anyway it is a courtesy so that the subject of the discussion can read what people have to say about them. They can always response by on or off wiki email or via IRC if they want to. I have notified the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. BMK (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

However MMAR was not the subject of this discussion. The subject of this discussion was whether a blocked user could alter their email preferences. By your reading of the statement at the top of this page BMK every single blocked user who has not enabled their email option ought to be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"They can always response by on or off wiki email or via IRC if they want to." How do one know that an off wiki email or an IRC message has come from the a person who controls a Wikipedia user account? -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about IRC, but emails from WP's internal email function always say "this message was sent to you by Wikipedia user <username>" or something like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No idea about the technical aspect, but if the user (or someone impersonating them) is asking to have messages removed from their talk page, why not just blank the users's talk page and move on with life? This is way too much energy expended on the state of a blocked user's talk page. If he makes another request for unblock, the previous notices can be restored. --B (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A currently open CfD which would interfere with a not-yet ready mass CFD

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 29#Category:Churches in Ukraine, a discussion which is still open, discusses renaming a few categories from "churches" to "church buildings". I voted against, since the whole tree of Category:Church buildings needs to be handled; and then started to work on a nomination for the whole tree. Assuming that the current discussion isn't closed when I'm ready to start my planned discussion, would it be reasonable toclose this discussion as "Procedural close in favor of a wider discussion" along with a link to the new discussion, provided that I explicitly notify all users from this discussion? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a very good solution, particularly as you have expressed an oppose, and you would be closing the discussion with a de-facto result that is the same as your position. I think there are 3 options: try to find someone willing to close it with some result, get the supporters to all agree to withdraw it in favor of the wider discussion, or to just wait for it to end naturally. Best would be to hope someone reading this decides they are comfortable closing it. You could also post a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure asking someone to close it promptly so that it doesn't interfere with the broader one. Monty₈₄₅ 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would have gone with the third option you suggested (and not even bothered asking here), if not for the fact that we have a 3-month backlog at CFD; and I doubt the second would be likely to work here. The first may work out; however, the advantage of my proposal is that it would deal with the question of of which goes first (I could close the open discussion and make my planned CFD go live, once I'm done getting it ready, saving both within a couple seconds). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please open the new discussion, and I will close the old one as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I expect to open it tomorrow between 3:30 and 4:00 UTC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I just openned the new nomination (at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings) - can someone please close the old one? (Ymblanter promissed to, but other admins are welcome to beat him/her to it.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Close review at ANI

Discussion re-opened by User:Ncmvocalist. Please opine there if desired. --B (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Please review the close of the Doors22 matter here. I asked Jusdafax to self-revert his non-admin close, and he said no and instead asked me to "extend the hand of collegial understanding to Doors." In my view neither the close nor that response deals with the heart of the matter. From Doors22 first month here, he stated that: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" His edits to date have been dedicated to that one mission as the evidence I presented showed. I have never seen a more clear case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:Civil POV pushing (not so civil quite often) and do not understand how the close could not recognize this. Doors22 has rejected all advice to stop over the 4 years of pushing his POV. Extending a hand of understanding could not be less relevant: Doors22 has no interest - at all - in building an encyclopedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog, it looks like you forgot to notify me about this on my talk page but anyway it seems like you will continue to protest in new forums each time the community disagrees with you unless you get your way. I think it's pretty from the statement that you quoted that I have been interested in abiding by Wikipedia standards since I've joined. I admitted on several occasions I've made mistakes and will continue to improve accordingly. As I have gotten acquainted with MEDRS sources, you will see that all of my references are completely legitimate and credible.

If you look at the finasteride article, the adverse events section is for the most part reasonable and in my opinion it is written with a neutral point of view. It seems to me that you don't want there to be any mention of adverse events which does not seem to be neutral to me. For any admin who may read this, JYTDog has been aggressively going after me for almost two weeks straight now and I'm not sure how to handle this situation appropriately. I've been pursued on talk pages, after which he filed an ANI incident report that was closed after over a week of inaction, and now he is trying to reopen it. Several editors in the incident reported that he is "extremely aggressive". I have tried to make peace with him and suggested we be more collaborative in the future but he does not seem to be interested in doing so. Rather it feels like he wants to continue battling (which I do not) and has challenged me to a slam dunk competition. I would prefer to put this behind us and move on. Doors22 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I want to add, that for those concerned with the corrupting influences of COI or advocacy (which should be everybody), the community needs to be able to address cases like this. I brought this thing to ANI to address Doors' behavior in particular -- but this is exactly the kind of case that should have - and could have - been brought against Wifione two years ago'. Doors was a kind of a test follow up case to Wifione, chosen carefully because the pattern of Doors' editing is so, painfully, obvious, including a goddam mission statement from him. There are a couple other editors with a clear pattern of long-term POV pushing for companies (very probably paid editors but no disclosure) that I will bring to ANI in the next six months or so (and i will not mention paid editing. Just long term POV pushing, just like Doors). The cases I have coming will be less crystal clear than this (no mission statement). All those people wringing their hands over our helplessness about long term COI editors and long term advocacy, should be very unhappy about this close. We have the Wifione precedent. We need to be able to use it. Which means some admins have to be willing to actually look at the evidence provided. (if some admins did and saw no case, that would have been useful to know. i cannot believe anybody who actually took fifteen minutes to review, couldn't see it, but maybe i am a crank; but then again there were ten editors who voted to "support". Ten.) We editors can do all the work in the world to tee things like this up, but if this case cannot get closed with action, the community is, in a word, dead meat. I am somewhat hopeful the close will be over turned, and the correct close made. I will add here that I had some concern about bringing this to ANI, where the peanut gallery jumps in and distractions arise. If long-term POV pushing can only be handled at Arbcom, that would be... a bummer. But maybe that is what it has to be. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

i'll just note again, that even in his comments above, doors give no sign that he understands that his behavior to date adds up to SOAPBOX and NOTHERE and that this is not OK. Not a twinkle of self-awareness. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• • (multiple ec) Needless to say, I disagree with Jytdog about my non-admin closure. Jytdog describes himself on my talk page today as "controversial," which may explain why not one administrator chose to take action of any kind at ANI or from the request here. The ANI filing included edgy irregularities that included pings of involved editors (hence the questionable claims of community consensus) and charges of !vote stacking, all of which were ignored by administrators. One is forced to conclude that every admin that reviewed it saw it as a colossal time-sink, which unfortunately I am finding to be the case. After days of looking at the bloated, unreadable thread languishing at the top of ANI and then reading this statement by Doors 22, found above on this page, I decided to take action and close, urging the two parties to work together. Instead, not getting the type of closure he wanted, Jytdog has continued his efforts to topic ban Doors22 by going to my talk page to ask me to reverse my closure, and when I declined, now here.

I would ask for consideration of my carefully-crafted statement in the closure, then ask the question: just who is it who is currently uncollegial and disruptive at this time? Jytdog's request on my talkpage appears to me to reveal a disturbing equation of this case with basketball games. I request that he be reminded by an administrator that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and give him a piscatory comeuppance should he continue to fail to drop the stick. Enough is enough. Let's move on, to ArbCom if need be, where the edits of all concerned will be reviewed. Jusdafax 04:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog has a history of misusing and misquoting wikipedia guidelines. So many times he has repeated I am here to use wikipedia as a soapbox but that is entirely untrue. The edits he has questioned do report on scientific/medical matters but they are all written in an objective voice backed by MEDRS sources. There is no opinion about this and the language that is in the article is actually very conservative (this was also pointed out in the ANI incident). For unfamiliar users, please visit the finasteride section on side effects to see where he is mistakenly pointing to a pov/soapbox/advocacy platform or whatever you want to call it. It's very ironic that he claims to be focused on stopping COI/POV/Paid editing (a good thing) when he has been accused countless times of being a paid editor trying to clean up negative posts about corporations and GMOs. If you google JYTDog, the second link (outside of wikipedia) includes a very lengthy discussion on the notoriety of his own POV editing on wikipedia. He even used to have an essay on his userpage saying he was not concerned with COI/advocate editors since the process would naturally straighten them out. I have said this before (but was apparently ignored by JYTDog), it is misleading to say that 10 editors voted to support his proposal because 6 of them were pinged by him or involved in some way. The remainder is not large enough to form a consensus when there were many uninvolved editors who opposed the report. This is going in circles and really begs the question as to why JYTDog cares so much about this one issue. Doors22 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

we'll see Jusdafax. The case is a slam-dunk for long term POV pushing, an issue you completely - completely - ignored in your close.

for everybody (and only in light of jusdafax's effort to discredit me and again distract from the issue of doors editing) - jusdafax and i have bumped heads a few times - most recently Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks where he weighed in to !keep an essay that was overwhelming rejected by the community and said of those who !voted to delete, among whom I was quite vocal, as follows:

" I have felt for many years that Wikipedia is overrun by business, corporate and yes political interests with a COI to the mission of Wikipedia, who in some cases are protected by those inside the system. These people are organized, well-funded, and will do anything to anyone to get what they want. The Wifione case is just the tip of the iceberg, in my view, and quite small compared to as-yet unexposed examples of ongoing deeply problematic editing. And the effort to, as I see it, stifle discussion by deleting this relatively harmless essay is something I can't help but regard as worthy of contemplation and even suspicion." (emphasis added)

This is along the lines of comments he made on his talk page a couple of years ago about my editing at the GMO/Monsanto articles (i was the one being accused of being a POV pusher). he has apparently made up his mind since then.

Not a neutral closer. I wasn't going to go there Jusdafax, but you should not have closed this - by amplifying doors' transparent effort to distract from the issue of his POV pushing (and going further by throwing my own acknowledgement that i am a subject of controversy in my face), and dismissing clear evidence of long-term POV pushing, to grind whatever ax you have against me and the "friends" you referenced in your close, you have done the community a disservice. What makes it extra maddening, is that you just also told doors that he is a SPA and should stop. And he didn't heed your advice either, as you acknowledge here. all i can say about your close, is wtf. really. wtf. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

if anybody cares, the thing i used to have on my Talk page about COI editing referenced (twisted) by Doors was this. Here are my current thoughts. This is just ugly dramah-making. in other words, the BATTLEGROUND continues. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are really the only one who is battling at this point, leading to harassment. This follow up discussion is getting too long so I'm hoping to not contribute again if possible. I have nothing in common with WifiOne you are trying to highlight as precedent. I am not a paid editor, I am not an admin, I have not lied about anything and I am not editing on behalf of a company. Please look at the finasteride article and you will see a neutral point of view (some even consider it conservative. You are in no position to complain of POV when so many other users have brought up this problem about you. If any admins here take the time to read this and can provide suggestions on how to get JYTDog to stop harassing me, it would be appreciated. I also find it very strange you are so strongly advocating to rid wikipedia of COI (in this very thread where it has no place) yet you voted to delete a COI Ducks essay. What is going on with you? Thanks. 05:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs)

yes, its possible for you to not comment anymore doors. and please just stop throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. please. it is very obvious that you would like to put this behind you so you can go right back to POV-pushing, which you have yet to acknowledge is a problem. i have never said you have a COI. i have said you are here to advocate one POV on one topic, as described in your mission statement. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, Stop. This is a request for a close review. A close review is not for continuing the underlying arguments about the subject that was closed. Please limit discussion to whether the interpretation of consensus made by the closer, in the discussion as it was when closed, was reasonable or not. As a close is a quasi administrative action, it would also be fair to discuss any concerns about whether the closer should be considered WP:INVOLVED. But again, don't continue the underlying discussion here. Monty₈₄₅ 13:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. i look forward to comments. If I was dumb to bring this to ANI or the case itself was bogus, I am very open to hearing that, on my user page or here or via email, as folks feel is appropriate. But yes, the point of my opening this was to review the close. I won't comment further unless asked to. I do want to add that I realize that I am being fierce about this and am looking like an ass, perhaps. But the case is very clear, and I really did think this was a no-brainer to help the community establish a way to deal with longterm COI/advocacy. that is what is at stake. And i'll note that the finasteride article is actually fine; it has just been hell to keep it that way. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose closure - Support re-open. The close doesn't appear to address either numerical consensus or strength of arguments. As written, it reads as the closer's personal opinion that the filer should "extend the hand of collegial understanding" to the subject, and so is not a proper close. Maybe the closer only meant to say that there was no consensus. However, the closer didn't say that he had taken the arguments and comments into account. It is probable that the closer did take those into account, but it would have been a better close if he had referred to strength of arguments. Recommend that the close be reversed, and that a new close be done by an uninvolved administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose closure - Support re-open - Robert's analysis is spot on. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose closure - Support re-open - The closing editor had a beef with both Jytdog, as outlined above, and with myself as a secondary complaintant. During an essay deletion debate of a few weeks ago (I was the nominator), he called my nomination "suspicious". When I responded with a personal attack template left on his user page (admittedly an over-reaction on my part, for which I left an apology that was not accepted), he accused me of a "campaign of intimidation" on the project discussion page and banned me from his user page. I'm amazed that Jusdafax thought closing this discussion as an "uninvolved" editor was an appropriate thing to do. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose closure - Support re-open - the close does not consider the !votes that were made regarding the topic ban but in effect cast a supervote against the topic ban, saying, "the subject's recent comment at AN expresses notable contrition and growing and sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to move forward as an editor without sanctions, in this closer's view." The job of the closer is to evaluate consensus, not to close with their own view. On that point alone, the close should be overturned. That the closing editor was not as uninvolved as was implied, given recent disputes with one "side" of the discussion as outlined above, only strengthens the need to overturn this close. Ca2james (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on the closure but just wanted to observe that no one "voting" on this closure so far is actually an administrator. Lately, there has seem to be more nonadmin participation on AN and ANI than admins. Do we need a recruitment drive? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment(non admin) Yes, another non admin, but I have been closing. If a comment on a talk page years ago would stop someone closing, I fear not many would be done. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "comments made on a talk page years ago" should not be an impediment. Those under discussion here were earlier this month. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 20:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My comment was in response to this claim diff. Where a diff from 2013 was used. As for the other diff used, it was in an unrelated deletion discussion that does not appear to be specifically directed at anyone. AlbinoFerret 21:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If non-admins, some of whom (like myself) are non-admin closers, think that this non-admin close was incorrect, then it isn't because the closer was not an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert, that is my understanding, that those opposing the closure are objecting to the closing decision, not that it was closed by a nonadmin. Still no admins weighing in here. Curious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• For deletion discussions, a non-admin close can be reversed by any admin, so I would assume that community sanction discussions would be the same (as a decision to sanction or not sanction a person is of more importance than a decision as to whether or not Wikipedia will carry an article on a new brand of toothpaste). That no admin has felt inclined to do so nor even felt inclined to do anything in the original discussion probably says that re-opening it would be a fruitless endeavor. (Please don't count this as a "vote" against opening it - just a suggestion. Everyone involved would get a few more days to argue with each other, but nothing is going to get resolved.) Among the reasons I don't think an admin weighed in to do something about it is that you need a whole day just to read it all. I see from looking at edit histories that there was a previous ANI thread just last month. I endorse what the closer of that discussion said - this needs to go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nothing is getting resolved here. --B (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

RE "For deletion discussions, a non-admin close can be reversed by any admin, so I would assume that community sanction discussions would be the same" - Sorry to say that your assumption is mistaken. I quote from WP:Closing discussions "The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator." (Footnote 3 gives a link to the RfC the consensus of which is referred to here.) Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: (1) That page references a discussion at WT:RFC about non-admins closing RFCs. The discussion felt that since no admin tools are required for closing an RFC, it's never a problem for non-admins to do so. That has nothing whatsoever to do with community sanction discussions where admin tools are involved in the process of enforcing the sanction. (2) The consensus was that RFCs should not be un-closed solely for the reason that the closer was a non-admin. In other words, you cannot come along and say, "this was closed by a non-admin, so I'm reverting it even though there was nothing wrong with the decision." That isn't to say that an admin could not unilaterally reverse a decision for cause. --B (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

RE 1: To close as "no consensus" or "no action" does not require any tools, that's the same at AfD, and that was the particular case here. Even some RfCs may require the tools, but then the general rule "do not make a NAC if you don't have the means to execute the result" applies.

RE 2: I agree. If there's cause, there's cause. But then the reversal was not done because of the non-admin status of the closer, but because the closure was wrong. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Original Incident Vote Tally I figure I'd go ahead and do this since it will be hopefully be appreciated. JYTDog counts ten editors who supported his original proposal. That includes himself and Formerly98, Stalwart, Alexbrn, JFW, and Yobol who are all involved contributors. These six votes out of ten originally counted by JYTDog were either the original proposer or were pinged in the original complaint so these need to be excluded. After excluding myself (of course) and the aforementioned involved users, you have 11 uninvolved users who participated. Of these 11, only 4 actively supported the proposal (and you could argue it was biased because of the original WP:VOTESTACKING.

• Current Vote Tally Even after being open for a full day, the current request to reopen the incident only has two supporting uninvolved votes. JYTDog, Formerly98, and Ca2james all participated in the original incident report so their votes need to be excluded. A couple additional editors are expressing the feeling that this is futile (I agree), and then there are two more uninvolved editors who commented on the closers talk page who agreed with the motion to close. Here is support #1 and the other is support #2. Hopefully this should help save new readers some time. Doors22 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose closure - Support re-open. I am an uninvolved administrator with respect to Doors22, my only interaction with him has been this discussion on his User Talk, where I notified him that I had redacted a bit of a comment he made at a content noticeboard discussion because it served no purpose other than to disparage another editor (Formerly 98), and gave him a bit of general advice about handling conflict. The noticeboard was WP:NPOVN, the redaction I made was this. I have not edited at Finasteride. Regarding Jusdafax's action at the Doors ANI thread, I hesitate to even call it a "closure." It totally ignored the overwhelming support for a sanction. Yes it's frustrating that no admin had taken action, but the way to handle that isn't to pseudo-close it. Zad68

• I don't agree when you say you are uninvolved. Zad68, I believe you became involved when you participated in the original incident. If I participated in a vote and the outcome went against me, I would certainly interested in having that decision revisited or overturned. I also presented the tally which I think demonstrates there was no overwhelming support - in fact less than half of the uninvolved participants supported the proposal. Doors22 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• No, I'm not WP:INVOLVED with you. The original incident is your editing at Finasteride and your personal engagement with Formerly 98. My comments at the ANI thread were as an uninvolved administrator. Of course my comments there make me involved at that ANI thread, so I could not close this thread because of that. Zad68 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit - To clarify, I counted you as one of the uninvolved participants in the original incident discussion but involved for the purposes of this discussion. In addition to yourself, there were 3 other uninvolved participants who supported JYTDog's original proposal - not much of a clear consensus. Once that discussion was closed, you had skin in the game and would be interested to see the outcome go your way. To that extent, you are involved as me or JYTDog in this re-opening discussion. I don't think it would be fair to count your vote in this request as I don't think it would be fair to count my own (which is why I have not bothered to vote although it would make an optical difference). Doors22 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Another non admin comment In general, I make it a personal policy never to do a NAC on any AN or ANI threads where a !vote for sanctions has been called. The main reason for this is that I, as with all other non admins, do not have the tools to enforce those sanctions. It should be a matter of course that these sorts of threads should be treated like AfD's. I gnome a bit on the 2 noticeboards and close up anything where (1) admin action has been requested and received, (2) a boomerang has come into play, (3) editors request advice and have received it (4) other non controversial closes. Personally, I believe that should be what non admins should stick to. Blackmane (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support for closure - no need to re-open to close then again with the same result but a different wording, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (well, yet another non-admin comment, but certainly uninvolved) The closing statement speaks for itself. No need to spill more water on the wheels of the drama-mill. Well, admins seem to be hiding from this noticeboard, one hardly ever sees one. The great exception is Guy, who comments regularly here, but since he voted in the thread under review, he has the ethics to not appear here to comment, thanks Guy. The !votes of Ca2james, Zad68 and Formerly98 are invalid, they voted in the discussion, and thus could not close it, and thus can not review the close, that's a question of logic, rather. Otherwise we wouldn't need any guidelines, if people could rehash everything everywhere ad aeternum. I suggest that the content dispute is resolved at the pertaining talk page or at any other proper place. Kraxler (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

comment breaking my promise not to comment. to both Kraxler and B - this is not a content dispute. It is behavioral - Doors is a long term POV pusher and has been treating WP as a battleground. DR will not resolve either behavioral issue. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:DR does include Last resort: Arbitration. --B (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing used to be about content: the non-neutral apresentation of some subject, as written in the article. DR will resolve it if both parties agree to discuss and to consider third opinions. Actually, I gathered that both sides had agreed to try to come to terms. Kraxler (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

B yep for behavioral issues DR says ANI then arbcom. the point of my post is to get a valid close here at ANI. If I have to go to Arbcom I will but in my view the ANI thread is both close-able and actionable. I recognize the time challenge in making a valid close. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There are two separate issues here. The first is whether User:Judasfax gave good advice to drop the issue, and several editors here appear to be saying that he did. The second is whether Judasfax acted appropriately in closing the ANI thread. It is my understanding that only the second is relevant in a close review. My argument, with which several editors concur, is that the close was out of process because it did not address the comments of the community. I think that Judasfax's comments would have been entirely appropriate, and I would largely concur with them, if they had been comments in the thread rather than a close of the thread. If I am mistaken, and if further discussion of the original controversy is in order here, will someone please correct me? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

yep, that is accurate from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've restored it from archive and removed the closure - leaving the closure as a comment. It's without prejudice to the closer's version of events, the people who say sanctions are warranted, and the people who say sanctions are not warranted. We have two admins in this review who appear to be uninvolved who have exactly opposite opinions on the matter from what I can see. It's likely this is going to have to go to ArbCom if any of you want to pursue proposed sanctions or defend against proposed sanctions further - a formal close is not needed to establish that anymore in view of this thread and my comment here, but maintaining the earlier close can cause problems on many levels. If no uninvolved admin wants to close the restored version, it will in its natural course re-enter the archive without a closing comment (which is perfectly fine); if an uninvolved admin still wants to have a shot, they're welcome to do so before the bot re-archives the thread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

OnlyInYourMind

OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an established account, looking at the user page, details of comments and so on, yet the account was only registered two days ago. For a two-day-old account to chide established users citing policy and guidelines in detail, is unusual. Does this account have any familiar interests or patterns, admins? Anyone see a duck? Guy (Help!) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The account is clearly being operated by an experienced editor but unless someone can identify a behavioral match with another account, there's nothing to indicate yet that the account is WP:ILLEGIT. Zad68 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the talk page input speaks strongly to WP:ILLEGIT, but I agree that a behavioural match is really needed, hence the question here. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Since a large number of the editor's contribs have been to RfCs on article talk pages, don't overlook the possibility that the account -- if it is not legitimate (and I agree that it very much appears to be an experienced editor) -- was created in order to influence one of those RfCs by helping to create a false consensus, for instance. I've looked through their comments, but found them pretty inconclusive. The one which had the potential to look shady was the RfC on Talk:Female genital mutilation, in which their first comments appeared to be counter to those of the instigator of the RfC (PolenCelestial), but who later affirmed that editor's position. That's still pretty thin, though. BMK (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There's also the possibility of being another Zeitgeist sock. BMK (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Unusual is the story of my life :-). I don't mean to cause trouble or waste anyone's time. I am a mildly experienced editor who finaly decided to create an account. This is my first and only account. Apparently, participating in RfCs with my new account was a mistake. Looking back, obviously a new account posting in an RfC looks like a sock. I'll stop participating in RfCs for a while. I only meant to help. I totally solved the Horse Thief RfC though! So you see, I succeeded in helping :-) OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 20:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Unless we've got any actual proof, we should assume good faith, and assume for now it's a legit account. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an explanatory note on your user page. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather

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 happened upon this discussion on Talk:Nazi gun control theory, and saw this diff. I investigated further, and found that Lightbreather has a history of disruptively editing articles, as seen by [4], [5] and a multitude of other 3RR warnings. User:Ched has given Lightbreather a final warning [6] about her incivility, and I think it is time that action be taken. [7] Her uncivil "retirement" message where she talks about the uncivil discussions on gun control. I'd also like to reference her incivility towards Sue Rangell, which resulted in a messy conclusion, to say the least. She has also received a 6 month topic ban in the past.

User:Lightbreather needs to be topic banned permanently, as she has flagrantly disregarded civility, as well as 3rr, and has not learned from the last ArbCom case on gun control. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: These aren't diffs; you'll need to provide these instead of the page version. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@JethroBT: How? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: For instance, with diff 104 instead of using a revision it's requested that you provide a diff. On the revision page, underneath the pink section you'll see: (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff). Clicking on the first diff link will provide you what you're looking for. Mike V • Talk 04:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Chess, some of the links you provide appear to have nothing to do with the subject of your proposed topic ban - could you clarify why you consider them relevant, and/or why you are proposing Lightbreather be banned from that specific subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: They reflect that she has received numerous warnings that this behavior is not acceptable, and that she knows it is wrong. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you requesting a topic ban from a specific subject based on evidence that doesn't all relate to that subject? If there is a general behavioural issue that needs dealing with (I'll refrain from expressing an opinion on this for now), a narrow topic ban isn't going to solve it - and if there is a specific problem with 'gun control' topics, we need to look at evidence that relates to it directly. Topic bans are a means to deal with a specific issue, not a means of punishment for broader infractions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if I can dig the desired diffs out of those links: [8] [9] [10] [11] (the last one seems to be referring to the box of big text at the beginning). That should do it for diffs of warnings, but I agree that it doesn't show her disruptively editing articles; if it shows anything, it's a pattern of general behaviour that may or may not need to be addressed (I haven't enough information to know). Disclaimer: I found out about this from IRC; Chess gave no names so as not to canvass, but the research required to find this discussion was minimal. ekips39❦talk 05:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

She got topic banned from gun control topics before, for 6 months. After her ban was over, the problems that led to the ban resurface on the same pages. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we still need diffs of those problems resurfacing. Also, what constitutes incivility is a lot like the size of a heap of sand, as evidenced by many discussions that centred on that issue and went nowhere fast. This means that warnings aren't enough to show that she's intractably uncivil and needs a formal restriction -- we need diffs of her being uncivil, which is also necessary to show that she's persisted after the warnings. The retirement message link is the closest you've given, and I don't consider that to be uncivil, which highlights the heap of sand issue. ekips39❦talk 05:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the 3RR warning that Chess linked was posted by a contributor who appears from the edit history of the article concerned to also have been involved. Making it somewhat questionable as evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: it was still a clear violation of 3RR on her part, reverting content that I'm not sure she actually read. "If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others." Her preferred answers to the four issues at stake are all still the live version of the page because of the 3RR violation. I'm not saying my preferred version should be the live one right now either, but there's not even a compromise version up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks awfully like a case of trying to recruit admins to a cause. I don't see anything actionable in those diffs. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely not Lightbreather's greatest fan, and I too don't see anything there. This looks to me like trying to remove your "opponents" from a subject. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like someone trying to do exactly the same sort of thing that LB tries to do. This type of comment is not usually helpful but it is not going to be addressed through a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think we of LB's "Fan Club" are pretty much of one mind on this — there's nothing here beyond the inevitable belly-bumping of activists on two sides of a controversy. Nothing actionable that I can see. @Chess should stop trying to crush opponents but rather should figure out how to find common ground and a path forward. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So which comments have I made that insinuated that I am trying to "crush opponents"? Maybe you should actually learn about the dispute in question before throwing wild accusations at me. If you've read the dispute... Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: Please link to my comments in the gun control dispute where I "crush opponents". I haven't made any comments. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - As the other User that was involved in LB's 6 month Topic Ban, its not so much a disruptive influence as it is WP:CIVILPOV pushing and the inflexibility when it comes to exact wording of content and titles as well as source selection and usage in various articles. I will admit my own culpability and involvement upfront. As was noted in the ArbCom, many things that LB added, I challenged and/or reverted, hence our Tban for Edit warring. That said, here are some examples...

• Assault weapons legislation in the United States - When LB created this article[12], they wanted this article to be titled Assault Weapons Ban and to focus solely on that subject with an emphasis on "ban". When others, myself included, tried to expand the article, LB resisted. This included changing the article's title to the above. It started with an RfC[13] then before that closed a Move Request was initiated[14] followed by a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request because it didn't work out in LB's favor[15]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on.
• National Rifle Association - This is a frequent recipient of LB's efforts. The article has existed since August of 2002[16], LB joined WP in March, 2007. So far there are 1,372 distinct Editors to the article, but yet Lightbreather is responsible for over 10 percent of the total edits. I'm not saying that LB has not made worthwhile contributions, but the arguing over how exactly to say it and which sources LB considers acceptable are relentless to put it nicely. The article Talk page pretty clearly demonstrates this currently IMO, but it goes back quite a while.
• Topic & Interaction Ban and short term Block of the Firearms Project Coordinator[17] - I'm not defending the statements that Mike Searson made, but I feel that the situation happened because he was pushed to his limits and just finally went off on LB[18]. So now we have a Project Coordinator that is banned from addressing part of what his project is about. Another Editor and I have come up with a proposed solution for this, but that's off this topic for now.
• Recent ANI - This is one of a number of instances where LB makes a request and when its ignored, rebuffed, or not immediately and completely accepted, LB is upset over it. In this situation there was the mitigating circumstance of an injured arm, but its not the first time that LB has told other Editors to not edit an article because either 1) LB is actively in the middle of editing and does not want to be interrupted, or 2) cannot be around to monitor the editing of others. There are difs that further demonstrate this, but I don't wish to devote a significant chunk of my day to track them down.
• Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 - This example is IMO actually one where LB demonstrated restraint in what the article contained and how it was sourced. But what sets this article apart is that LB has nominated it for Good article status[19]. But even the selection of the Main image was not without its fair share of debate[20]. Some of these discussions, then bled over into Gun Control Act of 1968 where admittedly I picked up a WP:STICK I had waived around about 10 months ago[21] regarding one very specific detail in the History section of the article.[22] This time, after discussion on the Talk page I asked for a Third opinion which went against me. Accepting that outcome, I rewrote the section in question using all of the original references and attributing them sentence by sentence. It started out as this[23] and after discussion and the Third opinion, I edited it to this[24]. This included discussion and explanation on the Talk page of how I arrived at the most recent version.

All in all, its been a little easier to work with LB since our TBan, their subsequent Sock block, and such, but not a lot when they seemingly decide how an article and/or section should be and then works to force the issue. I'm leaving to do some work, so I will not be back for several hours. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the preceding "comment" by Scalhotrod, is from an editor who was topic-banned (along with with me) for edit warring, and yet he removed a sentence containing the word "gun control" from an article[25] while he was topic banned from gun control!

Yep, I basically stated this at the outset of my comments. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You are publicly acknowledging that you intentionally broke our topic ban? Because you haven't done so before now. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I stated that I was part of the Topic ban with you and then you restated it above. As for the dif you cited, I didn't even realize that "gun control" was part of it. It was "same sex marriage" that caught my attention. The sentence seemed like a weird somewhat POV addition made at the end of the Lead. I still have the same view of it now. I wouldn't have even noticed the article had it not come up on the Special:PendingChanges list. That was the immediately previous edit[26] and Pending Changes edits constitute the majority of my edits to that article[27]. Wow LB, wikihound much? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with close.You made two edits[28][29] to the same paragraph of that article before you removed the simple, 14-word sentence that contained the words "tough gun controls" (that you claim you didn't see). The words "tough guns controls" immediately followed "same-sex marriage"! Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As for his remarks:

1. Assault weapons ban To properly respond to this, I'd need to write a dissertation on the state of affairs on Wikipedia that has kept the average Internet surfer in the dark re the subject of assault weapons ban. In a nutshell, the pro-gun editors on Wikipedia - who are in the majority - do not want seekers to find anything except the expired-in-2004 (United States) federal assault weapons ban. Go ahead and google "assault weapons ban." What pops up on top? Federal Assault Weapons Ban! As I said, it expired 11 years ago. There are U.S. states that actually have active AWBs, and there have been numerous bills proposed at the federal and state level to create news AWBs, but the pro-gun editors here - including Scalhotrod[30] - do not want to use the word "ban" (which is the common name for all these... bans and ban proposals) in the title of any article about AWBs - except for the old, expired bill.

• On April 30 of last year, I added the new, comprehensive "Assault weapons ban" article to the "See also" section of Gun politics in the United States.[31] He removed the see-also link three times,[32][33] (scroll down) [34] (scroll down again) and when he couldn't get his way on that...
• On May 5, he started moving/renaming "Assault weapons ban" (the correct article title per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) to "Assault weapons legislation."[35][36][37][38][39]
• Concurrent with this behavior, he went on a crusade to remove the word "ban" from numerous articles.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] (just a few examples)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but only after you started a "crusade" to add it, sometimes multiple times in a sentence, in the same articles you cite above. They are appalling examples of bad writing, but thank you for pointing to numerous examples of where I corrected horrific sentence structure and vocabulary usage. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of your frequent allegations without diffs: you started a "crusade" to add it. Don't just say it - show it. If you're referring to the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, it had 19 occurrences of the words "ban" or "banned" in it before I edited it - and the same number AFTER I edited it. That doesn't show that I or anyone else did what you call "bad writing" - it is unremarkable because the article is about what is commonly referred to as a ban. After your edits (5 of the 10 which I gave diffs for above), there were four occurrences of the word ban - in a roughly 1200-word article about a ban. I believe that might be called "scrubbing" by some WP editors. Lightbreather (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

2. National Rifle Association Some people make fewer, big edits, some people make more, small edits. I used to do the former, but somewhere along the line the pro-gun types I worked with asked for the latter. That's the simple explanation for my number of edits. Scalhotrod does not like criticism in the NRA article, even though at least 50 per cent of the mainstream coverage of it is critical or reporting, at least in part, on someone's criticism of it or its leaders. (There is maybe 10 per percent critical info in that article, and most of it buried.) From past comments Scal has made, I believe he may have a COI re the topic. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think criticism is perfectly fine, but I agree with Jimbo Wales that it should NOT be a stand alone section and should be intertwined throughout the article in its proper context. The article is about the organization. If you want so badly to highlight criticism of the NRA, then I suggest you write Criticism of the National Rifle Association instead of the redirect that points to the Criticism section. I'm just trying to keep the article on topic, neutral, and the content WP:DUE. As for a COI, I'm a member like you. If that's a COI, then we both have it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

3. Mike Searson's topic ban and 1-way IBAN - I'll keep this short out of respect for Mike, whom I actually liked sometimes. I didn't initiate that enforcement request, and no-one twisted his arm all these years to talk to me and to others the way he did. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Even the most seasoned Editors and reasonable people can be pushed to their limits. This is in my opinion an example of that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

4. The recent ANI I would have loved the opportunity to discuss Scalhotrod's behavior, but that ANI was shut down before more than just a few pair of eyeballs got to see it. Scal seems to enjoy messing with editors (me anyway, since he's done it twice now) when he knows they're on vacation or otherwise indisposed - say with a broken arm. (Oddly(?), two other pro-gun editors took advantage of my recent personal-business trip to get busy on some articles that I am a regular contributor to.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, if you didn't announce so much about your personal and/or private life, no one would know that you are on vacation or sick leave or any other bizarre or inane justification you come up make an accusation like this. Second, your accusation is baseless and unprovable. You know this, but you're just trying to play the sympathy card as classic misdirection. People have figured this out, I'm seemingly just one of a few stupid enough to actually comment about it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

5. Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 I don't see the point of his comments on these except maybe to subtly canvass for help? If I'd written it, that's what I'd be accused of - but no further comment, unless an admin asks me about it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to provide an example that shows you can actually cooperate with others when you want to. But I can understand how you missed that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see anything actionable in the diffs provided. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, she has since (today) bandied around more insinuations of sockpuppetry and shows no sign of stopping, even though asked to either take it to SPI or desist. If nothing else, it has a chilling effect and seems somewhat hypocritical given the frequency that she has linked to WP:ASPERSIONS in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Hajme 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

For cripes' sake, I don't make a habit of it. We're talking about Nazi gun control. A subject that went to ArbCom and ended in FOUR editors who were pushing for inclusion of Nazi gun control material in gun-control articles so hard that it crossed into battleground conduct and resulted in their being topic banned. NOW, we've got a "new" editor (who is obviously not new) who made their "first" edit in December, showing up to push the same material again - and having never before contributed to a gun-control article? Nobody else smells a sock? So if you don't like me, fine, but the odds of a "new" editor making his "first" gun-control edits to the Nazi gun control article seems pretty suspicious. But everyone seems to be willing, maybe even eager, for that kind of disruption again? Not me, as I wrote on that talk page earlier today.[50] Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And now has just done this, which removes a website apparently at least in part because it breaches WP:ELREG, which it doesn't seem to do as I've just been able to access the news stories on its front page without registering. I've no opinion regarding linkfarms and adverts as pretty much everything in that section would probably qualify on those grounds but, well, this is not looking good. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually got a thank-you from another editor for that edit. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All that means is there is another contributor out there who doesn't understand ELREG or didn't check the website. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Way to AGF, Sitush. Mudwater agreed with the edit,[51] and he is a pretty good editor. Please don't bait me, {{redact}}. And please don't make my edits out to be things that they are not. You aren't a lone authority on Wikipedia, even though you usually present yourself as such. Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I JethroBT, Mike V: FYI, I have read all of the above. I have in the past tried to respond to every editor who comments about me in these piling-on kinds of discussions, but it wears me out. As two admin whom I respect, I will answer your questions, if you have any. Also, I hope you will read Scalhotrod's comments keeping in mind our past and that we were BOTH topic-banned from gun-control for six months. I don't want to respond in detail to his comments, but there is another side to every story, and, again, if you have questions, I will answer them.

FWIW: I am making a good faith effort to improve the article under dispute, or at least to keep it from going backward. If there is an added urgency to my edits the last couple of days, it is because A) I have a broken arm and have less patience than usual, and B) This is a Nazi-gun-control dispute, which, as you know, caused a helluva lot of problems just one year ago. As for the SPI/SPIs, I have sought advice from Mike, and I'm making up my mind about what to do. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT its absolutely amazing that after all her shenanigans lightbreather is still allowed to edit, I find it totally unbelievable. 'less patience than usual' that's an understatement of the year or meybe an overstatement of your usual level of patience - lightbreather you're as completely out of control as always and i cantr believe to still see you editing wow! 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are currently blocked and this was your first edit. Hajme 11:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I wasn't going to comment here because I thought LB was improving. I now feel that assessment was wrong. In order to win a minor RSN discussion related to gun issues she reached out to the publishers of a media company and involved them in the RSN discussion, an act that resulted in the change of the corporate disclaimer designed to make the source appear more reliable. That is way over the top. When editors start manipulating outside publishers to win minor arguments at Wikipedia something has gone wrong in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a heckuva accusation. No link to the RSN in question? Here it is: Walter Hickey / Business Insider. I don't see anyone there accusing me of that - not even you (until today)! Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Did you even catch the difference between the URL for the "disclaimer" that you shared and the legit disclaimer? Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• oppose - Granted, LB and I are wikifriends, but rules are rules, and I have no qualms in agreeing on a correct course of action for people that do not respect the process on WP. That being said, the "plaintiff" here has not provided enough information or justification, in my opinion, for this measure of punishment. To be perfectly honest, I think it's no coincidence we have editors here with pitchforks in hand that have had disagreements with LB in the past. Not to mention the likelihood that they, themselves, have been guilty or accused of a 3r, or tendentious editing, at some point, possibly by LB. Darknipples (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I JethroBT or Mike V: Could you close this thing? I'd like to take it off my watch list. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Procedurally, I believe that they can't - precisely because you have pinged them, they become involved by default. We don't get to pick and choose admins to close cases against us. I would oppose their actions if either of them came and closed this now; everyone has to wait their turn for an uninvolved admin to do it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, Lightbreather is difficult to deal with and agenda driven with respect to firearms. WeldNeck (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This from the guy who made these edits: [52][53][54][55][56] Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (uninvolved non admin) I have read through this and see nothing that merits an indef topic ban. What I see is a content dispute, and some problematic actions. But nothing that rises to the level of the requested action. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose action here on grounds that disruptive editing of a topic subject to discretionary sanctions can be better dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lightbreather has been requested to look at Lightbreather's conduct. I propose that this section be closed. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Could someone remind Catflap what an "IBAN" means?

Two weeks ago Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I became subject to a mutual IBAN.

During that two weeks, I have again become involved in a dispute on the Kenji Miyazawa article that initially involved him, but now involves me having unilaterally added a sentence to the lede and trying to self-revert. I added the sentence as a compromise with two other users, not Catflap, because at the time the dispute had been muddied and the users who agreed the sentence didn't belong in the article were less active than those who disagreed (that situation changed).

A few hours ago Catflap shows up again suddenly and comments on the dispute, saying he "waited quite a while" to comment (indicating that he was aware of my involvement in the dispute, and didn't just happen across the RFC that started only 48 hours earlier) and repeating the same lies ("His affiliation with Kokuchūkai is the only known with Nichiren Buddbism") and half-truths ("[for some reason on English Wikipedia we can't call him a nationalist but it is] an established fact ... he was a member Kokuchūkai") that caused the huge shitstorm that led to the IBAN.

Conspiracy theory time

John Carter has been the main person opposing my self-revert, having suddenly showed up immediately despite having never edited or shown any particular interest in the page before. I have my suspicions based on the suspicious timing of past events and John Carter conveniently knowing things about Catflap's personal life that were never stated on-wiki and using these against me[57][58][59][60][61][62] as well as several obscure statements/threats made by John Carter (and to a lesser extent Catflap) before, during and since the IBAN discussion[63][64][65][66][67][68] and the latter's generally appearing to have read, not the previous talk-page discussion, but rather a truncated version written by Catflap or someone who agrees with Catflap (until John Carter, no one agreed with Catflap)[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] that the reason John Carter suddenly showed up on the page was because the two have been communicating off-site and Catflap requested that John Carter oppose me in Catflap's stead. But this is of course not provable.

Since it's kind of a grey area (I have been editing in an area Catflap and I previously disputed, but so has he -- after the IBAN was imposed I kept editing Japanese poetry articles and he kept editing Nichiren Buddhism articles), and since I can't conclusively prove that he's been violating the IBAN through a proxy the whole time, I'm not asking for a block.

But could someone collapse/close his talk page comments and tell him that he's not allowed suddenly show up on pages I have been editing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It would also be worth considering whether Hijiri88, by this rather poorly founded request, based rather clearly on what even he seems to consider insufficient evidence, has violated his i-ban with Catflap08 by this posting. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hijiri, perhaps you need to reminded also what an iBan means. Typically AN and ANI are considered iBan-free zones. The comment on the talk page does not violate an iBan unless Hijiri owns the article, which they don't since WP:OWN. I do not find it proven that Catflap can be said to comment on this talk page to somehow hound or harass or pursue or disrupt Hijiri, and the comments that are "of course not provable" are indeed not provable, and the MEAT link is really quite asinine. In other words, there's nothing to see here, and that's me trying to put this diplomatically. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• There is still however the question of the "conspiracy theory time" comments which rather obviously are disparaging comments of a rather, as you said, perhaps asinine nature, and whether this thread might itself be considered a form of harassment as per WP:HARASS, and thus perhaps at least potentially sanctionable. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, maybe, but iBans are designed to lower the temperature, not raise it. I see this thread as a nuisance, not harassment, but YMMV of course. If Hijiri88 does have fully-fledged conspiracy theories they should be dealt with separately, IMO, if only to make this ugly and patronizing heading disappear into the archives. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Catflap is allowed suddenly show up and comment on a dispute I am involved in, and I am allowed suddenly show up and comment on a dispute Catflap is involved in? I was under the impression that this was not the case, but if it is the case, then I guess this thread can be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You should however note that if you suddenly seek to involve yourself in a discussion relating to a topic apparently simply because someone else is involved in it, that does not preclude the raising of possible WP:STALKING concerns about that possibly at this time theoretical incident. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: If you're referring to this post by me: I don't really care who was involved in the discussion; you and another user were making curious statements that the phrase devout Buddhist "has to go", even though it's already been gone for months (I replaced it with "devout Nichiren Buddhist", and even that was removed several days ago). I was pointing out that actually "devout Buddhist" is the most common way in which he is described in reliable sources, followed by "devout Nichiren Buddhist", and "member of the Kokuchukai" (as a general descriptor of the man's lifelong affiliation, like what our WP:LEAD should be, rather than as something he did for a year or two in his twenties) is (almost?) unattested. It's not entirely clear what you want the article to say, since the only edit you ever made was to revert me when I removed one sentence from the lede, but that sentence is no longer in the lede since Ubikwit removed it and you haven't reverted them. What exactly is it that you want the article to say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I clearly wasn't referring to that at all. I think the real question here is primarily about your conduct in general, particularly including your seeming insistence on violation WP:TPG and regularly putting forward opinions which clearly seem to many to be at least on the verge of paranoic. I realize that you regularly display an insistence on trying to divert discussion from the points made by others, and that you once again do so in your last comment above. This is one of the reasons why I have to believe the only way to deal with your to date regularly displayed violations of conduct guidelines may well be through seeking arbitration should it continue, as your prior history, including here, seems to indicate is a virtual certainty. But, to answer your question, apparently unlike you (?), I do not have a clear prejudice of what it is I want or don't want the article to say. The goal is to find the best sources relating to the topic and what they say, and structure the content on that basis. It is however interesting that you seem to be projecting on others a bias toward what you argue is their own preconceptions of what the article should say, rather than, what I at least am actually trying to do, which is first finding out what other reference sources say and developing the content on that basis. Of course, it is impossible to know what the relevant reference sources say until they are actually consulted, and this includes several which, apparently, haven't been consulted before. What I personally really want is an article which is truly encyclopedic, in the sense that it and any spinout articles it might develop, would contain content which meets our basic standards of encyclopedic content, based on what other encyclopedic sources. I regret that such has, apparently, never been considered before. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "paraoic"? All I said was that you and the other user have exchanged emails about me (something both of you have admitted), some of your email correspondences have been to coordinate an attack plan against me (something that is blatantly obvious given the delayed but clearly coordinated reaction to Karlsruhe, and that you referred to the place as Catflap's "hometown" even though he never referred to such on-wiki), and that you may have been doing so more recently as well (your suddenly showing up on the Kenji article, and claiming to have read the previous discussion but clearly having not done so is pretty reasonable evidence for this, too; one example would be your constantly talking about "nationalism" when the other user had carefully avoided doing so on-wiki, such that it would be impossible to read the on-wiki discussion and comment as you did). As far as I can tell the only user other than you who has called this "paranoic" is Drmies, who clearly misread my above post to say that I couldn't prove the user had violated the IBAN immediately before I posted here, when what I was saying was that I couldn't prove you had exchanged emails (which is a truism).

As for "sources": I have read numerous over the years (including as part of my job); you had never heard of the subject until you suddenly showed up on the talk page, apparently because of an email you received from the other user. That is why you haven't actually contributed anything to the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) said above, "some of your email correspondences have been to coordinate an attack plan against me (something that is blatantly obvious given the delayed but clearly coordinated reaction to Karlsruhe, and that you referred to the place as Catflap's "hometown" even though he never referred to such on-wiki), and that you may have been doing so more recently as well (your suddenly showing up on the Kenji article, and claiming to have read the previous discussion but clearly having not done so is pretty reasonable evidence for this, too; one example would be your constantly talking about "nationalism" when the other user had carefully avoided doing so on-wiki, such that it would be impossible to read the on-wiki discussion and comment as you did). As far as I can tell the only user other than you who has called this "paranoic" is Drmies, who clearly misread my above post to say that I couldn't prove the user had violated the IBAN immediately before I posted here, when what I was saying was that I couldn't prove you had exchanged emails (which is a truism)." It is worth noting both the extremely prejudicial nature of the rather self-obsessive statement "some of your email correspondences have been to coordinate an attack plan against me," and that at least one uninvolved administrator, Drmies, has also described your conduct as "paranoic." While I acknowledge that you may have some cause to mistrust others, that is in no way something any reasonable person would necessarily jump to the conclusions you jumped to above, about coordinating an attack plan against you. The fact that you can so obviously jump to rather unfounded conclusions about others, indicating that somehow they are so interested in you that they would have to coordinate an attack plan against you, as opposed to simply noting the rather ridiculous conduct and rather transpatent violations of policies and guidelines which you regularly, some might almost say systemically, indulge in, is something I believe is very worthwhile to note about you and your own motivations and activities. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

JC, please stop nitpicking the wrong points. I opened this thread because Catflap08 posted in a discussion I had started, and commented on an edit I had made. The email material is peripheral to the main topic of this thread. But it is not prejudicial or self-centered to have taken note of the fact that after I made a single edit to the Karlsruhe article and then made some 33 other edits over a five-day period, during which time you and Catflap08 were also actively editing, you and Catflap08 suddenly make a coordinated response to my edit about 20 minutes apart from each other, in which Catflap08 refers to Karlsruhe as the city in which he "is currently living", and you refer to it as his "hometown", even though he had never said such on-wiki. You and he had clearly both noticed my edit when I first made it, and spent some time discussing off-site how to respond. The plan was then messed up by either you (by saying "hometown") or him (by not saying "hometown"). Say what you want about misreading Catflap's comment as implying Karlsruhe was his "hometown": how do you explain the fact that both of you didn't mention my edit for five days -- five days during which you both posted numerous remarks about me on several forums -- and then you suddenly both happened to notice and be completely outraged and disgusted (you called me "psychotic", if I recall) by my Karlsruhe edit at exactly the same time a full five days after it happened? How is this not reason to believe you coordinated your attack against me off-wiki? How are the more recent events in which you suddenly showed up and started reverting every edit I made to the Kenji article, even though you had shown no interest in it before Catflap08 and I were IBANned, and even though you have completely overlooked when other users made the exact same edits, not equally suspicious? You almost certainly coordinated an attack on me over the Karlsruhe edit via off-site email contact, so why should we go out of our way to assume you're not still doing the same when you revert me for making the exact same edit that you either praise or ignore when made by someone else? You have been accusing me of "gross personal attacks" for over a week now, but anyone who looks at your "contributions" to the discussion on the Miyazawa Kenji talk page can clearly see that you are throwing stones at me from a glass house. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Hijiri made some good points, so I suggest you take the advice of WP:STICK yourself. You reverted Hijiri because he removed a single sentence and started this whole mess over it, but now Ubikwit has removed it again and you haven't so much as verbally objected to it. Why was it not ok for Hijiri to remove it before? And you basically say above that you don't have an opinion on what you want the article to say, which is naturally false. You have an opinion, you just don't want to share it so we can't tell you that you're wrong (or right). You obviously have an opinion on "he was a nationalist" or "devout Buddhist", as seen on the talk page; the thing is, you like to change your opinions back and forth. Nagging Hijiri about how "being a member of a group doesn't make one a nationalist" and then turning around and basically saying "well since he was a member of this group he was definitely a nationalist". The sources you provide that you insist we "consult" first don't even support your position(s). All of this, plus other stunts and threats you've made, seems to me to just be WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to keep this ridiculous argument going for the sake of harrassing Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:John Carter, see WP:BANEX; interaction bans don't prohibit banned editors from addressing the ban itself, and one of the examples is asking administrators to address ban-violations. No comment on anything else, but Hijiri's not violated the ban by coming here. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Which, presumably, includes actions which aren't necessarily ban violations but which the people complaining of them might not know. I acknowledge that we have to give some editors who have a poor understanding of how policies and guidelines might apply to them and others a bit more latitude. Taken as a point unto itself, I don't disagree that this single action may not be. Should it constitute a part of a pattern of abuse, which has not yet been demonstrated, but might be if such dubious complaints persist, that might be a different matter, particularly if the theoretically repetitive requests might also demonstrate WP:STICK and maybe even WP:CIR concerns. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you; I don't know the situation, and that's why I didn't want to comment on anything else. Just wanted to ensure that Hijiri wasn't sanctioned on the grounds that this complaint, by itself, was a ban violation. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC close request

It appears that we've found consensus at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#RfC: How should this be worded?. The consensus is that the lede should not mention nationalism but should continue to mention the Kokuchūkai. I would just like an uninvolved admin/editor to close the RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr, you and I have agreed on 90% of the stuff in this dispute, but "the lede should not mention nationalism but should continue to mention the Kokuchūkai" is not the consensus. Not only did the RFC question not mention "remove the reference to the Kokuchūkai" as one of the options (if I recall correctly -- I may be wrong), but hardly any of the commenters mentioned whether they thought the group should be mentioned one way or the other. You, Ubikwit and John Carter all retroactively (not in the RFC thread but on your own talk page, an unrelated thread, etc.) expressed the opinion that "the lede should not mention nationalism but should continue to mention the Kokuchūkai", but I have said that (for reasons with which I think you will agree once I can explain them to you at length without every comment I make being taken as a "gross personal attack" by a certain other user) I'm still against name-checking the Kokuchūkai in the lead and wish to discuss it again once the nationalism mess has cleared up and once the rest of the article looks better. Wikimandia essentially reiterated his/her comment from the previous RFC that it should all, including the name-drop of the Kokuchūkai, stay out of the lead. That can hardly be considered a "consensus to mention the Kokuchūkai".

A better consensus wording would be "the lede should not mention nationalism". We can table that issue and discuss it again later.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects

Not really an admin matter, but everyone seems to have forgotten this page. At present, there is not even a single fulfilled request here. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Never knew that page existed! I've created a few of them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please check this move

[[83]]and userpage move--Musamies (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have moved everything back to the userspace. -- GB fan 01:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete check please

Could an admin take a minute to check the article Hapa to see if the request for speedy does not meet criteria. There is a talk page section I made in regard to my concerns and why I feel it meets G10 and G3 criteria. Another editor had removed the template, misunderstanding my concerns I believe so, I felt inclined to ask here if an admin could check it out please.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't an attack page. It's really no different than Hafu, Hun-Xue-Er or Luk khrueng which are listed in the "See Also" section. --Versageek 06:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhm...the word Hapa means half as in "Hapa hoale". It has other meanings as well (such as harp) but none of them refer to race. Only when used in combination with another word does it take on the connotation. Could you respond to that part or would it just be better to nominate for AFD. I am not seeing my concern addressed but I thank you for your quick assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark, the article does not meet the criteria for speedy or for AFD for that matter. As someone who has lived in Hawaii for the last 14 years, I really don't know why you think the way you do. Could you provide a good source supporting your contention? People are proud of being hapa here, as is true in any society where people are of mixed ethnicity. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The article was not an "attack page", in the same way that we have articles on many racially pejorative terms. Actually describing an individual as such unless they self-identified would be an attack. Speedy deletion should not be requested where simple editing of the page, as has happened here, can fix the problem. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

Comment As the declining editor, I declined speedy deletion for not fulfilling the requirements of either G3 or G10. I have no opinion on the merits of either retaining or deleting the article at PROD or AfD. Safiel (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock?

I don't do them, but can someone who does please see if one is feasible here?

• 50.141.76.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.141.76.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.141.77.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.141.78.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.141.76.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.141.79.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• 50.141.76.0/22 blocked anon for a month. There are a few useful contribs there, but not many. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Hi there, there's a little bit of a backlog at SPI, some cases open since middish-April and some new ones in need of eyeballs. Admin and CU help would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Book notability question

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

---

I have a question regarding WP:NBOOK. Point 1 for notability indicates: 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book' Does this refer to book reviews? This means effectively any book published by a mainstream publisher is entitled to an article... AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you have asked the identical question in the appropriate place, this non-incident can be closed without additional comment. Pax 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

WPPilot

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

---

Earlier today I blocked WPPilot for a variety of reasons including COI editing, BLP violations, socking, etc. It's possibly a sensitive matter, at least it ought to be for him, so I don't want to hang him out to dry. However, he's being a bit of a nuisance, and is now claiming that he was going to set up a trust to give 250k a year to the WMF. What I would like to know is what I should do, if anything, with the information that I have. Gamaliel is aware of some of it, after an email request, but since then I found some more evidence of COI editing. Besides Gamaliel a few other admins have been involved in the past, though they may not recall--Ponyo and Brandon, among others. I would love to hand this over, deposit it somewhere, and be done with this rather disgusting matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The COI editing is not COI editing It is entirely standard practice to attribute photographers. That you thinnk [84] where he simply named himself as the photographer of an image - completely standard prractice - is COI editing shows an incredible misunderstanding of how images are used on Wikipedia - a misunderstanding so undamental that you should probably not be an admin if you're going to make such terrible judgements.

Attributing photos to yourself is not promotion; indeed, your actions are arguably in violation of the spirit of the CC-license, which asks us to attribute the creator in the manner they prefer.

This appears to be a bad block. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I just noticed: It's far worse. He's not claiming that it was COI to attribute an image, he's claiming it was COI to add an image to Wikipedia you took yourself. [85] is truly remarkable, and, even if this isn't the whole story, it certainly raises questions over wheter Drimes is fit to judge the user; it looks like a vendetta. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It certainly isn't against the rules to include your name in an image name, it has been done before by at least one prolific image contributor David Shankbone (NSFW). I even tried it with a few of my images, but found it felt uncomfortable. User:Drmies, maybe you could send details to the Functionaries list for review? --Versageek 06:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, could you please give several examples of BLP violations? They seem to have edited very little, of any, articles on living persons.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I respect creative commons and believe that the author has enough right to scribe his name with his work. Rouge admins must consider it and certainly it's a bad unwanted block...-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Poking my head in here because I apparently can't break my wiki-addiction and several of you appear to be headed up a gum-tree. Drmies' blocking statement is here; note that it refers to COI editing and distinguishes it carefully from promotion. I believe the evidence is to be found in two of the deleted articles created by WPPilot; see Drmies' deletion log; and in aspects of his editing there that Drmies would evidently prefer to be discreet about. However, I did see a COI in those two articles after a brief search. And there is evidently a socking concern, too. I'd add that there have also been copyvio concerns with WPPilot's edits and that Drmies went on to delete a further article for that reason, although that's not mentioned in the block statement. So no, the photographs are not the COI. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the question being asked is.(?) I'm guessing you are only wanting responses from fellow admins? About what? About what to do going forward from the current situation (indef block, etc.)? About who to entrust with the information you (apparently) have? About who to give all the facts to so that they can decide how best to move forward? Apparently there are facts in this situation which are invisible to the average uninvolved editor not acquainted with any of the historical block-worthy behaviors. So I just want to confirm: Is it correct that you are not asking for community input, but rather for a fellow admin to "take over" the case (whatever it is) or the information (whatever it is)? Softlavender (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• The photographs are not the issue; the COI was elsewhere. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say the photographs most certainly raise questions as to whether DRmies is detached enough to do a block, at the very least. One shouldn't be blocking people you apparently have a vendetta against. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• After looking into the issue a bit (though certain things require admin tools to check), I can definitely say that the problematic COI/BLP issues was not Pilot's photography... I have to agree with Drmies appraisal of the sock puppeting issue as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've told him to lodge any appeals through UTRS, and he is going to do so. I'd forward the info to functionaries and whoever decides to hear the block appeal. I don't think any more can be achieved on-wiki. MER-C 13:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - I agree with Drmies that this issue is potentially very sensitive, and that it may be better to not put too much about it on-wiki. There was a clear COI in writing a certain BLP (predominantly negative), and long term editing and maintenance of said BLP. The socking charges are also supported by numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence that tie Pilot to another (indefinitely blocked) editor, who also created a BLP-violating article on the same subject, and also stated an ability to fly small aircraft. The possibility of further copyvios (I checked the deleted article, and the close paraphrasing is blatant) is just another reason to block for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Adam Cuerden, please look before you leap and don't cast aspersions, or even dispersions. You are completely off the mark and claiming that this is somehow a personal vendetta against a photographer is silly. It has nothing to do with the photographs--though anyone familiar with the evidence can see how Pilot's behavior re:photographs in articles is symptomatic. Softlavender, yes indeed: and some of the incriminating COI evidence is visible only to admins. Nothing personal. MER-C, please tell me who the functionaries are: I'll be happy to send them what I have. Gamaliel is familiar with some of the evidence, and so is Rhododentrites, though their view is limited since no one has yet made them an admin.

  Crisco 1492, Xanty et cetera, and Yngvadottir, thank you. This was not fun and I wavered considerably, but it had to be done. No one goes around blocking a longtime editor lightly. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:FUNCT. It's all oversighters and checkusers, the folks who are allowed access to sensitive information. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The Misuse of Maintenance Tags

Please consider this edit. It took me all of 30 seconds to run a couple searches to determine that no such quotation was documented in any reliable book or scholarly source. Why would somebody tag a quote "citation needed" and leave it to potentially misinform people for 4 years? Please, dear editors, instead of slapping maintenance tags on articles, spend 30 seconds to determine what should be done, and do it! Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Without access to the reference books the article is sourced to, how can you conclusively determine that there isn't a single reliable source out there that documents the quotation? Its definitely reasonable to remove it after 4 years with a citation needed tag, but had someone removed it immediately, based only on a 30s Google search, it would have been problematic too, even if WP:BURDEN permits it. Monty₈₄₅ 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of my reference books aren't cataloged on Google Books and many quotes wouldn't appear in Google searches unless they were very notable. This quote looks like it would be notable but Google search is no guarantee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Monty and Liz on this one, although FWIW the quote appears in the obviously non-RS but very good Downfall (2004 film). Broadcast yet again over this side of the pond a couple of days ago. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And a variant of the quotation used in the film was noted by Joachim Fest, whose book was one of the sources for the dramatisation - p 60. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the general thrust of Jehochman's comment, andnot necessarily the specific instance, I very much agree that too many editors slap tags on articles without doing a lick of work to fix the problem they perceive. Yes, it takes a bit more time to fix then it does to tag, but in my mind, one article improved is worth dozens of articles tagged. In many cases, especially of low-volume pages, those tags stay there for years with nothing being done about the problem. I would say: If you see it, don't tag it, fix it. BMK (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That assumes a lot, though. It might be a fairly simple task for, say, an article about something/someone in the UK or US but it is often not at all simple for articles about India etc. Foreign-language sources, lack of digitisation, problems of ambiguity, multiple transliterations (often only found "on the hoof") are just the start of it. I tag quite a lot, mostly {{cn}}, and I don't regret doing it. The article does get revisited by me and at the revisit, very often either the stuff gets deleted or I've found something to fix it, and of course others may have done something in between (not common, but it does happen). Sometimes when deleting, I'll only take a bit out: that can cause people to get upset but it does get their attention and it puts them on notice that the tag is going to result in some sort of action eventually. So, even selective deletion can lead to more sources. Bear in mind that a lot of people do not even know that article talk pages exist. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• The original quotation would have been in German not English, so it doesn't seem so easy to prove this negative without knowing what the exact original was. Anyway, in this case, there's reasonable confirmation in Stalingrad to Berlin which cites a Russian language source, Voyennoistoricheskiy Zhurnal (1961). I don't speak Russian or have access to that source and so someone else will have to finish this trail. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Trout for Jehochman. Of course we could all do better at citations, but for god's sake, get over it. We can't always personally fix every thing we find objectionable or counter to policy. Tagging could actually be considered a good faith move to enable someone who knows better to find the right citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with TRM, except for the trout :-). {{Citation needed}} tags attempt to ensure that articles meet WP:V. To be on the safe side, tagged unverifiable material should be removed; it can always be restored when it's cited. All this is not to say that tag-bombing doesn't exist. All the best, Miniapolis 22:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The user/IP 122.200.1.151 keeps removing their own warnings

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 IP 122.200.1.151 keeps removing their own warnings since they were blocked from editing Wikipedia. See: 122.200.1.151 Revision history.
I thought that removing warning could get you blocked, but since they are blocked already, why can they still edit their own talk page? -TomSparkLabs (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no rule against removing warnings from one's talk page. Only certain messages may not be removed, such as declined unblock requests. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh OK, thanks for letting me know! -TomSparkLabs (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I believe that IP editors cannot remove templates that indicate that their IP is shared or that it indicate to whom the IP is registered. Pishcal — ♣ 18:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Who cares? Rjd0060 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP

Much like the perennially backlogged UAA, RFPP is in need of some mops before the weekend as nothing gets done then so best it be cleared before that happens. tutterMouse (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's caught up for now, as is the ever-popular (or ever-populated) WP:UAA. Here's a handy link, so admins can quickly check the status: WP:RFPP --- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Backlogged again.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am on it, working from the bottom up. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear again, thanks Ymblanter. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fire Meet Gasoline

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 move Fire Meet Gasoline (Sia song) to Fire Meet Gasoline, thank you. --200.119.95.72 (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree this needs to be done. There is a no-longer-applicable redirect in the way. I have created a technical move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done - In the future, for instances like this, all you need to do is tag the destination with {{db-move}}.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for undoing a histmerge

Resolved

Recently, on 28th of March, a history merge was carried out by User:RHaworth which needs to be reverted. This was an ill-advised and totally unnecessary history merge of a user talk page into an arricle. User talk:207.235.29.182 was histmerged into article Snatcher as it contained copied stuff from the article which RHaworth probably mistook to be the initial draft of the article, and thus merged the histories. The histmerge has caused serious page history anomalies, all of which I have detailed in THIS message to him. It has been about a week but RHaworth has ignored the message. So, I request a competent administrator to reverse the histmerge. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

All done. I accidentally restored a few deleted revisions of the user talk page, which can't be undone because two of them have the same timestamp, but it's no big deal IMO. Graham87 07:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

About half an hour after posting the above message, you deleted the user talk page that had been histsplit out. What's the reason for that? 103.6.156.167 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't even remember doing that. I wasn't with it at all that day. I've just restored it. Graham87 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone please blank the page. Iam unable to do it myself because of an edit filter. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies and WPPilot

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.

---

Drmies seems to be going around deleting articles by WPPilot, claiming unambiguous copyright infringement.

I'm not so sure.

Compare: https://web.archive.org/web/20141115042341/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precious_Metal_%28aircraft%29 and http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/09/09/world-jet-inc-p51xr-n6wj-precious-metal/ - the source he claimed. That's not so similar to be

I can't check all the pages. Drmies is deleting them with no time for either the contributor or anyone else to respond. But given this is being used to justify Drmies' block of WPPilot.

This is particularly problematic, given three days before he stated 'I hereby recuse myself from taking administrative action against this "editor"'

If you admit you shouldn't be taking administrative action against an editor, then take administrative action against them you are acting badly. Had Drmies asked a neutral admin to look over the evidence, that would be one thing. But he admitted a COI. He engaged in baiting of the editor. claiming adding photographs he took to a page was promotion. Further, [86] shows an intense dislike of WPPilot on Drmies part, which does not reassure one that he was capable of judging matters neutrally.

Quite frankly, I think Drmies may be abusing his admin powers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden has been told repeatedly that it's nothing to do with copyright or promotion. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm accusing him of a vendetta. I can't check all his judgement. But what I can check shows pretty clear evidence of a vendetta. To say that it's irrelevant that he attacked WPPilot on a bogus claim of promotion shortly before taking admin actions against him is nonsense. Maybe WPPilot should be kblocked. But Drmies should NOT be the one making that call, by any means. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some privacy implications and if Drmies is to defend themselves against your charges of abuse then some matters that WPPilot would prefer to keep quiet will probably become public. Full disclosure: I encountered an "article" this editor had written last year. I was completely astonished that an experienced editor would have thought it constituted acceptable content and continued to defend it as such. If WPPilot continued to make similar edits and had undisclosed COI then that is a serious issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• The initial revision of the article was a clear copyright violation, and even the later internet archive version linked is a blatant copyright violation. Compare the language in the paragraphs about the "feathering pump". Changing from a first to a last name is not nearly enough to stop it from being infringement. The deletion it self is definitely consistent with policy. No comment on whether it should have been left for someone else to handle. Monty₈₄₅ 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Those who have been following the case may be interested in this copyvio which, as the admins can see with their magic glasses, is directly related to the COI. So, we could get "someone else" but so far I'm the only admin dealing with the blatant copyright violations, and in this case the copyvio and the reason why I blocked Pilot are found in the same edit. Moonriddengirl is aware of one problematic area; Adam Cuerden is deying quite adamantly that there was a problem there. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I would be curious if you could address what changed from the time you ostensibly recused yourself to now. I am not making a judgment at this point, but it does seem to be somewhat of a contradiction. Am I missing something? Go Phightins! 02:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, I was kinda pissed at Pilot for their asinine treatment of various editors here, so I figured I'll speak my mind and then stay away: I had been considering blocking him for civility infractions, broadly speaking, and I decided I could not take that kind of action against Pilot. But then, not long after I posted that, I was informed about Management Solutions, and the COI became clear; things progressed quickly from there. So, not a contradiction--rather a sea change, since my block had nothing to do with any of the conflicts Pilot was in (those were Signpost-related and had to do with let's say "communication styles"). And the longer you look at this the worse it gets--David Ullman isn't a copyvio like so many of them were, but it's an article whose only purpose seems to be the promotion of Ullman Sails (that's the only "reference" for this BLP), suggesting that Pilot has or had COIs in a lot of different areas--either that or it was just completely incompetent article writing, even after four years here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's no question that WPPilot has acted inappropriately and I think any admin would have made the same call Drmies did, regardless of the backstory or personal involvement here. Were those his only edits, then this would be the end of the matter. But he's also a hardworking editor who has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia, Wikicommons, and the Signpost. I hope that we can work something out so he can return under some strong conditions, including an unambiguous topic ban from certain areas that he has a COI in and his agreement to assist in cleaning up his inadvertant copyvios. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins should close threads like this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Drmies: the COI is definitely there, in both the article Management Solutions and another I checked. If he were neutral about it I wouldn't have much of a problem, but the COI has definitely led to a lack of NPOV in both articles I checked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think Drmies made the right call. Chillum 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog over at CAT:CSD

I know it's a bit early in the morning but I just want to inform all of you that at the time of writing there's about a 140 page backlog over at CAT:CSD. I'd appreciate if somebody could go through some of those and just clean up a bit. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's down to about 10 or so. I usually get to work around 8 am eastern time, and one of the first things I do is check CSD. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yasir72.multan unblock request

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

Unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Per the terms of the standard offer, I am bringing Yasir72.multan's unblock request here for community review. Unblock request follows:

Please see the above section plus unblock request. This request was submitted 6 months ago on 28th October 2014.
The administrator who decline the above request said that I was evading my blockby an IP. Therefore After that, I waited six months again and today I come back to Wikipedia after six months. And this time I was not evading by block by any IP address. Hence I have completed standard offer 2 times. So I should be unblock now
In summary,
I am blocked from : 18 months
I did not create another sock account from 13th March 2014 (13 months)
I did not evade my block by using any IP from 6 months
So, I stopped using English Wikipedia completely and complete the standard offer. I have got the punishment of remaining block for 18 months... I should be unblock now because I fulfill the conditions of unblocking for a sockmaster... I request Wikipedia to unblock me now.... I don't want to remain block now... Please unblock me... (I did some promises above if you unblock me, you can block me again if you will not see me to fulfilling these promise)... Please unblock me now.. What can I do more? ... please not decline this time... I want to carry on my carrier

As far as I can tell, Yasir72.multan has not evaded his block in the last six months. User links: Yasir72.multan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki). Known socks (all stale): Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yasir72.multan Yunshui ^雲_水 10:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock I know what he was doing here and I had also checked many of the reports that concerned him. Let us give him another chance. He hasn't socked for a long time.[87] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Do not archive until}} added. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there is something truly horrible that caused the block, and given the lack of response I don't think this is the case, I see no reason not to unblock. It is after all simple to re-block if the issues continue. Significant time has passed and people do change. This is of course assuming that @RHaworth: has no objection. Chillum 18:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock on a WP:ROPE basis. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Need a quick look at deleted revisions

Could I have an admin please look at the history for Errors in the United States Constitution, the deleted version, not the current version. Then, please comment on whether there is relevant page history at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 5#Errors in the United States Constitution. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the history so it can be reviewed by the participants. -- GB fan 19:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Username Problem

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Willfilm123's user name is a bit suspicious. I am not sure, but the user is trying to make an article on Williamsburg independent film festival. I saw the user contributions but nothing proved my point. But the talk page creates the doubt. Please have a look. It is possible I'm mistaken.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really a place for such discussions, here are some options:

• WP:UAA is for blatant violations but as you don't think it is one probably not the right option in this case
• Therefore the next step is to discuss the matter directly with the user on their talk page
• If that doesn't yeild an acceptable result you could file at WP:RFC/N

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism IP

Plz see vandalism 77.132.137.184 IP in West Azerbaijan Province article, for example see history this article.

1)Profanity → donkey....--2)False writing word of Azerbaijani language.--3):Change the entries and numbers.--4):Insist on writing wrong model name of Urmia see 1 to ..4--5):put the [88] youtube, Blog and ... for Ethnic claims--Samək^Talk 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for speedy deletion

If anybody has taken a look at CAT:CSD recently it's obvious that User:Abyssal has nominated a lot of articles in his user space for speedy deletion because he's created those articles in the main space. I'd advise admins to not delete his user space pages, as he's performed cut and paste moves when moving the articles into the main article space, and deleting them would erase the page history. Pishcal — ♣ 19:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would the page history matter when I'm the only one who's edited the pages? Abyssal (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOATT, "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Normal cut-and-paste moves are problematic because they obscure the attribution history. Since everyone who edited User:Abyssal/Timeline of Carboniferous research has also edited Timeline of Carboniferous research (just one person, in this case), a full list of the mainspace page's editors will also be a full list of the userspace page's editors. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true that a history merge isn't necessary. Nevertheless, it can still be done. Pishcal, just list all those pages at WP:SPLICE. The reviewing admin will undelete (if they've been deleted) the pages to perform the histmerge. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Please see this log of an IP vandal from New Jersey that myself and @Struway2: have been monitoring - we pretty much get a new one every day. Any chance of a rangeblock or is the collateral too much? GiantSnowman 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just added a few more from April to the list. I dare say it's not feasible to exclude the whole of New Jersey from editing Wikipedia, but if any parts of their range could be blocked, it'd be appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've hit the whole of the 74.105 range (3 months) - there's little collaterial there. There's a single 74.102 address which would extend the range singnificantly. Let me know if the range changes. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary transclusions

Can someone remove all the unnecessary transclusions to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives that are listed here? The transclusion is simply too big and in most cases is bigger than the archive page itself. (The transclusions were added long ago when the page was much shorter.) The transclusion should be replaced with the text {{Hatnote|For an index of all TfD archives, see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives]].}} as I have done on a few pages. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, but used {{For|an index of all TfD archives|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives}} instead. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Medical and health organisations based in Nigeria

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 find my attempt to create this page blocked. I can't see why it would be controversial. There are 36 similar categories in Category:Medical and health organizations by countryRathfelder (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I don't see anything obvious blocking creation. I couldn't find a reason to reject creating it, so I went ahead and created it for you at Medical and health organisations based in Nigeria. What ever it was blocking it doesn't seem to have applied to me as an admin, or something in the content you wanted to start it with was triggering a filter. Please feel free to replace the redirect at your convenience. Monty₈₄₅ 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Rathfelder meant to create a category, not a mainspace page, so I've moved the page to Category:Medical and health organisations based in Nigeria. It's empty right now, so please populate it, or it will be deleted in a few days. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, in hind sight, that seems obvious. Monty₈₄₅ 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem; we all make little mis-reads often. Not like it hurt anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very muchRathfelder (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for review of close at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for comment - Capitalise universe

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 RfC was recently closed by User:AlbinoFerret. It is unfortunate that the request for closure requested an uninvolved editor when it should have, because of the contentious nature of the issue, requested an uninvolved administrator. The closer is not an administrator. The close, with respect to option 1 and option 3 is apparently contradictory and thereby contentious. The close is likely to be a source of future disruption rather than a resolution of a contentious issue. The closer was asked to review the decision to resolve the contradiction (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for review. Responses by the closer confirm their close but do not reconcile the contradiction. The closer asserts that the two options (1 and 3) are not synonymous but this was not explicit from the RfC discussion. Compounding the matter is the issue of whether the addition of a further five options (from the one originally proposed) has, intentionally or otherwise (this is not a notification of misconduct), disrupted the process. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I just point out a few things in the section that my clarification was written in link. Two responders posted that they decided not to answer the third question. The responders on both sides of the third question recognised there was a difference in the questions and commented on those usages. I dont see any posts in the RFC itself questioning the addition of the 5 questions. The questions were all added on the same day and only one of the three responders to question 1 that answered before the addition did not answer the other five, and that the questions ran 30 days. AlbinoFerret 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I did post an objection in the RfC itself by saying "Editors disrupted [a previous RfC] by heckling and adding irrelevant alternatives which then had to be discussed till the whole thing was TLDR; I see that's happening again ...". But I must add that I did not object to uninvolved editors being closers. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did object to the previous RFC, but nothing was specifically objected to in the one in question. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, an objection was made at [89]. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

An objection to question #4 which was closed no consensus. Which has the effect of not answering it at all, which you suggested should have been done when you opened this section. AlbinoFerret 02:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:AlbinoFerret The link provided was to alternative 4 in the previous RfC, not to this RfC just closed. In the earlier RfC, options 4, 5 and 6 were added after the statement: "What the heck is this addition? If it remains I'm adding more alternatives." [90] These actions are refered to immediately above by Peter Gulutzan The edit at [91] was an objection to addition of options 2 to 5,[92] that had been added just prior to my objection to their addition (option 6 was added later). The edit adding options 2-5 was made at 07:43, 22 March 2015. Immediately before posting options 2-5, the editor made the following statement: "I find the new rehash exceedingly disruptive. If it isn't removed I'll start another slower step-by-step RfC. This one is just going to have the same things introduced as the last one... that's a lot of copying and pasting." [93] A dispute notification was made at 06:22, 22 March 2015 by that editor.[94] An response was made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Astronomical Capitalization Issues by Robert McClenon at 16:07, 22 March 2015.[95] Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk)

These endless arguments about MOS issues have cnvinced me that we should not even have our own MOS anymore and should simply use one written by actual experts. We shouldn't be making up our own grammatical rules, we should do as we do in all other things- follow the best reliable sources out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be such a relief. BMK (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a brilliant idea. Now all we need is a quick, non contentious RFC on which third party style guide to use (and whether, and how, to capitalise its title).

Philosophy

"Seven and a half million years!.." they cried in chorus. "Yes," declaimed Deep Thought, "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I? And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general. Everyone's going to have their own theories about what answer I'm eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?" The two philosophers gaped at him. "Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?" "Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise." Douglas Adams

Begoon ^talk 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Using one other MoS would help a lot in these discussions. As long as we stick to that same single MoS for everything. Because some things like "astronomical objects" are different in every single MoS and style guide. But what happens if the style guide we choose doesn't cover something? Would we go to a backup secondary MoS that was pre-approved? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the QED. Inventing the wheel is easy. Deciding what colour a wheel should be, or how to spell color? Not so much.

The wheels still work, though...Begoon ^talk 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

After a year on arbcom followed by drafting two major policy RFCs (both of which basically failed to accomplish anything) I am trying to stay out of that arena and do little, day-to-day admin sruff right now, but if someone actually wants to put this together and see if we can make it happen I'd be all about it. We would probably have to maintain a bare-bones MOS here just for WP-only issues involving internal links and so forth, but there is simply no reason for us to have internal debates on capitalization, dashes-vs-hyphens, serial commas, etc. It is a sideshow that does little to improve the encyclopedia and much to harm it in the form of one drama blowout after another, often ending with one or more MOS warrior being blocked or banned.

I have an essay on the subject of these types of big RFCs at User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal that may be of some help. Anyone up for it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Adopting an external style guide will not end the arguments (MOS warriors will simply argue endlessly over which style guide to adopt). Unfortunately, the underlying problem isn't with the guidance itself (whether we create our own or adopt someone else's)... its with the attitude of the editors who participate. Too many insist on seeing the MOS as being inflexible "rules", and don't see the MOS as being as being "guidance" (ie relatively flexible best practice suggestions ... with lots of freely granted exceptions and choices offered). Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not a solution that wold completely end the obsessive rule-mongering in this area, but it could help a bit if we stopped acting like WP is any sort of authority on grammar, punctuation, etc. You make a good point though, I have tried many times to point out to folks who are freaking out about MOS issues that it isn't worth getting all bent out of shape about, but it's an area that seems to attract obsessive types who don't like the idea that a rule is nt absolute and applies in all circumstances. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted archive as matter remains unresolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (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) 19:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Close Review: This may sound crazy to the folks who devote large amounts of time and energy into arguing these tiny little points, but most of us realize that the English language (much like Wikipedia itself) has as many exceptions to its own rules as it has rules in the first place. So, reviewing the close of a very long RFC that will probably just be ignored by 95% of Wikipedians is probably not a good use of our limited adminsitrative resources. If the style guides written by actual authorities on the subject are inconsistent on this point, then who cares if Wikiepdia is too? Probably only the people who particpated in this RFC. So, whatever close you guys come up with is fine by the rest of us. Have a nice day. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The big problem being WP:WALLOFTEXT? I think the consensus (capitalize if a scientific discussion, otherwise don't) is probably pretty good. All you have to argue over now is context ha --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The big problem being misdirection. It's not the MoS folks who invented a rule based on poor authority and then changed a huge number of articles, it was a now-banned editor with the blessing of WikiProject Astronomy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Beeblebrox. Except 95 seems low. 99.5, perhaps? Begoon ^talk 01:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Observation: I haven't even looked at the RfC or the closing, but I do agree that an (uninvolved) admin should close all RfCs relating to something as important and site-wide as MOS. Could non-admins please stay out of these, and yes could an admin review the RfC in question, ignore whatever was said by the closer, and either re-close it with whatever seems the logical path forward, or re-open it for a while for further comments before an admin closes it? I believe in the absence of these actions, whatever issue it concerns is going to fester and come up again rather quickly. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In my experience with MOS warriors, it doesn't matter what happens here, it will come back and fester again anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender It was listed on WP:ANRFC asking for an uninvolved editor to close it. I dont normally edit MOS, and I had little idea of the drama that goes on there. Had I any idea, or a time machine to go back and warn myself, I would never ever have wasted my time there. I have that area marked as one I will never go into again just to avoid drama. I do think that the closure is a good one and any admin who wants to look will probably find no problem with it. AlbinoFerret 15:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel for you my friend. To those who haven't seen it before, the obsessive behavior that goes on at MOS debates can be very surprising, even shocking. I got a dose of it when they were having a terrible argument over whether hyphens or dashes should be used. Because there's a really really big, important difference between this - and this — and if we use the wrong one somewhere the encyclopdia will be destroyed. There's an ever-growing list of users who have destroyed their Wiki-careers by getting involved in these silly debates for too long until it drives them to do crazy things like socking. The MOS should be a simple place that just gives guidance, but somehow it has become a cesspit full of people that (wrongly) believe there must be one rule for all situations © and that it is vitally important that we know what that rule is. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Only half in jest, but any admin who decides to get involved in closing anything to do with the MOS would be displaying sufficiently poor judgement to question their fitness to be an admin. Any non-admin closing the discussion is guaranteeing the failure of their next RFA based on all the MOS warriers questions their judgement. Maybe we should ask the foundation to close these discussions? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment

The matter of capitalising 'universe' was bought to the MOS for a resolution after the disruption caused by an editor changing hundreds (perhaps a thousand) articles. The aim was to provide consistency by which the disruption could be settled. Unfortunately, the close by User:AlbinoFerret finds for two synonymous outcomes which are inconsistent and contradictory. These outcomes have not been reconciled. The consequence of not reconciling these outcomes or reviewing the close to resolve the contradiction will be to ferment further disruption. Not having the fortitude to address this matter centrally will only result in it arising time and again on an article by article basis. There is a clear consensus from the majority that a decision is required. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus from the rest of the universe (Universe?) that these neverending, silly, nitpicking debates at the MOS are a drain on administrative and community resources with little to no tangible improvements resulting from them.. I propose we begin treating MOS talk pages the way we treat the WP:REFDESK, as a lttle playpen that is basically outside the scope and rules of the rtest of Wikipedia, and which most users simply ignore. If someone is editing disruptively they can be dealt with on an individual basis without us creating yet another rule nobody will even read, let alone follow. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You'd better watch out, I'm certain there's some kind of rule against making sane comments on the noticeboards. BMK (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for review of RfC closed at Talk:Project for the New American Century

No consensus to overturn. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

The question at issue had already been settled, or so I thought, so a close wasn't necessary, but closed it was[96]. Furthermore, the close appears to have misread the consensus of the limited number of editors that participated (total of six, unless I missed anyone).
It probably won't become an issue, but it might, given the recent convulsions related to the article, with respect to which there is much unfinished work.
The RfC was closed by Guy. I queried him at his Talk page,[97] including a quote of the text as settled in the article, but received no response. The close appears to contradict the settled text, thus this request for review.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, in what exactly consists the contradiction between the "settled text" and the closure statement? Also, why do you request review almost three weeks after the closure? Has there been any controversy at the article lately? Kraxler (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: The article was part of a dispute that is at Arbcom, so it may flare up again once people get back to work on it.

The close states

Consensus supports either removal of the text entirely, or inclusion but only with the context of Meacher's Truther agenda, but this is likely to be considered WP:UNDUE. None of the specific proposals seems to have consensus yet, so the safest course is to avoid mention altogether at this time.

which contradicts the fact that a statement based solely on peer-reviewed secondary sources that does not mention the "Truther agenda" (which, as noted by one of the comments in the RfC, is not mentioned in Meacher's BLP) was included in the article with consensus.

The close seems to present a reason for deletion of the consensus text, and does not even appear to reflect the actual suspended state of the RfC, seemly contradicting itself when it states that "Consensus supports..." but then states that "None of the specific proposals seems to have consensus yet". It's something of a nonsensical close, as far as I can tell, while there is a consensus text in the article that had been settled for about a month before the close.

I waited for a response, but gather that there is a month time frame for requesting a review.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the closer did not edit the article, and nobody else did concerning the statement in question, it seems that the closure was essentially a "no action" statement with suggestions for one thing or the other. On the other side, both the original proposer of the RfC and you, Ubikwit, are currently parties involved in two ArbCom cases concerning the area of which this article is part. Considering these facts, I suggest you withdraw this request, as no practical gain could possibly come of it. As to "it may flare up again once people get back to work on it", I think you should cross that bridge when you come to it; and we should wait for the result of the ArbCom cases to see who actually will be able to return to edit the article. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor that started the RfC is not a party to the second case, basically, and is not remotely subject to be sanctioned. Granted, I may be, but I think it is better to get this out of the way now, before that case is decided so as to not appear to be attempting to game the system, and not allow the system to be gamed by anyone else claiming the authority of the apparently faulty RfC close.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RE "is not remotely subject to be sanctioned" I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Proposed decision#Collect topic-banned (option 2). I also think it is unwise to start a pointy discussion like this one while being under scrutiny by ArbCom. But it's your decision, how to proceed. Kraxler (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I'd mistakenly forgot that the OP of the RfC was actually Collect (there are a number of comments inserted before the signature marking the original filing). I've struck that remark, but that was not the crux of the matter, which is that the close was faulty, and unnecessary in light of the fact that there was already a consensus text in place for more than a month--but I'm repeating points I've already made above that you haven't commented on.

I don't see how this could be "pointy" in light of the fact that the close was faulty. Please refrain from making such unsubstantiated statements in the future.

In other words, the faulty close of the RfC is not related to who started the RfC; it is the sole responsibility of the close, and that is what this review request addresses. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It is pointy because it has no practical effect, either way. The RfC was closed, to get it off the backlogs. Nothing else changed. Haggling over something that does not make any difference is indicative of what? Anyway, let's wait to see whether anybody comes forward to opine here advocating to revert the closure. We'll have to be patient. Kraxler (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to include Meacher without the context, then the RfC provides an unambiguous answer: no. If you want to exclude Meacher, it provides an unambiguous answer: that would be fine. If you want to include Meacher with context, you need additional sources to ensure that the context is clear, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I thought that was reasonably clear from my close, but I am happy to clarify if needed. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you have ignored subsequent editing and discussion on the article in making the close based on an issue that had been settled after people abandoned the ill-started RfC.

Here [98] is the relevant section after Fyddlestix carried out a substantial overhaul of the article, as described in this comment. Prior to his carrying that out, Collect made this comment, apparently missing that the material had already been included in the article (basically appearing twice at present, in the lead and relevant section[99], along with other statements repeating Meacher's notable "Pax Americana" claim).

The close ignores that activity, and therefore could falsely be used as a premise to negate it if someone tried to assert its authority as such.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Brought here by Ubikwit's ping, is it useful to have my perspective? I also thought the close misread the consensus, but I'm not particularly fussed about it. A compromise solution (which was worked out before Guy's close) was eventually put into the article and has been stable for 2 months now. Plus, that RFC really only happened because Collect was making POINTy edits, edit warring & refusing to hear in the debate over that article. He was blocked for a week for the edit warring and now ArbCom looks set to ban him from US Politics articles indefinitely - in no small part because of his behavior in the debate over the PNAC article. If/when the issue comes up again, I'm confident that another compromise solution could be easily reached - so long as Collect is not there to inflame and over-complicate things (which seems unlikely at this point) Fyddlestix (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that Collect has - ahem - certain issues when it comes to neutrality of American politics articles. I did not accord any weight to hyperbole from Collect (or anyone else), if that helps. Sadly debate in this area is often dominated by hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think we can probably close this now that we're all on the same sheet of music, so to speak.

Thanks for the input and perspective, Fyddlestix.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Vandalism by two similar IPs back to back

Here we have vandalism by 38.64.174.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [100] followed moments latter by 38.64.174.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [101]. User:ClueBot NG only reverted the most recent one as they are two different IPs. This is the second time I have seen this pattern in the last couple of days. Wondering if others are noticing the same pattern? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered it from time to time. It's caused by a load-balancing proxy. The vandal is probably not even aware that it's happening. Graham87 05:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I just encountered it here. There should be something to detect the vandalism by similar IP addresses if only the last few digits differ. Epic Genius (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Chealer

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 admin be so kind as to take a look at my questions on Chealer's talk page that he keeps removing? It would seem to me there is broad support for a site ban for Chealer above and beyond his block. See archived discussion on AN here. What's more, Chealer continues his IDHT and keeps submitting unblock requests (see his talk page). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? JzG or Only? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access as they're just using their talk page to post the same circular inane questions. If Chealer wishes to post a cogent unblock request via UTRS, I've left instructions on how to do so.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Violating 3RR and repetitive disruption to Wikipedia

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

---

RichardOSmith has violated the WP:3RR over the article. of Unindian. I have tagged it with db-a1 because it clearly looks like a test page with only one sentence. I recommended the user to create the article in draft space and them move to main space when done. But I think this user does not understand and repetitively reverted 3 edits violated WP:3RR and should be blocked. Evidence can be seen at my User_talk:Doublefrog Doublefrog (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I count only three edits in total and they were:

1. to revert vandalism - Doublefrog blanked the page then nominated it for deletion on the basis the creator had done so
2. to re-revert (1)
3. to remove a db-g2 tag which clearly did not apply

I'm rather glad this user has identified themselves here - their contribution history is frankly bizarre and well worth a look. 07:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@RichardOSmith: - My dear! I don't think you did not address the point. Why don't you create the article in draft space and move it main space when complete rather than creating a non-context single sentence article with no references and sources at all. Why so fast? It clearly passes db-a1 as of now. I would be happy if you address the issue rather than reverting and accusing. Correct me if I am wrong! Doublefrog (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doublefrog: - You are wrong. I did not create the article, and it clearly does not meet db-a1. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@RichardOSmith: - DB-A1 has nothing to do with the author. Stop reverting the edits on Citizens'_Alliance_(Cyprus) as well. The author has been informed about it. Moreover with discussion over here, I believe you shouldn't interrupt and disrupt unnecessarily. :) Doublefrog (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• After posting my previous comment over here, I warned @RichardOSmith: of any further disruption over here and it has been reverted again by @RichardOSmith:. I warned again over here but again reverted. I gave a final warning over here but here reverted again with comment 'troll'. The user is trying to revert all of my edits which is a clear disruption. The user should be blocked indefinitely. Doublefrog (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unindian has been edited and sourced by Northamerica1000 which looks a bit better now. I have no objections at all with that. But I would like to keep this case open in light of RichardOSmith's disruptive editing actions. Thank You! Doublefrog (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Doublefrog has been editing since 1st May, where they made two edits to their user/talk pages. Four days later, they take an article to AfD, citing which policy it doesn't meet. With their third edit. Their next block of edits are around AfD. Anyone else smell socks? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see Epeefleche has come to the same conclusion on this "new" user's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: - Your doubt will be clear here. Doublefrog (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment note that Doublefrog has been edit warring at RichardOSmith's talk page in an attempt to prevent ROS from removing bogus warnings. This another problematic aspect of Doublefrog's conduct. Doublefrog has gone after ROS very aggressively during this situation and seems to really want ROS to get punished. Frankly, given Doublefrog's problematic editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, a WP:Boomerang is probably in order here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It is ironic that Doublefrog came here to report a 3RR violation against me (which did not take place) but has violated 3RR themselves on my talk page. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at all the above and their contributions, I'd support WP:Boomerang. Disruptive editing on RichardOSmith's article (like why did they blank it, and vandalise it a few more times), repeated addition of bogus warning- whilst any of these could be considered newbie mistakes, firstly newbies probably shouldn't be patrolling new pages, and secondly the combination of all of these things points towards WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, Unindian is not a page I created; I came upon it in new page patrol. Whilst I was researching the subject (and concluding it was notable despite lack of refs) the article was blanked and tagged for deletion by Doublefrog so I reverted them. The "3RR violation" report was, in fact, about me twice reverting vandalism by Doublefrog and once contesting the clearly invalid speedy deletion nomination they placed. Their edit history shows a large number of frankly ridiculous AfD nominations and reverts of legitimately contested speedy deletion nominations. Doublefrog appears to be here only to cause mischief. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have given evidences over reverting on the article primarily. However I believe that peace is better than war so I wanted to close the discussion right away. The article of Unindian that spurrwd this all stuff has been settled and this discussion is pointless now. I won't revert edits on his talk page neither I expect him to do so. I have settled the issue from my side. Doublefrog (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• You believe that peace is better than war? Is that why you've pursued ROS so aggressively and were still calling for him to be sanctioned right up until we started shifting the focus to your conduct? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• As a reminder, WP:BLANKING makes it very clear that users are allowed to blank pretty much anything on their personal Talk page. Your warnings about his edits on other articles are absolutely fair game for blanking. Your expectations above about his talk page are simply trash-talking. Your edit-warring on ROS's Talk page was way way way out of line. Choor monster (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As this report has gone quiet, a summary: I had been legitimately removing Doublefrog's absurd speedy deletion nominations during newpage patrol (some particularly egregious, e.g. [102]) and, in some instances, re-removing them after they had been invalidly put back after they had been contested (e.g. [103]) for which invalid warnings were placed on my talkpage ([104]) and this report was raised here. Here is a "new" editor who somehow knows all about new page patrol, page deletion procedure and this noticeboard and is performing actions that they must also know are so wrong and provocative that it is impossible to conclude that they have any good intentions here. Let us not feed this troll any more or allow them any further editing privileges. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The reason for this discussion going quite was my apology and no further editions as well. I don't think it's a right way for you to repeatedly ignite war providing same evidences. That won't help you in either way dear. Doublefrog (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but I don't recall you ever apologizing. Also, don't be patronizing by sarcastically calling ROS 'dear'. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Doublefrog is a confirmed sock of Sanjoy64 and has been blocked and tagged accordingly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well blow me down! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Picture of the day

Having a 7mb gif on the main page was causing issues for people with slow connections and data caps (and causing some foundation people to get unreasonably excited). I've switched it back to yesterday's image. The relevant template can be found at Template:POTD protected/2015-05-06. Feel free to come up with an alternative featured image but I need to go to bed now which is going to limit my further involvement.©Geni (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just reduce its resolution? BMK (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, please do something with it ~ currently the Main Page won't finish loading, Popups and other Good Things don't work, breaking all sorts of functionality. Isn't there a guideline of some kind about size of files? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Gifs of that size do not resize, hence why it's presented at full resolution on the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• So can we take it off the main page, then? Epic Genius (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• It will roll off the main page in 10 hours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Crisco 1492, but that is a particularly unhelpful non-responsive response. During that ten hours, what? we just don't care if some people cannot easily access our main landing page? It's all very well to wave your hands and say, "The Foundation doesn't care", but we do, and if this is known and predictable, why would we do it? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think thats pretty much Crisco 1492's question Talk:Main_Page#Wrong_image.3F.©Geni (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• If they don't care about dealing with images, why are they getting strung out over the image on the main page? Problems like PNG have been noted for more than six years, and are blatantly apparent, like at Benjamin Britten (PNG, JPG). The WMF have had plenty of time to work on downsampling GIFs.

Furthermore, POTD doesn't show up on the mobile main page (here), so a good number of those on limited bandwidths are not affected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not necessarily the case, that's a line of argument dependent on the user using (automatically, or choosing manually) to use the mobile version of the site. If they're choosing to use the normal version of the site, the problem still exists. I've been looking after the IRC help channel and dealt with a report of the Main Page not loading for a mobile user which looks like it's possibly related to this image. I've reverted back to yesterday's image, I'm sorry that was necessary. Nick (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, I've created a WebM version of the troublesome GIF (not wishing to cause trouble without offering some sort of option) and it can be found at File:Shallow water waves.webm should Crisco 1492 or anybody else who knows more about POTD wish to use it. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• A WebM file would offer the functionality of pausing a file before it loads, but current POTD policy is that such drastic changes must go FPC before they can be run on the main page. Nick, we have one more fairly big GIF in the queue (File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif); if it's possible to make a WebM version, I can run this through the delist and replace process at FPC. It would sadden me greatly if people's hard work has to go to naught because the WMF has been unable to provide proper technical support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• It saddens me enormously that such work causes problems on the Main Page and might have to be removed. That's why I made the WebM version, in the hope it can be used again, and I've encoded a WebM of File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif as requested - File:Mandelbrot sequence new.webm. If there are any other files that need similar treatment, I'm more than happy to do the WebM conversion and uploads, just drop me a note on my talk page (here or Commons is fine). Nick (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's possible to make a file not clickable, and if I remember rightly, it's also possible to make it so that clicking a file takes you somewhere other than the file's description page. What if we displayed the WebM on the main page and set it up so that clicking it took you to the gif? Current policy doesn't seem to me to be written for situations when the file itself will cause loading problems for people, and this kind of thing would improve the encyclopedia, so let's just WP:IAR until we can revise the policy accordingly. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure redirecting them would work very well. I'll try the D&R route for the Mandelbrot sequence. The thing that saddens me is that our maths articles (which rarely get a day in the sun) are disproportionately affected; all too often the really nice GIFs were made for maths subjects. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the transclusion of the image here (that is, in this discussion thread on WP:AN), since people were just complaining on the talk that this page is too large; transcluding a 7mb gif seems like a bad idea anywhere, including on this page. The image is here if people want to look at it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking for volunteers to help us label edits as damaging/not

A screenshot of the "wiki labels" interface for evaluating a diff

Hey folks!

If you have not been following our work, we have been working on developing the infrastructure that will help introduce smarter Artificial Intelligence based tools to Wikipedia that utilize the most cutting edge Machine Learning algorithms.

Hence, we are looking for volunteers to help us build new and better quality control tools for Wikipedia. We need help manually assessing the quality of edits to train machine learning models that will help with quality control work. We've built a fancy tool to make the work quick, easy and maybe even fun. :) If you're interested, check out our project page WP:Labels/Edit quality.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I for one welcome Skynet and our new robot overlords. Chillum 14:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. But seriously, I'm willing to help in this effort.- MrX 14:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No matrix references? I am a bit disappointed. Seriously though this effort intends to introduce intent of edits to distinguish edits such as those that are damaging but also are made in good faith. Dealing with edits such as this and damaging edits made in bad faith is significantly different. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:) no skynet here. Really, one of our goals is to have a better human feedback loop for AIs around quality control. This labeling campaign is an important part of making sure that the AIs don't just predict the same old revert patterns we have. We'll also be able to use the data to dig into the biases that the algorithm will inevitably learn. It will be a lot of work to label 20k edits, but I think this dataset will be very valuable for many projects -- not just revscoring. Anyway, thanks for your interest. :) --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've signed up to the collective. I may not be able to do a whole lot this weekend as I'll be in and out a lot, but keep me in the loop. I've been looking for something different to sink my teeth into. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Move review for The Doctor (Doctor Who)

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.

---

Too bad there is no 'move review' page. Just now, BD2412 moved Doctor (Doctor Who) to The Doctor (Doctor Who), completely going against WP:RMCI, as he saw "compelling evidence" that "the Doctor" is the predominant use. See this move request. This is exceptional, because the Doctor is now the only (fictional) character that is allowed to have "the" in its article title. I guess we now have to move all charater/person articles who's name start with "the". I tried to explain that in this case his name is a proper noun, and as such, "the" is never included, and the definite article never capitalised. Even though he is referred to as "the Doctor", he is addressed as "Doctor". So how would we solve this massive inconsistency that is grocely voilating multiple naming guidelines? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There certainly is a move review page - Wikipedia:Move review. If you disagree with my determination of consensus in this discussion, the instructions for appealing it are right there. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed that... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to ping me when the review is filed. I consider myself informed, and will likely not have anything new to say. bd2412 T 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just following instructions... And while you may have nothing to add, you may want to read the move is in error. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone pass me some sour grapes please? Which number is he supposed to have broken? and please don't be so stupid to suggest that all things need to be changed - you're an admin, you should no better. He made it perfectly clear that this was an exception. You may feel a particular way about his name, but that does not make it right. here consensus was agaqinst you. big deal. no need to cry about it. learn how to lose debates [there is a guidline for that, but don't know the code] 94.5.45.222 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You may also want to read my rationale on the move review. The move was not allowed, even if there was consensus to do so. Some policies, and even some guidelines, are exempt from consensus wihout compelling reason. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, YOU may read one thing into the name, but that does not make it the RIGHT way to read his name. other people read that the 'The' did fall into one of the exceptions on WP:THE 94.5.45.222 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

His name is not the issue; it is wether "the" is part of the title of the article, not his name. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I need more admin eyes on this. Please review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 May#The Doctor (Doctor Who). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC vs. DRN

This concerns the WP:DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Female genital mutilation.

There is an RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#RfC that, in my opinion, cannot possibly resolve the content dispute we are discussing at DRN, because it doesn't actually ask a question or give anyone a place to post support/oppose !votes. Nonetheless, it has become a distraction at DRN.[105][106][107][108][109][110][111]

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at the situation and decide whether [A] The RfC should proceed and [B] The DRN case should be closed because of the ongoing RfC. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the RFC should be closed with a link to the (later-filed) DRN post. Two forums for the same dispute are confusing and, frankly, look a bit like forum-shopping. Miniapolis 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur with having moderated discussion proceed at WP:DRN. Support procedural closure of the RFC. The RFC cannot be closed by normal means anyway because it doesn't ask a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone is being extraordinarily dense and persistent. Frankly, DRN is superfluous: SV sums it up perfectly, this is a violation of WP:SYN and an attempt to crowbar a personal agenda into the article using sources substantially less reliable than those on which the rest of the article is based. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE: This thread has been copied to ANI as a more suitable location JZCL 07:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[112][113] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple articles on the same subject

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

---

Recently looking at the contributions of User:Uemk I noticed that there were two articles on the same subject, University of Engineering and Management and University of Engineering & Management that were essentialy the same thing before being edited by other editors. Even without looking at the issues that both articles share, what should be done in this case? It appears the older article, University of Engineering & Management was created by the same person as User:Uemk on a different account back in 2011, as indicated by the similarity of their usernames (which also reveal a pretty obvious COI). Pishcal — ♣ 05:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just redirected the second article into the first and put a username warning on Uemk for their username (appears to be a group or promotional account). GregJackP Boomer! 10:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User 86.172.67.139 edit warring on Aerotoxic Syndrome

User 86.172.67.139 has persistently been edit warring on Aerotoxic Syndrome, adding content that breaks WP:MEDRS, reverting against consensus, and not discussing on the talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the page for two weeks and will watch-list for a while. Since the IP has no interests outside this topic, I did not feel it was necessary to also issue a block. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That will probably be sufficient for now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

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

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FCollect_and_others

Rape jihad 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.

---

I am a mostly uninvolved editor, and I am concerned about the Rape jihad article. Talk page discussion has not been constructive. My concerns are:

• Many of the sources in the article are highly unreliable and opinionated - for example Robert Spencer, National Review, The Christian Post and the Daily Beast
• The article, and many of its key contributors seem to be engaged in WP:POV pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. See Talk:Rape jihad.
• One editor (User:Раціональне анархіст) has made several comments which seem Islamophobic and WP:POV such as 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered).' and '(The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.) What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING' on the talk page
• Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom by primarily Asian men has a section in the article despite no credible source linking the matter to Islamic fundamentalism or jihad. If White or Christian men were engaging in such horrendous crimes would we have an article linking that to White or Christian terrorism? The BBC source mentions rape jihad in this context 'The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, based at King's College London, recently detailed how the English Defence League (EDL) had been attempting to link child sexual exploitation with Muslims.

"This 'rape jihad', as it has become known, is a significant concern for the EDL," says the centre's report, Neo-Nationalist Network.'

• The article does not approach the matter from a fair or neutral position
• The article was nominated for deletion on 24 February and result was delete

I want to ask Administrators what action can be taken on this matter? Should it be referred to arbitration? AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noted this after posting to ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Rape jihad article still needs attention. We should close one and centralize discussion at the other. (Oh No! They are going to kill my baby!! <smile>) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Lukeno94 {redacted long eyewatering title}

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.

---

Last night at the talk page for User:Beyond My Ken, who is not the subject of this complaint, I twice removed, and simultaneously asked BMK himself to remove, a sign on his talk page declaring that it is a "No Assholes Zone". My request for removal was based on the (claimed) grounds that this "warning sign" is unnecessarily hostile and bears no relation at all to encyclopedia editing; rather it is just a way for Ken to lash out at people he doesn't like. (Side note, he has a habit of making small edits to these signs immediately after an interaction with a user he doesn't like, fairly raising the inference that it's a barb directed at that other user).

This morning I logged in to find both a "warning message" from BMK that I was "banned" from his talk page and that he would delete my comments without reading them, and a SOCKPUPPET accusation from another user, User:Lukeno94. This sock accusation was apparently based on the fact that some IP user came by during the night and repeatedly restored my prior complaint about the "No Assholes Zone" sign, adding the somewhat puzzling edit summary that "Users are not permitted to remove ArbCom enforcement messages". Now, I don't know whether that's true, but my complaint was not an ArbCom enforcement warning, and that IP editor wasn't me. I have no clue who he/she is. I do not communicate with WP users off-wiki, both because of the principles at stake and because there is nobody in particular that I would like to communicate with off-wiki.

User:MONGO suggested the possibility that this was an editor deliberately trying to impersonate me, which I suppose might explain the "Arbcom enforcement warning" comment, since I've recently been involved in heated discussions with BMK at both ArbCom and ANI, and so perhaps the mention of ArbCom was intended as a sort of false flag. That all does seem possible, although I do wonder whether it could be proven — if you run a checkuser on me, I think you will see a clear reason why I have my doubts as to the ability to prove this via checkuser.

Anyway, TLDR, moving along to the subject of this complaint. I found this SOCK accusation — made by a total stranger apparently without basis — rather annoying and made a very testy comment on his talk page (disclosure: as you can see, I called his accusation "moronic").

Lukeno94 did not really reply, but instead removed my complaint from his talk page with the terse and somewhat mystifying edit summary "rm overly aggressive comment from someone who doesn't realize just how that IP looked". Now, that does virtually nothing to explain the complaint, although IMO it perhaps hints at the flimsy basis for it.

So I restored my complaint, and posted an additional complaint demanding an apology and expressing my view that making this unfounded accusation, complete with a block threat, and not explaining it, then refusing to explain it when challenged, and simply slamming the door on any complaints about it, made Lukeno94 look like a "childish jerk".

(Yes, yes, I know all the lurkers will say that it was ME being a jerk for taking exception to all this in the first place, and not being content to just be subject to ABF and have the door slammed in my face with no apology.)

This time Luke's determination to refuse discussion was resolute: he still did not apologize or explain the accusation, and again removed my complaint with the message, "OK, I'll make this blunt: Fuck off and don't come back. Your attitude and behavior does not deserve an apology, and frankly, you're acting just like the IP you deny being..."

So, not only was he still refusing to apologize for the accusation or even explain it, he was vaguely making the accusation all over again, and throwing in outright profane hostility to boot.

I restored my complaint and again explicitly demanded an apology. Both were subsequently reverted by another user.

I then proceeded to post about WP:NOASSUMESOCK in a very blunt message to Lukeno42, which he immediately reverted with the edit summary edit summary "What part of fuck off do you not understand?". So then I went ahead and templated him for WP:CIVILITY, noting that Luke had refused to discuss his accusation and that simply resorting to profane insults was way out of bounds.

He responded with another revert with yet another over-the-top personal insult in the edit summary: "Get a life, will you? Are you getting off over continually posting random things to my talk page, even when you've been told to stay away? Certainly seems like it; there's little other explanation for your behaviour."

Of course this conveniently overlooks another possible explanation for my posts, which was that this dude made a completely unfounded accusation, refused to explain it, refused to even discuss it, simply deleted my complaints about it, preferring instead to repeatedly curse me out, and thus I wanted a freaking apology.

I made one final demand for an apology (IN ALL CAPS!). Naturally, Luke reverted this, adding an additional ad hominem instead of an apology.

At some level, being right has to count for something. I was slapped with a baseless accusation which warranted an apology, and treated as a bad-faith user from the very start. I was very justifiably annoyed at the accusation and completely justified in letting my tone show that when I complained about it and demanded explanation or apology. The original sock accusation was baseless BS, my resulting testiness was very well-held and should not have been the grounds for a full-bore stream of further accusations, personal insults, and profanity. Since when can you just tell another WP editor to "fuck off" ? What's next, meeting up and getting into fist fights? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"The tl;dr label is sometimes used constructively by an author to introduce a short summation of a longer piece. However, it is all too often invoked as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing, or, worse, a stoop to ridicule." — emphasis added

Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I meant that the Original Poster should provide a concise summary of his or her complaint. The above complaint is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice, please read and understand the following:

• Luke is not required to respond to your comments on his own talk page.
• Luke is is permitted per WP:TPG to remove your comments from his talk page if he wishes.
• If someone removes comments without responding, it means they don't want to respond, it does not mean that you should restore them.
• If you ask for an apology on a user's talk page and your request is removed from said talk page, you should not expect said apology.
• When someone tells you to fuck off and leave their talk page alone, best practice is to do the latter (the former is at your own discretion).
• Drop the stick, and walk away from the horse carcass, or you will find yourself blocked from editing.

That is all I have. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice you didn't mention anything about Luke being permitted to make baseless accusations and block threats and use any profane language he wishes? Those were the things I was complaining about. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If Luke thought you were a sockpuppet, that's his prerogative, suggesting that you may be blocked is not baseless as presently you appear to deserve it, I am not a 10 year old who giggles every time someone says fuck. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me correct one fact here. The sign on my talk page does not say "No Assholes Zone" and never did. It once said "No Asshole Zone" (no plural), but I changed that to "No A****** Zone" and then, reflecting my opinion about the absurdity of using asterisks to make certain words "safe" even though they are perfectly recognizable to everyone, to "N* Asshole Z***"".

As for Factchecker_atyoutservice, I disagree with Luke, and do not believe that Factchecker_atyourservice used IPs to continue his argument against the sign. It is much more likely that the IP (which was an open proxy) was Kumioko, who has the expertise for that, something that I don't believe Factchecker_atyourservice has.

Finally, in my opinion, the fault in the interaction between Factcheck_atyourservice and Luke lies in Factchecker_atyourservice. Once he had notified Luke of his feeling about being accused of socking, and Luke deleted his message, that should have been it. The restoration by Factchecker_atyourservice of the deleted message was disruptive, as users are allowed to maintain their talk pages as they wish (within certain limits spelled out in policy). Factchecker_atyourservice's desire to provoke Luke into continuing the discussion when he obviously did not want to, and when Factchecker_atyourservie had already been informed by another user about how, on a superficial level, the IPs edits looked to an outside observer, should have made Factchecker_atyourservice realize that he was harping on this subject inappropriately. Luke, in my opinion, may have been wrong about the identity of the IP, but his conclusion was reasonable under the circumstances. BMK (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK it's quite obvious what your sign says: No Assholes Zone. You're pretending otherwise, this is abject dishonesty at its most obvious. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)You should take a closer look at the words under the image. BTW, shouldn't this be at AN/I, and not here? This sounds like an incident to me. BMK (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're lying right on an admin board, you should be blocked for that alone. Yeah, I meant to post this at ANI, I just don't make a practice of reporting misbehavior so I'm not that experienced with the admin boards. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Lying" (much harsher than "Fuck off") about these words I copied from below the image and am pasting here? N* Asshole Z*** What are you on about? Give it a rest, please. (And, incidentally, saying "This report is not about Editor X", then launching into a detailed account of what Editor X did does not relieve you of the responsibility of notifying Editor X. As I told you when I banned you from my talk page (for reasons which must be fairly obvious to the objective reader of this thread) "Please note that effective immediately, you are banned from posting on my talk page or any other page in my userspace, unless Wikipedia policy requires you to do so." BMK (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're lying right on an admin board, you should be blocked for that alone. And you're even double lying by lying about the fact that you're lying. Dishonesty is the single worst thing you can bring to WP, and you bring it in spades. You're lying flagrantly and right here on an admin board, this has got to represent the very lowest of Wiki-dishonesty.Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain how exactly the statement is a lie? When I look at the page, it looks just as described in BMK's statements, and recent talk page history shows the discussion further up about its evolution is accurate, at least as far as the recent history is concerned... Monty₈₄₅ 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Let's look at the actual facts here behind the initial comment I made, which certainly wasn't "baseless". The complaining editor here left a baseless message on User:Beyond My Ken's talkpage, which was removed. An IP, whilst the Factchecker account was offline, then came and reinstated that message twice - an IP that had made 0 edits previously, and had been blocked as an open proxy previously. In that context, although there is every possibility that I am wrong, my remark was not baseless. As to the rest of the rubbish in the wall of text above; Factchecker came to whine at my talk page, which I removed with a neutrally-worded and fairly apt edit summary. Following the ridiculous attempts to edit war messages onto my talkpage, I used more forceful and colourful language. Let's look at the cold, hard facts here; yes, I used not very nice language, but there's pretty obvious context to it. Factchecker leaves an OTT message on my talk page, which I removed - they then continued to reinsert that message twice, and spam three more messages after that (not inclusive of the AN note). It's also worth noting that, after User:Winner 42 stepped in to revert Factchecker and left a perfectly valid warning message, that they were the recipient of two pointless messages themselves (the first one was removed by Winner42 in a manner that made it pretty obvious that they had no desire to interact with this user). Then we have Factchecker running off to the wrong noticeboard (should've been ANI) with the above bunch of whining. Had they come to ask me to retract my sock warning in a polite manner, then it's likely that I would've reacted in kind - but this is not a polite manner. People living in glass houses should not throw stones, and WP:BOOMERANG does seem rather apt. It's also worth noting their ridiculous response to Robert above, who was quite right - this is a ridiculous wall of text. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I thought this WAS ANI. It was my intention to post there as suggested by some other users. Maybe the complaint could be moved there? I'll be back shortly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Factchecker, I'm not sure why you think someone must apologise to you when you demand that they do so. When someone tells you to go away and leave them alone, it's usually prudent to just do it. I doubt that being told to fuck off is the worst thing anyone's ever said to you – just let it go, water off a duck's back. Demanding apologies will usually get you nowhere either here or in "real life". Being right very often stands for nothing other than exactly that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The complaint is about the "fuck offs", not about the failure to apologize; that was only mentioned for context. Oh also, to a lesser extent it's about the complete BS sock accusation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you hadn't been repeatedly adding comments to his talk page, he wouldn't have told you to fuck off. The solution to this problem is, don't keep adding comments to his talk page, and he will not tell you to fuck off. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Kelapstick is right. Incivility usually has to be way worse than that to be sanctionable, and you weren't particularly polite yourself while persistently posting on his talk page after he'd told you not to. As for the sock accusation, I'm sure we've all been accused of it at some point, and however annoying it may be if incorrect, it's not crime of the century. Drop the stick. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Could someone close this please? It's pretty obvious that action isn't going to be taken against me (or if it is, the thread isn't going to make any difference), and all that is happening is that Factchecker is still sniping at BMK for no good reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

BS on "no good reason", he is sitting here lying to my face (and everyone else's face, for that matter). Please go read WP:Editor integrity. Not lying through your teeth is generally understood to be a basic requirement of WP editing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it you believe I'm lying about? BMK (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And more to the point. Who cares? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ken, you're quite obviously lying by pretending you don't know, it's stated clearly above; your user talk sign says "No Assholes Zone" and literally nobody could possibly believe your obvious BS claims to the contrary.

Kelapstick, your disingenuous comment invites no response. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Problems at Nazi gun control theory

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.

---

Took a quick visit to this article after seeing it mentioned on the board, and the aroma is very ripe. It would appear that contemporary gun-control partisans have seized the opportunity to baldly rewrite history via preferential sourcing of dubious veracity.

Unfortunately for them, not everyone with a vague recollection of World Wars-era history is dead yet.

For instance, it is not "counterfactual", let alone a "theory" at all, that on November 8, 1938, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler (who would later implement the logistics of The Holocaust) decreed the confiscation of all weapons from Jews (with violation punishable by up to twenty years in a concentration camp), and that the infamous Kristallnacht began the very next day.(*[114]) Neither is it a fantasy that numerous ghetto uprisings occurred under occupation during the War.

(* That's a link to a concise piece by Stephen Halbrook on his own site, a lawyer whom I am going to assume knows what he's talking about since he's won two cases before the US Supreme Court. There are literally hundreds of reliable, reputable sources regarding this, but I'm not about to get into a fight over there as long as it looks like the enemy controls the terrain.) Pax 09:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A brigade of mops need to hit that thing for a complete re-write (and rename) with the attention of historical experts...or just AfD and salted. Pax 09:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you are one of the partisans determined to rewrite history. Well done. Here's what would have happened if the Jews had attempted armed resistance: they would have been wiped out, there and then. Have you ever heard of Lidice? There is no remotely plausible reason to think that gun control had any material impact on the Final Solution. The confiscation of weapons sits in context with the confiscation of all property. You also need to read our article on counterfactual history. I am beginning to be persuaded by the people who call for you to be sanctioned for tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing whatsoever about the viability of armed uprisings. You've switched the subject. Pax 20:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It should of course be noted that 'historical experts' - i.e. qualified academic historians of the Holocaust, of which there are no shortage - have rejected Halbrook's attempts to rewrite world history as a just-so story for the benefit of the U.S. pro-gun lobby, when they have bothered to comment at all. And perhaps Pax might care to read over the ArbCom gun control case, [115] before he makes the same mistake that others pushing Halbrook's partisan counterfactual speculations have done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Which credible historical expert can you cite who maintains the November 1938 Munich proclamation by Himmler did not exist? Pax 20:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I just clarify here: is it a topic ban you're angling for, or a full site ban? Guy (Help!) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

None. The question is whether credible historians consider the firearms regulations passed by the Nazis to be of any significance to the Holocaust. They evidently don't - if only because the regulations only ever applied to a minority of the victims (most of which had never been German citizens, and accordingly weren't covered by the regulations in question), and because the Nazis didn't give a flying fuck as to whether their policies of industrialised mass murder were carried out according to law or otherwise. Anyway, I'm not here to debate with you - you seem to think this is some sort of forum, but it isn't. It is however a place where sanctions against contributors who engage in soapboxing are discussed. Would you like to see such a discussion here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC on COI for alt med practitioners

As alt-med/acupuncture has been the subject of several ANI threads and at least two recent arbcom postings, I'm providing notice of this here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs more abbreviations and initialisms. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: it is not TLA compliant. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Snow close request

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination) -- 19 !votes to delete and salt, 2 to keep --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

OTRS permissions backlog

While this is not technically an AN issue, most OTRS agents are admins,so I think this is the best place to reach you.

I'll start by noting I did virtually no OTRS work between January and April, so I do understand the need to step away for a bit and recharge. However, I returned to see over 1000 open requests for permissions, over 850 in Commons, some more than two months old that hadn't been touched. I've handled about 150, but I am running out of steam.

If every admin who is an OTRS agent were to handle one request a day, we could whittle the backlogs down to a manageable level.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs more salt...

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.

---

Rape jihad was deleted and salted, but it appears that Rape Jihad (note capitalization) is unprotected. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

104.35.41.35 SPA ?

I do get the impression, this IP user solely exists to mess up infoboxes of ancient chronology articles : User contributions of 104.35.41.35. There are too many edits for me to review and clean up. I had already posted this on User:Dougweller's talk page, but a bot removed it before he could respond. Could someone please have a look? ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Which articles in particular have I made unencyclopedic edits in? Or have all my edits been unecyclopedic? I can revert the changes that I have made where they are unencyclopedic. 104.35.41.35 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This edit [116], for example, is simply incorrect. Do you know what B.C.E. means? I reverted it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. In the past User:Dougweller has informed me on my talk page to neither use BCE nor BC in a BP article, and that I should read WP:ERA. When I first added the infobox for the Oldowan article I was not aware about using BP only. I will make sure to use BP from now on and change all the dates of prehistory-related articles where I used BCE when I should have used BP. 104.35.41.35 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • And yet you just edited [117] the same article to restore an edit you agreed was incorrect? JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Hello there. I am the same person as 104.35.41.35 (talk). I have logged into my account. I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was the person who created the archaeological culture infobox for the article of Oldowan here [118] nearly two months ago, back in 24 March 2015. Before then the Oldowan did not have that infobox. At the time that I created the infobox, I used BC in the infobox for an article that never uses BC. A few hours later I logged off my account and I changed the BC to B.C.E here [119]. A few days later on 8 April 2015 (UTC) User:Dougweller informed me on my talk page here [120] to neither use BCE nor BC in a BP article with no calendar dates and that I should take a look at WP:ERA. WP:ERA suggests the following here [121]: "BP: In scientific and academic contexts, BP (before present) is often used. This is calibrated from January 1, 1950, not from the date of publication, though the latter introduces an insignificant error when the date is distant or an approximation (18,000 BP). BP years are given as 18,000 BP or spelled out as 18,000 years before present. BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods" The Oldowan article does not use calendar dates, and neither uses BC nor BCE. So it seemed inappropriate to use B.C.E., which was something that I had myself added to the infobox, which was an infobox that I had myself added to the article. I am not sure I understand the problem here, as I am simply correcting mistakes that I had myself made weeks earlier. However, you have reverted my edits so that the infobox of the Oldowan article uses B.C.E. instead of BP, which is something that User:Dougweller had advised me against. The Oldowan article itself only uses "million years ago" or "mya" such as in "2.6 million years ago up until 1.7 million years ago" and "2.6 mya". I will make sure to not use B.C.E. for articles regarding cultures and industries of prehistory (any time before roughly the year 3500 BCE) in the future, and I will now use BP, or years before present, or mya as necessary for the article. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • And BP should only be used when sources give dates on BP, never as a substitute for BC/BCE. I'm wondering about competence here. PatHadley and Kanguole have left messages on this IP's talk page, perhaps they have something to do. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• All of your edits are WP:OR and WP:SYN. You mix up archaeological, cultural, political chronologies. You add predecessor and successor links to infoboxes that do not reflect the actual temporal sequence. You substitute names of cultural periods as you please. I have started to look through your edits, but I just gave up. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent bad faith and personal attacks

@Earl King Jr.: has made persistent personal attacks against me and other users editing the Zeitgeist (film series) and Peter Joseph articles, accusing them of bias and being single purpose accounts. He seems to jump the gun, assuming anyone with a different opinion has been sent from the Zeitgeist project.

While the work of Earl King Jr. is generally good, and sometimes single purpose accounts have been involved, his attitude to other editors creates a hostile, non constructive, environment. It may be because he lacks the knowledge of how to check a users history when determining whether to use good faith. His actions are consistent with someone who thinks they own the page.

Examples of personal attacks, accusing me of bias and being a single purpose account-

• ref 1

• ref 2

• ref 3

Removal of an editor's comment, without specifying reason, on talk page:

• ref 4

Previous cases that may be related:

• ref 5

• ref 6

• ref 7

I'm not sure of the best way to proceed? Trying to engage Earl King Jr. has either resulted in more attacks, or simply being ignored.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• According to other editors the article is being flooded with people from Zeitgeist that have been called to edit Wikipedia [122] also there are several Facebook site calls to edit involving many Facebook Zeitgeist supporters [123] so apparently hundreds of people see these pleas to come and edit and join in and that makes for difficult times in maintaining neutral tone and keeping the adverting down. There are a lot of meat and sock accounts and many people on that page make their first edit and continue to edit pro their group. I think longer term page protection is in order for the article and talk page. Not sure what is going on with Jon but often they edit with the Zeitgeist factions that have flooded the article. That is my speculation. Bad faith edits? That is not fair. Personal attacks? No. Just trying to keep neutral presentation and promotion advert aspect out of the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It should of course be noted that regardless of the problems with meatpuppetry etc with TZM-related content, Earl King Jr's repeated descriptions of Jonpatterns as a single-purpose account are demonstrably false. [124] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For comparison: [125] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request Page Name Change

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G_Media

G Media has changed to Aiir.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihelpr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

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

User talk:Paulkutty, see also history--Musamies (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted per CSD#U2, which is not applicable, by Lankiveil. As this is a user talk, wouldn't blanking (+ warning) be preferable to deletion without a note to the user? Was there a problem with the history that I'm not seeing that would make blanking and/or RevDel'ing not appropriate? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just moving it to the user's actual (user/talk) page? –xeno^talk 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan

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.

---

MaranoFan, despite her efforts to promote Meghan Trainor-related articles to good and featured status, is a deeply problematic editor with a history of edit warring, personal attacks, pointiness (see disruptive/vengeful/bad-faith AfD nominations here, here), assumption of article ownership, assumption of bad faith, wrongly accusing others of vandalism, and possible sockpuppetry – among other issues. Disruptive editing throughout all areas of Wikipedia, but several instances with problematic non-free file uploading (and a refusal to stop such behavior when asked by other editors, including admins) led to a topic ban from file uploading (details listed and discussions linked at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions). On at least two occasions (1, 2), she attempted to recruit other editors to upload files on her behalf, even after I warned her against doing this the first time.

MaranoFan frequently takes script-enforced wikibreaks when frustrated with the project, most recently (and which ends the day her topic ban ends) with an unambiguous "fuck you" to the project, which I feel is the final straw. MaranoFan has had the rules explained to her on countless occasions and repeatedly falls back into the same patterns, unwilling to learn from her mistakes. And the latest "FU" message shows a complete lack of interest in collaborating with other editors. The diva behavior shouldn't be tolerated any longer. We've coddled her and let her throw tantrums long enough.

I therefore propose an indefinite site ban for MaranoFan.

I apologize for the relative lack of diffs; there's just so much wrong here that I don't even know where to begin in hunting down links. I will notify users I know have had dealings with her in the past to this discussion for further comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think its a bit premature for a full-on site ban. I agree there have been some problems, but I feel a less rash approach would be to give a final warning that these various problems are not okay, and start dealing out some heavy blocks if the problems are still occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment: Doesn't this belong on ANI not here? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says that ban proposals may be discussed at AN and ANI, but are preferred here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. User is claiming to have retired and while this is almost certainly a case of LANCB we should at least allow the chance of a wikibreak and see if things are quieter afterwards. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• BOOMERANG against Chase and Winkelvi. It seems a block, interaction ban, or at minimum a warning is needed to stop the general disruption of Wikipedia on articles MaranoFan edits by these users and to stop hounding. For background, I added many of the related pages to my watchlist, after Marano filed at ANI regarding disruptive editing from Winkelvi [126] Since then, I've noticed Chase and Winkelvi have been engaging in battleground with User:MaranoFan. Examples include this ridiculous tagteam AfD of an article Marano recently created. An article that clearly meets GNG. [127].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Winkelvi, but I keep a close eye on articles MaranoFan edits because of her long history of disruptive behavior. Someone has to clean up after her messes. As for the AfD, I hope you know the article looked significantly different when it was nominated. My initial Google searches didn't turn up much other info. It wasn't targeted because MaranoFan created it – I've supported AfDs started by MF and agreed with them on some issues on occasion, as you would know if you weren't blatantly taking sides – it was targeted because it appeared to have been created solely for barely meeting a guideline about charting set forth by WP:MUSICBIO (which doesn't trump the GNG which did not appear to be met at the time). WP:HOUND mentions that tracking others' edits for collegial reasons is perfectly acceptable. Instead of trying to stick up for someone who blatantly disregards policies and guidelines and has a long and troublesome history of disruptive behavior, how about you focus on the real issue – a diva who consistently vanishes when under scrutiny, refuses to learn from her errors, and just told the entire community to fuck off? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, I have noticed you keep a close eye on pages Marano edits, and in my observation, you edit them in a disruptive battleground manner. I'm actually not the only one who's noticed you and Winkelvi aggressively revert MaranoFan [128] and chat about goal to get this user blocked on both of your talk pages [129],[130]. I really think WP would be a lot better off if you two disengaged with MaranoFan for a while. Marano's edits may not be perfect, but Marano seems here in good faith and they have contributed positively to multiple music related article, including starting new articles and working to bring article to GA status.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yes, there's some truth to this as well. MaranoFan has notified me several times of Winkelvi making backhanded vague comments/complaints about Wikipedians on his user page, of which Marano has interpreted to be about her. I didn't take action, and instead instructed her to ignore them, as the comments were vague and petty, but it did seem that the comments were not in fact helpful, and likely intended for MaranoFan. I agree there are problems with some of MaranoFan's edits, but I think their approach has been a little...aggressive. Anyways, I don't think its a boomerang as in any sanctions or anything need to be made against them either, but I do wish all three would disengage so it doesn't escalate to that point. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with everybody - Well, not quite: too soon for site ban, other sanctions may be in order (so no boomarang is justified), but mostly agree with Guy: let's wait and see if a break makes a difference. BMK (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• At the very least, MaranoFan's topic ban should be extended to three months after her return from her current wikibreak, since she's purposely blocking herself until the ban is over, meaning she's not learning anything. Pinging Guy for comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• In general I think it is bad form to start a site ban discussion when an editor is blocked, whether self-imposed or imposed by an admin, and is unaware of the discussion. And I think his/her FU, written as an edit summary to an edit on User:MaranoFan/vector.js, is not exactly on the Wikipedia Main Page. You would only see it if you were looking through his/her contributions or edits on a user subpage.

As for blocking him/herself until the topic ban is over, it's clear that they don't want to edit about other subjects. I don't see what that says about "learning". It could be smart to block oneself in order not to violate ones topic ban inadvertently while it is in effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not too smart to curse the community while doing so, however. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule that says that a person needs to keep editing somewhere else during their topic ban. This is exactly where I'm coming from in my stance. What you're saying isn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. Please disengage from all of this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but the "if I can't edit where I like then I'm not editing at all" mentality demonstrates the bigger issue of MaranoFan's attitude problem. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you can look at it either way, as giving the community the finger, or as "I don't trust myself not to violate this sanction, so I'm going to force myself not to do anything at all." Unfortunately, there's no mechanical way to prevent oneself from editing in violation of a topic ban. What's bad for MaranoFan is that if she or he had edited other articles during the TB, there would be, presumably, a track record of productivity, which would speak well for them and show they can be an asset to the encyclopedia. Now, we're gonna have nothing. BMK (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that we await MaranoFan's return and see what happens, per Guy. Winkelvi is himself a problematic editor, as his block log only partially indicates due to the slack that has been cut him over his edit-warring. In fact very recently he edit warred over the "Maintained" template in an article, creating such a furor that it directly resulted in a deletion discussion that put the kibosh on that template. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not going to pretend I have a good history with any of these editors (through a few AN3's and that {{Maintained}} I nomed for deletion, but I think it is much too soon for a site ban or even a topic ban extension. If MF is taking a break, that is even better, s/he will probably come back with a clear head and better judgment like we all do. And there's no point in trying to discuss this while the user is on break, no way to get all sides of the story. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• I really think that MaranoFan is more trouble than they're worth, and I think we're pretty much into net negative territory here. But I don't want someone banned because of a "fuck you", and I can't in all good conscience support a ban under these circumstances. Now, it is true that MaranoFan has a tendency to walk away and then return when the dust has settled. The Dutch, who are wonderful, bright, and beautiful people, call that ostrich policy (an article that needs lots of help. (Read more at this blog.) And that is obviously not a good thing, but I can't yet say "ban". What I would like is, if this user returns, that they get blocked if they return to the same disruptive behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support immediate block if they return to the same behavior after they return in October (their "Retirement" is due to a script enforced block, set to expire in October); same thing if they come back before October. I agree with what has been pointed out above: it's not right to discuss a site ban without them being able to comment and offer a defense for themselves.

Yes, Chase and I keep an eye on MF because what they typically leave in their wake is disruption, unencyclopedic content, continual bending (and breaking) of policy as well as gaming the system. Some of you commenting about MaranoFan's behavior truly have no clue what s/he is like day to day, moment to moment. You never know what you're going to get from them. As indicated by his comments above, Drmies gets it. Even he has commented on the strange, Janis-like back and forth the editor in question exhibits: loves you one moment, thanks you for edits, leaves "Wiki-love" Kittens and Barnstars; hates you the next and is placing bogus/undeserved warning templates on your talk page or trying to get you blocked/banned through AN/I or AN/3. This individual edits to win scout badges to adorn their userspace, play games, score personal gotcha points, and loves to WP:POKE. S/he has harassed me in concert with two other editors in the past as well as vandalized my talk page repeatedly. S/he treats Wikipedia like a source of amusement and there's little to nothing memorable or productive about the edits they make. When s/he gets in to trouble or thinks a sanction/block is coming, poof! Suddenly gone for who knows how long. Personally, I don't think they will be able to stop editing their favorite articles and fully expect them to show up before the script enforced block is up as a sock account, whether it be a registered account or a number of IPs.

I guarantee you, with 99.999% certainty, nothing will change with this editor when they return, because they've made grandiose apologies and promises before and almost immediately go back to disrupting. Why? Because they simply want to have their way and do as they wish with everyone applauding them every time they edit. Their behavior is immature, irresponsible, and disruptive -- and it's extremely unlikely to change by October. They are here for affirmation and accolades as well as to turn encyclopedia articles into peacock fancruft for singers and actors they admire. That's it. It's a simple, classic case of WP:NOTHERE. No one with such an agenda can be expected to change into a productive editor unless the agenda changes. Therefore, if their agenda doesn't change and their behavior stays the same as of their return in October - immediate block. No more molly-coddling and enabling. It's the only solution, as far as I'm concerned.

One more thing: Those of you defending MaranoFan, I'd be interested to see some good reasons (beyond the GA status given to one article Marano Fan was involved with) why you think MaranoFan is a net positive to Wikipedia and how they improve the encyclopedia. I'd be interested to see what valid reasons there are that would allow us, as a community, to NOT be concerned about MFs editing/interaction abilities once they return. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pure and simple, it's premature. Except for cases of vandalism-only accounts or entirely bad-faith editors, people are typically given more leeway before given a full ban. (Its rather ironic I'd have to tell you that, honestly, considering your block log is even longer.) You could argue that MaranoFan is not contributing in an encyclopedic-enough manner, or is having problems with people, but you can't reasonably conclude that she's here only to vandalize or cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Questions - Has MaranoFan done something disruptive lately? I ask because I thought I had added most of the target pages to my watch list after issues at Meghan Trainor pages popped up at ANI, and I haven't seen it. I know she has seemed frustrated with Winkelvi and Chase, who I stated above appear to be hounding her, and I've noticed them discussing getting her banned on their talk pages.[131],[132] I know there is an interaction tool to analyze hounding. It might be beneficial if an admin uses it track these three users edits, because my subjective observation might not be accurate, but I think there are concerns here that go beyond MaranoFan. In addition to a tagteam deletion request on Casey J [133], I've noticed Winkelvi has been engaging in what seems to me to be ridiculous edit wars on pages MaranoFan has been trying to get up to GA status. Such as adding awkward wording to Meghan Trainor's discography because "Trainor didn't release anything, those financing her did" [134]. I tried editing this back, because it didn't seem like an improvement, and because this awkward wording isn't used on featured list discographies such Madonna albums discography, Taylor Swift discography but Winkelvi just reverted again, and then MaranoFan asked me on my talk page [135] to please not bother reverting Winkelvi, because even though she apparently thought those edits were poor, she was afraid Winkelvi would make the article unstable, and mess up her GA nomination goal for that article, as was her concern on recent ANI against Winkelvi [[136], which Chase promptly closed. Also, what is MaranoFan topic banned from? I've seen her editing Meghan Trainor and various music articles yesterday. Is this that old topic ban regarding uploading non-free images? If so, Marano seems to get what is appropriate for uploads now, because she recently reverted me when I tried to add cover art to Casey J's bio [137]. I didn't know cover art wasn't appropriate for BLP's, and she recently reverted a new editor who added a pic from NYT of Casey J [138]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Chase's proposal and support two-way interaction bans between MaranoFan and Winkelvi and MaranoFan and Chasewc91. What Winkelvi so cutely characterize as "keeping an eye on" another user is really Wiki hounding. MaranoFan creates an article on Casey J, then Chase nominates it for deletion 14 hours later [139] and it took Wink another 10 minutes to vote in favor of deletion [140] (it was kept by the way, with only those two favoring deletion). She makes a perfectly acceptable edit to Meghan Trainor [141], Winks swoops in 90 minutes later to revert it [142]. She nominates and brings an article up to Good Article status [143], Wink goes on a rant about Good Article status on his user page [144] in clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. MaranoFan nominates another article as a featured list candidate and lo and behold here come Wink and Chase to oppose it. A new user pops up on Chase's talkpage and within five minutes both file reports claiming the user is a sock of MaranoFan with little to no evidence [145] [146]. You can find more examples using these two reports showing interaction between MF and Wink and MF and Chase. Calidum T|C 03:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, doing so would fulfill your promise found in this [147], wouldn't it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And your point is? I tried to tell you two to leave her alone, but you decided to be flippant [148]. As I said then, her editing can be problematic but you two just made things worse by needling her. Calidum T|C 16:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

MaranoFan nominates another article as a featured list candidate and lo and behold here come Wink and Chase to oppose it. I think someone should check their facts. MaranoFan launched the FLC on May 2 and asked me more than once to leave a comment (see here). I abstained from leaving a proper !vote at the time, instead helping MaranoFan to address some concerns raised by other editors. It was not until very late into the FLC that I left an oppose !vote that was influenced by another user's !vote and was fully fleshed out with backing from the featured list criteria. Quit acting like it was some sort of witch hunt to get the FLC failed just because of the nominator. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That's just one example of a pattern of harassment. The AFD I mentioned and history of reverts speak for themselves as do comments such as [149] where you admit to following another editor around because you find her "troublesome." And there is the aforementioned MaranoBan thread you started on Winkelvi's talk page. Did you think that would do anything but antogonize her? Calidum T|C 20:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not an example of harassment for the reasons stated in my previous comment. As for the "troublesome" comment, I don't see the problem. Maybe my approach has been too aggressive, I'll admit that, but in general it is not against policy to watch after editors who have a history of stirring up trouble, and many do this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The very notion of a discography being a featured article is beyond stunning. Clearly MaranoFan is here to promote the interests of this particular performing artist, presumably as a loyal fan more than anything. I doubt very much that Ms. Trainor would endorse these kinds of antics going on over her aticle. To me that very fact illustrates how important it is to separate these editors (MF, Chase and WV) from this article and from each other. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There are other discographies given Featured List status. Lorde discography for example. Calidum T|C 20:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment MaranoFan did file a fellacious edit-warring report against Winkelvi at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: no action). I do actually think there is a competency issue here based on what I saw at the 3RR case, so perhaps some mentoring would be an option? I think there does need to be some oversight of MaranoFan's edits, but there is a better way of doing that than "wikistalking", no matter how well intentioned the interventions are. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• In light of the facts raised subsequent to my earlier comment, especially by User:Calidum, I oppose a site ban for MaranoFan at this time and support a two way interaction bans between Marano and Winkelvi and Marano and Chase. This is in no way an endorsement of MaranoFan's conduct. That entire "Meghan Trainor" area is a pain the neck; twice I've gotten RfC notifications about protracted discussions there about whether that person should be a called a "singer-songwriter" or a "singer and songrwriter." People need to get a grip pertaining to that subject, and perhaps Arbcom will have to sort it all out one of these days. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Core, you've been trying VERY hard to get me blocked and/or sanctioned in one way or the other since January. For whatever reason, you have a big hatred in regard to my very presence in Wikipedia. When situations such as this arrive, you appear and attempt to turn whatever the discussion is about in my direction and negatively so. I'm forced to wonder how long your grudges last. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not advocated a block for you here. But if you continue down this path, I think that you will find a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way. You've done a good job of getting yourself blocked without any help from me. Let's now add "chronic assumption of bad faith" to your edit-warring, battlefield conduct (that user-page posting denigrating GAs, clearly inspired by MaranoFan) and miscellaneous misconduct. Yes, it is possible that you may wind up getting sanctioned sooner rather than later. Entirely up to you. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice job avoiding the subject that I actually brought up regarding you and your to be continued witch hunt against me, Core. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that everyone is to blame for everything you do except you. That's well-established. For the record, I have had no interactions with you at all since this extravaganza a few months ago, am not involved in any of the articles you frequent, and otherwise avoid you like the plague. However, all of Wikipedia cannot have an interaction ban with you, because you are ubiquitous on the noticeboards and are constantly getting into scrapes because of your various escapades. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, thanks for reminding me about that ANI. Going back over it, I was reminded of this segment of the ANI discussion in which you, MaranoFan and another editor were blocked for 48 hours for edit warring at Meghan Trainor. In the course of that you promised to stay away from that and other articles in which you were involved, but then reneged and withdrew your promise. Perhaps what is needed here is an involuntary topic ban to keep you and MaranoFan out of that article so that un-warrior editors can improve it or just leave it alone. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Something should have also reminded you that your claim of not interacting with me since that ANI is disingenuous and misleading at best, completely dishonest at worst. Or have you forgotten the template deletion discussion where you worked very hard to make it all about me when it really wasn't about me at all? (Daniel Case can verify, if he chooses). That, plus what you've provided above, has nicely provided evidence of your grudge against me and the witch hunt you resurrect at every possible opportunity. The blood-hungry sharks, once again, come out of the shadows to do what they do best. But, I digress -- this AN report isn't about me, it's about MF. No sense diverting away any further from the subject at hand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again there, Wink. I was opposed to the existence of that Template long before your abuse led to its deletion. That is evident on the talk page of the template, now deleted. Anyway, thanks again, your villification noted. Meanwhile, don't you have an edit-warring report pending against you that you may want to attend to, brought by one of your numerous persecutors? Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your behavior and Chase's behavior relative to the user in question is relevant to the discussion; as is similar behavior exhibitied towards others. You two launched a concerted effort to hound her and drive her off site and you have; now Chase wants to get his pound of flesh. It's funny that you claim we're bullying you when you're the biggest, baddest bully on the street. It's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun, is it? Calidum T|C 15:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in addition to interaction bans between Chase & Marano and Winkelvi & Marano, I agree with Coretheapple, something needs to be done about the general disruption at Meghan Trainor articles. Apparently, there was a nuisance AfD filed on Meghan Trainor discography yesterday. [150]. Of course, it was promptly closed as a SNOW keep [151], but not before Marano made her exit, and given the timing of MaranoFan's self block with message "FUCK YOU WIKIPEDIA" [152] this nuisance AfD seems to be what pushed her over the edge. She was working to bring that article up to feature list status. Now, while I don't think Marano's "fuck you" edit summary was particularly mature or anything, I can kind of get her frustration, given the hounding she's endured and the needless disruption a group of editors has been creating at Meghan Trainor articles. See this ridiculous seeming RfC [153] which was apparently needed because Winkelvi would not accept a prior consensus of singer-songwriter as opposed to singer/songwriter. This all really needs to stop. It's not helping Wikipedia and it's apparently run a good faith editor off of WP. Not that MaranoFan was perfect or anything, but she has created numerous quality articles such as Dear Future Husband and Casey J. I agree with Coretheapple that this might all end up at ArbCom. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither I nor Winkelvi started or participated in that AfD, but nice try. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think BoboMeowCat was bringing that up to explain MaranoFan's conduct, not as a jibe against either of you. However, your response does indicate how this has become a kind of personal quest for you and Winkelvi, that you both see that being pointed out as targeting you somehow. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The comment supported sanctions on myself and Winkelvi and mentioned the AfD shortly after, implying that is a reason why the sanctions should be in place. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, I didn't say it was you who brought the AfD, and I thought it was clear since I provided the diff, but since you objected, I decided to look at it closer. It's true that you and Wikelvi did not start or participate in that nuisance AfD, but the OP did mention both you and Winkelvi specifically saying "two other editors concurred with me (Winkelvi and Chasewc91)".[154] You were both pinged, so you knew about the AfD. It seems that given the timing, you also knew Marano's self block with "fuck you" edit summary was a reaction to this nuisance AfD, yet I get the impression you've been misleading the community here at wp:an to think her self-block was due to a reaction to her topic ban. She's been topic banned from uploading images for a month.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How about we slow down with the bad-faith accusations? I'm not trying to mislead anybody. I'm sure that the ragequit was due to a variety of frustrations, the AfD included. But I do think the timing of the break expiration is more than coincidental. I did not suggest that the article be deleted and only hinted at the idea of it possibly being merged in the FLC, and I thought that Calvin999 nominating it for deletion was out of line. And for the record, by the time I saw the AfD, MaranoFan had already left. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• An interaction ban between Chase/Winkelvi and MaranoFan is something I strongly support as well. If the problems with MaranoFan are as bad as they say, then surely other uninvolved editors will pick up on it as well, and take care of it on their behalf. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wait until the script-enforced break ends. If behavior is still the same, then look into a ban. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban this proposal seems very vindictive to me. Mellowed Fillmore (talk)
• Neutral I need no convincing of MF's difficulties with civility, having personally caught a nice hot bit of the long-term fallout from the edit war on Talk:Meghan Trainor back in January that led ultimately to the deletion of the "maintained" template. Furthermore, I find her decision to make her self-blocks coterminous with her topic ban extremely troubling. That is, as she accurately said, a "fuck you". It is not in any way the action of someone who thinks they can reform—it screams that she knows she can't. Someone who really wanted to reform would not only heed the topic ban but find something else to edit about, something they aren't so emotionally invested in, where they might learn to collaborate better and be a net plus to the project. They wouldn't take a powder. I can confidently predict that these problems will recur when she returns.

  On the other hand ... it seems a little too early in this to resort to a community ban as she's only been blocked twice, and for a month at the longest. She should rather be given a choice that would allow her to demonstrate she can truly rehabilitate herself. If she is topic- or interaction-banned, she must continue to edit something somewhere else during that time. If she cannot accept that condition, or fails to fulfill it after having said she would, then she gets blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it has much to do with thinking she can't reform. Marano's apparently been editing while topic banned from uploading images for a while. Given the timing, it appears the self-block with "fuck you" edit summary was actually in direct response to a nuisance AfD started on Meghan Trainor discography [155]. An article MaranoFan has been working to bring up to feature list status. That AfD was quickly closed as SNOW KEEP [156], but Marano checked out before seeing that. I agree "fuck you" isn't terribly mature, but it seems better to block yourself, when faced with disruption that is pushing you over the edge, than to stay and lash out, and that AfD was disruptive. There were no grounds to delete that list she's been working on. I think part of the problem with respect to the general disruption on Meghan Trainor articles is actually music snobbery against Meghan Trainor music, which Sergecross73 mentioned recently during RfC [157].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider being banned from uploading images to be a "topic ban"—uploading is not editing, and doesn't require any interactive personal skills. I agree that there was no ground to delete that list, but that was something the community quickly came to consensus on, and I think we should have taken the nominator at his word rather than suggest that the AfD was part of some organized effort to push MF's buttons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking herself to cool off seems reasonable, but the timing is shameful. A week? Fine. A month? Sure. 2-3 months? Why not. The remaining duration of her topic ban? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that blocking yourself this way is a little bit like having someone lock you in your house during the evening hours to keep you from going out and drinking too much again. That's just another stop on the inevitable road to standing up in the church basement and introducing yourself to a bunch of strangers over coffee; something similar but likely less pleasant seems bound to be the end of this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban (non admin) I have commented on many of the Meghan Trainor sections on AN/I. This is way premature, and a ban is already in place. MaranoFan taking a break from editing may not be a bad thing if they come back with the right attitude. I do support the IBAN between MaranoFan and Winkelvi and MaranoFan and Chase. I think it could solve a lot of problems going forward. AlbinoFerret 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm taking bets: will this thread still be ongoing when MaranoFan's topic ban runs out? Please see your nearest bookie for a piece of the action. BMK (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering Marano's edit restriction on uploading images, which isn't really a topic ban, ends in October, I'm gonna guess no :)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The wording of "editing restriction" or "topic ban" doesn't really matter, but FWIW, the restriction was labeled a topic ban when it was imposed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, whether you want to call it ban/edit restriction or whatever, I don't think Marano's self-enforced block had anything to do with it. Apparently, Title (EP), the article Marano brought to GA status was nominated for deletion around same time as snow keep AfD attempt on Meghan Trainor discography. I find these deletion attempts confusing because I don't think articles reviewed as GA status tend to fail GNG. [158],[159]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it has anything to do with it? The fact that she conveniently chose to end the break specifically on October 7, when her ban/restriction ends? Even if she had done that today, at least someone could say, "Oh, well that's exactly 5 months from now." She did it yesterday. The selection of the date was clearly intentional and I'm not sure why you're trying to act oblivious to that. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect her choice of date to end it is related, but it seems Marano's self enforced block was a response to multiple AfD's, on articles she had brought to GA status, or was working on as such. That, along with the hounding described by multiple users above, appears to have triggered it. Not a month old restriction on uploading images.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why she picked the date. There is no difference between her editing for another five months with the topic ban in place and her deciding not to edit until after it expires. Unless you want her to edit so you can catch her violating the topic ban so she can receive the punishment you think she really deserves. That's just vindictive on your part. Calidum T|C 01:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang - Both Chase and Winkelvi are the definition of WP:HOUND and are the actual problematic editors here. They are forever involved in drama at ANI and in pathetic and tiresome disputes. They hounded me and Marano earlier in the year and I've retired as a result of this and their persistent, unnecessary and tiresome drama and chaos across Meghan Trainor-related articles. Have a look at their contributions (I dare you!), it's blatantly clear what their intentions have been with Marano. They had the exact same intentions with me earlier in the year. They filed bogus 3RR and sockpuppet investigation reports earlier in the year against me, excessively reverted and targeted my very constructive edits to Meghan articles to the extent that I couldn't take it anymore. These editors have not positively contributed or expanded Meghan-related articles whatsoever, and instead appear to be obsessed with derailing the articles and hounding their editors who disagree with their edits. These two editors make the pedia unbearable, it's no surprise Marano disappears so often - who wouldn't if they were subjected to such hounding? Chase and Winkelvi's edits on Wiki revolve solely around drama, edit wars, hounding. They don't add or expand articles, they only derail them. It's "veteran" hounds like these that will continue to cause drama at ANI time after time and chase away one promising new editor after the other. They are awful, awful editors and I honestly have no intention of returning to Wikipedia until they have disappeared because I have NO time or energy for them hounding me again. I think if an uninvolved admin or moderator, not friends with Winkelvi or Chase, actually kept a watch on their edits this year - they'd clearly see the hounding and drama they create and partake in. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note See this SPI and that it was never investigated. [160]. Has Marano Fan found a way to evade their self imposed and script enforced block to comment here? Strange that an account suspected of being a MaranoFan sock, which has been abandoned for months, suddenly comes alive for this AN to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Further noting in response to Serge's comments on the same below: For those who won't click on the link, and to be accurate, the SPI was never referred to as "bogus" (as Serge claimed). For whatever reason, the SPI clerk didn't feel a need to investigate. In light the sudden and out of nowhere posts by Lips Are Movin (one of the accounts Marano Fan joined in with for tag-team edit warring, vandalizing my userspace and harassing me a few months ago), it seems that the investigation should be re-opened. Highly suspicious, especially considering Marano Fan's script-enforced self block and is under suspicion with a current SPI. If one is going to be an apologist, it's a good idea to be accurate and concise without any hint of prejudice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Honey, you can file as many sockpuppet investigations as you like, they will never work in your favor as they are bogus and one of your many childish tactics of WP:REVENGE. I have not once vandalized your userspace or have this "history of vandalism" you continously spread like propaganda, one of your many blatant lies. I have a right to comment here, and it is not suspicious by ANY means as you were the reason I retired after your persistent hounding of me and disruptions of the articles I edited. My views here are very relevant here. You need to get off your high horse, stop with your childish user talk page bickering and bogus reporting at admin boards, begin growing up and start owning up. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose too soon. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The craziness at Meghan Trainor articles clearly goes beyond just MaranoFan. It appears MaranoFan has been recently hounded by 3 editors. See issues with Chase and Winkelvi documented by multiple users above with difs. The third editor, User:Calvin999, who has recently used the signatures ₳aron and Calvin999 is the one who recently filed those misguided seeming AfD's on Meghan Trainor discography(result was SNOW KEEP [161] and Title (EP)(It would seem strange for an article reviewed as GA status to fail GNG)[162], but the concerns go beyond that. When I asked Calvin999 whey they were using two different signatures during one deletion discussion, they denied it, even though it's 100% clear they were, and then they deleted the talk page comments of other users who confirmed they were using 2 different signatures, along with another talk page comment from Crisco 1492 that disagreed with Aaron/Calvin999[163]. This occurred on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP) I would urge admins and others to pleae keep an eye on articles Marano created or heavily edited. The general disruption to Meghan Trainor articles appears to go way beyond MaranoFan who is now on self enforced block.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • BoboMeowCat I don't know what the hell you're playing at, but whatever it is, it's needs to stop. I haven't "hounded" anyone. I opposed an FLC nomination, and then the nominator MaranoFan you are speaking of came to my talk page and "hounded" me about it. Aaron is my real life name, Calvin999 is my registered username. For more than 3 years, I piped it as User:Calvin999|Aaron, because I wanted people to call me my real name without having to change a load of my user pages in a name change. What is what with that? Only the other day did someone ask why I had "two name" (if you wanna phrase it like that), which another issue was up at ANI. I changed my signature yesterday back to my username, so when you asked me why I was using Aaron, and I said "I'm not", I was correct in saying so, because my signature does not say Aaron anymore, since yesterday. I think you will find that you, my friend, have actually got the wrong end of the stick, and you've got involved in something that you actually don't know anything about, which has been going on for several days. The reason why my signatures pre-yesterday say Aaron and my signatures post-last night say Calvin999 is because I removed Aaron from my signature.  — Calvin999 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• • • This is highly disturbing, and I can't AGF an edit conflict, as those edits were several hours apart. BoboMeowCat, the issue goes a bit further; the three editors you mention also disrupted the featured list nomination for the Trainor discography (here), such to the point that it was archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is highly disturbing because apparently Calvin999 also deleted your "keep" vote on that AfD, which I have now restored [164]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I've warned him. He's been pissy with me since I opposed his Ariana Grande songs FLC, and if he's disrupting the encyclopedia because of that... that is a serious, serious problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed IBans between Chasewc91/Winkelvi and MaranoFan

So this doesn't get lost in the clutter, I formally propose a set of two-way interaction bans between MaranoFan (talk · contribs) and Chasewc91 (talk · contribs) and MaranoFan and Winkelvi (talk · contribs). (This would also ban them from discussing her between themselves, as they are wont to do [165] [166] [167] [168]) I make this request on the basis of evidence provided by myself and others above indicating a pattern of Wikihounding. Both users have also admitted they "keep an eye on" or "watch" her, but it's clear that it's gone past anything acceptable under our harassment policy. The relevant policy specifically includes frivolous complaints about another editor as an example of harassment; it's evident the above complaint by Chase is frivolous and vindictive in nature.

Here are some examples of problematic behavior: MaranoFan creates an article on Casey J, then Chase nominates it for deletion 14 hours later [169] and it took Wink another 10 minutes to vote in favor of deletion [170] (it was kept). MaranoFan makes a constructive edit on Meghan Trainor, which corrects a grammatical error [171], Winks swoops in 90 minutes later to revert it [172]. MF makes an edit to Meghan Trainor discography that makes it match other similar ones (like the featured Coldplay_discography#Extended_plays) [173] and Chase comes in to revert it a couple hours later [174]. MaranoFan nominates and brings an article up to Good Article status [175], Wink goes on a rant about Good Article status on his user page [176] in clear violation of WP:POLEMIC, a policy he has run afoul of before [177] (Both editors now want that article merged [178] [179] which is interesting given this comment made by WV in the above discussion [180]) A new user pops up on Chase's talkpage and within five minutes of each other both filed reports claiming the user is a sock of MaranoFan with little to no evidence [181] [182]. (A check user has determined they are unrelated [183]). And immediately after MF announced her latest "retirement" [184] Winkelvi decided to wax polemic once again [185] You can find more examples using these two reports showing interaction between MF and Wink and MF and Chase. Winkelvi has been blocked twice for edit warring with MaranoFan previously in January and March of this year.

I previously suggested the two users in question lay off MaranoFan but only got a flippant response back [186] Calidum T|C 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Calidum T|C 01:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment: Others below have questioned whether it is appropriate to discuss this with one party absent. In my opinion, MaranoFan fan would not object to an IBAN between herself and the other two users. She has complained about them harassing her for months [187] [188] to no avail. Regardless, she can appeal the decision if and when she returns. Calidum T|C 23:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And you accuse Chasewc91 of being vindictive? The very wording and tone of the above proves your proposal is borne out of vindictiveness, plain and simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how you added your comments and examples from above, as if they weren't countered and are gospel. Errors in your commentary on Chase and I have been countered -- in all fairness, if you want to have both sides to your "story" about us represented here, you would have included the responses as well. But, as this on your talk page shows (the section is titled "WinkelviBan" and was started by the person you are defending, MaranoFan) ... some of your comments there are the following: "if Thing 1 and Thing 2 decide to try something again at ANI". "Thing 1" and "Thing 2". How charming. And neutral as well as unbiased, right? (which one is which, by the way - am I Thing 1 or Thing 2?) You further wrote: "I'm prepared to provide some evidence that would show both sides of the story". Except you aren't showing both sides of the story, just your version of why MaranoFan is such a victim. What total horseshit. Nothing about how MF has been disruptive, only about how we allegedly drove him/her away. Again, total horseshit. No way MF will stay away until October. Whenever he/she visibly returns it will be to further disrupt and eff things up, more diva-behavior, and more headaches for the project. Enjoy. Oh, and just for the record, nothing on my User Page that you noted is about any specific editor. Or do you want to come back to my userspace and delete things there again, against policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you're unfamiliar with what the idiom means, but you and Chase tried to show how MF deserved to be punished for her misdeeds and failed. I showed how you two engaged in a pattern of hounding her (and many have agreed with my statement). That's what I meant by both sides. Calidum T|C 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to identify an editor by name for it to violate WP:POLEMIC. You should know this since an admin (Drmies) another passage from your page [189] that didn't mention others by name. And it's interesting that immediately after restoring the rant directed at MF I tried to remove [190] you found an RM I filed and opposed it [191] Calidum T|C 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It should be noted that Calidum is making this appear as if it's purely a matter of personal dislike, while failing to take into account the numerous ways MaranoFan has been disrupting the project. I can acknowledge my mistakes in acting too aggressively, but I did not track MF's edits with bad intentions as many have implied in this thread. In any case, MaranoFan is gone for the next 5 months, so I'm not sure what immediate good this is doing for anyone. It should also be noted that MF's diva behavior – edit warring, slinging personal attacks, assuming very bad faith in response to others disagreeing with her – has exaggerated nearly every conflict she's been a part of, and has served as the root of nearly all the disruption that has been caused. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Intent is irrelevant here. The relevant policy says "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." The fact MaranoFan has been forced to stop editing because of the stress you two subjected her to is all that counts, not whether you meant it or not. Calidum T|C 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is making it appear as such. MF is disruptive with or without us in the mix. Always has been, always will be, until the agenda he carries changes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"But she did bad things too" isn't a defense. If her behavior was so blatantly wrong, other users would have picked up on it. What you two did did nothing but escalate the situation. As for this being moot while she has stepped away, her decision to do so did not stop you from filing this. Calidum T|C 02:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have picked up on it. Admins, too. Did you miss Drmies' comments regarding MF? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies handled the situation correctly without resorting to harassment. Note that other admins including Only (talk · contribs) have found all three of you to be disruptive and suggested you should all be blocked for "persistent bickering and edit warring" [192] [193] [194] after WV and Chase petitioned them to sanction MF [195] [196]. (Note that this was almost immediately after WV's second block for edit warring with MF and others expired [197]). Calidum T|C 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And that's why almost everyone here has opposed the site ban for MF, because it's not needed right now. So the IBAN should not be imposed for the same reason. Common sense? And as for your twice-posted comment about the SPI having no evidence... how about you actually read? WV and I provided several examples of how the accounts could be linked. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Chase, you wrote above: I can acknowledge my mistakes in acting too aggressively. I honestly don't see this, because while this discussion has been going on, you and Winkelvi have been engaging in tagteam effort to get rid of Title (EP), which Marano brought to GA status[198]. I not only disagree with that suggestion for reasons I stated there, but I must say, the way you two still appear to be aggressively targeting articles Marano's brought to GA status or worked on as such, while getting feedback that it's time to disengage here, suggests lack of awareness on your part. Even if there is some good argument to merge those articles (and I don't think there is) why not let another editor deal with it? It looks vindictive on your part and suggests lack of awareness in your role in these problems and suggests lack of response to feedback that it's time to disengage. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oh for crying out fucking loud, does every fucking thing have to be a personal attack on MaranoFan? I'm sorry, but that comment is ridiculous. I feel that the articles overlap significantly and would benefit from a merging. It's not an attack on any editor, and at least unlike the AfD filed by Calvin999 it's seeking to keep the content albeit condensed greatly. It's not my fault that these two articles MaranoFan worked on are largely duplicated and borderline forked, and I cannot control Winkelvi's participation in the discussion; I do not know his motivations and cannot speak for them, but I do know that I have not contacted him about it in an effort to "tag team" the article as you are implying. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus on that AfD seems to be that they are not forked.[199]. That misguided seeming AfD, along with that other SNOW KEEP AfD by Calivin999, where he quoted "and two other editors concurred with me (Winkelvi and Chasewc91)" [200] clearly seem to be part of what pushed Marano over the edge. Personally, I consider myself fairly level headed editor, but if I were subjected to all this, I might be motivated to leave with a "fuck you" edit summary as well. Please disengage from all this. Edit something that doesn't involve "cleaning up" after Marano for awhile, because as others have pointed out it looks like hounding. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• What's more, MF is gone. If I were some sick wikisadist who just wanted to see MF get upset and throw tantrums (which isn't the case), why would I keep going after she has left and there's no reaction I could get? I clearly have real motivations for pursuing a merge and you are assuming the worst possible faith. Furthermore, who's to say that another editor would have raised the merging suggestion if I hadn't? The article has pleasantly existed for quite a few months now, and was recently promoted to GA, so I didn't feel that anyone would be suggesting this in the near future. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

100% correct. There is no collusion here. And, frankly,BoboMeowCat, I'm tired of your baseless accusations that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever. I do have a question for you, though: you keep referring to MF as a "she" - I've never seen MF refer to him/herself as a specific gender. How is it you know MF is a female? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[201]. Calidum T|C 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If poorly-based assumptions are going to be thrown around, I feel it's only fair that WV and I do so as well. The "Thing 1 and Thing 2" comment on your talk, Calidum, more than slightly suggests that MF is a buddy of yours and you're out for your own piece of flesh rather than maintaining the project. Irony that you're accusing us of the same. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I am pleased to see the word "wont" on ANI. Winkelvi and Chase are not the problem. Also, Bobo, Title was never at GA status, as SNUGGUMS's review makes clear. Please don't cast asparaguses: MaranoFan is more a hindrance than a help in GA review, quite unlike the other two. But that's beside the point. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The reference is to Title (EP), not Title (Meghan Trainor album). –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Drimes, according to talk:Title (EP) it's a good article. I don't normally keep track of GA status etc, but I do also recall drama where Winkelvi made reference to Marano's accomplishment of bringing this article to GA status, in negative manner on his user page [202]. I'm not suggesting MaranoFan is perfect, just that Winkelvi and Chase are clearly part of the problem here and an IBAN would be of general benefit to WP. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, really? We are part of the problem? How do you explain this move by MF? [203]. Deleting an article I wrote for deletion on the basis of...what, exactly? Something they concocted? Or how about this? [204]; or this? [205] where MF refers to me as an unwelcoming "talk page vandal"? And what about all the times MF and two other editors worked in concert to harassment in my userspace and vandalize it over and over again? Or the countless times MF ended up at articles I edited to make ridiculous, pointy edits designed to get a reaction from me? Have you EVER seen Chase or me vandalize someone's user space? Or intentionally harass anyone? Or do any of the things MF has done out of the same amount of spite and immature disruption? Like Drmies already stated: MF is the problem, not Chase and not me. Please, before you talk again (without proof) of how terrible we are an how we have chased MF away -- look at the whole picture and see who truly comes up in the net-negative realm. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• That neither of you have dropped the stick even with the other party not participating speaks plenty to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem dropping the stick, Crisco 1492 when it's warranted. When being needlessly attacked by others with sticks, it's perfectly reasonable to defend oneself with a stick. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Per my comments in the section above. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. MaranoFan is the problem, not a victim, and since they are no longer here (they've "Retired"), what would the point of an IBAN be except to be pointy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Last comment: Because I have no interest in fighting any further with those here who only comment at these things to bring up old crap in the interest NAGF and reveling in the opportunity to spill blood, my participation in this thread is done. My Oppose in this section remains. Continuing in back and forth does no one any good. As far as my interaction with MF, I'm perfectly capable of imposing my own "ignore" tactic to mimic an IBAN, and will do so when MF returns. What would benefit everybody is something I suggested quite a while back: MF being mentored by a willing admin or extremely experienced, trusted editor. That way, MF can still be monitored (because it IS necessary in their case), have someone willing to deal with MF's choices as an editor, and their behavior is likely to be more community oriented in a positive manner as a result. I have no interest in seeing any editor fail. MF has been given plenty of leeway with their negative behavior and editing habits since they started here. If mentored, their chances are greater for succeeding. This way, they have the choice to do or die (as the saying goes). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You previously said you would stop editing articles related to Trainor after you and MF were blocked for battleground behavior in January [206]. That didn't happen, given all the examples provided above took place within the past few weeks, so why should we trust you now? Calidum T|C 03:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is totally inappropiate when the central party is unavailable. BMK (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a logical way to stop this continuous disruption and hounding. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support I feel this can stop the disruption that MaranoFan has been causing. Not I'm sure if the "retirement" was final, but if they do come back, I feel it can help. Some editors just will never work well with others, simple as that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drmies, Winkelvi, and my own previous comments. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It seems to me that this is a much more effective way of minimizing disruption to the encyclopedia. I doubt Marano would disapprove of an IBAN with these two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If one editor can be protected from these wikihounds, that's already one small step in making the 'pedia a better place and great means of reducing the tiresome and lengthy drama and disruptions they cause. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note See this SPI and that it was never investigated. [207]. Has Marano Fan found a way to evade their self imposed and script enforced block to comment here? Strange that an account suspected of being a MaranoFan sock, which has been abandoned for months, suddenly comes alive for this AN to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • To be clear, for those who don't bother to click on the link, it "wasn't investigated" because the SPI clerk deemed the evidence/case too weak. It wasn't investigated because it was thrown out altogether as bogus. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
      • For those who won't click on the link, and to be accurate, the SPI was never referred to as "bogus". For whatever reason, the SPI clerk didn't feel a need to investigate. In light the sudden and out of nowhere posts by Lips Are Movin (one of the accounts Marano Fan joined in with for tag-team edit warring, vandalizing my userspace and harassing me a few months ago), it seems that the investigation should be re-opened. Highly suspicious, especially considering Marano Fan's script-enforced self block and is under suspicion with a current SPI. If you're going to be an apologist, Serge, please be sure to be accurate and concise without any hint of prejudice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Bogus was not a direct quote from someone, that was my own interpretation of reading over the SPI case. Use whatever word you like, the SPI clerk didn't even find it worth looking into. A case is usually pretty bad if its not worth looking into at all. I would have thrown it out too. Is it really that mind-bending that there'd be two whole editors that both have the same fancrufty approach to writing about a subject that's currently on the top of the music charts? Shall we also open one up one anytime we come across two editors that want to glorify Nirvana or hate Nickelback? What's puzzling is how you'd keep referring to a rejected SPI case as some sort of reason for suspicion of sockpuppetry. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The following negates your poor assessment: [208]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Even what you linked to literally says " I don't find evidence solid enough to block for sockpuppetry on behaviour alone, ie, was what I was referring to earlier about it being a weak case. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Your selectiveness makes your comments more dishonest than I thought possible. All of it, in context, is here:

"Actually, the evidence has me convinced that this is a situation where Mariogomez23 and MaranoFan are linked closesly (sock or meat), and since they are explicitly claiming to be unrelated, it would constitute a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, so I am endosing for a CU check." - User:Salvidrim!

"The accused appear to be  Unrelated to each other." - User:DoRd

"As it stands, it seems plausible (likely, even) that MaranoFan and Mariogomez are friends (RL or otherwise) and/or meatpuppets, as was (IMHO) the case with Lips. I don't find evidence solid enough to block for sockpuppetry on behaviour alone (at least not yet, considering how little there is to work with), and if it is a matter of a friend "recruiting" another, well, so far there are no bypassings of restrictions through Mariogomez, but in the future, if that account is used to bypass MF's (current or future) restrictions by proxy, then there is a case for blocking." - User:Salvidrim!

Note use of the word "appears", rather than, "definitely not". Note everything else that indicates another admin having reason for being suspicious. Not as cut and dried as you are claiming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet still, no action, because it's not conclusive. Which is all that matters in the context of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the SPI clerk of mine and Marano's case pointed out that we were in different timezones. I don't know why it is so hard for Winkelvi to accept that the "evidence" they insist they have isn't evidence at all and is in fact bogus. These reports they keep engaging in is a blatant means of tormenting editors and WP:REVENGE. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure a site ban is the right option, but I also don't think just letting her (apparently, thought she was a he) carry on is right, either. I think she is just very inexperienced and not fully aware of how Wikipedia operates. I'd be for imposing something whereby she must adhere all of her edits to Wikipedia's policies, rules, criterion and guidelines, and that perhaps some of us should be keeping an eye out on her to ensure that not only are her edits useful and constructive, but also not just for the sake of it, as is what has happened in promoting her fandom of Trainor. I think this is just a simple case of steering her in the right direction and (hopefully) it would work.  — Calvin999 07:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment regarding disruption and policy violation - For context, as was pointed out in section above, This user apparently disrupted the feature list nomination of Meghan Trainor discography to the point it was archived [209]. User:Calvin999 has also filed multiple misguided seeming AfD's on Trainor articles such as the SNOW KEEP deletion attempt of Meghan Trainor discography [210] and AfD on Title (EP) (it would seem strange for article reviewed as GA status to fail GNG) [211]. Most concernedly Aaron/Calvin999 deleted keep vote of Crisco and the comments of others on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP) [212]. This is an article MaranoFan brought to GA status. Given all this, Calvin999's comment of "some of us should be keeping an eye out on her" seems misguided, considering this "keeping an eye out" has apparently involved violation of policy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I never deleted anything! Why is everyone making assumptions and assertions without even asking me what's happened! I don't even know myself!  — Calvin999 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff [213] shows you wrote "I'm not" using two signatures, but you are. The diff also shows you deleted comment that confirmed you were using two signature, comment that disagreed with you, and also a "keep" vote. If that was an accident, you seriously need to be more careful. Also, why would you write "I'm not" when that's not true? You are using two different signatures in that AfD, Aaron and Calvin999. It all seems strange.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, It's not my fault that you can't work it out. It doesn't say two signatures, I don't know how you are fabricating this. It's the same signature, I just piped it with my real name for over 3 years so people knew me and called me by my real name. It said Aaron, but it always linked to my page, User:Calvin. I have never used and switched between two signatures. I don't have two accounts, I only have one, the one I am using right now and always have used. This week is the first time anyone has ever mentioned that I used my real name in my user name in over three years! I am not going to discuss this any further if you can't get it right. It's a complete waste of my time and everyone elses. I didn't delete anything, I never selected or highlighted anyones writings and delete them. I don't know what happened, so it's about time you dropped it. You don't know what you're talking about, evidently. You've created a mountain out of a molehill and assumed bad faith: Instead of approaching me in a civil manner on my talk to discuss, you have badmouthed and slated me publicly here on this noticeboard. You should be ashamed of how you have conducted yourself here and how you have addressed me. I have no interest in talking about this anymore. I unpiped my user link yesterday, so it's time you desist. (If you have worked it out by now, the reason there is two different names is because I changed it last night). There's your answer, now lets drop it, forget it, move on and make Wikipedia better. Thanks.  — Calvin999 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that when he says "2 signatures" and you say "No, I just unpiped the link", that you're both talking about the same thing, right? Regardless of how you define the move, there is a 100% difference in appearance between "Calvin999" and "Aaron". Bobo was just pointing out that, regardless or reason or intent, it was confusing that the unpiping of your signature gave it the look of being 2 separate people in the same discussion. No need to go off the deep end over it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, as others have pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP), if your deletion of that keep vote and deletion of comments [[214]] was accidental, it would seem better to just apologize and move on. Continued denial of the obvious doesn't seem to help, even if you do add in outrage toward those pointing it out.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While refusing to acknowledge the obvious content of a diff may not be actionable, couple it with Calvin's going to another user's talk page and aggressively accusing them of acting in bad faith, and I think Calvin is pretty close to crossing the line. It's not unreasonable to take exception to someone removing dissenting comments and it is unreasonable to insist something didn't happen when it clearly did. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, absent everything else, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of subjecting someone to an IBAN when they are absent from the project and unable to defend themselves. If User:MaranoFan comes back and the problems manifest once more, then we can talk about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose Not going to work since they work on same article and they are involved in content dispute than any other feuds. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. The absence of MaranoFan from this discussion bothers me less than Lankiveil; this is not a topic ban (which is warranted, frankly for all of them) but a far less draconian remedy that he or she might actually want. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - IBANs do not work well, are frequently violated and ignored, and frequently lead to baiting. They are justified only in extraordinary circumstances where TBANs are not practical. I would support an appropriate TBAN for all of the involved parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that a TBAN is preferable, and at the ANI in February he agreed upon a TBAN from all articles in which he was then in conflict, and there were many of them, but he later reneged. (See this archived discussion) I have to frankly say that after experiencing Winkelvi first-hand, and observing the astounding degree of protection/excuses/enabling his misconduct gets from administrator friends he has cultivated/sucked-up to, I do not relish the idea of unleashing him on other articles. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WV's promise to avoid certain areas was a made here [215] for those who are curious. Calidum T|C 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Under what grounds is a Trainor TBAN necessary for me? For the most part I've avoided the disruption and warring at those specific articles, only opposing the discography FLC on legitimate grounds (if anyone cared to read my comment there) and making what I felt was a good-faith merger proposal in response to an arguably bad-faith AfD. Please don't automatically group me in with everything Winkelvi and others have done. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well the main thing that concerns me about your specific conduct is that, without diffs, you've brought a premature ban case against an absent editor. Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• That aside, that warrants the topic ban you've suggested how, exactly? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some valid concerns were raised by Robert McClenon concerning the possible interaction ban. A voluntary interaction ban as proposed by Winkelvi above is totally unacceptable, as he can and has reneged on a similar promise in the past. Perhaps an interaction ban might work, or perhaps both kinds of bans. The idea is to stop the drama. But yes, there are behavioral concerns regarding the editor to whom you have hitched your wagon. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I do actually agree with you on this one, I don't think a topic ban is warranted. Yes, all the issues stem around Trainor related articles, but most of them stem less over her specifically, and more over the three of your obsessing over one another. I think the issue only occurs there because that's where MaranoFan is. I think that, if there was a topic ban on Trainor, MaranoFan would probably move over to Mariah Carey articles or something, then you'd all hound over her over there over Mariah Carey related articles. This is why I was supporting an interaction ban. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• My bet is on Taylor Swift, considering past behavior. Calidum T|C 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support no matter how problematic MaranoFan's edits have been or how well-intentioned Winkelvi and Chase's edits are, it seems that they can't get involved in matters she's involved with as well without someone starting drama up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment If I understand the circumstances correctly, MaranoFan had not been blocked from editing, but is self-blocked. If this is the case, then MaranoFan can, at any time they want to, comment on any aspect of this discussion simply by editing logged-out, and identifying the IP as MaranoFan (some sort of proof would be needed, of course). I do not believe that this would violate WP:SOCK or WP:Block evasion, because no administrative block is involved and the IP is identifying itself. If all this is true, it might be worthwhile for someone who MaranoFan trusts to send them an e-mail letting them know of the existence of this discussion, in case they don't know, and in case they want to express an opinion about the bans being considered. BMK (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from philosophy for Brews ohare

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.

---

Brews ohare (talk · contribs)

This user has a history of tendentious editing related to Speed of Light Arbitration. He is topic banned from physics.

Previous ANI case

Personal attacks and intransigence at OR notice Board

The following analysis supporting the topic ban was provided by IRL professional academic philosopher Peter Damian

In March 2015 he returned to the article on Free will. Many of his edits have been to add references, but these are frequently problematic. For example, he typically combines sources into a novel synthesis e.g. here which was never claimed by the orginal authors. He also duplicates sources, turning the article into a rambling incoherent mess. He has a poor grasp of the philosophical content, meaning that he fails to understand the sources he is using, or their relevance. For example, he will source Steiner and Wilber, neither of whom are notable writers on the philosophical aspects of free will. Since 16 March editor Snowded has been reverting edits so they can be discussed on the talk page. In response, Brews has flooded the talk page with all sorts of irrelevant requests and comments. He does not appear to grasp the fundamentals of the subject, and fails to listen when they are explained to him. This is exhausting for other competent editors who are trying to restore the article to its former status. Some of the competence issues are listed below. Competence is not necessarily a problem if the party is prepared to listen and take advice. Sadly, Brews' arrogance is directly proportional to his ignorance of the subject. In this edit, brews clearly misunderstands the nature of implication. He thinks that 'p implies q' entails that p is the more general claim, q the more specific. Of course it is the other way round, which the other party picks up straight away. If p implies q, then q can be true with p being false, so q is more general. But p cannot be true with q false, so p is more specific. This is philosophical logic 101, and it is hard to continue a discussion with someone who persistently or wilfully disregards it. Note brews reply that this is nitpicking forms of implication, and that the other party (who has since left Wikipedia), has failed to respond to the issues. Yet no issue could be more basic than the implication! In the discussion immediately above, brews mentions a discussion "based upon [Jaegwon] Kim of physical determinism+causal determinism." Kim nowhere mentions this (which Brews eventually concedes), but then immediately trivialises it. ("You seem to think that my use of the construction "physical determinism+causal closure" is some kind of misreading of Kim. Kim has not used this construction, but its use by me here is not some flagrant misrepresentation"). But it is not trivial, for the whole article depends on a careful understanding of the terms. Briefly, causal closure obtains if every event has a physical cause, assuming it has a cause at all, thus it obtains even when some physical events have no cause. Physical determinism obtains when every event has a physical cause, i.e. the difference between physical determinism and causal closure is the stipulation of no uncaused events. Causal determinism (which is by definition the same as 'nomological determinism') obtains when every event, whether physical or not, has a cause, and so is a much stronger claim. Thus neither the expressions "physical determinism+causal closure" nor "physical determinism+causal determinism " make much sense, given that physical determinism already implies both causal closure, and causal determinism. If brews doesn't understand even these basic terms, it is pointless having these long protracted discussions. Note that he later concedes all of this, but at what cost? Care about the use of terms, and perhaps just paying attention to what the other party actually says, would have avoided all this. Here he seems to misunderstand the nature of a 'contradiction'. I made the simple point that a contradiction can only be between propositions, and he prevaricates and obfuscates. A remark by John Blackburn here suggests that the problem is not confined to philosophy. " If you had read and understood the sources you claim to be basing your contributions on you would know this". This probably won't be allowed on Wikipedia , but this Citizendium article on the same subject was almost entirely written by Brews. It is philosophically incompetent, in my judgment. Worryingly, it points to what the Wikipedia article would look like if Brews were to continue unhindered and unconstrained, free. Blatantly fails to understand the precision required of philosophical discourse, see also [216]. Use of 'subjective event' [217] Persistently fails to grasp WP:SYNTH, [218], in particular see this. Poor writing, misrepresentation of sources etc. See also the recommended rewrite. appears not to understand compatibilism. Fails to understand parallel postulate Quantum indeterminism nonsense Note that his main interest in the article appears to be to 'prove' that the problem of free will can be solved by an appeal to quantum mechanics. It is generally accepted by philosophers that this will not work, and is irrelevant to the core philosophical problem. Quantum indeterminism is also a matter of physics, not philosophy, and Brews has been restricted from editing on the subject of physics. Brews also creates whole articles, some of them clear POV forks based on his preferred method of concocting a monstrous salad of unrelated sources. See e.g. Subject–object problem (currently nominated for deletion) Internal–external_distinction Dilemma of determinism Nomological determinism Causal closure Enactivism

Conclusion

I think what is needed is a broader community ban from subjects related to philosophy. The issue here are that brews insists that his own original research should be included in Wikipedia and, when called on it, has responded with what either is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or a comeback that seems to miss the point entirely. This has resulted generally in a degradation of the content of some articles and a new garden of original research that we will need to go through and prune/cut down entirely.

Respectfully,

jps (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing like the length of his posts on Talk Pages :-) A simple review of his edit summaries on the talk page of Free Will shows multiple examples of incivility together with a refusal to accept that no other editors agree with him on his approach. An issue here is that we have exactly the same behaviour as we had on Physics. So we extend the ban to Philosophy the problem will simply move onto Psychology or some other domain. I'm be more inclined to remove the topic ban from Physics but place him under a universal 1rr restriction (broadly construed), a ban on creating new articles unless he has support from other editors, an acknowledgement that he will abide by policy on synthesis and finally that if he does not get support on the talk page he will simply stop. Otherwise I think the only solution will end up being a long term block. If Brews would accept those restrictions then he could do good work, including the detailed stuff he used to do on Physics articles with drawings and the like.----Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by brews ohare:

The majority of contributors to this request have had no engagement with me (as far as I recall) and are simply piling on.

Blackburne has opposed my contributions to WP for almost a decade, flagging my articles with quotation banners and dragging me to ANI for trivial matters, and has had no engagement over philosophy at all. This proposed ban is just another chance to dump on me.

Snowded has battled with me over numerous philosophy articles, routinely filing deletion requests on articles I author (all have failed so far), and exhibits a tendency to be judge and jury over their content. When I try to counter his unexplained assertions of WP:OR and WP:SYN by requesting explicit identification of what is wrong, he consistently refuses to engage and even to discuss what sources say, saying that such an exercise is just a tit-for-tat in which he counters what he calls my "cherry-picked" sources with some of his own, and so it is just a waste of his time. I call such a comparison of sourced opinion a sensible search for a balanced presentation (as opposed to Snowded's personal unsourced opinions). Extended attempts by myself to engage Snowded in discussion of sources has led simply to abusive commentary and threats of ANI.

In Damian's extended analysis above, he touts his expertise as antidote to thought. My attempt to present an innocuous set of definitions has precipitated this proposed ban as preferable to just engaging in a simple discussion - are the definitions correct or not? There is no argument really, as they are what the sources say they are. Damian's "expert" analysis of this issue above is anything but.

In my opinion, I try too hard with Snowded and Damian, and if presenting sources is impossible, I should just leave them the article and let it end up wherever. That is too bad, IMO, as it would be desirable to have sensible Talk page interactions aimed at presenting sourced opinion. But clearly that is just not always possible.

I do not think a ban is the best answer to this issue. Instead, I propose self-censorship, limiting my responses to Snowded and Damian to "Goodbye".

Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: In view of the response to this proposed ban, I deem it probable that my continued participation in contributing new philosophy articles and in clarifying and extending old ones will be firmly resisted. I propose to withdraw from future participation, whether via personal decision or a formal topic ban. Considering that no-one else has contributed a new philosophy article for a decade, I anticipate the Philosophy Project will regain its quietude. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never referred to myself as an 'expert', nor has jps above, so please retract those remarks. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC

The phrase Q.E.D comes to mind, Explaining OR and SYNTH To Brews, as other editors have noted, results in a straight refusal by him to listen. His method of stringing together quotes is the only form of engagement he understands and will accept. So if you refuse to join him in synthesis you get the sort of accusations you see above. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Snowded, to time and again fault contributions as violating WP:OR or WP:SYN with no intention of saying what is the violation, and to repeatedly suggest that it is a violation of WP:SYN to contribute material impeccably stating exactly what WP:SECONDARY sources say using extended verbatim quotes, quotes that make clear that the quoted author has said exactly what it is claimed they have said, is argumentative and does not assist the construction of a balanced presentation of sources. Besides making claims of policy violations that you will not back up, you refuse to address the purpose of contributions you revert, instead reinserting defective text with obvious problems you won't consider, even when sources point them out. Rather than being helpful, this passive aggressive resistance interferes with article improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or site ban whichever (if either) receives a consensus. I think Snowded is correct that Brews ohare's behavior would juts continue to move on from topic to topic as topi bans follow in his wake, but I disagree that a 1RR restriction or ban on creating new pages is sufficient. This stuff has been going on for years, and I would prefer that it be stopped with more finality and fewer half-measures. BMK (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm easy, if a 1-year ban is what the people want, I could go for that, too. It just needs to stop somwhow, in some way. BMK (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban I started editing here eight years ago and he was already nototious for his long-winded endless arguments back then. He simply isn't able to admit if he is wrong, or to stop beating a dead horse. More topic bans will just move the problem elsewhere, as demonstrated by this very thread. He can't stop causing problems in philosophy now, the answer is not another tban as previous tbans failed to curb disruption. We're not babysitters, or therapists. If he can't stop himself, which seems obvious at this point, the community needs to stop him. Enough was enough, this is way overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant support 1Y ban Site ban I'm not a great fan of site bans as they are notoriously tricky to reverse. But progress in some of the philosophy articles is a real problem and some of us need a breathing space. Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing, as I hadn't realized the problem was so long-standing, and so extensive. Looking at his comments here, it is clear he still fails to grasp the rudiments of WP:SYN. Peter Damian (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I would not judge any content issues. However, let's take a look at the editing history here. It is immediately obvious that the page was extensively developed by Brews, but he was followed by several people who never edited this page before, but appear in this ANI report and previously in WP:AE complaints about Brews. It might be fine if these users started fixing serious problems in the page. But instead, they started removing quotations [219] and making other minor changes (which distracted editing by Brews) and ended up by nominating this article for deletion much later [220]. This looks to me as WP:hounding of Brews by several other participants. Saying that, Brews should not be involved in prolonged disputes about any specific page and quickly switch to editing other subjects, because his previous problems were related mostly to WP:TE on his part. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he should do that. If he was willing and able to show such self control we wouldn't be having this conversation. Eight years of similar conflicts suggest thius is unlikeley to change. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, WP:TE is still a problem. This is the reason I can not argue too much. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The alleged "hounding" consisted of numerous editors noticing the resulting page was atrocious, and removing pointless quote farms, OR, and so on. The editor is hopelessly incompetent, and responds with endless edit-wars and talk page screeds. Choor monster (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair summary. I was asked to help with the Free will article when I returned to Wikipedia, and to make an independent judgment on Brews' work. I had very little contact with him before that. I investigated his edits for accuracy and after an extended discussion with him (see the 'show' box above) came to the conclusion that he is enthusiastic but hopelessly incompetent. See Dunning-Kruger effect Peter Damian (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I never edited this subject before, but that summary is not fair. If it were fair, then other editors would have to fix the "atrocious" problems, whatever they might be (rather than edit war to remove a couple of references - see edit history [221]) or nominate this page for deletion already in 2013. This page does appear to be "deletable" to me. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1Y ban I´m also a bit perplexed when I see on Talk:Free will that Brews ohare writes that "Your link doesn't work for Safari". Well, I use Safari, and the link in question (this) works perfectly for me. Huldra (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Huh? I thought he'd been sitebanned some years ago? Is Brews ohare the professional mathematician that got sitebanned some time back (i.e. he's been unbanned), or am I thinking of someone else? Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See his block log below, and WP:ARBSL#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• support topic ban. He is a hard working and diligent editor, but one that is unable to recognise the limits of his abilities. And so he repeatedly gets in trouble editing topics he has not enough understanding of. First physics, then mathematics, now philosophy. I think the hope was that imposing the physics ban would encourage him to find less technical topics to edit which were more suited to his abilities. Instead he has chosen to focus on philosophy, which if anything is even more specialised and which he has far more difficulty with. An indefinite topic ban would I think deal with this, while not preventing him from contributing to non-technical topics which he might be more suited to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a first step, but IMHO a site ban is the only long-term solution. Apart from the topics mentiioned above, I have seen Brews inject his unique perspective into negative feedback and The Selfish Gene. The cases I have seen involved a nonstandard approach to the topic with a lot of unhelpful baggage. The talk pages have been soul destroying, which is why I let him have his way at The Selfish Gene. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If so, he should be also topic banned from Biology? Unfortunately, I too do not like his changes on this page. Here is older version of the page [222]. Here is new version created by Brews [223]. Here are his changes [224]. Without debating his specific changes I disagree about, the page became less readable and understandable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points. There’s also Idée fixe (psychology), like Subject–object problem a collection of random quotes that barely qualifies as an article, but from psychology. Negative feedback is more engineering and control systems. The Selfish Gene is genetics. Certainly any ban should also include such topics, otherwise the behaviour will just reoccur there and in similar articles. Perhaps a topic ban could be crafted to cover all technical/academic topics. This is still quite a narrow restriction as there are far more articles on music and art, on geographic locations and features, on companies and individuals that need attention, or even need creating.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I noticed this thread because of interactions with User:Brews ohare at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem. Here are my reflections on this short interaction and the comments raised at this inquest:

• Failure to grasp WP:OR/WP:SYN. The article Subject-object problem, as I see it, is an essay advancing idiosyncratic views that are based on a synthesis of sources not directly relevant to the subject (if indeed there is a subject at all). Comments made at the AfD make me believe rather strongly that Brews does not actually see a problem promoting original research. Indeed, he seems unaware that this is original research at all. Coming here, I see that this style of editing to advance idiosyncratic views actually appears to be Brews' modus operandi on a great many articles, including those referred to just above by Johnuniq, as well as those linked by jps concerning Free will and related philosophy articles.
• Competency issues. Johnblackburne has pointed out competency issues with the subject's edits to technical content on Wikipedia. Others have echoed those concerns regarding philosophy articles. There appears to be a consensus that Brews fails to recognize the limits of his competency to edit content on Wikipedia.
• WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics and WP:TE. I just have visited the histories of the articles negative feedback and The Selfish Gene linked immediately above by Johnuniq. I observe that Brews added quite a lot of content there. When other editors objected, he reverted them. In both cases, reversion was accompanied by walls of text on the discussion page. Both Johnuniq and Dicklyon (the latter at Talk:Negative feedback) have declared their exasperation at dealing with this style of editing. User:Binksternet summarizes this approach as: "wear[ing] down the opposition with continual pointless arguments, another old trick." This summary echoes concerns of jps, Peter Damian, and Snowded. It also parallels my own brief experience at AfD, in which Brews enjoins me to enumerate each and every piece of WP:SYN in the article Subject-object problem, despite the clear fact that the entire article is WP:SYN.
• This behavior is not new. Indeed, the Arbcom case page refers to precisely the kinds of tendentious discussions that are described herein. In 2010, Brews was topic banned for one year from editing physics articles. In 2012, he was then indefinitely topic banned (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions). The problems highlighted in this inquest fall squarely under the first motion "1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources." Brews has been blocked for violation of the bright line editing restrictions on physics on seven different occasions ([225]). One expects, in general, to see some reform after such extensive Arbcom remedies. But the evidence presented in this inquest appears to indicate strongly that Brews has not reformed to the community's satisfaction.

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent summary and it shows that the problem is not going to go away by simply adding Philosophy to Physics. I suggested earlier a general set of restrictions on all editing in return for (i) allowing him back on Physics articles and (ii) a formal acknowledgement of restrictions on the way he edits with an understanding that this is a last chance. I think the only alternative to something like that is a site ban as topic bans will simply move the problem around. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, excellent summary, and makes me think a site ban is the only alternative. I hadn't realized the problems extended beyond physics into mathematics and biology. Brews himself has also reverted the archived talk page of subject object problem, and what an abomination. user:snowded deserves some distinguished service award or sainthood for putting up with that. A week of it was all I could take. Well done. Peter Damian (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at least. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. From Brew's latest comment there is no chance he will ever accept that what he is doing is synthesis and I wouldn't wish on other subject areas what we had had to put up with on philosophy. I tried to offer a life line in my two contributions above but that has in effect been refused ----Snowded ^TALK 05:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment / Support something Without mentioning specific policy issues, I'd like to make some more qualitative comments on my interactions with Brews. The conflict at Free will began between Brews and I, before Snowded got involved. I had previously had some history of interaction with both Brews and Snowded at Metaphilosophy, and was if anything closer to Brews' "side" in that conflict, though more in a mediating capacity than anything else. But my interactions with Brews at Free will quickly became an arduous chore that has dragged on for years, and I'm now very grateful for Snowded's and more recently Peter Damian's interventions there. The conflict at Free will, combined with some personal stuff leaving me less prepared to deal with it than I might have been in years past, is what's driven me to all but stop editing the encyclopedia. A more-mentally-resourced me from a few years ago would probably try to say something in Brews' defense here as he clearly means well and clearly has some talents that could be useful to the encyclopedia if focused correctly, so I feel a little bad for saying so; but I've been called extraordinarily patient by multiple other editors here on WP, so if even I am at my wits' end, and in light of so many other editors seeming to be as well, it seems likely that there is something or another problematic about Brews' behavior. I don't feel up to analyzing specific policy violations at the moment but at the very least I will echo other editors' comments regarding Brews' competency with philosophy; much of my discourse with him on Talk:Free will before I burnt out was trying to help educate him about the context of the sources he was appealing to and misinterpreting, and the usual meanings of words he seemed to misunderstand, and yes some rudimentary bits of logic even, and try as I might it just never seemed to get through. It makes me sad but something does probably need to be done about it, I just don't know what specifically. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: I am disheartened by your comments here. Your remarks along with those of others here lead me to believe the basic goal of WP to present sourced material on philosophy in a balanced manner cannot be achieved by a discussion of sources on article Talk pages as envisioned in WP policiy WP:SECONDARY supplemented by WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. You view our exchanges (as does Damian) as between an expert (you two) versus an incompetent (me) to be solved by education (you) or belligerence (Damian). A more useful approach is to view talk-page exchanges as one of presenting sourced opinion. When presented with sources that conflict, a discussion of proper weighting of opposing sources is a dispassionate process, unlike an insistence upon editor viewpoints based upon an editor's personal assumption of their own expertise, however well-founded that self-evaluation. Obviously WP is set up for all to contribute. If it were designed for expert contributions, it would adopt the organization of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and use invited articles. On WP the 'expert' demonstrates their competence by using their knowledge of sources to present those sources in a balanced manner, not by pulling rank. I have engaged in other areas of WP (geology and circuits, for instance) where exactly this helpful use of expertise has happened. I have no problem with an expert's presentation of sources (in contrast with personal opinion). However, those contributing to this ban proposal are opposed to the format of my contributions based upon sources, to the extent of attacking format only, and do not address content. In my opinion, the extended nature of my talk page interactions can be traced back not to an intransigent disposition, and not to my incompetence, but to my repeated effort to place discussion in the context of sources, not opinions and proselytizing. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban - In reading over the history over nearly a decade, it doesn't appear that the editor has learned anything, and his or her responses here indicate that he or she still doesn't seem to understand the policy on original research. Normally I would favor a warning or a topic ban, but those have already been tried and have failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This unsubstantiated remark is unbalanced, insulting and unprovoked. I have contributed hundreds of articles and figures to WP without issue. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Topic ban from all topics. Or site ban. Clearly not able to learn. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparentky, Only In Death, you do not think my explanation to Pfhorrest above of the ideal WP process is accurate, or do not believe I try to follow it. Which? Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No I think you should not be allowed to edit any article anywhere without a minder (subject matter expert) vetting every single edit. Since the prospect of anyone agreeing to that is about the same as the prospect of me being voted King of the Earth, a full site ban is really the only choice left. If I genuinely thought a 'one revert PER WEEK' restriction would work I would have suggested it. But again, anyone who has taken a short look at your history knows that is not going to fix anything. At this point anyone who votes for a topic ban needs to take a closer look at your history because all that will do is foist you off on another unsuspecting topic area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Only in Death: I asked a question. You did not answer clearly. Does your 'no' mean you disagree with my outline to Pfhorrest of how a contribution can be crafted even when sources disagree, or does your 'no' mean you don't think I follow this process. Or maybe you mean 'no' to both? Brews ohare (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what was unclear about 'You should not be editing without a keeper'. Otherwise I am not interested in being sucked into a pointless discussion with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have explained what was unclear, and your answer (paraphrased) is: To be clear would "suck me into" an explanation I don't care to provide. That indicates a careful and concerned thought process, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my admittedly limited knowledge I have found Brews ohare articulate and predisposed to engaging in extended dialogue with editors he might not agree with. He does this in a civil and reasoned manner. These are qualities in an editor which I value highly at this project. We should not be silencing people who we might disagree with over certain points. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is valid point. I also disagree with people who tell that Brews is an incompetent contributor. He is certainly competent in the area of Physics, Math and engineering, as clear from pages he created (around 40) and contributed to (a lot). I think the initial period of his editing in the project (several years ago) was just fine, however his interests and expertise are mostly related to Physics, so he was left with little to do after receiving the topic ban in Physics. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I will fully agree that Brews is one of the most civil editors I've encountered, but unfortunately, there's still matters of not listening and beating a dead horse on a variety of topics. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an interest in not pushing misinformation. Brews ohare makes good use of the article Talk page to persuasively engage with other editors to try to improve the encyclopedia. Brews ohare always seems to restate the position of the editor he is disagreeing with before presenting his case. This is what I had in mind when I mentioned civility, not mere avoidance of abrasiveness. The project benefits when one editor makes other editors think. The consequence of being an editor representing a minority viewpoint should not be banishment. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This only works in theory. But in practice, only two things matter: (a) if an editor X actually improves the content, and (b) if he can collaborate (or at least not create constant conflicts) with others. Speaking about (a), Brews did improve pages on Physics in the past, however looking at his recent edits in Biology (old version versus new version created by Brews - the diff), I must tell that he did not improve much. Quite the opposite. Speaking about (b), this entire ANI thread shows that he somehow angered a significant number of long-term contributors who are not POV-pushing SPA by any account, even after having similar conflicts before. Unfortunately, this may be a reason for a site ban for the good of the project, no matter how we both do not like it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that Brews is very civil, and in the past I was very much of the opinion that "talk things to death" was the right and proper way to resolve a conflict with a person who is open to reason. That's why I was willing to engage with Brews at Free will for years on end. But despite the superficial reasonability and civility there has been something difficult to identify that has prevented any notable progress by that method; and it's becoming clear, both from comments from other editor and my own experience now that I no longer have the time and energy to engage at such length as that, that it's unreasonable to expect other editors to engage at such length. I don't know what the right general solution is to such intractable but reasoned and civil debates, but it's becoming clear that there is some kind of a problem, even if it's hard to identify what it is exactly.

Regarding Brews' competence, he does seem to have more general knowledge than I would expect a random Joe off the street to have, but with regards to philosophy at least there has always seemed to be something subtly lacking that contributes greatly to the intractability of arguments. He does appeal to sources and that is great, much better than just pushing his own unsubstantiated opinion, but then when I look at the source he is appealing to, at the exact words in the source he is citing, I do not usually see the source saying something supporting what he wants to add to the article. I can often imagine, if I put in effort to follow how Brews' could get from the source to what he wants to support with it, a way that someone could misunderstand the source to mean something that might support what he wants to add to the article, but that interpretation is never one that would have just occurred to me just reading the source myself. At that point, where do we go with the appeal-to-sources approach Brews keeps insisting is the solution to everything? If he reads a source and comes away with one understanding of it, and others with experience and expertise in that field read the same source and come away with a completely different understanding, should that not count for something? How else can such differences in interpretation possibly be resolved? --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from philosophy at least. I haven't looked at most philosophy articles for a while, and Brews was the reason I stopped looking. He was adding material that bore little or no resemblance to anything you'd find in academic philosophy. I'm sorry to write so frankly about it, Brews, but it really was a problem. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. AFAIK, Brews hasn't been rude or been causing vandalism, thus he shouldn't be site-banned. However, I hope he'll accept a topic-ban from the area-in-question, for his own sake. Furthermore, when any editor sees that he/she is in a minority-of-one in any discussion? it's best to eventually walk away from that discussion & stop trying to add/remove the edits that have caused such opposition. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban. A quick reading shows little change from patterns that have persisted over many years and sucked up a lot of everyone's time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for sure. This pattern of writing articles by snatching up little bits out of disparate sources like a magpie building a nest is unacceptable. Defending it with inexhaustible torrents of words on talk pages isn't any better. You can't have a balanced discussion about what the sources say if the participants in that discussion can't be trusted to actually understand and interpret what they're reading. I'm very hesitant to support a site ban for someone who, for all his faults, is polite and has done some good work (far) in the past, but I started to fear for my sanity when I saw he'd made incursions into biology. No thanks, we get enough long-winded original synthesis of cherry-picked and half-understood sources already. I think what Brews really needs is a blog. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban or strict 0RR restriction. If the past is prologue, then just as what happened with his previous physics topic ban, a new topic ban will only result in Brews finding the next family of articles that interests him and the process will repeat. My guess is that the original topic ban by ArbCom was imposed in the hopes that his tendentious editing behavior was somehow connected to his technical expertise, and that editing outside of his topical comfort zone might deter such behavior. As noted by multiple editors above, that has not been the case. I am reluctant to suggest a site ban, but only see one other alternative. The only other viable alternative IMO is a strict 0RR restriction, which hopefully would better address the behavioral issue and force him to learn how to collaborate constructively rather than adversarially with other editors. Under such a restriction, Brews would not be able to reintroduce material removed by another editor without explicit consensus. Hopefully this will lead Brews to engage in other dispute resolution avenues besides ""wear[ing] down the opposition with continual pointless arguments", and other editors will be able to disengage from discussions with Brews on the talk page without worrying about him assuming an implied consensus from their silence. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming an implied consensus from their silence? That is almost humorous. The nature of debate and consensus includes the problem of understanding the meaning of a non-response to an argument. That is not a problem that can be laid at the door of any editor. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FyzixFighter: I remember you from long ago. You may remember that during the 'physics ban' days I pointed out as you do now that the issue is not the subject matter. In fact, as I pointed out then, Administratiors explicitly exclude content from ArbCom considerations, which is a wise decision because they cannot tell the difference between math, physics, and philosophy. However, they imposed a physics ban anyway, and proceeded to misapply it time and again. The real issue, as I pointed out at the time, is that I continued to believe that reason would prevail on Talk pages and that disagreements should be resolved by arriving at a clear statement of what sources say. However, that is not the case, and instead discussion of sources is replaced by assertions that I am tendentious, violating policy, and so forth, and no attempt made to consider sources. After all, establishing recognition of one's personally outstanding gifts is what WP really is about, it seems. I suggested that I be curtailed to 3 attempts to make a point on a talk page, but for some reason no-one was happy with that proposal. Maybe they were embarrassed at actually having sources to contend with instead of assertions of their own. Who knows? Anyway, I am totally disgusted with the reaction of many of those assembled here (there are some exceptions of course), and have withdrawn completely from philosophy as requested. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"which is a wise decision because they cannot tell the difference between math, physics, and philosophy. However, they imposed a physics ban anyway, and proceeded to misapply it time and again." Comments like this are why people are tired of dealing with you. Firstly the almost universal opinion is that everyone apart from yourself can tell the difference, which is part of the reason you were banned. Secondly it was not 'mis-applied'. It was quite reasonably and fairly applied. That you *CONTINUE TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS* is why you should be completely site banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This remark shows you have not examined the history of Admin actions to enforce this ban which demonstrate exactly this issue. You are inclined to such blistering remarks with no foundation. Brews ohare (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or site ban or any sort of ban that will end the endless disruption. Regardless of the level of disagreement with his ideas, a ban seems to be the only thing that will cause Brews to give up. Looie496 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Looie, although I have an almost inexhaustible patience with those who refuse to consider sources, and continually evade direct answers to simple questions by resorting to threats and insults, my ultimate disgust has proved as great a motivator in my withdrawal as a ban. Brews ohare (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Additional comment. Brews comment by comment 'rebuttal' of anyone who has said anything here is all to familiar to those of us who have experience of editing any page he is interested in. He resolutely refuses to see that he has done anything other than the right thing no matter how much evidence is presented, or how many editors explain things to him. This intransigence has gone on for years and will carry on wherever he edits. So I think a minimum is a topic ban and a universal 0RR restriction. I suspect that the only real solution is a site ban and a readmission on application showing some evidence of a willingness to change in say a years time. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Need help deleting a user subpage

The page User:Epicgenius/RTRC.js needs deleting per criterion U1. Epic Genius (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, {{db-u1}} would've worked fine (doesn't display properly but does add to the category. –xeno^talk 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not add {{db-u1}} because it would have messed with the JavaScript of the page. Epic Genius (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anonymous user is consistently adding non-notable publications list information, to James R. Wait and Asım Orhan Barut articles. User has been banned from tr.wiki with same reason. --Eldarion (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone up for a rangeblock?

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

---

I have just blocked Good Tamarous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the repeated addition of unsourced material (much of it outright lies) as well as WP:CIR issues. The problem is, the block is based on not just his logged-in contribs, but his other contribs made while logged out, which are obviously the same person. It looks as though the account was used mostly to create pages and the IPs would then be usewd to edit them. The big tell is the edit sumarries, have a look and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. (see history of Machar Kounyuk United FC and the now-deleted and salted Clement K. Sylvester) Any chance the range can be blocked? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's fairly narrow, so I blocked 199.190.46.0/25 anon.only and with ACB for a month. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• An edit conflict after all that work. :-( I was going to make it a month too, but actually it seems highly unlikely anybody else would be using that tiny range to edit Wikipedia, Beeblebrox. You could make the block longer if you want. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks to both of you. Even after all this time I still have no clue about rangeblocks. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See, this is why I had kids. My son has made me a mommytool that gives a range when I feed IPs into it. It enables me to look incredibly brilliant without having to understand a word of the whole range thing. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Useful reading....and this although I still try to claim ignorance about the latter. Huh? IPv6...what the hell is that?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I always get to the part where it says that if you should be really careful and if you aren't sure just ask soemone else and I think maybe I'll just skip right to the ask someone else part. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm still impressed at myself for implementing at least one succesful IPv6 rangeblock, though I clearly just followed explicit directions on how to and wouldn't be able to tell you how it really works. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to delete wrongly created archive 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.

---

Could I get an admin to delete Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 1? There is an error in the OneClickArchiver script. It looked for Archive 1 rather than Archive1, note the space. This caused the script to create the aforementioned page and copy the section there instead of to Archive271. I'll ping @Technical 13: to have a look into this. Thanks! Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, for future reference, a WP:CSD G7 or WP:CSD G6 tag would have taken care of the deletion side of it. Monty₈₄₅ 03:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Epic backlog at requested moves

WP:RMCD is really backlogged -- about 160 requests or so that need to be closed. Any takers? Calidum T|C 04:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD backlog

The WP:AfD gradually got backlogged, with more than one week delays. It does not happen so often, but now we need to reduce it back to normal. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried to help, but met with a minor obstacle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesús Cota. My NAC was reverted by the OP. I suppose others are not so much concerned about the backlog. But most discussions are heavily slanted towards deletion, so there's really a need for admins, rather. Kraxler (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done (Non-administrator comment) Policy is clear that it is invalid for a discussion participant to revert a non-admin close, and any editor other than the closer may restore the closure. However since you added a !vote to the AFD I applied a fresh non-admin close. The unanimous additional !votes and the added sources since the last close made the outcome clear. Alsee (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User changing pages of geographic places from Ukraine to Russia

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.

---

Special:Contributions/Muffi is currently replacing Ukraine with Russia in pages about geographic entities. Not sure if these changes have been discussed given the unclear situation. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tobias1984:...and where is your disucssion with them before raising the matter here? GiantSnowman 18:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Sorry, I got used to the Wikidata system, where we usually start the discussion right on the administrators notice board to have mediators in the discussion. Should we close the thread and I will reword the message on the users talk page? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

i don't understand any "problem", i live current-ly in Simferopol, and i know what i voting for on referendum, and where i belong now, stop falsify people minds, i know better than you, European Union , and others where i live. --Muffi (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Muffi: So you are making these changes, because you personally believe that those places now lie in Russia. Is there a source that Russia is even claiming these areas? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I've reverted the changes that had not already been reverted, not one of them was discussed or explained in any way. This user seems to be an unusually clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Apart from the undiscussed changes to Ukrainian territory to Russia, the user has also engaged in what can only be described as pure vandalism, such as changing the (sourced) politicial orientation of a Polish part from "Liberal conservatism" to "populism" [226], [227]. Jeppiz (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus is that for objects located in Crimea dual categories (both for Unkraine and for Russia) are allowed; even better solution is to create categories XXX in Crimea and incluse them in both XXX in Ukraine and XXX in Russia. However, replacing Ukraine with Russia is clearly disruptive, and the user should be blocked if they choose to continue. They are clearly trying to prove a point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

At the same time I was writing this they were edit-warring at Jeppiz's user page, so I went ahead and blocked them for 24h.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection to reblocking indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Behavior of Jac16888

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.

---

During my vandal run I came across the article Detective Willy. The first time, I ignored it as it appeared to be a new article, however, the second time I saw it , I looked harder and saw that the article was entirely in Spanish and it was in article space. Admittedly there's no hard and fast rule, but to me it's common sense that since his is en.wikipedia.org , anything in article space needs to be in English, just like I'd expect the reverse on es. wikipedia.org (everything in article space would be in Spanish not english ). I blanked the article and left a note on the creating users space here . The blanking is reversed by Mr. X . Now, admittedly I re-reverted, again based on common sense (IAR ) (By the way, I'll self report for hitting 3RR on this article - I will not touch the article for the rest of the night. ) However, the administrator Jac16888 got involved and is quizzically insisting that it's fine to have a spanish-language article in 'en. wiki article space. I have left a note stating that it can go to the spanish wikipedia or as a compromise I would copy the article to draft space it's there now , but just out of common sense, an spanish language article cannot be on an english wikipedia article space. My last edit was to blank the article after copying it into article space withi an edit summary stating the article is in draft space. Jac16888 has unblanked the article once again. I'm looking for three things:

• Removal of the article in it's current state. I've already copied this article into draft space. I left an edit summary advising that it's there. IN THAT SPACE it can be translated OR in the AUTHOR's SANDBOX, but not in article space.

• Clear decision by the admins on what should be common sense - that a non-english article doesn't belong in En.wikipedia article space

• I will accept any blocks etc... as the result of my hitting 3rr on this article.

Thanks KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 22:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As can be seen by a quick read of WP:PNT, I am completely justified in my actions here and have explained this to Kosh, who has apparently ignored my advice to read the procedure detailed there. This failure to read proper procedure by such an experienced editor concerns me, as does the fact said editor apparently believes blanking a problematic article is the best way to deal with, or that an article can be moved by copy and pasting it--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

... Interestingly enough in that same page there's a link to: | this page which shows that an article can indeed be removed for simply not being in English. Like I said, it's common sense. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, you made it to the top line of PNT. Please keep reading. Let me clear, you are correct that an AFC page (i.e a proposed article in the Wikipedia space) can be declined if it is not in English. However if an article in the article space is not in English it cannot be deleted simply because of that fact, unless it meets other criteria for deletion. This has been standard policy for as long as I can remember--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I read the whole page, however, since the article isn't in English, it can't be determined if this is a copy of an existing wikipedia article from the spanish wikipedia, also we can't tell if it's straight copy and paste from an existing page, so it's unwise to have it in article space, hence my compromise with you to place it in draft space. THERE it can be looked at by native spanish speakers / readers and they can decide if it's copy-and-pasted from another wiki ( this breaks attribution, which we can't do ), or copied out right from another website (copyright issue - which we can't have here ) or translated to english , THEN placed in article space. Once again, common sense. Just delete the page for now, work on it in draft space and then bring it back if it's noteable for Wiki. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't, or you would have spotted the bit where it says ".. an article not being in English is not itself a criterion for deletion..". I'm fed up with trying to get you to understand this now, I'm going to bed, and will leave it to other editors to explain to you exactly why you are wrong--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) KoshVorlon: If you want to propose a change to how we handle new non-English articles, feel free to make a proposal at the village pump. We already have an established process that most everyone else follows to the benefit of Wikipedia. You were bold, but reckless, in the way you handled this article. When multiple experienced editors try to steer you back on course, it's best to listen and learn, and not simply insist that things have to be done your way.- MrX 23:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommend close as moot.

1. Page translated
2. Page proposed for deletion (I agree, as it fails WP:FILM)

I also recommend WP:TROUT for @KoshVorlon: for the edit warring, page blanking instead of WP:PROD and copy/paste move. Sheesh. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout huh ? My reasoning is sound and fits IAR rationale. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blanking a page instead of adding a PROD template is not IAR, it is either laziness or lack of competence. Ditto for doing a copy/paste move - compare to WP:Moving_a_page. Finally, your edit warring is not a case of IAR, but one of a need to have immediate satisfaction - compare to WP:DEADLINE. Consider reading the referenced articles before going down this road again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Competence, huh ? How about placing a SPANISH article on an ENGLISH' wikipedia. That's not a competent act in and of itself. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• This has been pointed out to you previously in this discussion: per Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Standard_procedures, "an article not being in English is not itself a criterion for deletion until the two week period has passed". You made several mistakes. They've been pointed out to you, with references. No amount of repeating your assertion that you were right will change that. Stopping digging and move on. I repeat my recommendation that this discussion be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG is thrown instead of just a WP:TROUT. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Bigger resolution version founded from internet

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

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

To picture File:Tidel Park Coimbatore.jpg are bigger resolution bersion here--Musamies (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually bigger as in better; it's just our photo, blown up a bit. You can tell by the blurriness. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an issue for the administrative noticeboard, closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Schools and "presumed automatic notability"

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

---

Can anybody point me to a consensus that outright says schools have "presumed automatic notability", where it absolves creating editors from the need to assert notability, and grants these articles special status based on it? this AFD and village pump (policy). I am not looking to start a new discussion, just for somebody to fill me in where this "presumed automatic notability" that I am hearing so much about originates from (and how I can get some? lol). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some links and such here that may be useful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't even think about challenging it. Trust me on this: every single clipping from every single newspaper will be mined to prove that there is coverage in reliable independent sources. It is a complete waste of time to even try to delete an article on a school. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: if that is what we have to light a fire and prevent them stagnating (like it was at the time of AFD nom [228]) or being padded with unencyclopedic content (The inability to find a german teacher is not encyclopedic [229]). I re-reviewed the AFD and changed my vote. I fear though that it takes an AFD to get these articles anywhere near encyclopedic. An exemption from A7, and the significant amount of effort to list something at AFD makes it really simple to create stub articles with very little effort. This was my one of my primary concerns. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles are also where some of the most atrocious and damaging BLP violations occur.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I quote the WP:VP(p) page — This discussion is confusing "exempt from speedy deletion" as being the same as "automatically notable". Primary schools are most definitely not assumed to be notable, and we normally delete them or redirect them to relevant pages, e.g. for US schools, to the school district article. As far as speedy deletion is concerned, we consider schools important enough that they always should be given a chance, rather than being deleted without several days of waiting and/or discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Even at AfD, high schools are generally presumed notable. Not all are, but most have so much coverage, it's like taking a US congressman to AfD--you've got to be aware that sources will almost certainly be there. Those sources are often local, but almost always massive. At least in the US (building the building, sports, alum coverage, etc.). Hobit (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's more that some people will go out of their way to keep any article on a high school. This amuses me: the school I went to is over a thousand years old - half a millennium older than Eton - and is still considered minor in the real world. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm interesting in learning more about the school, But you don't have to disclose it if you don't want to. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: It's on his talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a good place to start, although is more of a "what has happened in the past" rather than showing where discussions are.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just had my fingers burned at AfD because of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is farcical. Some of the subject-specific guidelines really do need to go. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To flesh out Sitush's point: as was discussed on the India Project talkpage, there are roughly 1.5 million schools in India, including about 250,000 secondary schools. We can prove the existence of each of these schools for a particular year (which as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says is often enough for the article to be kept at AFD) because there is a government database of schools containing some basic raw stats. However for most of these schools, there is absolutely no independent media coverage (or even school websites) so they will fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG etc... yet possibly survive both speedy deletions and AFD. At the project-page we were able to dissuade bot-creation of articles on all Indian schools, but nothing really prevents this under current standards used in the area. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much been true at AFD that a high school is deemed notable - whether or not sources exist (ROUTINE or otherwise) for easily a decade now. One of Wikipedia's more idiotic inconsistencies, imnsho. Resolute 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Its because many such discussions have involved Western Highschools where it is easy to find reliable coverage. For instance in the US, pretty much every Highschool has easily generated enough coverage to make a plausible claim of notability, it just requires finding it. While AfD precedents are non-binding, they are informative. If someone is really convince a particular school has no coverage by reliable sources, WP:OUTCOMES doesn't prohibit nominating it for deletion. We just love talking about Highschool related stuff in local and regional newspapers in the US, thus creating notability. Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the editors with an interest in school related articles tend to assume that this also holds true for high schools in other countries, when it doesn't, and pile on in AfDs with keep votes. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We should apply WP:BURDEN a little more often and rigorously. And we should of course discount passing mentions, which includes government lists, directories and so on that basically just verify existence. Most schools in the UK are no more notable than me, and I'm not notable despite numerous appearances in newspapers etc. Yes, there are stories about them but they tend to be trivial things: new headmaster, retiring teacher, a promo piece for good exam results etc: that sort of thing is better hosted on a schools directory website which, I am fairly sure, is what those parents consult who do not just accept word of mouth and the limitations of their catchment area. Or perhaps that is just the parents I know. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The big problem, as alluded to above, is that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is primarily based on cases involving Western schools in the United States, the UK and Australia where the population is smaller and less dense and self-interest is (and I'm from the last of those three countries) rampant. As Monty rightly points out, local coverage of local high schools is almost inevitable where a wealthier middle-class is available to support incredibly local press (my region has a population of about 1/2 a million and has multiple newspapers; a friend of mine in China said his "town" had a population of 20 million and just one local print newspaper. But there is a need for as many high schools in his town as in my entire country). Of course, as soon as you suggest that a high school in the US is notable (because of extensive local coverage) but a high school in China isn't (because there isn't enough coverage to even confirm the name) you get shouted down on the basis of institutional bias. Embrace the nonsense, is my suggestion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So that is all a local notability - does a local notability really take precedent over a global notability? Anyone who has done a PhD will have some publications, even if it is only in a local (national) science journal. That means that anyone with a PhD is notable because references can be found. Many people going to a secondary school nowadays get articles in local newspapers because they .. made a homerun in the local baseball game, or were dancing in a local ballet performance. If having a local mention equals being notable, then everything is passing that bar. That combined with the problems with these articles (BLP-issues, plain spam/advertising/promotion, etc.) makes it maybe time for a dedicated RfC regarding notability of local schools where the level of notability should be set to a certain national/global standard, followed by implementation of that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that one of the factors in the "presumed automatic notability" is that Jimbo Wales once said this. Deor (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: - heh, so if I would have come in as a newbie and write an article about myself (I've been in local newspapers when I was young), and about my primary school (has been mentioned in local news - I think it recently burned down), and the local supermarket (which IIRC changed a couple of times of owner, and hence was featured in the local news), then all would be fine .. I wonder what would happen if I would try now ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds right, Dirk Beetstra. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a topic, does my school Placer High School, even have enough notability? Granted, we have a few notable alumni like an Olympic Gold Medalist, I'm not sure... -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTINHERITED. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia has moved to much higher standards in terms of source requirements in the last 5-10 years and so this outcome is no longer as clear. Of course, those of us that think that notability!=important but instead notability==reliable sources (even local) would consider that a bad thing... Hobit (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing that frustrated me was a lack of common sense. The first WP:RS added to the article, and I quote, focused on "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes ... ([230]) with the argument for WP:GNG based on the WP:RS coverage. If every recorded faculty related issue/shortage was actually notable, we have a problem in our definition of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, notability is about coverage. Just because you or I consider it to be a minor issue isn't relevant to WP:N. I realize Wikipedia is going away from that (see my webpage for a bit of prose about this), but our guidelines, as written, don't ask editors to identify "important" just "coverage". And that's no mistake, it was exactly the original goal of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hobit: I agree, but the school wars were bruising and as usual with Wikipedia there was an imbalance of motivation: those motivated to include them were much more committed to the cause than those of us who were more concerned with WP:NOTDIR. I think revisiting it will only cause the same problem again. At least pruning schoolcruft from articles gives a source teachable moments - the editor responsible for adding the cruft might actually learn something about good editing practice. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, while I'm of the opinion we should have these articles, I agree there often can be some pruning and learning that can (and needs) to happen here. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here's the problem that no one seems to want to recognize: the elephant in the room. There is no policy, and never has been, and never will be, which says "Every school of high-school level or higher can have an article at Wikipedia and it can never be deleted". You will never see a policy worded that way, you will never see anything CLOSE to that, nor will you see any policy which says that high school articles are exempt from any Wikipedia policy or guideline explicitly. However, you'll never actually get one deleted. Ever. You can certainly try. You can certainly claim (rightly so, maybe even) that schools are not exempt from the normal standards of articles, and you will even be correct in every one of your arguments, and perfectly sound with regards to policy and everything else. And that all doesn't mean shit. School articles don't get deleted. That's a statement of fact based on almost a decade of deletion discussions and mounds of evidence. Don't look for reasons, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. Just come to accept it as a fact of existence, which lacks any real policy-based backing, but exists nonetheless, and move on. You'll be much happier for it. --Jayron32 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well said, and I will add that similar arguments can be made about other aspects of Wiki-reality as well. It's the difference between things as they should be and things as they are. BMK (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Exactly what I was inferring above, but put far more eloquently. Resolute 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• There needs to be an RFC on schools to document and base in the guidelines the longstanding community consensus at AfD: that secondary schools are presumed notable and that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. I've explained the valid rationale for this widely accepted tradition numerous times and am getting tired of it. We don't need to waste volunteer time investigating and fighting over whether this or that school is notable or not — the deletionists need to give a little and the inclusionists need to give a little and we need to accept the way that things have been (per OUTCOMES) is the way that things are. We already auto-keep populated places, rivers, mountains, highways, and professional athletes, etc. — it is not shocking or a departure to auto-keep high schools. Carrite (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but populated places is another crock of crap, isn't it? Define a populated place. Even the street upon which I live, comprising around 30 nondescript Victorian houses right at the bottom end of the "property ladder", and one of around maybe 10,000 streets in the town, could be called a "populated place". I could get the sources now: loads of trivial newspaper mentions - a burglary here, some traffic problems there, a planning application, my neighbour arrested yet again. I could probably do the same for at least half of the individual houses on the street, not one of which holds any real interest at all except perhaps to its present and former occupants. In other words, just like many schools, villages in India and so on. Who can stop me doing this? Why do we delete local heroes because their significant/non-passing mention coverage etc is only local but local schools are kept even though the same often applies? OUTCOMES ended up as it is because of the work of what amounts to an on-wiki pressure group, not because it makes any sense or is "right". At some point, we're going to have to revisit this because we simply cannot handle what we have, let alone what is to come (such as the 1.5 million Indian schools referred to above). - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• An automatically notable populated place is usually an incorporated municipality or a formerly-incorporated municipality (or an equivalent, such as a census-designated place in the U.S.). If it was never incorporated, then the community must pass WP:GNG or be listed in a specialist encyclopedia. (For example, I start articles on any community listed in the Handbook of Texas). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We're certainly not gonna be able to investigate 1.5 million Indian schools on a case-by-case basis at AfD. You are making my case for me that there need to be Auto-Keep and Auto-Redirect rules of thumb, my friend... Carrite (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wait until you see the BLP violations, promo/puffery etc: the load will have to be borne somewhere, regardless. It is bad enough with universities, many of which in India award degrees of no merit whatsoever and exist mainly as part of the corrupt, self-aggrandising society that is the norm there. Private schools and universities (that is, non-public sector) should be treated as if they were businesses, not places of education. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

In the UK the promo and puffery exists, too - and the opposite as well. I was told recently of a senior school leader who created a Wikipedia article, not on his own school, but on a rival school down the road so that he could highlight their poorer than usual exam results the previous year. Given some of the secondary school articles I've seen - and the fact that with the effective cutting of school budgets the number of students they attract is now vital to their existence - I wouldn't be surprised if that happens a lot. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It isn't limited to South Asia. I've seen some truly awful US examples and can vaguely remember spending a few days dealing with rivalry-inspired vandalism on one or two of them. The point about India is the sheer number, the fact that someone (from the schools project?) was indeed wanting to bot-create the lot, and the ill-fated WMF "push" there that has mostly just added to our woes rather than improved anything. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And I am going to repeat again, what is true for all of your secondary schools, is practically true for any person as well - there are not a lot of people in the western world who make it through ('notable') secondary schools without a mention in a local newspaper (I'd have to dig in storage, I should have the newspaper clippings showing that I have passed my first swimming diploma once when I was about 6 years old, heck, the archives of that might even be online nowadays). If a secondary school is notable because they got a mention in a local newspaper because of a school recital that took place in the local community hall, then try to defend that people are not-notable when they got a mention in the local newspaper when they got their first swimming diploma. And then, primary schools are not notable when they are mentioned in local newspapers, but secondary schools are? These are just accumulations of disregarded WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-arguments, selectively applied to secondary schools. I again ask for a proper RfC, aiming at setting a minimum level of notability significantly beyond local notability, and a deletion spree which deletes anything that does not pass the bar that has been determined in that RfC. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"If a secondary school is notable because they got a mention in a local newspaper because of a school recital that took place in the local community hall" - That would count as a "routine announcement" which wouldn't count under WP:GNG anyway. When somebody looks for notable info, it means "not-routine" things. Examples: Articles on expanding the building or building a new building, changes in the attendance zone, a scandal regarding test scores, a case study on a good education program, the school's brand-new opening, etc. Many of these articles may be found in "newspaper of record"-type publications.

Speaking of "local" notability, I think any sourcing from regional "newspapers of record" should be exempt from that designation. For example the Houston Chronicle is the "newspaper of record" in the Houston area and I think any concept: person, book, etc. with enough sourcing from such a newspaper should count as passing GNG anyway. Many U.S. metropolitan areas have larger populations than entire countries, and the service areas of these newspapers are often very large. This article from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states that the Houston Chronicle has a higher proportional readership than a national newspaper such as The New York Times. The readership for the Chronicle is about 40% of the City of Houston while the readership of the NYT is 1.6% of the entire country.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to an example used earlier on geographic places: we have never held that all streets should be considered notable. In my early years in WP I did argue that a few times, but usually to defend some street where there was a prospect of notability. The problem there, as with schools, comes down to what is counted as an acceptable sources and the difficulty in finding them. With enough systematic work, I could probably document every street in downtown Brooklyn or any similar city where local newspapers going back to the 19th century are available. By current standards, we'd probable call most of these mere notices. Similarly even for geographic features, there's a level of significance we do not go below. We don';t include every marked trail in a national park, we don't include isolated houses on a map, even if they have a local name, when don't include named small parts of bays , or hills or the like. The current version is not totally comprehensive coverage, it too is a compromise. And the same is true even in fields where I think our coverage is already absurdly great like athletics--I could make an argument for including every high school athletic team--again, based on local papers. Everything we do here is in practice a compromise. We try to accommodate everyone's interests to a certain degree, rather than fight over whose interests are the more important, and the operative principle is that I'll put up with your hobby if you put up with mine. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My point about random streets was that someone claimed the schools outcomes thing arose because it is presumed that sources will exist. The same can be said of most streets. If that was indeed the basis of outcomes (which is now a self-perpetuating device) then it needs to be revisited. It is nothing to do with hobbies: this is an encyclopaedia and we should not indulge trivia or things that are better dealt with by other projects and websites. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

People need to be able to participate in Wikipedia as a casual hobby. If they are unable to do that, they may get frustrated and quit... and never become better editors. We're already having user participation issues. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Do we delete RfAs?

Regarding this - I ask the question here, because I figure that Admins, as a group, are likely to know the answer: Do we actually ever delete RfAs? I've seen them courtesy blanked, but deleted? BMK (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, an admin may want to take a look at the contribution list of DL9C, who made the nomination above, and offer him or her some counseling. It's a pretty strange list for an editor who came on board on April 3. BMK (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If a troll starts an RfA for someone else and the target doesn't want it whatsoever, then sure, delete it. G3 may apply. Example: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Was the RFA submitted by the subject, or by someone else for the subject? The discussion, which is going to Keep, is to keep it as evidence against the subject. If it was submitted by someone else, e.g., maliciously, then that should be mentioned in the MFD, and a malicious RFA should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It was submitted by the subject. BMK (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Outside of explicit vandalism or other problematic content (BLPvio, NPA, NLT, copyvio, etc.), failed RfAs started by the nominee should be kept (IMO), no matter how misguided the editor was. Courtesy blanking of old silly RfAs could be considered on a case-by-case basis for "reformed" users. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for general & specific answers. The AfD which began this inquiry has been SNOW KEPT. BMK (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Salvidrim 20:48, 13 May 2015, i hope this is not restricted to RFAs created only by trolls, because I had nothing to do with WIkipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia, which was a good-faith IAR nom by a non-troll, which nonetheless was deleted at MfD because I had nothing to do with it. (Just saying' while I happen to be here observing the "Brink of collapse" thread, where I hesitate to weigh in with a concrete example of the change in adminning that has occurred over the years, that makes regular editors have to work so much harder to just keep bios clean,in the DYK-inspired environment of quantity over quality ... but you can all go read the thread at ANI about that matter.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's standard practice to delete RfA pages created by someone other than the nominee, and where the nominee doesn't accept the nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Secret/Jaranda delete one of his RfAs? It's unfortunate as somewhere around here I'd saved links to evidence that ought to be presented at a future RfA, but they're dead links now. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's no reason not to MfD them if you think that's reasonable, IMO, otherwise you can always courtesy blank. WP:NOTBURO. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

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 need special attention . Please check editing history . I request you please do needful . One user is deleting all information from article also abused in talk page to Indian . Why need to abuse any Indian ?? We they hate Indians and their achievements ? I am really hurt . I will write this to Indian Prime Minister . Please take action against user who said Indian think Wikipedia is free hosting advertisement site . Why and how they can say . I have checked all editing history . A set of people are involved from beaning of this article to manipulate things . I am really hurt . Please do needful .Thanks .--Rohtak camp (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, your correct course of action is to discuss this on the article talk page without returning your own preferred version of the article until after consensus is reached. Good-faith on your part is shown by allowing discussion to occur before the addition of a contested bit of text, and not demanding that others leave your text in while discussions occur. Usually, it is best to not including something which has been contested, for obvious reasons. Your goal is to convince others that you are correct by presenting evidence in the form of reliable sources, and do so on the talk page. Merely claiming righteousness in edit summaries is not sufficient, and you may be blocked for edit warring if you don't desist. --Jayron32 14:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

After multiple edit/revert cycles, probably 3RR but definitely EW, and direct personal attacks on others, User:Rohtak camp comes here to complain about others' editorial behavior and civility. After that, he received a 3RR warning, and then made the same disputed edit again. I did the needful for 24 hours. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The grammar/style used both by this user and by User:Rainu2006 (which I won't elaborate on per WP:BEANS, but is fairly obvious) might be worth an SPI. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Both accounts are going to fall under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vermapriya1986. I just can't be bothered filing. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the original SPIs. The quacking is loud enough to indefinitely block both, so it's done. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

@Kinu:, they are back as Monu2006 (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue not resolved

The section regarding an issue with an editor was archived, but there was no resolution. See 'Persistent bad faith and personal attacks'. diff

What is the best way to seek resolution? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't gone over the specifics of this particular case, but generally if a thread is open for four days and no admin takes any action, it is because they see no cause to take any action. There are various dispute resolution forums available. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to gather more evidence, and decide what action would be suitable.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect my userpage

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

---

User:Koavf Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:  Not done It's still move protected--nothing changed. Please unprotect. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Koavf appears to be fully unprotected, looking at both the protection log and the protection interface. If your main user page is still coming up protected it sounds like something is broken. I did notice User talk:Koavf was move protected, just to confirm, that isn't what you wanted protection removed from right? Monty₈₄₅ 02:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Koavf: Try purging your cache. BMK (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging from Koavf's usual archival method, it may indeed be the talk page he wanted un-move-protected . Koavf, can you confirm? Do you want it reprotected afterwards? Do you want me to just move it to your next archive? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:, @Monty845:, @BMK: I want it unprotected to archive, yes. You can leave it unprotected, as the vandalism associated with it has long since passed. If it's a problem again, I'm sure someone else can move protect it again. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Koavf: done. Monty₈₄₅ 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Azeem Ward

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 trending meme is likely to bring a flood of merryment seekers here. Already nominated for AfD, but in the mean time, more eyes are needed to prevent the article from turning into a complete mess. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest semi-protection of the article talk page to prevent it from being nothing but a way for IP addresses to contest the speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend an admin snow it closed as well. 10 !votes + nom to delete with only one admittedly inexperienced editor with a serious !vote to keep. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done, with a pinch of salt as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Offensive username?

User softblocked. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
User subsequently indef blocked by Rschen7754 for obnoxious behavior.

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

---

Is it just me, or is Toe of the Almighty Camel an offensive username? It seems to me to be positively intended to offend women in particular. I thought I'd ask here before confronting the user. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

As a female editor (who may be dense, though :-)), I don't see anything offensive—to women, anyway. All the best, Miniapolis 22:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Camel toe. Sorry, I thought it was well known. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

• The name may be entirely innocent, or it may be a "clever" attempt to poke a stick in the eye of others. Whatever the motivation, the user name does poke a stick in the eye of anyone sad enough to have been exposed to internet "culture", so it is not acceptable. Given that Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk · contribs) (created 19 April 2015) has 30 edits to articles, the user should be asked to change their name to something that does not have any hint of the current issue. If the user declines to immediately start that process, the account should be indeffed on the understanding that the user can create a new account, as they have obviously done in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest asking them to change it, and proceeding to WP:RFC/N if that doesn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I too noticed the name and found it offensive toward women for its suggestive referencing to the phrase. I would recommend changing the name to avoid the unfortunate relation between the two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and posted on the user's talk page to the effect that the user name needs to be changed. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Gotta be honest, even if my name can be construed as being the term Camel Toe. I'm having a great deal of trouble finding anything on the interwebs that claims Camel Toe to be an offensive term in nature. And as a feminist, I find this premise to be ridiculous. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've softblocked until they agree to change their name. This kind of stuff is unacceptable. And if you're a feminist, realizing that a ton of women will find this name offensive is reason enough to change the name. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• They've changed their name -- it's now just "Almighty Camel" -- but hasn't changed their behavior. Their nonsensical edit warring got Camel toe locked down, and they're cruising the talk pages in a fashion that brings to mind WP:DNFTT. As someone commented elsewhere, this is clearly an existing user (blocked, banned, or just established) who's WP:NOTHERE and is having a jolly old time tweaking our noses.
  On a related subject:

  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  BMK (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  I completely agree. Time for a permablock.- MrX 19:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done. To be honest, I think we were being trolled all along. --Rschen7754 19:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  Of course. After a while, you can smell the trolls when they come along! BMK (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Amaris

Hello, The Amaris article has been deleted quite many times in the past due to lack of notable and "unsourced one-liner". Creation of this article is blocked now. Can I request this article to be unblocked? I confident that I can create a better version of this article now to meet the Wikipedia requirements. Thank you. Thien.cc (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're intending to post this as the new article, it will likely be rapidly deleted as being advertising for the company. Please also see WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And if that is indeed your draft for a new article, anybody is entirely free to delete it at any time for any reason or no reason at all. You'd be better off copying the content and pasting it to User:Amavie thien.cc/Sandbox and working on it there. Once you believe that it meets Wikipedia's standards, ask Stephen Buxton (on his talk page) if your draft may become an article. Because what Nick-D says about the current version is right. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As I also said at the helpdesk, first, you need to make sure they pass WP:GNG, which requires that there is significant, independent coverage from reliable sources about them. If you believe that they pass WP:GNG, I would recommend creating an article via WP:Article Wizard, and submitting it via the WP:AFC process-this process involves getting feedback on your submission, and how to improve it. Then, if/when a reviewer thinks the article is ready, they can request an admin to unblock it. Note that WP:COI is important, and in particular WP:PROMO will stop it getting accepted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thien.cc has asked me for advice, and I've posted a list of my concerns on his sandbox talk page. There is also a copy of the deleted article in the sandbox history now. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please consider closing ANI thread

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

---

Help, please. I don't think I can put this ANI thread (a topic ban discussion) in the Requests for closure template above, since it has been open for less than two days. But there's already a lot of it, it has degenerated rapidly, and is very painful and stressful — obviously mainly for the subject of the thread, but no fun for anybody. It seems to me it would be a good deed if an uninvolved admin would close it and make the call. Since it concerns editing in an area under discretionary sanctions, the idea has been mooted that it should be closed without action and restarted at WP:AE. I don't myself like the idea of dragging it from board to board and repeating all the pain, but of course I'd leave that to the closing admin. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

AE does not have a magic formula for solving bitter disagreements, and restarting the question over at AE would cause some inconvenience. I'd suggest letting this run at ANI for another couple of days. The hardest part for the ultimate closer will be sorting out who is uninvolved, so that the opinions of DrChrissy's content opponents and supporters don't get to be the only ones deciding the matter. Though the discussion may be causing pain, the thread exists at ANI because DrChrissy opened it, though others have since converted it into a topic ban discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura

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 bringing this here for consideration following an email request to the Ban Appeal SubCommittee.

Background: This dates from 2006. The user created a new word, exicornt, and created an article for it. He supported the subsequent AFD with socks. His last ban appeal was at ANI in 2009, which failed.

I am appealing this:

• the ban was a result a discussion on ANI. While no ban was explicitly proposed, I was initially indeffed by an involved admin who I've apologized to in the past. I have no intent of attempting to post the neologism in the future.
• consensus can change over the years and the editors who knew me back in 2006 and 2009 when an appeal was made on my behalf are probably no longer active.

User:EddieSegoura, 17 May 2015, via email to WP:BASC.

I'll step back from this now,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unban - Things have changed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban - this user has been gone since 2009; I have no doubt that 6 years is plenty of time for a person to change, so there's been long enough to give the user a second chance. The user has also addressed the original issue behind the ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban, unless more recent disruption is discovered. Promoting a neologism and sockpuppetry is unacceptable, but not inexcusable, and this user had many, many, many years to grow up. If anything, a second chance is justified. Of course, I expect him to "stick to his word" and forget about the neologism completely. I propose the obvious condition: the unban comes with a TBAN from "exicornt" and a one-account restriction. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to articulate that I especially oppose unbanning with the added context that there have been recent (2014) constructive edits from the user under another account but he has now decided to formally request an unban instead of "theoretically socking" quietly and constructively, which I commend him for. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I also support the topic ban unban condition to be for all railroad switches instead of strictly "exicornt". Some have proposed "all article creations", which seems unecessary to me, and wouldn't (for example) prevent editing existing articles about railroad switched in a way that isn't appropriate. So I prefer a TBAN from "railroad switches" to "article creations". I've no problem with the one-account being indef and the TBAN being definite (6 months, a year, whatever, as long as there is some period where the editors shows they can improve other stuff), or even better, "indefinite but appealable after X time" so it doesn't automatically expire but allows an easy way for community review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unban I never expected to see the return of Eddie. The TBAN should cover all railroad switches. And yes I am still here and still willing to give you another chance. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unban. I'm open to users returning if they have changed (and I note I am open to revisiting my position if there is evidence of that), but the rationale specified for this ban appeal does not address the concern arising in the previous ban appeal. That is, I'm not sure about whether the users above understand why the last appeal was declined; it was specifically due to continued chronic and disruptive sockpuppetry (there were 43 socks I counted in 2009). A one-account restriction is all well and good in theory, but it means nothing unless the user restricted respects the restriction; he really should be open to voluntarily disclosing when he last engaged in sockpuppetry. I would have thought that would be the first issue to be pointed out in a ban appeal, and the first undertaking he would have made without prompting - yet, it wasn't. On another point, I think all users who participated in the previous ban appeal should be notified as I find that most of them are in fact active users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and notified them (or at least the accounts who appear to have edited in the last year). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Update: Based on his response which resolves my concern, I've struck my opposition and would endorse the unban per Salvidrim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC) I have struck my oppose (as it goes towards resolving my concern), but would not be prepared to endorse any unban without the restrictions proposed by Salvidrim being imposed involuntarily for an indefinite duration. If an exception is sought within 12 months, it would need to be considered in the form of some other appeal or he would need to justify it so we have enough time to consider it and make a decision before this appeal is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban. Six years is quite enough time to allow for an editor to have changed their habits. He specifically discounts an intent to reintroduce the neologism that started the problem. bd2412 T 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban. Seems like time to offer the user another chance. What User:Salvidrim! says makes sense. I'd like to see a statement from Eddie saying he's read the current policy on sockpuppetry and a pledge to adhere to it. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Um. It's hard to see why someone would want to re-commence editing using that account, given the history - most people would have simply registered another account and gone about their business years ago. However, I'm not opposed to the standard offer. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm supporting unban because the editor is willing to edit under the old name, knowing the extra scrutiny would be applied. Lots of editors might have used a new account, and in so doing made the same mistake made before. By coming clean and admitting mistakes, the editor would impress upon me how willing they are to act differently. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with your last sentence, but I'm not comfortable unbanning via just assumption after the issue was so serious; there are many possible reasons why he might have chosen this route. I'm happy to withdraw my opposition if his response discloses the last time he socked and provides an undertaking to edit with a single account hereafter - it would come down to his actual word and us trusting he will abide by it in that case. I left him this message, so it may be helpful if others can transclude that section if needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would usually automatically support any appeal after a such a long time, provided the user seemed to comprehend the problem. Not sure I see that here, they promise not to post that specifc article again, but this is a pretty bad ban appeal. However, as others have pointed out they would be coming back knowing they would be under extra scrutiny when they could be socking instead. Indeed after so long I doubt anyone would have noticed if they had quietly returned at some point so long as they didn't start doing the same things that led to the initial block. So I guess I'm gonna go for somewhat reluctant/cautious support. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban (with respect to Beeblebrox above) per WP:ROPE. Miniapolis 21:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Holding. It was a long time ago, but I have to say I'm unimpressed by the wording of Eddie's appeal. It doesn't seem to show great awareness of the issues (the socking, the harassment, the broken promises). And is he actually suggesting there was something improper about Bunchofgrapes' block ? I'll wait to see if Bunch has an opinion, before I fully form mine, but at the present moment I'm inclined to oppose. (Bunchofgrapes is long gone, :-( but I think he probably still watches his talkpage, and I've alerted him.) Bishonen | talk 10:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

• Update: Neutral. I can't quite make myself support, but since Bunchofgrapes, below, doesn't oppose, I won't either. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
• Chopping and changing — oppose after all. Eddie said on his page today that he "would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban".[231] My italics. I'm sorry, but I think it's deeply worrying that he talks — today, not nine years ago — like using several accounts is the normal thing and he'd be willing to stop doing it for six months as a concession. And a temporary ban from what topic — railway switches, also for six months? Sorry for the chopping and changing, but I have to oppose an unban after all. (And Eddie, I know you're reading this: if you want any of your comments ported to this ANI thread, please say so clearly and specifically.) Bishonen | talk 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
  • There are some permissible reasons to have multiple accounts; for example, having a backup account in case your main account is compromised, or having accounts used to edit from public computers. bd2412 T 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A banned user who appreciates there are concerns about that user's history of sockpuppetry would usually not focus on the length of time for which they would be limited to editing with one account upon being unbanned. If they did focus on the length of time, they would be particularly considerate about the concerns expressed + would frankly disclose why they would want an alternate account or alternate accounts, and the necessity in the near future. If it's just merely "because I might need one later", it could just as easily be requested to the community or through the committee at the point at which the alternate account is actually needed or desired for use. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose see following comment with the explanations currently on their User Talk. Their explanations are "I won't try to use the word I made up" and "Those who were around before probably aren't here any more." If this were an unblock request it'd be denied, because there's nothing that shows they understand what the specific problem were that led to the ban in the first place, and that they understand their behavior was wrong. They also offer up a short list of socks, oh here maybe there's one more... This unban appeal sounds like "I think I can get away with it" rather than "I know what I did was wrong and won't do it again." I wouldn't support an unban without accepting a restriction to one account only and a TBAN on railroad switches, like Cambridge mentions. I wasn't around when this user was active but this unban request is deeply unimpressive so far. Zad68 15:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support, with conditions ... Changing my !vote. Here's a fact: Whether anyone likes it or not, Eddie has been editing and will continue to edit. So what is the best option for Wikipedia given that fact? We can leave him banned and he'll continue to edit using other socks and IP addresses, but he doesn't seem to have that much personal investment in those, and so there's not much consequence if he misuses them. But he does seem to have personal investment in his Eddie account, enough that he's willing to ask for its use after several years. Allowing him to return to using that account I think would give us the best chance for minimum disruption, because of his personal attachment/investment to that account. Eddie has posted on his User Talk what I think is an acceptable understanding of previous wrongdoing and a commitment not to return to it. I also like the fact that he has made personal connections to well-respected Wikipedians, which I think would make him want to keep their respect. Given all this I support the unban, but with the conditions that he is indefinitely limited to one account, is under an indefinite topic-ban of his made-up word and railroad switches, and if he violates either of those conditions he's back to being CBANned again. Zad68 04:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Vague Support. I'm long retired, and you shouldn't care what my opinion is, but I've been encouraged to weigh in here as a very old hand in dealing with Eddie. I guess my comments from the 2009 appeal (which I did not actually oppose) still stand. I'm willing to believe there's a decent chance he won't be malicious, and if the community wants to put up with what a pain-in-the-ass he can be is even when he's being good, there's little reason not to give him another shot. A quick look at his edits as WikiBaseballFan actually have me wondering if he hasn't grown up some in the last six years, even. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Eddie did a lot of damage on en.wikt and caused a great deal of trouble for some of the editors there by impersonating them on other wikis, vandalizing those wikis and trying to frame en.wikt editors. Eddie has never made any attempt to apologize to the people he targeted there. When I mentioned this to him a few years ago, he made excuses instead of taking responsibility, and tried to claim the fact that en.wikt had not blocked his main account as evidence that en.wikt was not troubled by his actions. The reason that we did not block his main account nine years ago was because he was using sockpuppets to carry out the vandalism, and we wanted to be able to talk to him on his main account. As far as I am concerned, Eddie should be banned for life. —Stephen (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per Zad68. I find the lack of awareness in the appeal alarming. Eddie wasn't in trouble for making a word up; he was in trouble for incessant, obsessive socking and harassment. The lack of awareness of this in his appeal gives me no hope that he will behave any differently in a dispute with other users. Sorry, Eddie, but I agree with Stephen, and I see no good coming from an unban. I hope if this is successful you will prove me wrong. Sarah 13:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  I note that Eddie's last disclosed account is User:WikiBaseballFan, an account with a brief but entirely productive and non-controversial edit history. bd2412 T 15:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  True. Unfortunately, I am very jaded by personal experience with Eddie. Last time he appealed, he had a very good looking account similar to WikiBaseballFan, but it turned out he was simply segregating his edits and concurrently running bad actor accounts from public wifi. Part of me wants to support because he has been banned for a very long time, but I just can't bring myself to do so when I still don't see any self-awareness or understanding from him and don't believe he is being open and honest. Sarah 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Anything that is done on Wikipedia can be undone; if Eddie is unbanned and thereafter misbehaves, it will be a lot longer than six years before he is trusted to edit again. bd2412 T 03:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Eddie, I didn't take anything personally, I simply find the lack of self awareness in your appeal statement alarming. I would not support an unblock request or a ban appeal for anyone who wrote a statement that was so lacking in awareness of their behaviour. Yeah, you're right, I do believe that you are still socking. I find it incredibly hard to believe that when you were attending wikimeetups in March that you were actually respecting your ban and not editing. I don't believe that you have ever respected the ban and refrained from editing, but that's just me. Sarah 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unban. Plenty of people have his talk page watched at this point. A re-ban, if necessary, would be pretty straightforward. HiDrNick! 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment but leaning to very weak support per Beeblebrox I wasn't around when Eddie was causing all the trouble in 2006/7 as I only started editing under various IP's in 2009 and into 2010, as such I could be considered a neutral party in all this. That being said, I've made sure to thoroughly read up the past history. My thoughts: if Eddie agreed to an indefinite restriction to editing from one account and a minimum 6 month ban from article creation as a starter as well as a thorough acknowledgement of the troubles they have caused in the past. Additionally, there should be a "one strike and you're out" sanction which automatically enables a community ban for a minimum 6 months should the appeal be successful. Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • About the reinstatement of the ban if any violations, I thought of that subconsciously but didn't confirm expressly - so would endorse that. Anyway, pinging @Salvidrim!:, @BusterD:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Zad68:, @Beeblebrox:, @HiDrNick: to confirm if they intended to agree with this or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a bit messy -- he was not "formally banned", he was indef-blocked and has an appeal declined by the community, which has the exact same result. I'm not sure if unban conditions can come with "rebanned if violated" conditions, but they can sure come with "re-indefblock if violated" conditions, which in the end, are pretty much the same. Such an indef-block will be considered similarly as a de facto ban, and is very unlikely to ever be approved without community consensus behind it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just had it pointed out to me that WP:CBAN explicitle mentions "indefblock appeals declined by the community" as being actual community bans, so part of my above comment doesn't stand -- there is an actual "formal" ban. I'm still not sure if policy is flexible enough to allow a "reban if violated" to the unban conditions but I'd certainly support that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Prior to it being deleted, I distinctly remember Eddie being listed in the old list of banned users. Appeals against Cbans should come with a parole period as it were. Blackmane (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just realised that the last part of my !vote was not written well. I'll re-articulate it as Additionally, there should be a "one strike and you're out" restriction which automatically re-enables the indefinite community ban should any violation occur. I've struck out the original text and this text should replace it. Others may wish to reconsider their comments after this change. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Bish raises issues above that she has with comments Eddie made during this appeal regarding topic bans and account restrictions and the manner that his appeal glossed over and ignored the real reasons for his ban. In addition, in comments to me on his talk page today ([232]) Eddie concedes that during the course of his ban he has always continued editing using multiple accounts and IPs because he does not accept the legitimacy of the community-based ban. When I told him that I believed that he is still editing even now, he replied that he is with IP addresses. Nine years is a long time to be under a ban, but it truly amazes me that people are prepared to unban someone who admits that even now they are not abiding by the ban and that they do not respect it because it was a community sanction not handed down by ArbCom. I am not sure how the community can trust him to abide by any community restrictions imposed as a result of this appeal given that he has spent nine years showing, and now even openly admits, that he doesn't respect, or accept as legitimate, sanctions that don't come from ArbCom. I really hope that people who are supporting his appeal have actually read what he is writing and are not simply supporting based on its duration. Sarah 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Just to be clear. In this case the community decides the topic ban and the number of accounts not ArbCom. If he cant agree to that then Eddie should not be allowed back. Also I meant that I supported the one account and a permanent ban on railroad switches. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses from Eddie

Eddie's request wasn't 100% clear to me, but I think he has asked me to post these responses of his, which I've copypasted below. Several are undated, but they're all recent. (Please post any further supports/opposes above, not in this section — I think it would be convenient to reserve it for Eddie's responses.) Bishonen | talk 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

@Salvidrim!: Reading the appeals and your support on WP:AN, I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban (though I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last). The work I intend to do would be along the lines of User:WikiBaseballFan's contributions. The purpose of this appeal is not so I can edit but to put an end to a 9-year ordeal. I was blocked back in May 2006 and it's almost 9 years to the day. Eddie, Tuesday May 19 2015 at 5:00 am

@HiDrNick: I fully understand I'll be re-banned if I engage in the behaviour that lead Me to this mess back in 2006. That is: making more sockpuppets harassing other users again.

---

@Stephen G. Brown: I stated in My letter to BASC above that I was banned for bothering people on wiktionary. If I didn't apologise to them then, I apologise to them now (though it's prolly too late for that now and the users won't accept any apologies, if you can email a list of names to those who have the battle scars, I'd appreciate it). I also stated I haven't editing in Wiktionary over the past 6 years and no intent on editing wiktionary, just Wikipedia. --Eddie

@Sarah: I'm not surprised in the least by Sarah opposing (the proven sock stuff was from 2005-2009, and Sarah obviously took it very personally). I really want to have nothing further to do with Sarah and I'm sorry for the trouble I caused her. I have a feeling that She probably suspects a current undisclosed user behaving like Me and that I'm still filling the site with disruptive sockpuppets. -- Eddie

@Bishonen:, I said I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban, but this is suggestive. I also said I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last. They have the final descision on my topic bans and restrictions and how long I would stick to just one account. Eddie 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving towards closure

This has been open for a few days so I'm looking clarify a few things before closing it.

• First one, has BASC handed it completely over to the community (i.e. do we have full authority to close with community editing restrictions - Roger Davies? Eddie seems to believe that BASC is closing this.) I've written the below anyway.
• I'm seeing a consensus to grant the unban but with conditions. However there isn't really a clear indication of what those conditions should be so I'm listing what has been proposed for comment. Please comment on what you feel is appropriate (these are from suggestions above) so I'll default to indefinite unless there is agreement to a set timeframe - remembering that they can be appealed in the future once there is evidence of constructive editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely the community's responsibility to resolve in whatever way it thinks fit,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the list further (with the exception of BusterD's confirmation which was already done but may not have been obvious for others). I think everyone else who wanted to clarify or confirm has done so. Maybe give it just a few more hours to be sure but I don't really see it changing much more or being much clearer than that without further prompting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

One account restriction

• Salvidrim!
• Ncmvocalist
• BusterD
• Zad68
• Blackmane
• CambridgeBayWeather

Topic ban from "exicornt"

• Salvidrim!
• Ncmvocalist
• BusterD
• Zad68

Topic ban from railroad switches

• CambridgeBayWeather
• Zad68
• Ncmvocalist
• Salvidrim!
• BusterD

Ban from article creation

• Blackmane

Any violations result in a reinstatement of the community ban

• Blackmane
• Ncmvocalist
• Salvidrim!
• Zad68
• (HiDrNick?)
• BusterD

I've made sure to clarify under my initial comment (and under Blackmane's) my stance on the proposed unban conditions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My comment pretty much stands following Salvidrim's clarification; I endorse all of these restrictions except for the article creation ban and the exicornt topic ban (as I prefer the broader measure proposed). I also agree with him that the terminology to be used on the last restriction be amended: that violations would result in a reinstatement of an indefinite block, but I'd add the intended effect that such a block may only be appealed to the community or basc/arbcom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim! and Ncmvocalist: This is covered by the second dot point at WP:CBAN an indef block appeal declined by the community becomes a community ban so it would be reinstating it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, now I look like the fool. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I amended my point above under Blackmane's; I still think it'd be best to "re-ban if violated" but I'm not 100% sure current policy endorses that (as opposed to re-blocking). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My view is that although there is presently an active community ban, it's being enforced through an indefinite block at present. Rather than restoring an active community ban immediately, I'd rather an indefinite block be reimposed if there is a violation - and let him appeal again to determine whether the block should be lifted or whether the community ban should be formally reinstated. If he doesn't appeal, the effect of a formal community ban would be the same anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ArbCom use suspended bans (granted they're only TBANs, that I can think of) so there is a little precedent. I'd have no issues with incorporating it if there is consensus for it. I see it as the community saying 'our (continuing) offer of unban only extends to you as long as you abide by our conditions, if you don't the offer no longer stands'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case I'll go where the consensus goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, my preference is equal to the suspended ban proposal. It's equally valid that we shouldn't need to unnecessarily spend any time having to review things again if there continue to be problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a change to my !vote above. My original proposal was quite muddled, so I've clarified it in a following statement. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please delete

Resolved

User talk:Paulkumar Arikrishnan--Musamies (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete this page. However, I did move it to its proper location, User:Paulkumar Arikrishnan. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Musamies: was this really a matter for the admin noticeboard? In future if you need something deleting/moving please use WP:CSD tags like everyone else. GiantSnowman 15:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Behavior of User:BenCaesar

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.

---

Really a request for some second opinions. I noticed some unusual activity on User talk:Safiel with a WP:Single-purpose account editor, User:BenCaesar getting rather angry with Safiel for reverting his edits. BenCaeser registered in February and has only made edits to Bob Lynch (comics) and on Safiel's talk page in response to a reversion.

The behavior seemed a little odd and it seems that BenCaeser is a banned contributor to IMDB who has some sort of vendetta against Bob Lynch, who also posts on IMDB. He has boasted of his attempts to get the Bob Lynch article deleted prior to being banned from IMDB.

My gut reaction is to block BenCaeser from editing as his edits are not in good faith. Opinions? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring, if reverts again, then any other uninvolved admin may block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, thanks, but I was really looking for second opinions of other admins. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This threat, "If you try to get me blocked, i will just create another account and deal with you", which BenCaesar edit warred to restore after Safiel removed it, is completely unacceptable, along with other rudeness and attempts to intimidate. I have blocked for 31 hours. Feel free to change if you like, young Fish. I wouldn't object to indef. Bishonen | talk 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, I will indef him. After reviewing his editing I don't think his presence is a net positive for WP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

James Richardson Corporation

I move to draw administator attention to a bizarre long-term edit war involving a set of IPs and two registered accounts on the James Richardson Corporation article. The article isn't particularly exciting or controversial and neither seemingly is the text being edit-warred over. The two accounts in question and most of the IPs have edited only this article - no others. I don't know what to make of it. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is strange, to say the least. I have notified Baysidebetty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (obvious SPA) of this discussion. The IPs involved are constantly changing so I don't see a point in notifying any of them.

That said, I think the article could well be speedied per CSD A7 unless anyone can find a reliable secondary source that asserts any significance of this particular business. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The other user is Special:Contributions/3wiki8, while Special:Contributions/23.251.218.67 appears not to be a throwaway IP, so you may wish to inform them too.

The article may well have met CSD A7 in it's current form if created recently, but the article is over 12 years old now so we're leaving it a bit late side for an SD!

The company runs Duty Free stores in airports in Australasia and the Middle East. I had perused the article with a view to bringing it up to an acceptable standard. I have tagged the notability issue on the article, however. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AnotherNewAccount; something this old shouldn't be speedy-deleted on mundane grounds like A7. I may, however, nominate it at AFD. Not much point in notifying 3wiki8, or doing anything to that user, because the account hasn't edited in quite a while. Same with 23.251.218.67, which has edited only unrelated stuff since January. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have informed 3wiki8 and 23.251.218.67. Speedy deletion may be a bit over the top but then I wouldn't mind an AfD either. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that active user User:Lugia2453 waded into the edit war at one point. I have notified him so he might shed some light on what on earth was going on there! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit was intended to remove some vandalism that was added into the article. If I had noticed that my edit was removing what was added to the history section, I wouldn't have done the full revert. Instead, I would have just edited out the vandalism - the addition of Alice in Wonderland, Thomas the Tank Engine, and Blinky Bill as "staff members." Lugia2453 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was a constructive edit and would not have constituted edit warring. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I did notice there had been some childish vandalism from some of the IPs. Admins, I think it is unlikely we're ever going to get any form of explanation out of the users and IPs involved, and I think it's probably safe to close this. I am currently working on improving this article, and I'll keep an eye on it to ensure nothing further untoward happens. Update below. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Baysidebetty has just posted on her user talk explaining that the IPs are disgruntled former employees adding nonsense content. If this it true (and I am inclined to believe her) I would not object to the article being placed under permanent protection. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy Proposal

OK Policy proposal is here . Be sure and take a look and cast your vote (which ever way it may be ) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kosh V. I have taken the liberty of fixing the non-working link above so that people can find your proposal more readily. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Authority control

User:KasparBot seems to be adding {{authority control}} to a rather large slice of Wikipedia articles. I've posted a comment over at Template talk:Authority control asking for clarification, but I find the response rather drenched in incomprehensible alphabet soup. It seems unclear that there is much value added for readers, and the current template is very cryptic (including the aggressive sounding "Authority control"). I am somewhat neutral on the question of whether this template should be added to all of our articles (although I personally don't find it at all useful). But it seems like this was undertaken without sufficient community input regarding exactly what the scope and aims of this project are. Some issues that I think need to be clarified are:

• Does this template actually have value for readers of the encyclopedia? Most of the links are to the Japanese language National Diet Library, not English language library resources (which may or may not be useful – I seem to remember some controversy over similar templates in the past). If not, should this content be included in article space, or would it be more suitable as a talk-page template, or just kept confined to Wikidata for the majority of authority control data?
• What exactly are the goals and aims of this project? Can this be explained in a way that is not confusing to the average reader of the encyclopedia? On clicking the "Authority control" link in the template, we arrive at the article Authority control, which is not very clarifying. Perhaps better would be a link to Wikipedia:Authority control, which also fails to indicate why this template is a useful thing to have in article space. (Also, links to any community discussions about this on the English language encyclopedia are frustratingly absent.)

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the authority control tag is pretty much useless, I'd say remove it out of the article(s). KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The relevant request for approval was granted here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I find authority controls profoundly useful; let me explain. In short, libraries and library consortia have created "authority files" for tons of different topics, with effort taken to ensure that there's only one entry when the subject has different names, and effort taken to ensure that there are multiple entries when the same name is given to different subjects. The point is to ensure that we don't conflate similar topics (e.g. separating John Smith (Peel MPP) from John Smith (Kent MPP)) and that we don't have separate articles for the same topic under different names, e.g. we don't have one article on the UK's contemporary Tory party and another on the UK's contemporary Conservative Party. The point of {{authority control}} is to link our articles to these authority files: it makes the articles more machine-readable (because they match the articles with computer-readable metadata files) and it helps people by demonstrating that the files in other sources are the same as the articles here. For example, if you're looking for a book by John D. Smith, the authority control link will take you to a Worldcat entry with his works: this way you can avoid getting books written by John Derek Smith, for example, and aside from library cataloging errors, you can be certain that you've not gotten books written by a different John D. Smith. I can't speak to the usefulness of the current Japanese stuff, since I've not looked at it. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, can you give an example diff that prompted you to raise this issue? Aside from a few entries that also have links to other databases (e.g. Tottori, Tottori), I can't find any that link the National Diet Library. What's more, you suggest the possibility that this stuff be "just kept confined to Wikidata for the majority of authority control data". That's precisely what's happening here. As far as I can tell, the bot's just allowing Wikidata information to be added here: it identifies pages that (1) don't have any authority control template, (2) that are linked to Wikidata entries, and (3) that have authority control on the Wikidata entries. Once it identifies such a page, it simply adds the template, which results in the page displaying what's already confined to Wikidata. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is one such diff, but my watchlist is full of similar such diffs, so many more are available upon request. I get that the purpose is somehow to make things easier for machines to index our subjects, but I question whether a cryptic template at the bottom of every article on Wikipedia is the best way to do that. Isn't this information already available on Wikidata? Is there some technical reason that machines can't just look this up on Wikidata for themselves? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With this specific item, the problem is simply that Wikidata doesn't yet include any records from other authority files for 21lbert space (they exist; OCLC has Hilbert space under "authority record number" 2072176, for example), and by adding a link to it now, we make it so that the template won't need to be added later when Wikidata adds records from other authority files. The point is that we're strengthening the ties between the article and the data item; this is also helpful for humans, since without the template, you'd have to follow the Wikidata link, via the "Add links" at the bottom of the other languages list at bottom left, and it's very small and hard to find. Your opposition on aesthetic grounds was soundly rejected in the final section of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 24, where {{authority control}} was nominated for deletion under a previous name. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree most strongly with the characterization that this is "opposition on aesthetic grounds". If it is not possible for the project to make clear what "authority control" is, and why it belongs in the article, then this will have the effect of confusing readers. Any editor who believes that reader confusion is a mere "aesthetic preference" is badly confused about what Wikipedia is. I would ask, rather than defend the template against imaginary complaints, that those who support the template please ensure that any reader who sees the template can, possibly with a single click, determine what it is and why it's there. The name "authority control" is not in common English use, and has rather sinister undertones to the casual reader. The link to Authority control is not very helpful either. If this cannot be done, then I maintain that having cryptic mumbo jumbo on display in every Wikipedia article is not useful, on balance. For every reader out there for whom such a link is useful, there will be a hundred readers who find it simply confusing. At the AfD, it was even suggested that the template should be hidden. This seems like a reasonable compromise for the moment to me, at least until you folks get the reader-friendliness issue under control. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We are here to inform people about the subjects of our articles, which includes pointing readers to authoritative documentation from other sources. Removing human-readable metadata just because you don't understand it and don't think it looks good would be quite counterproductive, and it already got soundly rejected at TFD. If you want modifications, you need to demonstrate that they do a better job at conveying metadata, or you need to convince the scholarly community that authority control is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I should think it's a fairly uncontroversial request to make the template at least point to something that isn't going to leave the average reader scratching his head. Do we agree on this point or not? A typical reader, seeing the template, will say "what the heck is this". He will click a link, finding some Japanese text. Hmm... I don't read Japanese (for most readers). I click Authority control... Not much help there. So, what the heck is this template? Presumably "authority control", because it sounds scary, means I'm not allowed to edit. Right?

So I don't really think it is asking a lot for you folks to clean up the description of what this project is and what its aims are, so that someone without a PhD in library science can understand. That should be linked from the template, instead of the unhelpful article Authority control. Also, please include a link somewhere to the RfC where the community was asked whether we want this template on all of our encyclopedia articles (like Hilbert space, Equation, etc.). Citing an obscure TfD from 2010 as if it were conclusive proof of community consensus that apparently now affects all articles on Wikipedia feels a little bit disingenuous to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Authority Control is both needed and desired -- it strengthens Wikipedia's realiability and meta-data integration. Please don't object to stuff you plainly have no understanding of simply because you don't understand what it is used for. If it helps, it's similar to PERSONDATA in use. Please read Wikipedia:Authority control (for editors) and Help:Authority control (for readers). You do raise an interesting point -- perhaps the template should wikilink to the Help: page instead of the article? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely. I hope no one took the advice given near the top of this discussion to "remove it" from articles. Good idea to link to the help page, too - the article is less helpful to readers. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't object to stuff you plainly have no understanding of simply because you don't understand what it is used for. Perhaps instead of laying the blame on him for not understanding, more efforts could be made to actually explain it in a manner that is comprehensible for readers not versed in metadata lingo? The help page is kinda understandable. Wikipedia:Authority control is a garbled mess for non-specialists. Considering Wikipedia purports to increase the knowledge of their readers, documentation aimed at its editors should probably also be understandable. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• One that has been popping up on my watchlists is the addition of Authority Control links to musical band articles; the link is to their entry at MusicBrainz. The entry looks like this; a link to Authority control (unhelpful), a link to Musicbrainz (well yes, but not really necessary), and then a clickable hex string which takes you to the Musicbrainz entry. The front page of every band's Musicbrainz entry starts with ... a copy of the band's Wikipedia page. Whilst, yes, there is often useful information buried in the tabs at Musicbrainz, this really is not intuitive to the basic reader. They would not be blamed for thinking "eh?". Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thinking "eh?" and asking about stuff is fine, and is a regular happening for every Wikipedia editor, myself definitely included. Suggesting we remove it all because you don't understand what it's for is ridiculous and (IMO) destructive to the overall quality of the project. Help:Authority control annd Wikipedia:Authority Control's first two sections tell me all I needed to know about what it did, and the rest of the project pages (and the template doc) would tell me how it worked if I was ever interested in making use of it myself. Perhaps you can ask someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers if you need a more one-on-one guide to explain in ways you can understand why Authority Control is needed and useful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 10:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting it should be removed (I understand why it's useful even I'm unconvinced by some of the links like Musicbrainz), I'm suggesting that it should be made more user-friendly. Even the first sentence of the help page, "Authority control is a method of creating and maintaining index terms for bibliographic material in a library catalogue" could be simplified. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of Authority control is In library science, authority control is a process that organizes library catalog and bibliographic information by using a single, distinct name for each topic. That was enough information to satisfy me as to why the template was added. It seems this discussion is predicated on whether "authority" relates to "authoritarian" (def 1) or "authoritative" (def 3). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How does this template achieve the "process that organizes library catalog and bibliographic information by using a single, distinct name for each topic"? How does having links to incomprehensible Japanese websites facilitate this organization? Yes, it is possible for a clever person to infer what is going on. But it really needs to be made explicit. It should not require someone with knowledge of Wikipedia to dig around, looking for Wikipedia-space documents like Wikipedia:Authority control and Help:Authority control. These should be linked immediately from the template, and the corresponding descriptions of that process should be clarified. If this is something that is added to all Wikipedia articles (which seems like where we are headed), any likely reader of the English Wikipedia should be able grok its meaning, not just native speakers of English who are administrators of the English-language Wikipedia with post-graduate degrees and several thousand edits under their belts. And, quite frankly, the way that some people are defending the status quo against this very reasonable request seems like elitist reader-hate. This is clearly not a constructive attitude, and is unbecoming of administrators. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "supporting status quo", I'm opposing the suggestion that this important improvement to our project should be trashed. I (and others) have all supported your request for a clearer explanation of what "autority control" is. I support changing the wikilink in the AC template to point to the help page. If you think the help page should then be improved for clarity, then go ahead and improve it (or seek help towards its improvement if you are unable to work on it yourself). All that being said though, this is explicitly not an admnistrative issue nor does it need administrator assistance, so there is no reason for a discussion to continue on WP:AN when it should be at Wikipedia talk:Authority control, where you will find the most qualified people to help you make the requested improvements to the template and/or the relevant project and Help pages. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I did not make the suggestion that the improvement should be "trashed". This is a reasonable place to hold a centralized discussion on a matter that apparently affects all articles on Wikipedia, so I have undone your closure of this discussion. We need more centralized discussion of this, not less. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AN is not a place to hold general centralized discussions. It is a place to discuss administrative matters. This is not an administrative matter nor does it require admnistrator intervention. I won't reclose the thread because I have a feeling you will edit-war it open again and I've no desire to engage in such petty back-and-forth. Perhaps you are looking for the Village Pumps, which are appropriate venues for centralized discussions about Wikipedia-wide issues? I still think that discussing your suggestions to improve our Project and Help pages about Autority Control should be discussed on the pages about Authority Control. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It does require administrator intervention: {{authority control}} is edit-protected. So I cannot change the link there to Help:Authority control because I am not an administrator. Perhaps you would be willing to step up and make the change, rather than whine about the choice of venue? Also, it certainly seems to me that adding templates that incorporate data from other Wikiprojects to all of the articles on the project is a matter that indeed pertains to the administration of the English Wikipedia. I mean User:KasparBot was given the green light to go ahead and do this by.. wait for it... administrators (apparently without asking the rest of us if we thought that was a good idea). And a non-adminstrator cannot revoke that ability. Administrators, it just so happens, are also those that are most likely to have the technical knowledge to understand what the purpose of the template is, how it works, and how it interacts with Wikidata. So I am frankly astonished at the suggestion that this is not an appropriate venue for a centralized discussion. Certainly, there are other places that a centralized discussion could have happened. But it is happening here, not in one of those other places. Closing the discussion whilst being an active participant in it just seems like petty sour grapes, and your rationale for doing so is wholly without merit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A few needed clarifications: The bot was given the greenlight by the bots approval group, which does not equate with "administrators" -- it performs a task that any "regular" editor would perform manually, but since it is a cumbersome but simple/easy process, it is well suited to automation by a bot. {{authority control}} is not fully-protected, it is only template-protected, and thus template-editors could also respond to an {{edit template protected}} request places on its talk page. I agree that at this point though it's mostly useless "jumping through hoops"; the template has alread been changed to Wikilink to the help page instead. And, administrators are not "likely to have technicaly knowledge" about anything -- a lot of us deal with behavioural and editorial issues more than technical ones. We probably have more technically-apt editors than admnistrators! And I'm sorry if I'm coming across as blunt or unhelpful, I just genuinely believe you will find more competent and willing help to upgrade a help page at a venue specialized on the topic than on a general admnistrative board frequented by all manners of editors who may not know more than you already do about Authority Control. I'm trying to help you find help in the most efficient way possible -- which is, IMO, to get in touch with the editors already involved with Authority Control. With their expertise and knowledge, coupled with your own outside view, I'm sure you can collaborate on improving the Help page so that it better informs our readers. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• AC is useful and good encyclopedic topic information in articles, per NY and Sal and Scott. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• After reading this thread I still cant understand (it seems like it because I do not understand it') why it should be added to all kind of articles. Could somebody explain why a link to a some German text, and some Japanese text should be added to e.g. barium - whats the benefit for the reader, and whats the benefit for the editor?. And IMHO it shouldnt be added to any more articles before it has a direct link to wikidata so it can be easely edited. Christian75 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for creation protection

Resolved

I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum... I looked around a bit but couldn't find where to request this. Could someone please SALT Mikie Da Poet and Mike Da Poet? There has been a determined sockmaster recreating this since around 2006 or so. Most recent inception was deleted today. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I did one, the other was already create protected. For future reference WP:RFPP is our dedicated noticeboard for page protection issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

Hi all, on the off chance you've overlooked the banner at the top of your page, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Undo page protection

On John Coleman (news weathercaster), Guy protected the page for three months due to sockpuppetry. This was due to a request at the Fringe theory noticeboard. The noticeboard request said there was daily sockpuppetry happening and "...who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society".

Only three edits in 2015 have been done by a confirmed sockpuppet and the last was done on April 20th. The edit on the American Meteorological Society is an edit I took responsibility for. I am not a sockpuppet. I've asked four times at Guy's talk page why the page protection and he has never answered. Discussion has been ongoing at the Fringe noticeboard about the edits.

The reason for page protection at the Fringe noticeboard was not truthful. The reason Guy applied protection, sockpuppetry, is not happening. Could somebody please remove the page protection. Bgwhite (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse protection - For years, this article is daily visited by a sock puppeteer called Sonic2030 aka Marlin1975 who has been socking for over 7 years. (SPIs: 1, 2) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did the right thing by imposing protection on this page and cleaning up a lot of fringe content. Even DoRD hadn't disagreed with the idea of page protection.[233] Last sock edit is from 10 May[234], by the sock who similar to another blocked sock of the sock puppeteer in question.

Bgwhite went to this article because he was wikihounding my edits,[235] he never edited this article ever before.[236] Now that semi page protection has made Bgwhite lose the sock puppet who he was favoring on this fringe subject, just to wage an edit war against me, he just continues to ask same question that has been already answered so many times.(full discussion) I don't see any credibility in this request at all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification The page was semi protected, not protected. There's a big difference. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Protections are of two kinds, one that you have mentioned, other is full protection. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 10th edit was to revert a vandalism type edit and the IP was NOT confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Still, only three confirmed sockpuppets in 2015. Guy has cleaned up the article, but that has nothing to do with protection. Please stop with the personal attacks and just discuss the merits. Bgwhite (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"vandalism type" edit? No it was not. IPs are not confirmed per privacy policy, unless under special circumstances, and there is enough proof to assure that its a sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If it was a sock, that is still only four sock edits in 2015. That is not sockpuppetry happening daily. Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Once the protection is removed from the current version, we will see him there with same thing that he has been repeating for years. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the article, following a credible report of long-term WP:BLP abuse by an anonymous user and some evidence of edit-warring. Bgwhite seems to be part of this, for example reverting with ALL CAPS. His use of primary sources is troubling to me. Reinserting material sourced to YouTube is controversial to say the least, and in this case it is material that serves to make the article subject look like a crank, so is doubly troubling. I think we should not include climate change denialism in articles on people like this unless we can source it to reliable independent secondary sources that establish both its significance and the context, as seen byt he reality-based community. If there are no substantial mainstream sources discussing what is, after all, just a TV weatherman's crank statements, then I don't think they belong in the article at all. I would certainly advocate more eyes on that article. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly as Bgwhite pointed out to you, the use of the source was fine and not a discussion for here anyway as it is a content issue. Secondly that is beside the point - there was no evidence of 'sockpuppetry'. 4 edits in 5 months is hardly a protection issue. When challenged on an admin action, the response should not be 'Well this other bad thing happened and oh it was your fault anyway' - the response should either be an explanation of why the action was correct, or an admission it was a mistake/overreaction/etc. So could you actually address why you protected it for sockpuppetry when there was no evidence of sockpuppetry? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: there is massive evidence of sock puppetry. Article is daily visited by a sock. Have you read my comment above? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I read it, and what you say is not borne out by the editing history of the article. IP's adding (very slowly and intermittantly over a long period of time) something that you dont like is not 'evidence of daily sockpuppetry'. Until you can even state who they are sockpuppets of, its a pointless allegation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: I already mentioned Sonic2030 above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse temporary semi-protection of a contentious BLP. Miniapolis 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

We have an extensive backlog presently at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Would an available administrator be available to please review? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Review non-admin close of RFC

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

---

I posed an RfC on whether alt-med practitioners have a COI, that was somewhat cursorily closed by Kraxler in response to a request for close request for close posted by Elvey (no notice, meh). I asked Kraxler if he would provide a more thoughtful close or withdraw it, and Kraxler had no interest (discussion here.

I posed the RfC to resolve an issue where a user was (in my view) being hounded with claims of COI. The subject has come up at COIN twice before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Acupuncture and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Middle_8 with no resolution, and at the Talk of COIN here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Template:Connected_contributor. The subject has also been disrupting the acupuncture article. There is no consensus on this recurrent question, so it is time to try to settle it. I don't mind the RfC being closed with no consensus, but there were a lot of thoughful comments, and I think there is more that can be said, to try to provide guidance to the community on the question.

I am looking for the close to be overturned and re-done, because by not even trying to summarize the discussion and find whatever threads of consensus there were, it wasted the time of everyone who responded there. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I don't read very fast, but given the length of this discussion and that Kraxler's previous edit was regarding a different RfC, 16 minutes before closing this, I find it hard to believe that any editor would have been able to read the discussion of the RfC and make a concise decision on consensus in 16 minutes. And given the significant discussion on the topic, this certainly deserves a larger effort and another attempt to find sub-issues that there might be consensus on, even if there is no consensus on the main issue under discussion. ― Padenton|✉   14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't underestimate what I can read in how long a time. Besides, the OP of thr RfC (Jytdog) himself stated the two predominant opinions on the issue, before he asked his question. (See at the top of the RfC). 24 !voters subscribed to the pro-COI argument, 38 !voters subscribed to the anti-COI argument, both sides re-iterating the same things over and over. Both sides are entrenched partisans, and won't budge. Both arguments have their merits. Nothing remains to say. Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Raw counts mean almost nothing. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats a strawman Jytdog, Kraxler also said that both arguments had merit and that the arguments were the same from responders. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I hope this isn't overturned. I was just about to ask someone to close it, because there was clearly no consensus for the proposal. Also, it wasn't a proposal to change WP:COI, so its purpose on that talk page was never clear. For anything like this in future, I think WP:COIN would be more appropriate. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no proposal. There was an open question. Many responders gave thoughtful answers that should have informed and been discussed in the close. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But he chose not to wax eloquent on the subject and that was his prerogative. That does not make his closing defective. I ultimately said "no" which put me in the majority, but it was a close question, and there was no consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse Kraxler's closure. Seems a reasonable close, and his rationale here matches my reading as well. --Jayron32 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The closure seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. I would have probably made a similar close myself. Chillum 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• I've read about half of the RfC and I've not been able to discern any subtopic to draw a consensus on. Perhaps Jytdog could elaborate on what it is he believes should've been considered? Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Given Jytdog's response below, I also endorse the closure. Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome, question closure - That the discussion outcome is a clear "no consensus" seems evident to all. (non-admin closure)'s should generally be used in discussions where the outcome is "near-unanimous" -- and a "no consensus" close is the exact opposite of near-unanimity. I know this sentiment does not match the letter of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Closures of RfC's (which only requires an experienced user), but I'm talking about common practice; NACs sometimes spark unecessary post-closure arguments when the discussion itself was contentious, hotly-debated and/or very divided, and where an admin closure would've not led to the same situation (mostly due to the flawed views that some editors hold in regards to admins and non-admins). However I find no fault with Kraxler's evaluation of consensus in this case anyways; I just want to offer some thoughts that he might want to avoid closing such seemingly controversial discussions, if only to avoid the possible ensuing arguments and trouble. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If editors hold other editors to a higher status based on their privileges, that is something that needs to be addressed; advising non-administrators to abstain from supposedly-controversial closures only serves to reinforce these misconceptions. Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A fair point! I was just saying this for Kraxler's benefit -- frankly adminship has little to do with it, I'd also advise any admin to avoid closing especially controversial discussions if they would prefer avoiding the probable fallout and ensuing arguments. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

responding to Alakzi surprising question. If I were to try to provide a close given the current discussion, it would run something like this: The RfC asked about application of the COI guideline to a particular class of editors. The relevant guidelines and policies are WP:COI and WP:NPOV, with WP:OUTING at play somewhat. COI is defined in the guideline as being about having an "external interest (something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from)" that conflicts with their work here as an editor. NPOV includes WP:PSCI with states that "when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." OUTING protects the privacy of editors, and is at the core of WP's emphasis on content, not contributors. The crux of the question is whether alt-med practitioners have an interest in legitimizing the field in which they work. What emerged is as follows. The community wants experts to contribute, and at the same is aware that experts (including doctors and alt-med practioners) may have a conflict of interest with regard to the validity of the field in which they work (from Monty's no !vote) or with regard to specific products or services they may offer (several commenters). There was a coherent block for "yes" on the basis that alternative medicine is "alternative" and not mainstream and alt-med practitioners will have a tendency to edit Wikipedia in a biased way to add legitimacy to their field. Within that block was a call to separate more established and tested altmed practices like acupuncture or chiropractic from less scientifically valid ones like homeopathy and truly FRINGE practices like "bleach enemas". There was a coherent group for "no", that were very uncomfortable with "ghettoizing" or "demonizing" a class of expert editors by classifying them as having a COI and made an equivalence between alt med practitioners and mainstream medicine. Some "no" comments were based on concerns about privacy and emphasized that edits should be judged based on their compliance with content policies, not on who made them. These are common stances in any discussion of COI issues. Summary: The policy/guideline based arguments favored "yes" but there was no consensus. In the absence of a consensus for "yes", at the community therefore does not consider that alt med practioners have a COI per se; all experts should be careful to edit neutrally with regard to questions of the validity of the field in which they work" Something like that. THere are common themes that were expressed, that can provide guidance going forward on the question. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (striking what has become a distraction. i never proposed to close the RfC Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC))

There's no indication that what you call the policy/guideline-based arguments favoured yes. This is the problem with elaborating; the more the closer writes, the more contentious the close will be. A simple question was asked: does group X have a COI? Most people answered no, as you'd expect. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

no RfC is closed on raw head count. meh. that is not a close and i don't pretend it was. that is just an example of trying to actually gather threads from the extensive discussion - to make a thoughtful close. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you'd have liked for them to have summarised the key points of the discussion. Fair enough; I can definitely see the value in that, especially if the issue is a recurrent one. However, my question was, insofar the RfC is concerned, what did the two camps agree on? The answers appears to be, well, nothing. I do not endorse your proposed closing statement: (a) the interpretation of the policies and guidelines differed; and (b) it is inappropriate to issue a blanket warning to all past, present and future editors who happen to be experts in their field. Alakzi (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah, I responded to the RFC, so I could not close it, but I have closed RFC's as an uninvolved editor. In my experience you are spot on with long closings. Often one side or the other is not happy with the close. When a long close is given it creates wiggle room to question if the close was correct, or wiggle room on how it is applied by the editors on the page. Closers should clarify when asked, but long drawn out closings like Jytdog suggests is a prescription for disaster and more posts like this one on AN. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. There was obviously no consensus; indeed I was in favor at one point but changed my mind. This was not a discussion to change the COI guideline, but rather enforcement of the guideline, so I agree that it probably should not have been at T:COI in the first place, but rather at COI/N. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom - There was no consensus, and it seems that there will not be a clear community consensus for this particular issue any time soon. Given the very serious nature of this RfC and its potential impact on Wikipedia, it should not be decided by any single administrator. The only logical option left is to send this to the Arbitration Committee and let them decide. -A1candidate 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Wasn't this recently declined by ArbCom? Wouldn't it have to be presented differently in order to have any likelihood of being accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe a motion clarifying this point and appended to WP:ARB/PS might serve better, if we really need ArbCom to rule on the matter (and we might, seeing how the discussion went). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

about the three posts above. Closers don't "decide" anything - they try to discern what the community said. I don't think the specific issue of COI in alt med has been raised at arbcom before. i may be wrong tho. i will not be carrying this to arbcom, that is for sure. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: The closure is accurate. I have seen many other simple closures like this to long winding discussions. Shorter is better in this case: Longer summaries to long discussions often fail to capture what was actually said, probably because few neutral third parties are willing to read every single comment and every diff and reference provided and the context of the diff, etc., as a decision maker in law is required to do. The simple observation, apparent to all is that there was no consensus to the simple Yes/No question, which is why it was appropriate to close and say just that. The proposed lengthy alternative closure language does not accurately summarize and represent what was said and attempts to create an alternative consensus with the statement: "The policy/guideline based arguments favored 'yes'". This was noted by SlimVirgin. The actual closure does accurately describe what happened. David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome, reluctantly endorse closure. The relevant policy is: Closures will rarely be changed by the closing editor, but can be challenged in a closure review: if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. I view this as a clearly good faith challenge. It seems no one disputes that the outcome is correct, but this close makes essentially no attempt to summarize the discussion. The challenger made an eminently reasonable request on the closer's talk page: I don't mind it being closed with no consensus, but I was looking for a more thoughtful close that reflects what people actually said, to try to provide guidance to the community. Please either revise your close to make it more of a read on what the community said (there were thoughtful responses beyond the yes/no) or withdraw it.

This close painfully fails to provide any summary, painfully fails to offer any clarity or focus for further discussion. I did not participate in the RfC, but I was specifically interested in reading the outcome. This close was spectacularly unhelpful. A discussion of this magnitude deserved more. None of us can learn anything from the discussion without each of us repetitively re-reading the entire extensive debate.

I find it disappointing that the closer declined a reasonable request to provide a more thoughtful and more helpful summary of the discussion. However given the clear outcome, and given the clearly valid closing rationale, a dissapointing and unhelpful "summary" is not cause-for-overturn. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• endorse outcome, TROUT to closer I agree with the outcome. But if you are going to close this big/important of an RfC, you should put in the effort to summarize the situation. Especially on a NC outcome. Hobit (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• My view, is this should not have been closed at all, it should have scrolled off the page, when people were done discussing. It asked for an exchange of opinions concerning a proposition, which then maybe would in a subsequent discussion (RfC) amend some policy or guideline somewhere. The variations of views on the proposition were wide ranging - and it's not a discussion that reached any closure - discussion of the hows and ways that being involved with a topic may raise COI in a particular instance will continue on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Clearly correct: there is no consensus in that discussion. That doesn't mean specific practitioners don't have a COI, and in fact many clearly do, so we just have to carry on dealing with it on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• I think this request for review ought to have been withdrawn by now (so it can be closed), as it's now simply wasting community resources and time here rather unnecessarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, Ncmvocalist - I urged the RfC's closure in the first place because it was "wasting community resources and time ... rather unnecessarily" but I used the term disruptive to describe the RfC - for reasons given when I used the term. Separately:I've been chastised twice by the same editor for not providing notice of my closure request at the RfC. Is that appropriate, let alone best practice? Seems illogical - would invite sock or meat puppetry. --Elvey^(t•c) 10:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Glee article

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Hey excuse me, could someone help me, I need help with the "characters of glee" article", could someone add the recurring characters to the table of characters list, the recurring characters are red, the guest characters are blue, and the main characters are green, I just don't know how to add the them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhyboo (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zhyboo. This page is for administrator related issues. You would be better off taking this to the article's talk page: Talk:Characters of Glee. Sam Walton (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are having technical difficulties, such as with the colors, then a good place to ask those would be at the WP:Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

hello

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 their i am noticed about this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz who delete the sentence in this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=663341476" that saying "The law in saudi arabia required all the citizens be muslim" although there is a reliable source from the cia site that saying https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html "non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship " and yet he delete it im only want to enter facts into the article can you please block him for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.150.169 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You want a user blocked for making one edit that you do not aggre with? And when that diod not immediately happen the second you posted this you edit warred over it and used profanity in your edit sumarry? I'm going to go ahead and say no. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if anybody is going to move this to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I'll reply here. The IP editor has reverted three times in less than 30 minutes, and refused to use the article's Talk page despite being asked to. Perhaps somebody can explain WP:BOOMERANG to her/him. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

first of all i was not got any edit warn and why should i? not agree? so what the cia site is bullshits? it is not me that say that is the cia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC) it was not one edit he undo it in obsession way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

hi their wikipedians

im deeply mad for you deleting that part and not block the people who insist to undo it. " The law in saudi arabia required all the citizens be muslim." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&action=history when i gave direct source from the cia that said "non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship ' https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html i would like you to block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarnetteD and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz it is getting on my nerved that after i gave a source from the cia site you still in their side. it is not me who not agree with them it is the cia site who does not agree with them now the cia site is less reliable than wiki editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated the information you added together with the reference. Looking at the article's edit history, I have to say the editors removing the text were doing so pretty churlishly; although Itaykaufman12 didn't add the reference to the text, they were citing the url in their edit summary so it was pretty clear that the information was from a reliable source. Frankly, I'd expect better treatment of a new editor than blanket reverting. Number 57 11:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that there is an ongoing discussion of this issue on the article talk page, and given that AN/ANI does not rule on content disputes, I have to suggest that this has not been handled appropriately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you do realise that this is the same issue as is being discussed in the thread immediately above, :Number 57? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57:, Itaykaufman12 (talk · contribs) is the latest account of an IP edit-warrior who usually edits from the 80.246.133.* and 80.246.130.* ranges, and this account should not have been "rewarded" by having its work added to the article when a discussion on the subject is on-going on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about any editor being "rewarded", it's about whether valid content was being added or not. And it's no surprise they were edit warring given the poor treatment they received from people who really should know better (claiming that the edit was not sourced when it's quite clear that they were attempting to source it – and you weren't the only one doing that). Number 57 17:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, baloney. They were edit-warring because that's what they do. Here are three IPs pulled from my cache: 1 2 3 Look at the page histories of any of the pages this editor has touched. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy is of course correct that the admin noticeboard does not solve content disputes. I have protected the page to stop the edit warring and allow some breathing room for the discussion to take place. If there is a dispute about the validity of sources I suggest you use WP:RSN to help resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

hi their i edit on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&oldid=663430969 that "Al-Baghdadi also claimed in 2014 that islamic jihadists would never hesitate to eliminate Israel just because it has the United States support." http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-11/14/content_7369551.htm and yet he undo that and is not my opinion and im not asking you for block him cuz im not agree with his edits. he is deleting what im putting into the article after i already gave reliable source and im even reference to the words that saying in this source. if i had no source i wouldnt ask from you to block him please block him for deleting facts on wiki after reliable source was already given here his account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Shabazz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you the same person as User:Morlvi471? --Jayron32 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think so! Last two articles edited. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A couple things by way of reply:

• Please stop creating new sections of this page every time you have a comment to make
• Please use only one identity in any given subject area
• Please follow WP:BRD instead of edit warring

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need an SPI/CU; even if they're not socking, this editor is disruptive and POV and is heading swiftly towards an indef. GiantSnowman 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

ok than but i gave source right here that saying http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-11/14/content_7369551.htm "ISIS’s leader claims that Islamic Jihadists would never hesitate to eliminate Israel just because it has the United States’ support" " you want to tell me that the wiki editors know better from the cia and china institute of international studies? it supposed to be free encyclopedia that every one can add new facts about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Itaykaufman12 and Morlvi471 are  Confirmed. I've therefore blocked Itaykaufman12. It would be helpful if Malik Shabazz could tell me what account he had in mind when he blocked Morlvi471 for block evasion. He can do so privately if that's appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

this is stupid excuse to block me no law in wikipedia saying user not allowed to have multiple accounts?. and i want to talk about this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism you undo me when i said "the reason this groups are against zionism is they want halachic state while the zionism supporting secular jewish state." yet i gave here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haredim_and_Zionism#about_haredim_and_halachic_state two reliable sources and quote from them. . unless give me reliable source that claim otherwise than my sources. the cia site dont justify you books dont justify you and hina institute of international studies also dont justify you? if i give reliable source you have no reason to undo me unless is redundant which it was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shay2570 (talk • contribs)

Continuing your socking here is... something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Editors are not forbidden from having multiple accounts but they aren't allowed to use multiple accounts inappropriately, such as using multiple accounts for block evasion, or to create the impression of multiple editors carrying are certain view point when there is only 1, or to prevent people linking problematic edits. This means if you are blocked you shouldn't be editing from any account (except for special circumstances like a minor block months or years ago or a username only block) and it also means if you're going to edit the same or related articles you generally should explicitly link your accounts via a note on your userpage. See WP:SOCK for more details. Incidently, if you are the same editor who has been blocked above multiple times, creating this account makes it very unlikely you will be unblocked any time soon, you really need to stop doing that if you want to have any chance of editing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Law of holes applies here... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IP?

The sock has been put back in the drawer, but I think WP:DUCK (not to mention WP:BOOMERANG) applies to the IP who started this thread, so...shouldn't s/he be blocked as well? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the IP the same as the accounts? If so I don't see much point blocking. With the extensive socking I presume either the checkusers involved either blocked the IP, or decided there was no point as whoever is behind the IP has long since moved on. Of course checkusers can't confirm any of this but my automatic assumption in a case like this is it's not worth worrying about an IP who made a few comments then moved on to accounts which were all blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for admins

Can more admins please put Malik Shabazz's talk page on their watchlists? It regularly comes under heavy fire. [237] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Our "friend" was particularly prolix tonight, but my Talk page is now protected for a week. My sincere thanks to everybody who helped with reversions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Dog catchers wanted!

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.

---

My naughty little lap dog has started having his diarrhea, again, alas, I don´t have a mop, so I need some admin to clean up after his IP´s pronto, 201.208.21.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 199.168.139.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Remember to shut the door of any place he visits, too! And a day is not enough; these “bad stomach”-episodes lasts more than 24 hours; try 1 or 2 weeks. And my little doggie likes to follow me around; please keep an eye on the places I visited just before this latest outbreak. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

.... and it is probably him on User:Malik Shabazz talk-page, too (see the report above). Settle in for a long night. Huldra (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you all, but please protect/rev-del User talk:Gouncbeatduke (a favourite target, these days), cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely him, the charmer, 190.202.250.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): cleanse, & protect, please? Huldra (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has helped here, much appreciated! He moved on to Commons, I made a note at the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, and thankfully they reacted very quickly there, too. Again: thanks to everyone! Huldra (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:BURDEN

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.

---

What does WP:BURDEN mean when an administrator here is telling me that, as someone who is challenging the reliability of a source added by a sockpuppeteer, the burden is upon me to demonstrate my claim via WP:RSN, not upon the editor who keeps restoring the source?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) It appears that the admin is telling you to cover your rear end. If uninvolved editors find the source unreliable you are less likely to suffer a WP:BOOMERANG. AlbinoFerret 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean I could "suffer a WP:BOOMERANG" for making the mistake of thinking that the rules actually apply and aren't just for show? No wonder Wikipedia is in decline.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't it seem like less work to go to WP:RSN yourself, than to argue that it shouldn't be you who has to do it? You've made a lot of edits about this, when one edit to RSN would have done the trick. "WP:BURDEN" is an unfortunate choice of words; it's not really that big a burden. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Our policy is clear, and well phrased: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is right that this burden rests on the shoulders of whoever is trying to add the content. Shifting the burden is missing the point. bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

QED. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC Closer needed.

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

---

I would like to have an experienced admin close the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether I need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, etc., that contain "religion = None" in the infoboxes would be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Revdel needed again.

Can we please look at [[238]] for background and then the history on User talk:Jimbo Wales for the needed revdel. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Oversight, please. Nakon 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I RevDel'ed what I could find at JW's, I see LB's talk page has OS'ed revisions, so I asssme an OS is on the case already. Action may be needed against Kenobi5487 is they continue restoring the content? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this is the third time it's flared up so I'm sure someone needs to poke at the committee to think of a solution. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Everything that had to be OS'ed has been OS'ed to the best of my knowledge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights for paid editors

What should we do if we find that disclosed paid editors have autopatrolled rights? I've already removed them from User:BiH and User:Worthywords per recent COIN threads as it was obvious they shouldn't have the rights, but I couldn't find any relevant guidelines other than to report to ANI. I'm asking because User:BeenAroundAWhile (who discloses that they are currently being paid for a different article here) created Fletchers Solicitors which has been deleted as drafts of another paid editor (see 1, 2, 3 and an SPI). Personally, I'd like all paid articles to be reviewed at AFC and the right is potentially very valuable to paid editors to avoid NPP. Is there already a consensus on what should be done in cases like this? SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any consensus. In my opinion, if an editor is still creating articles that pass quality standards, there is no reason to remove it based on a COI/Paid decleration. If the article is one they are conflicted on, but it still meets the standard of quality expected from an autopatrolled editor, New Page Patrol isn't going to catch the sort of subtle COI issues that we worry about. If the article would get fixed by NPP, the issue isn't that they have the COI, its that they aren't producing articles of acceptable quality. But then I do have a much more Laissez-faire attude with regard to good quality COI/Paid editors than many people. Monty₈₄₅ 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SmartSE for notifying me of this discussion. I agree with User:Monty845. Some other editor was kind enough many years ago to make me an autopatroller — I don't know why because I didn't ask for it — it simply makes it easier for me to check over problematic articles, so I think I should simply keep on keeping on. As for "What should we do if we find that disclosed paid editors have autopatrolled rights?" well, I think nothing. I am not sure what the point of the question is except to make life difficult for a particular class of editor. Raising this question certainly is not going to improve the encyclopedia. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion, I think, is at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a discussion worth having; having a check over an article written by a paid editor doesn't sound unreasonable. That said, I think I agree with Monty, if an editor is creating articles bad enough to need the kind of check that NPP carries out, the editor shouldn't have autopatrolled regardless of COI. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they have autopatrolled rights if they are complying with policies and writing quality articles? GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Because that's the issue- they were making good articles, then they started being paid for articles, and the article quality declined. They should never have autopatrolled rights, as getting articles by paid editors checked can only be a good thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Joseph2302, but I am greatly offended, since I am the one being discussed here. My article quality has not declined, and I defy you to point out where it has declined. In fact, I have refused contracts where I would have been paid to lower Wikipedia's standards. I am being paid by people who agree with me that WP standards should be maintained. If not, I don't accept their contracts. But having looked up just what this WP:Autopatrol thing is all about, I certainly don't need it, and I agree that any article written on contract should be vetted by the community, but that stricture should be spelled out at the relevant page, and not here. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But I think I am being singled out for attack, and I am not about to stand for that, because I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: My sincerest apologies, the complaints about article quality were 100% not directed at you. They were about Worthywords and BiH, per some discussions at WP:COIN- in my opinion, they have been sacrificing article quality in order to get money. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion all COI-borne article creations should be done through AFC. All of them, without exception. I don't care if the oldest and most productive account in Wikipedia is involved - if they have a COI then someone else should give the article the green light. This is already encoded in WP:COI, although unfortunately that's a guideline and not a policy. And it applies to all editors, regardless of the quantity or quality of their contributions. In this particular case I make no distinction between someone with 10,000 edits and someone with 10. All new articles should go through AFC, all non-trivial edits should be done per WP:EDITREQ, period. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with this, the more scrutiny that the community gives to paid articles the better. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I dodn't believe we currently have a policy on this particular issue, nor do we need one. Case-by-case basis should on admin discretion, or by case-by-case consensus should there be a discussion of an individual case should be able to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I agree. In general, paid editors should not have the autopatrolled right. All articles created by declared paid editors should be subject to the most rigourous possible examination at all times. BMK (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that paid editors should not have the autopatrolled right. They are subject to special disclosure requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use, and creating articles violates the "bright line rule" that Jimbo has invoked frequently. Removal of autopatrolled rights is a minor step when viewed against that backdrop. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jimbo's suggestion of a bright line rule is about paid advocates. Few people people (perhaps only you) are really gunning to prevent librarians and professors from editing. WilyD 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• That stuff about "professors and librarians and widows and orphans and Nobel Prize winners" being paid to edit is one of the hoariest loads of bullshit the pro-paid-editing crowd put up to excuse the paid editing mills. But just to clarify, yes, I am talking about paid advocates. God forbid we should prevent other paid editors from doing their good work. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• And yet, every time the discussion comes up, a few editors are backing saying librarians and math professors should be banned. This isn't your first dance, if you mean paid advocates why do you insist on not saying paid advocates, but something else you know means something else? WilyD 09:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we used to have disclosed paid editors who are administrators. I do not think this is an issue at all. If the editor is clearly familiar with the policies, they should be autopatrolled. If they are not familiar with the policies, they should not be autopatrolled regardless of whether they ever received anything for their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Given what RfA is at this time, I don't believe any disclosed paid editor could becomes an admin today. Undisclosed paid editors could, but if their status as paid editors came out afterwards, I feel certain it would be brought to ArbCom. The feeling about paid editors has, I think, turned arounded in a way many old-times don't seem to recognize. We are no longer a strugging upstart trying to make our way on the Internet, we are (at least for the moment) the premiere first choice for information online. That means our reputation for NPOV is more important than ever, that we will attract more and more paid editors -- some of whom are totally uninterested in being neutral, and it's more important than ever that their contributions be vetted all along the way. A paid editor being auto-patrolled removes one iniital layer of vetting, making it more likely for NPOV articles to slip by.

I like the idea of paid articles being required to pass through AfC, but that would require that AfC examiners be of a generally higher level than they are now. Perhaps we need a specific AfC for paid editors, something modeled on GA or FA procedures but with emphasis on NPOV, balance, notability and reliable non-biased sourcing. Subsequent exposure of the writer's paid status should then result in mandatory AfD for that editor' articles.

The problem of paid editing is not a small one, and it cannot be fluffed off with "well, it's worked OK up until now," because it hasn't worked OK, it's just been hidden by non-disclosure by paid editors. We need a clear-cut well-defined procedure that enables Wiki-knowledgeable editors to create NPOV articles for which they are paid, but nevertheless keeps them under the watchful eye of the community. Blowing the whole thing off as insignificant sure as heck isn't the answer. BMK (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, currently there is no policy that gives explicit guidance one way or the other. And we aren't in th eight place to do anything about that. An RFC or WP:VP/P would be more appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

True, just floating ideas. BMK (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

On topic: According to WP:Autopatrolled"

It means that the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise, and that the user submits new material often enough that it is more efficient to mark it all as approved preemptively.

I believe that basic contention is that once an editor is paid for their efforts, they now serve two masters, Wikipedia and its policies, and whoever is forking over the cash. Under these new conditions, it can no longer be assumed that whatever their knowledge is of Wikipedia policies and guideliness, that they will follow them if they come into conflict with the needs of the people paying the bills. Therefore it seems quite logical to remove the autopatrolled right from any declared paid editor until they have shown they have earned it back. This requires no new policy and no debate. Any admin can remove the autopatrolled right from any editor at any time (actually, for cause, as they have to justify it in the discussion that will follow). Having become a paid editor should be sufficient cause, the change in status introducing conflicting allegiances. BMK (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's a reasonable way forward. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I also think it a good policy. The only people who will be adversely affected in a way that might seem unfair is those paid editors who also edit in the field on interest as a volunteer. The only real purpose of autopatrolled is to decrease the number of clearly good article that need to be patrolled, and the number here isn't large enough to matter. Inconvenience to the editor is very minor--such articles will be quickly patrolled and accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, except that as noted, being an admin (and perhaps, some of the fancier groups, like founder), means you couldn't take it away (though perhaps that means they're already trusted - certainly I would think so for founders). WilyD 09:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see any problem with paid editors having Autopatrolled, if they meet the standards set out on WP:AUTOPATROLLED, which check that editors can be trusted to create articles in line with policy. I would strongly oppose any move to routinely remove autopatrolled from editors who meet the standard. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Better control is needed all round, especially over what paid editors might or might not be doing. NPP has a huge backlog and one or two more articles to patroll won't hurt. NP Patrolling however requires no experience whatsoever and is therefore nowhere near done as thoroughly as it should be. It's nevertheless better than nothing. AfC is a mess and shoud be disbanded. The huge amount of constant discussion about what to do with individual submissions is a clear indication that even with the 500 edit/30 days qualification I introduced, the reviewers appear to be even less knowledgable than the NPPers. Add to that the COI artists who add themselves as AfC reviewers! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Does someone have a better idea for what to replace AfC with? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it need to be replaced? Wikipedia has a shortage of many things, but new stubs on low-notability topics (which need hard work from other editors) are certainly not in short supply. bobrayner (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with User:Beyond My Ken. An additional issue is we also have people on Elance trying to buy the accounts of Wikipedians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just removed BeenAroundAWhile's auto patrolled right for reasons set out on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread with no opposition archived with no close

Hey, what happens when an ANI proposal receives unanimous agreement but gets archived before iy could be closed? The proposal requires a change to an EDR involving me so it would definitely be a no-no for me to implement the proposal myself, and probably also for the others who !voted their support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems the archive bot is a bit trigger-happy these days, it archives anything that has no new additions for a rather short time. Please request closure at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure in the XfD section. Kraxler (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've increased the time for archiving from 60 hours to 72 hours (3 days). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User Zoltanmd2 claiming to be multiple people

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 recently came across Zoltanmd2 (talk · contribs). In browsing the contribs, I was disturbed to find that this user has claimed to be several different real-world identities:

• Kevin Cameron, guitarist of the band I Killed the Prom Queen: "I am K Cameron. I want that my wiki page should exist"
• Hernan "Eddie" Hermida, singer of the band Suicide Silence: "I am H Hermida, and I manage this page"
• The brother of Scott Underwood, former drummer of the band Train: "I am the brother of Scott Underwood, and the subject must be on wikipedia"
• Sonny Wilson, a Dutch singer whose main claim to notability seems to be having performed on the song "Booyah": "You can't revert this page. I am Sonny Wilson. I want to have a wikipedia page."
• The manager of the band Angels & Airwaves, who as far as I can tell are really Rick DeVoe and Chris Georggin of Rick DeVoe Management.
• Ellington Lee Ratliff, drummer of the band R5: "You can't delete this page because I'm Ellington Lee Ratliff"

In each case, Zoltanmd2 has made these claims in an attempt to argue that a stand-alone article on each of these musicians should exist. Each time he has been challenged by other editors on the basis of notability, and for creating pages that are copyright violations (text copy-pasted over from some other website). It seems clear that Zoltanmd2 is repeatedly lying about his identity in a flimsy attempt to claim notability for subjects he thinks should have articles. I'm not sure where this falls under Wikipedia's conduct policies, so I'm posting it here under the general noticeboard, but I'm reasonably certain we don't tolerate hoaxing or fraud. What action should be taken in light of this behavior? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an odd form of disruptive editing, but it is disruptive editing. There are competency issues in thinking that claiming to be the person will have any effect of keeping an article (since, if the claim were true, it would be conflict of interest). It doesn't fall within the policy on sockpuppetry, because it is sort of the reverse of sock-puppetry; in sock-puppetry, one person claims to be multiple editors, and here one editor claims to be multiple people. Not here to collaborate may also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support an indef for reasons stated above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• If it's true, shared use of an account is not permitted and is an automatic indef-block. I'm going to assume good faith here, ie assume the user isn't blatantly and repeatedly lying in order to gain a petty advantage, and correspondingly block the account. Huon (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  AGF is well and good, but I think it's pretty obvious these are lies. The musicians the account has claimed to be have very little in common (not sharing the same label or management company, of varying genres, hailing from places as disparate as California, the Netherlands, and Australia), and it's highly unlikely they would all collude to write Wikipedia articles about themselves through a single role account. This quacks like a duck. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Indef as disruptive - We have no need for this persom. BMK (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Disturbing post on my talk page

Can an admin take a look at User talk:Happysailor/Archive 8#Comlife Investments- removal of the article and suggest a solution? It threw me a bit and wasn't sure what to do from here. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Very odd. I'm not an admin but this seems to relate to 'regulator warnings' apparently from the authorities in Cyprus and Hong Kong which has resulted in the page being vandalised and blanked. The editor who is requesting deletion on the basis of 'threats' wrote 'Some false links and defamatory notes have been left on this page, which are libelous in nature. Hence, requesting speedy deletion of the page'. Links don't appear false, though. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a police matter, rather than anything anyone here can do. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious about this edit. Happysailor, could you explain your reasoning here? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear enough to me. A person who claims to be a prosecutor who is going after people in relation to this company obviously has a massive conflict of interest and should not be editing that article or anything even vaguely related to it or the ongoing case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the article was created in 2009 by the user claiming to be the 'prosecutor', User:JoannaG20. That revision, and all revisions until recently indicted the association of 'Joanna Gomulka' with the company. AusLondonder (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying I believe they are personally prosecuting anyone, but claiming to, along with the rest of their editing history, does strongly point to a serious COI. In any event, I have nominated this for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comlife Investments. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)JoannaG20 had been removing the regulator information as 'false links' and 'defamatory notes' and then nominated the article for speedy deletion as a result of their inability to maintain the non-existence of such information on the page. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

JoannaG20 certainly is not prosecuting the company, as they are the creator of the original, highly promotional article in 2009. AusLondonder (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Happysailor: Don't lose any sleep over it, the claims made to you sound like b.s. to me. BMK (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems the editor created the article as a promo job, then things have gone pear-shaped with financial regulators, has now tried to get article deleted using any story AusLondonder (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Still, out of an abundance of caution, anything involving threats and/or prosecution (especially threats o physical harm) should be automatically forwarded to WMF, without a second thought given towards the plausability of it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, I just wanted to share with Happysailor that they shouldn't put great stock in what JoannaG20 said. BMK (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, this whole megillah just points out why WP:NLT needs to be expanded to deal with any attempt to cause a chilling effect in editing. In most NLT cases, it's "Do what I say or I'll bring legal action against you", in this case it's "Do what I say or bad people will do bad things to me and you'll be sorry you didn't listen to me." The second is not a "legal threat" per se, but it most definitely is an attempt to influence editing for reasons that are entirely extrinsic to merit, factuality or policy. NLT wouldwell be to recast as "No Chilling Effect". BMK (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I think she's connected the the company, and made the article as 'PR', however wasn't liking the way it was going (and that she didn't have 'ownership' of it) thus the blanking/speedy noms (thus the COI tag). Her last post just threw me for a loop there for a bit and wasn't sure where to go forward. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Appeal

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, I was banned in January 2015 from creating BLPs due to my poor work. I acted silly! I want to reappel against my ban. Actually I want to have this facility so that I can create BLP to make them DYK. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - you still have lots to learn about BLP, as shown by your aborted attempt to push Roberto Firmino to GA depsite a number of editors (including myself) raising concerns about BLP-related content which you had added. You did not address the issues, you just ignored them - very concerning. GiantSnowman 12:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose sadly - In looking at your archives (archive 9 and up ) it looks like you used a non-reliable source in April, in a BLP after you were banned in January. I can't support that. Sorry KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per KoshVorlon. GregJackP Boomer! 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem to get it, even after being sanctioned. Go like 6 months without any BLP-related issues and maybe try again then. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. How about RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি can create one draft at a time for editors to review first and see how it goes? QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sort of restriction that requires a babysitter has severaly fallen out of favor in the last few years. And it case it's not clear I regard that as a positive development as those sorts of restrictions take up a lot of volunteer time for what is usually minimal benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the kind of babysitting QG suggests is worthwhile only when the value of the editor's potential future contributions is such that it's worth putting in the kind of energy Beeblebrox describes. I don't believe this is one of those cases. BMK (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) - You don't have good expertise yet at creating BLP articles. Use the WP:AFC process. This lets you create a draft of an article, and we (members of AfC) will happily will be able to review drafts for consideration. Sorry, you just need to learn to cite sources and create good BLP. You can prove that overtime by submitting drafts to AfC. Good luck in restoring your reputation :) CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 03:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request Admin Eyes at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)

There is ongoing controversy at Zeitgeist (film series). There was formerly an article on The Zeitgeist Movement, which is a response to the films. It was merged into the film series article, but some favor splitting it back out. A content dispute was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. After one unsuccessful effort at mediation, two Requests for Comment were posted at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series), and the DRN thread has been closed as being handled by the RFCs. Threaded discussion of the RFCs has become heated, and has gotten to the level of personal attacks. I am requesting a few admin eyes (two would be good, four would be better, six would also be better) at the article just to deal with the personal attacks. Since the film series includes a theory that September 11, 2001, was all part of a World Order master plan, disruptive editing may be subject to WP:ARB911. Disruptive editing will become more clearly subject to discretionary sanctions in a few days, when the American politics decision is finalized. Thank you in advance to anyone who watchlists. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do the 'personal attacks' in question include the gross violations of WP:BLP policy regarding assertions concerning the founder of TZM which have repeatedly been made on article talk pages? If so, it is about time - they have been repeatedly ignored when raised at WP:ANI. Or am I right in assuming that the community considers it OK to accuse someone (based on no sources whatsoever, naturally) of "brainwashing" or "neuro linguistic programming and meme control", as well as accusations of concocting a political movement for personal profit, as long as they aren't a contributor? Judging by past experience, that would seem to be the case, which tells us a great deal about the narcissistic concerns of Wikipedia, and just how little its proclaimed 'neutrality' matters when it comes to minor articles about political movements of marginal notability that nobody much likes. The failure of the community to address this is of course symptomatic of the larger issues that have led to the ArbCom cases - and frankly I very much doubt that ArbCom is going to resolve the issue either. While 'adnmin eyes' on the thread in question might be welcome, what is actually needed is a viewpoint from further back - one that looks at the root causes, rather than the overt symptoms, and which actually addresses the underlying problem, rather than relying on 'discretionary sanctions' fixes which merely paint over the cracks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump - The way to raise issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph is by raising issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph, not by accusing other editors of insanity. As I have recently explained to a few less experienced editors, civility is not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia; it not only is required, but it works better than invective. A stubborn editor who is attacked is very unlikely to respond positively. A stubborn editor who is reasoned with may or may not respond positively. BLP violations are taken very seriously on article pages; I haven't seen a claim about BLP violations against Peter Joseph on Peter Joseph or Zeitgeist (film series). If you want to complain about BLP violations on talk pages, do you want the specific violations redacted, or do you want a policy shift in general to enforce BLP more strictly on talk pages? The one issue that possibly could be within the remit of ArbCom would be to clarify that there should be stricter BLP enforcement on talk pages. I would suggest to you, Andy, that you aren't likely to get ArbCom to take up a case just by over-the-line against BLP violators, at least not without getting sanctioned for your own personal attacks, which were over-the-line. You didn't even say BLP when you called the other editor crazy. Maybe you should have. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see no evidence whatsoever that anything 'works better than invective' - the facts of the matter are that Earl King Jr's repeated violations of WP:BLP policy have been repeatedly raised at WP:ANI - and repeatedly ignored. And no, I am not asking for a more strict BLP policy. I am asking that the existing policy - which explicitly states that it applies on talk pages - be enforced. Along with a requirement that contributors actually comply with the 'neutrality' they repeatedly accuse other of breaching, and that they don't use article ledes to promote their half-baked and contradictory conspiracy theories. And no, I don't see why I should have to mention WP:BLP policy explicitly when I point out that EKJ is using Wikipedia talk pages to accuse a named individual of a conspiracy involving "brainwashing", and concocting a political movement for personal financial gain. I would assume that anyone with basic skills in comprehension would understand why it was a problem. Maybe I am expecting too much though, and should cite Wikijargon in every sentence, just for the benefit of those who view this project as a MMORPG exercise in amateur bureaucratics, rather than as an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. There are actually people demanding that we characterise these as documentaries. Because obviously the gubmint did 9/11. Obviously. Attacks on Merola, we do not need. I would even step in to prevent attacks on his brother, propagandist for the vile Burzynski Clinic. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Would you also step in to stop people engaging in off-topic guilt by association commentary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block this editor?

I would like Ani Admins. to block AndyTheGrump from editing Wikipedia because of his disregard for basic civility which is a cornerstone of editing here. Example [239] example taken from a request for comment on the Zeitgeist film series page. Another example from my user page [240] There is no doubt that he would not deny calling me a little shit also previously. Bringing up those old Ani's is probably not a good idea either. All of them were thrown out or dismissed. I am not saying I am the world best editor or that I do not make mistakes. Talk page discussions should not be dredged up from last year to prove some obscure point either about my being somehow violating editing guidelines. Discussion on a talk page should be free ranging for better articles. Personal attacks that are vicious, blatant and possibly designed to intimidate should not be used to make points. Andy has an extensive block record for doing what he is doing. I think another block is in order. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusing a named individual of engaging in "brainwashing" for personal financial gain is not an "obscure point" about "somehow violating editing guidelines" - it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. And as for 'civility', I recommend looking at EKJ's routine harassment of any individual he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block Abusive editing does not win the day. Making another personal attack here, on top of the Zeitgeist film series recent one at the RFC and the personal attack on my user page by Andy seems almost like he is asking to be blocked from editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have violated WP:BLP does not in any shape or form constitute a personal attack - and neither does pointing out your hypocrisy in supposedly espousing 'neutrality', while posting rants like this [241] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that pointing out BLP violations is not a personal attack. There were personal attacks, which are not permitted, there appear to have been BLP violations, which are not permitted, and there were comments about BLP violations, and those are necessary. Within a few days, when ArbCom decides a few details, enforcement will go to Arbitration Enforcement. In the meantime, personal attacks on editors are still forbidden, and attacks on the subjects of BLP articles are still BLP violations that are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy brought all that up after the fact and his given zero examples. Here we have Andy exaggerating liberally what ever point he is trying to make to the degree of again personally attacking he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... How could it be that Andy thinks this is a good way to communicate his ideas? It shows a very comfomfortable mode of long extended personal attacking that for what ever reason no one has stopped permanently. Look at Andy's block history for more information. Its about time this person is stopped for trash talking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Trash talk"? as in this [242] example of bizarre logic where you cast aspersions on the validity of a source on the grounds that the journalist responsible was probably paid to write it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre logic Andy you will not let up. You can not make a point without adding personal diatribes which when gathered together end up being a vicious attack on the Zeitgeist page and my user page, as you have done here and elsewhere over a long period of time. It is not a reliable source was the point. Past consensus on the article agreed it was not a reliable source. Journalists normally get paid. Free ranging talk within reason on discussion pages is a non starter. Trying to make that into some kind extreme case by comments about users is not a good way to discuss things on the article, my user page or here to make any points you are trying to make. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that a source is unreliable because the journalist responsible for it receives payment for his work is bizarre by any reasonable standards. That is what journalism as a profession entails - and your attempt to denigrate the journalist responsible by pointing out that he was probably paid for it was clearly intended to denigrate him as an individual. Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I really think there is no place for your style of editing. I did not denigrate anyone. I pointed out that the Huffington Post thing is a blog. The past consensus on the page was to not use it. The current consensus is probably close to the past one. Why are you making up stuff like this Andy, Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. end quote. Is it in the best interests of editing for you to claim that? No I don't think so. What if I told you I find the Zeitgeist page and its supporters comical and I have no particular feeling about them beyond that? Why do you think you can diagnose peoples people on Wikipedia and make statements about their mental health? You continue an onslaught of bad will and tendentious infighting over something like a comment about a blog, blowing it out of proportion where you are constantly being an amateur Dr. of Psychology, do you think you are exhibiting cooperative editing skill? I understand rhetoric and your use of extreme highlighting of insignificant mentions on the article. All this reinforces my opinion that you are way over due for a site ban or long block. The larger point is that it is a non notable blog that is best left behind in regard to using good reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that you pointed out that the source was a blog. That is however irrelevant, since I haven't debated the fact. The simple verifiable and relevant fact here (which everyone can see I haven't been 'making up') is that you also suggested that because the journalist was probably paid to write it, that was also somehow grounds not to use it - an argument which were it to be accepted and applied elsewhere would decimate the referencing for almost every article on Wikipedia. Irrational by any definition. As for the remainder of your comments, I see no point in debating with you - your enmity towards Joseph and TZM is self-evident... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost the debate when I posted the links of what you said from the Zeitgeist film page and my user page. If anyone missed that here it is again [243] and [244] and if I really must say again that previously in this board you called me a little shit. Personal insult with no remorse is how you come off. You really do not care about editing guidelines of civility. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that nobody has offered the slightest support for you call that I be blocked from editing, I would have to suggest that your judgement of how this 'debate' has been going is somewhat open to question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)